Sexism on the red carpet

Kirsty Capes

Name:Kirsty Capes
Member of:
Title: Cultural Critic
Joined: Oct 2011
Occupation: Creative Writing Student at Brunel University
Kirsty's Full Profile

Re-reading coverage of last April’s Oscars, I came across a rather baffling phenomenon: some of the reporters had peculiar ways of discussing the various nominees, presenters and guests on the red carpet. One reporter had the impertinence to describe one of the female presenters as “Flirt” and the other two as “Fawn” and “Gush”, never directly calling them by name. Obviously this reporter took a very cynical attitude towards the whole affair, but curiously enough, he retained enough composure to be able to call the male presenters by their proper names, rather than ridiculous nicknames he had used to elevate his own position and slyly dig at the women, who were doing a far better job than him. Following his blatant display of sexism my outrage caused me to look into other examples of sexism in everyday language.

Photo by MingleMedia TV

In our language there is blatant bias towards the male gender, placing the female in a derogatory position and the male at the top of the food chain. This bias in language is called semantic asymmetry. Every day we can see bias in language towards the male – not only in meanings, but in the words themselves. Whilst a noun like “manager” would seem to be the norm, “manageress” is an extension of the word, using the standard “-ess” suffix and therefore making the feminine noun a derivation of the male. Most job titles have this distinction, for example “steward”, “waiter”, “actor” etc. Whilst it would be linguistically acceptable for a woman to call herself an actor, the term actress excludes males and is exclusive to females, rebuking the norm and singling the person out not for their skills or capabilities, but for their gender. Gender pairs themselves are asymmetric, with male and female words for a job title often meaning different things. For example, a governor is a man who is involved in law and politics, whilst a governess is a childminder or nanny. In the French language, a couturier is a fashion designer, whilst a couturière is a seamstress or a female tailor. Schulz called these inequalities “semantic derogation”, and you can see why. According to our language, men are, and will always be, better.

One of my pet hates is when I am talking to someone about my (female) dog, and my friend asks, “What’s his name?” Why, I ask, is my dog automatically placed in the bracket of being male? There is a 50% chance that my friend will be wrong, but they still choose the male pronoun (using “generic he”), unintentionally displaying a linguistic bias which has been ingrained into them since they were born. Another friend has told me of a sticky situation where she called a female baby a “he”. My irritation with this has caused me to always ask first as to the gender of the subject instead of automatically assigning the male gender to them, and possibly causing offense (My dog was sorely hurt after she was mistaken for a boy!). Carl Jung’s pioneering book Man and His Symbols was re-published as Humans and Their Symbols after a public outcry, and rightly so. After all, women have symbols too!

But have women always been the underdogs within the English language? It is true that some words which are now used in a derogatory manner towards women have undergone pejoration, or a “worsening” of meaning over time. For example, as late as the 1800s the word “slut” meant lazy and unkempt. Nowadays it means something much worse and points the finger directly and specifically at women. On one hand, it could be argued that the exclusivity to the female gender of the word makes its usage sexist, but it could also be said that the fact that the word has become almost an expletive shows that once upon a time, English was a far more accommodating language for women, surprising for a period which was so completely dominated by men in every sphere of life. So why, then, in a world where women are finally beginning to gain respect and equality amongst men, is sexist language emerging more frequently than ever? Why would my Oscars reporter ever feel the need to undermine and belittle his female co-workers by calling them childish names like “Flirt” and “Gush”? The answer is simple: fear. Men are afraid of the power which women are coming to possess, slowly but surely becoming more and more dominant in a world where men have always ruled. Today it is not unusual to have a female lawyer, GP or MP. Men are scared of what women can do and they fight back with something which they do have control over: the language.

This brings us to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, an interesting theory which discusses language and whether or not it determines thought. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that there are two different versions of this theory:  the first is that language determines thought (what we think is limited by the language in which we think); or contrarily thought determines language, meaning that “people who speak different languages perceive and think about the world quite differently”. So, according to this theory, either semantic asymmetry is caused by a deep-rooted primitive sexism which has always been a part of us, or sexism is a product of a language which is clearly constructed by men and for men. My inclination is to go with the second version. It can be seen that semantic asymmetry is not inherent due to the pejoration of words like “slut”, but in a society where “feminism” is a dirty word, a male-dominated language will grab onto anything which will give them fuel against the fast rising position of women in society today.

There is a clear linguistic bias towards men within our language and depending on either take of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, it reflects the implicitly sexist society in which we live. Although males’ flailing attempts to hold onto diminishing power are provision for sufficient amusement (feel free to complain about the Oscars reporter’s disgusting and frankly pathetic displays of sexism), it is important to remember that semantic asymmetry is a serious issue which does need to be dealt with before it can cause further damage. Males have always been dominant in business, society and family life, and our language shows that this dominance extends into our very psyche and causes us to, perhaps unwittingly, be sexist in the way we speak.

But there’s no easy way to put a stop to the habits of a lifetime. Our generation and generations to come will be influenced by the gender bias in language from their parents, the media, teachers and friends. Many people are not even aware that the use semantic asymmetry in their speech, let alone identify a way in which to stop it. For me, the purge begins with the media and sources of language which are publicly accessible and used daily by everyone, like newspapers and television.  Until the language of our primary information sources changes, nothing else can. However, you can take care to avoid semantic asymmetry in your own language, and encourage others to do the same, calling them up on it when you do hear them use it. I’m not jumping on the political correctness band wagon, but I do think the issue of semantic asymmetry is a serious and potentially dangerous one and it needs to be tackled with the appropriate severity in order to squash it out of existence before it starts to cause damage.

Find Kirsty on…

Twitter: @_klec

Tumblr:

http://klec.tumblr.com

http://stuffkirstywrote.tumblr.com