Gender bias in language
By Dr Shahid Siddiqui
IN recent times the focus of questions in language and gender research has been shifted from language spoken by women to language spoken about women. This shift raises questions about the politics of representation constructed largely with the help of language.
Dale Spender’s book Man Made Language (1985) offers an intriguing thesis that, like other forms of culture, men have controlled language and as a result one can see more positive words for males with a lot more opportunities to use them.
Since language is a powerful tool to construct social reality with, women, by the use of sexist language, are being dubbed as inferior and deviant. The perpetuation of this negative representation of women takes place in diverse situations through multiple modes. The process of validation in social institutions ‘confirms’ the inferior female status to the extent that a large number of women start viewing themselves in negative colours.
If language is a vital force in constructing, validating and perpetuating the differences, can language reform play a role in reducing the gender gap? One group of linguists, researchers and practitioners endorses this idea. They believe that it is important to get rid of gendered expressions and create new words, terms, and expressions which are not biased against any gender.
There are two simple reasons for avoiding the use of gendered language. First, as we use gendered language we, in fact, own it and validate its gendered messages. Second, the more we use these gendered expressions, the more we engage ourselves in strengthening these messages. According to Austin, we do things by using language. This suggests that language itself is involved in performing things, in this case gender. This concept is further clarified by Judith Butler (Gender Trouble) when she suggests that repetitive expressions construct gendered bodies.
The more we use gendered language, the more we realise that sexist impressions turn into ‘natural’ and ‘common sense’ and become part of the psyche of a society. There have been some efforts to reform language. For instance, the title ‘Mr’ is used for men whether they are married or unmarried, the suggested title for women is ‘Ms’, irrespective of their marital status. This, to some extent, addresses the problem of the mandatory revelation of marital status through the use of ‘Miss’ or ‘Mrs’.
In case of the use of the generic masculine pronoun for both men and women, it is suggested one writes s/he. This problem can also be tackled by using the plural expression.
Discriminatory job titles were revised by the US Department of Labour. These alternatives, given in parenthesis, were an attempt to combat ageism and sexism: airline steward, stewardess (flight attendant); foreman (supervisor), salesman (salesperson), signalman (signaller), watchman (guard), fireman (firefighter), chairman (chairperson, chair).
But this language reform agenda should not confine itself to surface level changes, it should also tap the intentions of expression. For instance, we need to revisit the sayings and proverbs which are so commonly used in daily life situations as ‘logical evidence’ from the repertoire of folk wisdom. A number of these sayings and proverbs are biased against women. Similarly, jokes about women are also based on gendered stereotypes. Likewise in a number of Hindi/Urdu songs women are defined only in terms of their physical beauty and are presented as an object of display. There is a need to challenge these gendered stereotypes through our social institutions, e.g. families, educational institutions, judiciary and the media. Such sayings, jokes and songs need to be discouraged at all levels.
The conservative school of thought, however, takes a contemptuous view of language reform and dismisses any such initiative. Some self-concocted examples of language reform are presented for the purpose of ridicule. For instance Manchester where ‘Man’ needs to be replaced as it is ‘sexist’.
The radical approach of feminists also shows reservations about language reform for different reasons. The feminists believe that language reform at the vocabulary level is of not much use as the problem is much deeper. According to the radical school of thought, the whole language system is andocentric and bringing about change in just some expressions is of little use.
One school of thought believes that gender differences in real society should be reduced. Once gender equality is achieved, linguistic gender biases would be automatically taken care of. This viewpoint seems convincing but the underlying assumption is that language is a passive phenomenon which is not involved in action but subjected to action.
Language, on the contrary, is a highly political phenomenon and, far from being a passive and neutral tool of communication, is actively involved in the construction of social reality. Dale Spender rightly suggests that, “As more meanings change and the sexist semantic rule is weakened; as the society and the sexist semantic rule change so will more meanings change without deliberate intervention. To concentrate on either word meanings or social organisations, to the exclusion of the other, is to invite failure.”
A more holistic approach is to avoid the either/or distinction and work at both fronts, i.e. social equality in real society and linguistic equality through language reform at the same time.
The writer is director of the Centre for Humanities and Social Sciences at the Lahore School of Economics and author of Rethinking Education in Pakistan.
Email:shahidksiddiqui@yahoo.com


Early voting in US
By Ewen MacAskill
AFTER almost two years of campaigning, the US election is arriving with a rush. Although there are 52 days left until the November 4 poll, the first of the ballot booths will open next Friday in Virginia for early voting.
Other states will follow soon after; 36 of the 50 are offering the opportunity to vote early, either in person or by post.
The expansion of early voting is posing a dilemma for the campaign teams, with decisions having to be made about whether to time ads and rallies to coincide with them or whether to delay drives until nearer November 4.
With 30 per cent or more of the electorate predicted to vote early, the Barack Obama and John McCain campaigns are in overdrive.
Early voting will have a “tremendous” impact on the campaign, said Professor Paul Gronke at Reed College in Portland, Oregon and director of the university’s early voting information centre.
He said that instead of one big bang on November 4, the weeks to come would be like Groundhog Day for the campaign teams, replaying election day over and over again.
“People tend to vote on Fridays and Mondays, so you have to time events for that. You have to get the ads out at the right time. For campaigns, it is raising the costs,” he said.
The concertina effect on the campaign is already forcing changes in campaign strategy, with signs that Obama is having to abandon his plan to fight all 50 states and instead concentrate on battlefield states.
The early opening of the ballots in Virginia, a battlefield state which Obama hopes to take from the Republicans, partly explains why McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, held a rally in the state on Wednesday and why a “Victory 2008” bus tour, packed with congressmen and McCain’s brother, Joe, set off on Friday on a voter registration drive.
Early balloting after Virginia opens in Idaho on September 22, Missouri the day after and Iowa, another state that Obama hopes to take from the Republicans, on September 25. In battlefield states that have often decided the outcome of recent elections, early balloting opens in Ohio on September 30 and Florida on October 20.
Those who vote early tend to be partisan, with their minds made up and unlikely to be swayed by the upcoming presidential debates, analysts say.
The Obama campaign is encouraging as many of its supporters as possible to vote early, fearful that would-be Democratic voters might turn away on election day if facing long queues on November 4 because of Republican challenges to voter eligibility. Professor Michael McDonald, an expert on elections at Virginia’s George Mason University, said: “We know there is going to be a high turnout and this [early voting] offers a pressure relief valve.”
He anticipated the highest turnout in 100 years. “We are off the charts in terms of interest in candidates,” he said.
The number of states offering early voting has increased from 11 in the 1990s. In the 2000 election only 15 per cent of the electorate voted early, rising to 20 per cent in the 2004 election and 25 per cent in the 2006 congressional poll.
Gronke predicted a figure of 33 per cent for this election.
— The Guardian , London


