Posted at 10.07.2018
As the storyplot in the Reserve of Genesis moves God created man and then created women. This joke makes fun of this and can be an exemplory case of sexist language because it signifies men in a light of inadequacy compared to women. But, for every joke that signifies men in this light there is an sustained amount of vocabulary that is employed to discriminate against women. Lu Min (2009) points out that sexist dialect is that which uses "words, phrases, and expressions that unnecessarily differentiate between people or exclude, trivialize, or diminish either gender"(26). Phrases such as "best man for the work" or occupational headings such as "policeman" or "fireman" are masculine in their description. This sort of language excludes women who could in simple fact be the "best person for the work" or similarly, a "police officer" or "firefighter".
Language is usually changing and in simple fact in recent years there's been a push for much more gender-neutral language instead of the sexist dialect that has already been set up. Leaper and Bigler (2004) make clear that "there's been a change in people's talk and writing from the common use of the masculine pronouns 'he' and masculine chemical substance nouns such as 'chairman'. Instead, it is now common to find people using gender-inclusive terms such as "she or he" or "chairperson" (138). There is some debate on whether we ought to have a gender-neutral words or not. Those in support of a gender-neutral terminology believe that if this were put into place there would be equality for everybody. Those who are against changing the words that has already been in place claim that phrases such as "you fellas" or "mankind" already are considered gender-inclusive because they make reference to all people no matter gender. They simply see these words, phrases, and expressions as a quirk in the English terms. While there are several languages that use masculine varieties such as Chinese language, Spanish, and Italian, the emphasis of my paper will be on English in various elements of the globe. I assume that the existing masculine types of language are not inclusive and this there must be more of a press for gender-neutral terminology whenever possible.
Changes in vocabulary will undoubtedly take course through the duration of time and if more people who speak English become aware of the gender-bias that currently is in place eventually we might have the ability to have a vocabulary that is more gender-inclusive. From my research, I've witnessed that there surely is currently a pattern of making words more inclusive. For instance, in America in a report done at Virginia Commonwealth School, researchers discovered that there was consciousness of gendered-biased terminology as being sexist. Similarly, teenagers in Australia who speak British, because the 1980s, have been driving for more generic phrases when referring to individuals. In Hong Kong, audio system of English prefer a masculine form of dialect but through learning college students they have discovered that feminist movements in the West are experiencing great impacts along the way teenagers speak.
Deborah Cameron (1992) cites Robin Lakoff's Language and Woman's Place which "asserts that there surely is a characteristic register or 'women's language' comprising certain linguistic gestures and connoting tentativeness, deference, and insufficient authority. Women are socialized into using this form of speech within their subordinate cultural position" (15). This is what experts would classify as the dominance strategy because it demonstrates a ability/powerless romantic relationship among women and men. Another methodology that Cameron cites is the difference approach which promises that variations in the talk behaviors between women and men come about due to the differences in socialization. As the writer places it, "generally in most cultures there continues to be considerable interpersonal segregation of the sexes, and children learn their conversational strategies for the most part in single-sex peer categories. Research suggests that these are organized differently for both sexes" (15). Leaper and Bigler (2004) invoke the work of Whorfian who says that "words shapes thought" (131). More specifically, they argue that "some past research supports the notion that the utilization of gendered vocabulary and having gender-stereotypic thoughts are reciprocally related" (131). This goes back to the exemplory case of occupational subject such as "policeman", "congressman", or "waitress" as relating to the particular person in that position.
As I mentioned earlier there is a group of people who assume that the English Dialect is already gender-inclusive. To this group of specific the expression "man" would be used as a means of classifying men and women such as the term "mankind". That is illogical for many reasons. For example, if we take this idea of the word "man" encompassing both men and women and apply it to an identical set of words we quickly find that it generally does not hold. We are able to say a small poodle and an alligator are both animals. The term "animal" like "man" has been used in a common sense. It would be correct to state that every miniature poodle is an animal. It could also be appropriate to say that every alligator can be an dog. While at a recreation area you may hear someone say "I see an animal". There is absolutely no real need to designate whether that creature can be an alligator or a puppy if that person is just making an observation. There are specific times, however, that this information may be useful. If someone's life was being threatened by an alligator you might hear another individual warm the person going to be attacked by saying "That's an alligator!" instead of simply using the universal "animal".
If we take the generic term "person" which often means either a female or male and use it in the next word: "This person is expecting" we would assume that "person" is a lady. To say that "this man is having a baby" would not only acoustics funny but it could also be incorrect. Men just can't have infants. So, if the word "man" was general in what it refers to, either guys or females, it would be acceptable to state "that man possessed a baby". Again, we run into a problem of the term not being general in what it is referring to and thus shows that the word "man" does not subsume both conditions of talking about gender. Kenichi Namai (2000) cites a study by Greenbaum and Quirk that clarifies that "in British, gender is not really a feature of nouns themselves (just as such dialects as German or Russian). Somewhat, it relates directly to the meanings of nouns, with particular mention of biological making love" (771). What the author is basically arguing is the fact that English shouldn't show any grammatical contracts between conditions such as the ones that are used to refer to gender. In the article, Namai gives the example phrase "he hit herself" (773). This word is wrong for what Namai points out as not being a syntactic disagreement with the antecedent and reflexive but says that the conflict arises from a disagreement between your antecedents in conditions of making love (774). So if we send back to the situation of the phrase "that man got a baby" we see that the challenge comes from a disagreement in terms of sex. This would mean that the id of "man" being including all genders is wrong.
Jochnowitz (1982) cites an identical argument from Robin Lakoff who says "My feeling is that portion of pronominal neutralization is both less in need of changing, and less open to change, than lots of the other disparities which may have been discussed earlier, and we have to perhaps focus our work where they'll be most successful" (200). That is astonishing because this article is written as Jochonowitz says "from a feminist point of view, yet the creator [Lakoff] does not advocate abandoning indefinite he" (200). Murdock and Forsyth (1985) in a talk of Lakoff say that Lakoff would recognize "that the common he does refer more to men than to women, but records that the long-range implications of the oft-used saying may be quite trivial" (40). Both tests by Murdock and Forsyth were "conducted to determine reactions to gender-biased words empirically" (39). What they targeted at learning, as the title of their work suggests, is gender-biased dialect considered sexist. Inside the first analysis individuals were asked to evaluate the sexism in a number of sentences that "contained no bias, used words as man or he in the generic sense, or described ladies in an unfair, stereotypical manner" (39). The second study focused on analyzing reactions "in a more naturalistic framework by asking respondents to judge an article written using all plural pronouns, common pronouns, or generic pronouns plus evaluative stereotypic phrasings" (39). What Murdock and Forsyth discovered was that the reactions to gender-biased vocabulary were taken to be sexist. This goes back to the original debate that gender-biased terminology is in fact not inclusive of both sexes.
Another particular finding for Murdock and Forsyth that is unexpected is the fact "all do not agree with the fact concerning the sexist dynamics of masculine-biased language" (47). Lead this to Hong Kong British Australian English Search for "Strahan Discussion Observe" Conclusion