I decided to take French this semester.
It was an interesting endeavor, but I feel like I only gained more appreciation for my own language in the process. I never before considered being thankful that English doesn’t attribute gender to things that are objectively gender-neutral, but French made me change my mind. Before this class I never thought of my garbage disposal as being masculine or my mascara as being feminine, but if it works for the French, so be it.
Personally, though, I find gendered language very interesting. Why are some things considered female and others male despite the fact that they don’t fall into a biological class? As ridiculous and foreign as it all seems, Americans practice similar techniques.
For instance, in my first year at SMU, I received a “B” on a paper for using gendered language. Coming from a conservative Christian high school where the patriarchy occasionally permeated the classroom, I never considered the grading implications of writing “mankind” rather than its apparently superior “humankind.” Instead of using the politically correct “his or her” inclusive pronoun, I employed a passive “he” when the sex of the person was unknown. It was then made very clear to me that my choice of words threatened exclusion.
Gendered language attempts to force an object or individual to perform gender in a specified manner while conforming to the stereotypes surrounding it. For example, if I were discussing basketball, an audience would automatically assume I was referring to a group of men. However, if I wish to talk about women’s basketball, I have to attribute a gender prior to the noun for clarification. Why? Because in our culture, the term “basketball” is reserved for describing a man’s game. In order to avoid linguistic invisibility, women are forced to feminize the terminology. That’s why we watch the WNBA, the Women’s World Cup and women’s tennis instead of basketball, soccer and tennis.
But let me be quite frank: I do not care. I understand that, as a woman, I should be concerned with the way in which words are shaping societal perceptions. But I can’t help but be apathetic. Why? Because contrary to popular belief, men are just as guilty as women for wanting to alter gendered language.
Think about this for a second: male nurses are requesting to be called “murses.” Indiana Jones doesn’t carry a purse but a “man bag.” Male grooming is known as “manscaping.” Britney Spears has a male childcare provider she titled “many.” Adam Lambert wears “guy-liner.”
In our culture, although we don’t formally use gendered language like the French, we use our own variations that imply stereotypes. If a man engages in an activity that is traditionally reserved for women, there appears to be a hegemonic desire to slap “man” on the front of the act, removing all traces of female characteristics. Just as women don’t want to be businessmen, men don’t want to carry purses.
Adding gender to include untraditional participants doesn’t strike me as a problem, but when men and women are credited with different terms that have major discrepancies of moral standards, I get a little frustrated.
For example, a promiscuous man is culturally known as a “player” while a promiscuous woman is categorized as a “whore.” Hopefully you caught the double standard in these typologies. The word “player” connotes a playful demeanor in sexual encounters while women are subjected to a word derived from the socially stigmatizing act of prostitution. Clearly, this language serves as a vehicle for expressing sexist stereotypes. For the sake of cultural morality, perhaps men should be held to the same standard.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will always judge me.
Logan Masters is a junior sociology major. She can be reached for comment at [email protected].
