Linguistic Bias Against Women Sexism in

1
Gopal Singh Sijapati

Freelance Researcher
Linguistic Bias against Women

Sexism in language
A society is formed by any group of people who are towed together for certain
intents. And many things in the society are circumscribed by various social
determinants. For instance, our social roles and behaviours, power relationship and
the language we use are restricted by the social structures we have. Highlighting
this protocol many sociolinguists opine that language and society are interrelated
in such a way that one cannot exist in the absence of the other. This further implies
that both the social and linguistic structures greatly influence to each other as it is
believed that the way how we talk determines how we think and that the structure
of language creates the structure of the society. The conclusion what we can draw
here is that the way we think about the world is objectively correct. But,
unfortunately the references we use to address between males and females still
reflect the obsolete and outmoded ways of thinking which we now reject morally.
Owing to such an unhealthy influence, there are various instances in which
different forms of language addressed between males and females are found to be
endured.
Although the women’s liberation movements held in the days of the yore have
erected some norms that advocate the notion of sexual equality, women in many
societies around the world are still found to be treated as powerless and mediocre
creature. However, in this new and advanced era where we all have equal rights
and status, no human being by birth is inherited by the power of supremacy. It is
only because of the people who are accustomed to the practice of sexual
discrimination. Due to such an ill-practice, many women are today discriminated
not only in the intellectual areas like education, politics, power exercise and legal
practice but also in the language we converse. Here, the question arises as to what
2
extent and to what ways does language discriminate women? More precisely, do
the ways in which languages allow us to refer to males and females discriminate
against females?
Though the consummate answer of these questions demands a great effort of the
people who speak in favour of feminism, it can be normally addressed if the ways
we use language render the women invisible or trivialize them. And at the same
time, it perpetuates the notion of male preeminence that ultimately leads to foster
gender inequality. The language we use nowadays is, in deed, the product of those
old bad days when women were powerless and generally subordinate to men.
Therefore, it still displays some evidences of linguistic sex varieties which have
goaded the people to be entangled with the practice of sexist language.
Many linguists argue that sexism in languages refers to a bias through which
patterns and references of male usage are taken to be normative and super-ordinate
and those of women are contemplated to be deviant and subordinate. And it has
today been a worldwide political issue that affects the language we choose to use.
Everyone will notice how male oriented our language is if he/she probes carefully
how they usually express themselves. There are several forms of language that
help to buttress the idea of male superiority and female deficiency. What is now
termed sexist language often insinuates an inherent male dominance and
superiority in many fields of life. For example, in English, the use of man in
isolation or as an affix to refer to all of humanity or as a doer of the functions that
could be performed by the individuals of either sex, as given in the words such as
mankind, manpower, chairman, policeman, spokesman, manhood, etc. often
embodies, affirms or nourishes discrimination against women or the patriarchal
subordination of women to men.
3
Similarly, it is not uncommon to hear the people say like woman doctor and lady
police to refer to a female. But a male is always discerned to be addressed by just
the words such as doctor and police. Owing to such an embodiment of male
oriented terms, the invisibility of women has been fostered since it not only
sustains the conceptual inequality but also boosts the unfair tendency that
strengthens the notion of biasness against females. Thus, the use of man in our
conversation obscures the presence and contribution of women, but at the same, it
conjures up the images of males. As a result, many people still today take the
males as the normative sex which should be discouraged.
One particular bit of sexism in languages that has aroused much comment is the
use of “he”, which is more pervasive and therefore dangerous. Because, its use
after the sex-neutral words like person, candidate, student, everyone, anyone, etc.
helps to foster the attitudes towards the linguistic bias against women. However,
today the trend of using “he/she” simultaneously as the replacement of it is not
less an increasing ration which can be taken as a good step in the right direction
although the idea of evading “he” will not in itself dispose of the bias and
guarantee that women will be treated equally with men.
Another conspicuous error that shows gender bias is the distinction between Mr
and Mrs /Miss. Such distinction tends to mask the marital status of men but not
women since it is found that the distinction between Mrs and Miss is not paralleled
by a pair of male titles showing whether or not the bearer is married. This implies
that it is more important for a woman than for a man to show whether they are
married. To avoid such a linguistic distinction, a new word Ms is seen to be
loomed in English which is virtually equivalent to Mr.
It is a fact that sexism in language is seen not only in English but almost all
languages in the world. Even in Nepali there are various instances in which
4
linguistic bias is clearly found to be existed. For instance, the words like
rastrapati, savapati and ganapati exclusively focus on the males’ supremacy.
Likewise, there is a rigid convention of writing the word shriman to address the
primate of an office. Even in the legal practices, it is not unusual to hear the
lawyers say shriman while addressing the judges of either sex in the court. If we
examine such instances carefully, we can claim that it is one of the crystal clear
evidences of the linguistic bias against women.
Although the use of sexist language is often unconscious and unintentional, it is as

vile as the other ill-practices because it offends the people when they find
themselves excluded. Furthermore, it undermines the goal of a non-discriminatory
and inclusive society. Therefore, the idea of eschewing both explicit and implicit
sexism in languages should be made a fundamental, social and political project of
feminism. Besides, every language users should develop the habit of using gender
inclusive terms as it is believed that language can be used as a constructive tool for
fortifying equality.
(This article has already been published in Greatway Monthly Magazine, Vol. 3,
Issue 1, Oct.-Nov., 2o11, pp. 39-40)

Linguistic Bias Against Women Sexism in

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Linguistic Bias Against Women Sexism in

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Linguistic Bias Against Women Sexism in

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Gopal Singh Sijapati

Linguistic Bias against Women

Although the use of sexist language is often unconscious and unintentional, it is as

You might also like