Laurel Richardson REA DIN G :1.2
Gender Stereotyping in the English Language
Everyone in our society, regardless of class, ethnicity,
sex, age, or race, is exposed to the same language, the
language of the dominant culture. Analysis of ve
al
language can tell us a great deal about a people's fears,
prejudices, anXieties, ana interests. A ricln'ocaDulary'
on a particular subject indicates societal interests or
obsessions (e.g., the extensive vocabulary about cars
in America). And different words for the same subject
(such as freedom fighter and te
orist, passed away and
croaked, make love and ball) show that there is a range of
attitudes and feelings in the society toward that subject.
It should not be surprising, then, to find differential
attitudes and feelings about men and women rooted in
the English language. Although English has not been
completely analyzed, six general propositions concern
ing these attitudes and feelings about males and
females can be made.
First, in terms of grammatical and semantic structure,
women do not have a fully autonomous, independent
existence; they are part of man. The language is not
divided into male and female with distinct conjugations
and declensions, as many other languages are. Rather,
women are included under the generic man. Grammar
ooks specify that the pronoun he can be used generically
to mean he or she. Further, man, when used as an indefi
nite pronoun, grammatically refers to both men and
women. So, for example, when we read man in the fol
lOWing phrases we are to interpret it as applying to both
men and women: "man the oars," "one small step for
man, one giant step for mankind," "man, that's tough,"
"man ove
oard," "man the toolInaker," "alienated
man," "ga
ageman." Our rules of etiquette complete the
grammatical presumption of ~clusivity. When two per
sons are pronounced "man and wife," Miss Susan Jones
changes her entire name to Mrs. Robert Gordon (Vander
ilt, XXXXXXXXXXIn each of these co
ect usages, women are a
part of man; they do not exist autonomously. The exclu
sion of women is Well expressed in Mary Daly's ear-jar
ing slogan "the sisterhood of man" (1973:7-21).
However, there is some question as to whether the
theory that man means everybody is ca
ied out in
practice (see Bendix, 1979; Martyna, XXXXXXXXXXFor exam
£!~~an eight-year-old inte
upts her reading of "The
Story onne Cavemen"''''to ask how we gothete without
cavewomen. A ten-year-old thinks it is dumb to have a
woman postman. A beginning anthropology student
elieves (inco
ectly) that all shamans ("witch doc
tors") are males because her textbook and professor
use the referential pronoun he.
But beginning language learners are not the only
ones who visualize males when they see the word man.
Research has consistently demonstrated that when the
generic mart is used, people visualize men, not women
(Schneider & Hacker, 1973; DeStefano, 1976; Martyna,
1978; Hamilton & Henley; XXXXXXXXXXDeStefano, for exam
ple, reports that college students choose silhouettes of
males for sentences with the word man or men in them.
Similarly, the presumably generic he elicits images of
men rather than women. The finding is so persistent
that linguists doubt whether there actually is a seman
tic generic in English (MacKay, 1983).
Man, then, suggests not humanity but rather male
images. Moreover, over one's lifetime, an educated
American will be exposed to the prescriptive he more
than a million times (MacKay, XXXXXXXXXXOne consequence
is the exclusion of women in the visualization, imagi
nation, and thought of males and females. Most likely
this linguistic practice perpetuates in men their feel
ings of dominance over and responsibility for women,
feelings that interfere with the development of equal
ity in relationships.
Second, in actual practice, our pronoun usage per
petuates different personality attributes and career
aspirations for men and women. Nurses, secretaries,
and elementary school teachers are almost invariably
efe
ed to as she; doctors, engineers, electricians, and
presidents as he. In one classroom, students refe
ed to
an unidentified child as he but shifted to she when
120
121 RICHARDSON I GENDER STEREOTYPING IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
~uage
In as to whether the
y is ca
ied out in
a, XXXXXXXXXXFor exam
er reading of "The
'Ie got here without
t is dumb to have a
hropology 'student
nans ("witch doc
oak and professor
5 are not the only
see the word man.
Ited that when the
~ men, not women
10, 1976; Martyna,
itefano, for exam
ose silhouettes of
'n or men in them.
elicits images of
5 is so persistent
ually is a seman
ut rather male
le, an educated
criptive he more
me consequence
llization, imagi
lies. Most likely
men their feel
tity for women,
lment of equal
oun usage per
~es and career
:es, secretaries,
lOst invariably
ectricians, and
'nts refe
ed to
I to she when
ISCUssing the child's parent. In a faculty discussion ofd
. .. .
he roblems of acqulTlng new staff, all archItects,
t ~eers, security officers, faculty, and computer pro
;;mmers were refe
ed to as he; secretaries and file
clerks were refe
ed to as she. Martyna XXXXXXXXXXhas noted
that speakers consistently use he when the referent has
a high-status occupation (e.g., doctor, lawyer, judge)
ut shift to she when the occupations have lower status
(e.g., nurse, secretary).
Even our choice of sex ascription to nonhuman
objects subtly reinforces different personalities for males
and females. It seems as though the small (e.g., kittens),
the graceful (e.g., poetry), the unpredictable (e.g., the
fates), the nurturant (e.g., the church, the school), and
that which is owned and/or controlled by men (e.g.,
oats, cars, government~!•.nations)represeDJ. the Jerm- .
n£ie, whereas that which is a controlling forceful power
in and of itself (e.g., God, Satan, tiger) primarily repre
sents the masculine. Even athletic teams are not
immune. In one college, the men's teams are called the
Bearcats and the women's teams the Bearkittens.
Some of you may wonder whether it matters that
the female is linguistically included in the male. The
inclusion of women under the pselidogeneric man and
the prescriptive he, however, is not a trivial issue. Lan
guage has tremendous power to shape attitudes and
influence behavior. Indeed, MacKay XXXXXXXXXXargues that
the prescriptive he "has all the characteristics of a highly
effective propaganda technique": frequent repetition,
early age of acquisition (before age six), covertness (he
is not thought of as propaganda), use by high-prestige
sources (including university texts and professors), and
indirectness (presented as though it were a matter of
common knowledge). As a result, the prescriptive
affects females' sense of life options and feelings of
well-being. For example, Adamsky XXXXXXXXXXfound that
women's sense of power and importance was enhanced
when the prescriptive he was replaced by she.
Awareness of the impact of the generic man and pre
scriptive he has generated considerable activity to
change the language. One change, approved by the
Modem Language Association, is to replace the pre
scriptive he with the plural they-as was accepted prac
tice before the eighteenth century. Another is the use of
he or she. Although it sounds awkward at first, the he or
she designation is increasingly being used in the media
and among people who have recognized the power of
the pronoun to perpetuate sex stereotyping. When a
professor, for example, talks about "the lawyer" as "he
or she," a speech pattern that counteracts sex stereotyp
ing is modeled. This drive to neutralize the impact of
pronouns is evidenced further in the renaming of occu
pations: a policeman is now a police officer, a postman
is a mail ca
ier, a stewardess is a flight attendant.
Third, lingUistic practice defines females as immature,
incompetent, and incapable and males as mature, com
plete, and competent. Because the words man and woman
tend to connote sexual and human maturity, common
speech, organizational titles, public addresses, and bath
oom doors frequently deSignate the women in question
as ladies. Simply contrast the different connotations of
lady and woman in the following common phrases:
Luck, be a lady (woman) tonight.
Ba
ara's a little lady (woman).
-" ....., Ladis/;' (Women's)·-Air Corp5':"
In the first two examples, the use of lady desexual
izes the contextual meaning of woman. So trivializing is
the use of lady in the last phrase that the second is
wholly anomalous. The male equivalent, lord, is never
used, and its synonym, gentleman, is used infrequently.
When gentleman is used, the assumption seems to be
that certain culturally condoned aspects of masculinity
(e.g., aggressivity, activity, and strength) should be set
aside in the interests of maturity and order, as in the
following phrases:
A gentlemen's (men's) agreement.
A duel between gentlemen (men).
He's a real gentleman (man).
Rather than feeling constrained to set aside the stereo
types associated with man, males frequently find the
opposite process occu
ing. The contextual connota
tion of man places a strain on males to be continuously
sexually and socially potent, as the following examples
eveal:
I was not a man (gentleman) with her tonight.
This is a man's (gentleman's) job.
Be a man (gentleman).
Whether males, therefore, feel competent or anxious,
valuable or worthless in particular contexts is influ
enced by the demands placed on them by the expecta
tions of the language.
Not only are men infrequently labeled gentlemen,
ut they are infrequently labeled boys. The term boy is
eserved for young males, bellhops, and car attendants,
122 SE en 0N 3 REPRESENTATION, LANGUAGE, AND CULTURE
and as a putdown to