Language, Gender And Feminism

Introduction:

Language is political in all aspects. According to Joseph (2006), all animals are political, but some are more political than others, the reason being language. Thus, man is the most political animal because he is the only animal who has the gift of speech, which enables him to disagree with others where "disagreement is as natural to human being as speaking it" (p. 2).

In this paper, I will examine the relationship between language and gender. I will discuss the differences between men and women in the way both use language. I will also examine the role played by culture along with how their society positioned them in terms of power.

• Women tend to use more polite language than men.

Some linguists believe that women are aware of their low status in society, thus, men who have the power. As a result, many differences in language usage may occur clearly between men and women. According to Thanasoulas (1999), women do not use strong expletives, such as damn or shit, they might use less stronger words such as "oh dear fudge" (paragraph. 7). What is interesting is the difference between men and women using language in the internet through chat rooms and electronic mails (emails). According to Hills (2000), women use intensive adverbs, more references to emotions, more use of modals, tag questions and complements, more use of minimal responses, personal pronouns, oppositions subordinating conjunctions, and the frequency of questions. On the other hand, men make more references to quantity, provide more opinions and justifiers, use more active verbs and judgmental phrases and use more informal language. Thus, such features provide the reader with some clues to predict gender while he or she chatting on the internet with anonymous person.

*Cartoon by Peter Steiner (1993), Published in the New Yorker magazine, Inc.

Why such differences exist?

Thanasoulas (1999) argues that women presenting themselves "unsure of their opinions" (paragraph. 7) therefore, not having opinions that count very much, thus they tend to use the frequency of asking questions or tag questions as they lack confidence (e.g. this is not right, isn't' it?).

Holmes (1997) illustrates that the result of a test on how men and women use language in an English-speaking community were; men used almost twice as many instance of the vernacular [?n] pronunciation as the women. The fact that women use more polite and formal language according to Thanasoulas relates to the ways in which the society treats women. For example, "people are tolerant of boys' behavior, while little girls' misconduct is very often frowned upon and punished on the spot" (paragraph. 6). Therefore, "women are designated the role of modeling correct behavior in the community" (Thanasoulas cited Holmes, 1992: p.173). Moreover, by using standard or polite forms, a woman is trying to protect her face, thus she avoids disagreement and seeking agreement and rapport. Holmes (1997) demonstrates that women use more standard forms in contexts "where they had the opportunity to pay attention to their speech" (p. 198) in order to state higher status than they were permitted to. Holmes (1997) cited Lakoff's view that women's usage of items such as you know, sort of and I think has been described as "hedges and as instances of women's language forms" (p.200). Thus, it can express either "tentativeness or conviction" (p. 201). Holmes also argues that because women are powerless hence, they tend to use polite and standard language,

"Those who are out of power must be polite; they must avoid rocking the boat. Because, as a group, women rather than men are more often excluded from power, social meanings such as ‘tentative', ‘conforming' to mainstream values, conservatives, supportive" (Holmes, 1997 cited Lakoff, 1989: p.257).

Moreover, what Eckert mentions that femininity is what defined as disavowal of power, while masculinity is the confirmation of power. For example: In 1979 Margret Thatcher, who was the first woman prime minister in the united kingdom, "was obliged to submit to a linguistic makeover, lowering her voice-pitch by almost half the normal range, flattering out her prosodic contours and slowing her delivery to sound more authoritative" (Cameron, 2005: p. 496), whereas it is clear that serious power in institutions remains a male preserve.

• Is language affected by society?

Another crucial point is the difference between sex and gender in language. According to Cameron (2005) "gender is built on the foundation of sex" (p. 484). She illustrates that sex has to do with biology. However, gender is not something you acquire once and for all at an early stage of life, but an "ongoing accomplishment produced by your repeated actions" (p. 486). Holmes (1997) asserts that sex has been substituted for the cultural category. Furthermore, the use of gender rather than sex as basic variable emphasizes that a person's gender is "socially constructed from the roles, norms and expectations of the community in which they participate" (p.203).  It is believed that in western urban contexts women use a wider range of linguistics variants than men, according to Holmes (1997). Other supportive evidence is what Nichols (1983) documents the wider stylistic range of working class Black women in South Carolina, reflecting their social networks and the variety of people they encounter in their daily interactions. Also what she explains that Japanese women use a wider and more complex range of "honorifics than men and that they are very responsive to contextual factors" (p. 198). Thus, the differences in using language between men and women depend on the society and its culture, where in some cultures, women are less than men or women equal to men, and sometimes women are superior to men.

• Does the man occupying the woman's job?

What is really of interest to me is that if the man takes or occupies woman's position in the market place in the west? Holmes (1997) asserts that women are often "the family brokers in interaction with outsiders" (p. 199) it is more often woman than man interacting with others in shops, with neighbors through phones, as well as in communication with schools. In other words, women are more capable of expressing social roles than men. Cameron (2007) in her article about language and sex defines that women are better than men in communication and verbal skills because of the way their brains are wired. "The female brain excels in verbal tasks whereas the male brain is better adapted to visual-spatial and mathematical tasks. Women like to talk; men prefer action to words" (paragraph. 2). Also the fact that, as what Cameron pointed out, people with female brains make the most wonderful nurses, therapists, social workers, or personnel staff. On the other hand, people with male brains make the most wonderful scientists, engineers, electricians, programmers or even lawyers. Thus, when a manager of a call centre in North-East England, according to Cameron was asked by an interviewer why women occupy all the positions in his centre, he replies ‘we are looking for people who can chat to people, interact, and build rapport. What we find is that women can do this more... women are naturally good at that sort of thing'. Not because all employees in that calling centre were women meant discrimination toward men, but, men fit in places women cannot even bear, and women can fit in positions men see them as exhausting or so hard to apply. So, we find each gender in the place where he or she belongs to. In a place where both can fit perfectly, benefit their society.

• Did the woman succeed in her war against the man?

It is very strange how women, although of their ‘weakness' in the society they could have the power to change terminologies were used before thousands of years in language (particularly in English language). Their power forced universities and institutions to change their policies toward how to use the language in that context. For example, The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) has issued in 1992 a policy called ‘Gender Inclusive Language', which states that: "Gender Inclusive Language, or gender-neutral language, is language that is as non-sexist as possible. This means using words that are inclusive of other genders - for example, chairperson in the place of chairman, flight attendant rather than stewardess" (RMIT official web site, 2008). Let us do not go too far, the official web site of University of Technology Sydney, under Policies & Legislation section provides guides and advices about how to avoid using "any language that discriminates against women by not adequately reflecting their role, status and presence in society"(UTS official web site, 2008). Moreover, providing tables of alternatives for ‘man' in language and in occupation terms (See http://www.equity.uts.edu.au/policy/language/sexist.html). However, Cameron (2005) mentions that young men and women growing up in the west today " are more similar to each other than their grandfathers and grandmothers were, in everything from the clothes they wear to the education they receive, from the jobs they might aspire to do to their attitudes to sex, or sport" (p. 490). In simple words, such discrimination maybe more focused on the man who finds him self as a victim of being the culprit in our present time.

Conclusion:

No doubt that, women had suffered from language discrimination, as well as, other types of discrimination. However, I wonder if women are still suffering from this discrimination anymore? Especially after the sensitive positions some of them occupy these days, where these positions involve using the language as the basic thing in their jobs. For example: Condoleezza Rice, the United States Secretary of State, and the second in the administration of the U.S President , Angela Dorothea Merkel who is the Chancellor of Germany , and Oprah Gail Winfrey who has the highest-rated talk show in the history of television.