Manmade English language due for a service

The development of language is an evolutionary process. One only need cast an eye over the new inclusions in English language dictionaries to prove this. But despite this, we still read of “mankind, businessmen and penmanship” as if women are not part of the human race, are absent in the business world, and for that matter do not record and change and create history through writing (which they certainly have done!). Sexism it appears has been slow to be expunged from the English language.

 

The male pronouns he, his and him are often used automatically even though the sex of the person is unknown. In fact we are told to assume that ‘he’ in some outdated legal documents should be accepted as meaning men and women! Such distinctive male terms that are supposedly meant to embrace women are in effect a negation and marginalisation of more than half of the human population who are often linguistically invisible. Women are never seen in terms of general or representative humanity while men represent the universal or the human to which women are the ‘other’.

 

Language is also used to reflect the sexist stereotypes of certain occupations. Hence we talk about male nurses, woman doctors, male clerks, female principals, firemen and chairmen . And what about expressions such as : “manning the space shuttle , manning the phones, displaying true sportsmanship, doing a man-sized job”… the list of sexist terms is endless and a reflection of the erroneous belief that  men are innately superior to women and they therefore have a monopoly of the mastery of  knowledge and skills. Never mind being mindful that many English words which bear the syllable ‘man ’ are derived from the Latin word manus which means  ‘hand ’ and bear no link to male human beings or men! 

 

Language has asymmetrical qualities that further discriminate against women with similar terms connoting vastly different ideas for both men and women. The term ‘bachelor’ does not conjure the image of failure, relegation and rejection as does the word ‘spinster’. What is the male equivalent of an ‘old

maid’? In this context language is clearly reflective of the perception that marriage is more important for women than men. Unmarried older women are clearly scorned in society as rejects who failed to capture the avowed commitment from the Alpha male while men who enjoy greater freedom of choice in the sphere of marriage are insulated from this scorn – hence the absence of a negative term for unmarried men, rather the much more appealing ‘bachelor’ .

 

Language is also used to characterize certain personality traits positively for men and negatively for women. Thus an ambitious woman will be considered pushy or a castrating bitch while an ambitious man will be considered a go-getter and a self-starter. Similarly, a woman who agrees with the views of her employer will be considered cooperative and agreeable while a man with similar traits will be considered a ‘Yes- man’. ‘Yes-woman’ is an unheard of term because accepting the views of those in authority is deemed desirable for women just as ambition is deemed a desirable quality in men.

 

Where are the male equivalents for words reserved for sexually expressive  women such as ‘bitch’ , harlot ,whore , slut  and nymphomaniac? The word ‘stud’, which refers to a sexually expressive man certainly does not bear  negative connotations and in fact is deemed complimentary . The prescribed social roles for men and women and the social expectations of both sexes are clearly reflected through language. Hence, language prescribes that women should ideally restrain their sexual desires and that it is acceptable and even desirable for men to give free and overt expression to their sexual desires.

 

This sexist language which reflects the double standards to which men and women are subjected in the sphere of sexual expression is also reflected in the playground language of youth. A boy who is promiscuous is referred to as a ‘player’, a  term which connotes virility and sexual popularity while the pejorative terms ‘bitch’ and  ‘scabarash’ are used to refer to girls who are promiscuous . A sexually expressive girl or woman is an ‘easy lay’ or is said to be ‘easy’ but similar descriptions have not been constructed for men who enjoy greater sexual expression without the sanction and strictures to which women are subjected.

 

Perhaps the most annoying among the many sexist linguistic practices is the insistence or compulsion that women define themselves as either Miss or Mrs. This is in effect compelling women to define themselves in terms of the institution of marriage while exempting men from a similar definition since the term Mr does not denote marital status. Many women proudly call themselves ‘Mrs’ while others proudly call themselves ‘Miss’ and they are entitled to the pride in their marital status. However, the different ways in which men and women are defined in terms of the institution of marriage is highly offensive  and I would like to think that a woman’s  avowed commitment to another human being which characterises a marriage is a personal , private matter that bears no relevance in the public sphere .

 

When  I am confronted with an anachronistic official form that compels me  to indicate whether I  am a Miss or a Mrs I decisively and deliberately strike out the Miss and Mrs and  resolutely write down the word ‘Ms ’ and in so doing I am saying: My marital status is a personal , private matter that bears no relevance to the issue at hand, I will take a stand against  my fellow sisters being elevated , denigrated or categorised in terms of the institution of marriage because this serves patriarchy’s end of dividing the oppressed. I wish to enjoy the same status as my male counterpart who need not define himself in terms of marriage.

 

Language is a vehicle for the expression of existing power relations and perceptions in society simultaneously having the potential for the construction of new perceptions and the transformation of the status quo. Let us be grateful that language by its very nature is not solidified into a golden hallowed ‘untouchable’ we dare not question but rather is fluid, dynamic and arbitrary. We have a responsibility to harness these features of language and rid all the languages we use of all unfair discriminatory terms even as we reconstruct language. Otherwise, given the daunting challenge of transforming our unjust society, we will be attempting to traverse the global highways of the world by foot!