How sexist is your language?

Posted by:

Sometimes, the subtle connotations of words can make it easy to say something you didn’t mean to.  It’s important to bear this in mind when writing, and consider the implications of even the smallest word choice. The topic of today’s blog may not be something you’ve considered before, but I hope that it will bring your attention to a significant yet often overlooked aspect of language. Ensuring that you say what you intend to is as important as correct spelling and grammar. As a translation and interpreting service provider, it’s vital that we pay attention to the nuances of what is said, and why.

As our society changes and modernises, certain words become obsolete or even unacceptable, and this has been the case with many female-specific nouns, such as “teacheress” or “soldieress”. However, some, such as “comedienne” and “actress” still remain.  Because a masculine version of these words doesn’t exist, the feminine ones stick out, and seem to denote that it is unusual for women to perform this job. Of course, this is not just a feminist issue. When men take up roles traditionally fulfilled by women, they can be referred to with terms that seem derogatory, such as “male nurse” (or worse, “murse”). This raises the question of whether it is necessary to specify if a person carrying out a job is male or female.

With some words, such as “actress”, there is an easily justifiable reason for this. Although “actor” could be used to refer to male or female performers, it’s important for them to specify their sex when applying for acting jobs, as it does influence which roles they can play. (Although nowadays, with actors sometimes playing the opposite sex, such as Cate Blanchett’s recent portrayal of Bob Dylan, it would be said that this argument is invalid too!) However, I personally think that it would be clearer if “actor” was used only to refer to male actors, and a third, gender-neutral noun be used as an umbrella term for actors of both sexes, for example, “performers”. Some gender-neutral nouns have already started to enter common use, such as “police officer” as opposed to “policeman”, and “firefighter” instead of “fireman”.

Of course, some languages rely on pronouns less than English, and so you have to specify whether someone is male or female.  This is just another reason why we don’t need to specify! If it’s necessary to mention the sex of a person, you can say something like: “The doctor gave her opinion on my test results”. This is a good way to be more specific, without drawing unnecessary attention to the fact that a woman has become a doctor.

What do you think of this issue? I’m sure it’s something that people feel quite strongly about, one way or another, and I’d be interested in hearing what you think!

 

 

Lauren Webb, Senior Project Manager

About the Author

Lauren is one of Veritas' Project Managers, and has always been fascinated by languages. With a degree in Translation, and having worked periodically as a freelance translator, she has a thorough understanding of both sides of the translation process, which ensures the smooth running of projects.

Discussion

  1. Lauren Webb, Senior Project Manager
    Lauren  January 16, 2012

    I wonder how everyone else feels about this topic, because personally, I think it depends a lot on the situation, but there are certain scenarios where it is totally inappropriate to specify someone’s gender. Do many males share this sentiment, I wonder?

    (reply)
  2. Jenny  January 21, 2012

    I remember studying this in Spanish classes at school, it seems like it´s a pretty international debate these days! I also think it depends a lot on the situation because, for example, murse is almost definitely a derogatory term for a male nurse, but in the majority of cases I´d say we tend to overthink the matter.

    The fact is, the etymology of these words is a long way prior to our current social situation, in which men and women are much more free to do the jobs that they want. When the words were invented there was no need to come up with two different forms because the job would only have been done by one gender, no questions asked. Society has changed, but language hasn´t quite caught up yet. I don´t think it´s something we need to dwell on too much, but it can be useful to bear in mind so as to avoid offence.

    I´d say that, when it´s possible and not too much effort, gender neutral terms are in fairly frequent use (for example housewife and house husband), but some words, such as author, soldier, farmer etc. don´t have such obvious options for alteration, which is why they tend to stay as they are. This isn´t offensive, it´s just a logical human tendency towards to efficiency of language use. After all, the main purpose of language is effective communication, some of which would almost certainly be lost if we all spent five minutes deciding how to “correctly” refer to the manager(ess) with whom we had the interview for the post of journalist(ress) in the office where our cousin the editor(ess) works while her partner, a house husband, looks after their kids, one of whom wants to be an ice cream (wo)man when she grows up, and the other, who aspires to be a murse…

    (reply)
    • Lauren Webb, Senior Project Manager
      Lauren  January 23, 2012

      Thank you for the well-reasoned and interesting points you made. I agree that to some extent these terms are used for linguistic efficiency, but that sometimes the use of a gender-specific term can be seen as patronising or even downright offensive (‘murse’, again, being a good example of this). I really do wonder how this will change in future. As a society, we seem to be expressing ourselves more creatively and succinctly, and I think it would be really interesting to re-visit this topic in 20 years or so, to see what has changed.

      (reply)

Add a Comment

captcha