Gender Bias in Language

Gender Bias in Language

Language is a very powerful element. It is the most common method of communication. Yet it is often misunderstood and misinterpreted, for language is a very complicated mechanism with a great deal of nuance. There are times when in conversation with another individual, that we must take into account the person’s linguistic genealogy. There are people who use language that would be considered prejudicial or biased in use. But the question that is raised is in regard to language usage: Is language the cause of the bias or is it reflective of the preexisting bias that the user holds? There are those who believe that the language that we use in day-to-day conversation is biased in and of itself. They feel that the term \"mailman\for example, is one that excludes women mail carriers. Then there are those who feel that language is a reflection of the prejudices that people have within themselves. That is to say, the words that people choose to use in conversation denote the bias that they harbor within their own existence.

There are words in the English language that are existing or have existed (some of them have changed with the new wave of “political correctness” coming about) that have inherently been sexually biased against women. For example, the person who investigates reported complaints (as from consumers or students), reports findings, and helps to achieve fair and impartial settlements is ombudsman (Merriam-Webster Dictionary), but ombudsperson here at Indiana State University. This is an example of the gender bias that exists in the English language. The language is arranged so that men are identified with exalted

positions, and women are identified with more service-oriented positions in which they are being dominated and instructed by men. So the language used to convey this type of male supremacy is generally reflecting the honored position of the male and the subservience of the female. Even in relationships, the male in the home is often referred to as the “man of the house,” even if it is a 4-year-old child. It is highly insulting to say that a 4-year-old male, based solely on his gender, is more qualified and capable of conducting the business and affairs of the home than his possibly well-educated, highly intellectual mother. There is a definite disparity in that situation.

In American culture, a woman is valued for the attractiveness of her body, while a man is valued for his physical strength and his achievements. Even in the example of word pairs the bias is evident. The masculine word is put before the feminine word, as in the examples of Mr. and Mrs., his and hers, boys and girls, men and women, kings and queens, brothers and sisters, guys and dolls, and host and hostess. This shows that the usage of many of the English words is also what contributes to the bias present in the English language.

Alleen Pace Nilsenn notes that there are instances when women are seen as passive while men are active and bring things into being. She uses the example of the wedding ceremony. In the beginning of the ceremony, the father is asked who gives the bride away and he answers, “I do.” It is at this point that Nilsen argues that the gender bias comes into play. The traditional concept of the bride as something to be handed from one man (the father) to another man (the husband-to-be) is perpetuated. Another example is in the instance of sexual

relationships. The women become brides while men wed women. The man takes away a woman’s virginity and a woman loses her virginity. This denotes her inability, apparently due to her gender, to hold on to something that is a part of her, thus enforcing the man’s ability and right to claim something that is not his.

To be a man, according to some linguistic differences, would be considered an honor. To be endowed by genetics with the encoding of a male would be as having been shown grace, unmerited favor. There are far greater positive connotations connected with being a man than with being a woman. Nilsen yields the example of “shrew” and “shrewd.” The word “shrew” is taken from the name of a small but especially vicious animal; however in Nilsen’s dictionary, a “shrew” was identified as an “ill-tempered, scolding woman.” However, the word “shrewd,” which comes from the same root, was defined as “marked by clever discerning awareness.” It was noted in her dictionary as a shrewd businessman. It is also commonplace not to scold little girls for being “tomboys” but to scoff at little boys who play with dolls or ride girls’ bicycles.

In the conversations that come up between friends, you sometimes hear the words “babe,” “broad,” and “chick.” These are words that are used in reference to or directed toward women. It is certainly the person’s right to use these words to reflect women, but why use them when there are so many more to choose from? Language is the most powerful tool of communication and the most effective tool of communication. It is also the most effective weapon of destruction.

Although there are biases that exist in the English language, there has been considerable change toward recognizing these biases and making the necessary changes formally so that they will be implemented socially. It is necessary for people to make the proper adjustments internally to use appropriate language to effectively include both genders. We qualify language. It is up to us to decide what we will allow to be used and made proper in the area of language.