“If a man is alone in the woods – is he still wrong?” I will venture into some heavy thicket today, knowing peril awaits. But sexist language has been an interest throughout my professional life, and a Jan. 4 MoveOn.org video circulating in the past couple of weeks has reawakened a keen desire to write with accuracy and fairness toward all.
Beyond the generic pronoun
Gender linguistic conversations often address “the generic pronoun” as editors grapple with the use of “he” when a gender cannot be determined. “The writer does best when he follows his personal instincts.” As we liberate ourselves, we understand the writer could be Truman Capote or it could be Ann Lamott – he or she. So, for 25 years or so, we have tried to find a gender-neutral substitute, substituting a generic pronoun. “He/she” has been used, and we often see the plural pronoun “they” used with a singular subject. The easiest workaround is to put the whole sentence in plural. “Writers do best by following their personal instincts.”
The generic pronoun has a number of good blogs, articles and research posted around the web. I will put a few links covering the topic at the end of this post.
From whence it comes
Awareness of gender-neutral linguistics surged in the early 1970s as feminism began teaching us a less male chauvinist approach to, well, everything. In 1975, I emerged from two years as a Public Information Specialist in the Army to begin journalism classes at San Antonio College. Dub Daugherty and Lynell (Jackson) Burkett (along with Chet Hunt, Jerry Townsend and Kay Sharp) conducted an award-winning course that produced a generation of improved editors. They taught us to pay very close attention to what we were writing, and the discussion of gender-neutral language was part of our study.
One of the best edits to our language involved repair to occupational titles. “Mailman” became “postal carrier.” “Fireman” became “fire fighter” (since 911, and in tribute to the diverse service provided by these men and women, the broader “first responder” has emerged, applying as well to EMTs, law enforcement officers and others). Similar changes cascaded through colloquial English. In each case, the description was more accurate and complete, as well as recognizing that either gender can fulfill most, if not all, roles in society. I am particularly fond of “chairperson.” I like to use “chair” instead, as in, “The chair called for a motion,” but if there was ever any hope of acceptance, Clint Eastwood’s performance piece at the Republican National Convention kind of ruined it.
Beyond linguistics
The MoveOn video doesn’t have anything to do with gender-neutral language – it hits on the way women are marginalized and segregated by chauvinist attitudes in the media. The most telling excerpt for me is Barbara Walters, the Edward R. Murrow interviewer of our age, talking with Hillary Clinton, one on one.
“So I have to ask you this very personal question…your hair…” Walters says. No one would ask Henry Kissinger about his hair, his choice of clothing, his age or any other irrelevant characteristic related to his gender.
My example may be one of the mildest examples from the MoveOn video. They, of course, have an agenda, and women were brutalized by news media – and legislatures, societies around the globe – not just last year, and not likely to stop.
A writer’s responsibility
Everyone writes everyday, and it’s important to pay attention to what we put in our sentences. It’s easy enough to learn and apply good style (accurate and consistent usage) to the words we put on the screen, and we want to be as inclusive as possible when we write.
In addition to gender-neutral language, we need race-neutral, orientation-neutral, sometimes even species-neutral linguistics. When we refer to a diverse group, we can take care to use words that apply to all.
The words of our mouth
We talk more than we write and that’s where I need a lot better editing. In an attempt to establish emotional or cognitive intimacy, I find myself being more personal than I should be. It may not be the worst habit, and certainly in the American South I can get away with it, but I am known to over use the word, “Darlin’” in conversations with women. Paula Dean is rarely admonished for “Sweetie,” but she uses it to apply to both genders, and it’s part of her character. I want to have better character.
I have wandered into this territory, and I recognize I am over my head. In the 1990s, I shared an office at Inmar Communications with Denise Walker, an excellent writer and well-read editor, and she taught me a lot about the attitudes I expressed in my writing. My partner, Cat Lee, edited feminist newspapers in Boston some years ago. I am going to ask them to comment, and I’m going to ask you to weigh in as well. How do we need to moderate our discourse to stop discriminating against people?
How can we recognize diversity without segregating and rudely differentiating? Every single person has unique characteristics. They can be singled out for being fat, or they can be recognized for being smart. Everything we communicate contributes to the tenor of our society – let’s make every word count.
Resources
Historical perspective – All Things Linguistic
San Antonio copywriter gary s. whitford is half of Extraordinary Words, providing effective communications for business and non-profit development. You can find Extraordinary Words on Facebook, LinkedIn and its website. You can read more of gary’s writing on his personal blog and by searching The Rivard Report for “Every Word Counts.”
At HEB this week, the woman sacking my groceries must have used “hon” and “sweetie” at least 5 or 6 times in our brief encounter. I wondered if others would be offended, would it be helpful if I pointed out how her monikers might be interpreted by the public? In the end, I decided that her intention was to create a warm feeling for the customer, a feeling of intimacy perhaps, and left without addressing the issue. When men do the same thing, it generates a different response which may be my issue! Smile, wink!
For many years I have wondered when we will drop the term “first” as in first woman to…, first gay mayor, first Hispanic, first fill in the blank. We have made progress but are far from a gender neutral society. I am not sure that will ever happen, but the conversation is one worth having.
You are correct in noting that our choice of words conveys much more than information or data, as does our tone of voice-verbally and in print. Suffice it to say that we are all a work in progress and every word, every action, every thought counts!
Gary, working at an all-girls school, we are are keenly aware of gender-neutral linguistics. We especially dislike the ubiquitous group address “you guys.”
When our daughter got married, Reverend Cowmeadow (his real name), kept calling Jason and Maria “you guys.” It took great restraint for me to not jump up during the ceremony and correct him.
And, as for all the other issues gender inequality…don’t get me started.
Laura, please help claim or reclaim “you guys”. Help claim “guy” as well. Depending on the vernacular, these are gender neutral. You guys is as gender neutral as ” y’all “.
I noticed Gary’s writing is NOT followed by “you can read more of Gary’s writing at http://garyswhitford.com/“.
Instead, ” you can read more of Gary’s writing at (gendered possessive pronoun) http://garyswhitford.com/.”
Who chose that? Why is it important? And isn’t that most of the point?
Well, Tezyln, I wrote it for three reasons: a) When I can, I prefer a hyperlinked phrase to putting a URL in the sentence. It seems to read smoother. b) My personal blog is unrestrained by good business sense – I use it to express personal, spiritual and political perspectives I may not represent as part of Extraordinary Words or The Rivard Report. I wanted to make sure an interested reader understood that before they visited the site. c) When the subject of the sentence is specific to the individual, then we know what gender is being represented, and thus we can use the appropriate possessive pronoun. If I were writing about a woman, I would have used “her personal blog.” It is kind of weird to write about oneself in the third person, but I appreciate the question.
Yes it is awkward to write he/she when “everybody knows” a writer means both genders when writing “man.” But who is “everybody”? We ‘70s-era feminists objected to use of that generic noun, one that – to us – sticks out as obviously male, to refer to all people. Consider the deeper assumption implied by that usage, i.e., that discoursing about man is sufficient, and contains whatever anyone needs to know about the other 51% of the population. We took our thought process a lot further, speaking about “herstory” as well as “history” to indicate that much more about the past can and should be revealed than battles and other virile exploits. Of course, man ridicules wimmin for daring to think outside the box they fashion for us (isn’t box slang for vagina? oh, excuse me, attractive woman. And that brings up the interesting question: why do so many vulgar words and gestures label men female? Methinks it reveals the true esteem they hold us pedestaled people in, and might explain how public discourse about rape can so thoroughly erase its victims). Man was somewhat successfully able to throw the baby (of deeper consideration of the effects of language to define thought) out with the bathwater (of use of “his/her” substituted by un-gender-marked “their”). Thank goddess we still have the brilliant analysis of the late Mary Daly. I refer you to Websters’ First New Intergalactic Wickedary of the English Language, and her other books. As Elizabeth Debold wrote in her Valentine’s Day 2010 memorial “… try to rid your mind and speech of every possible assumption that gives priority to men, masculinity, and male dominance. Gone would be references to, say, a “penetrating analysis” (for obvious reasons!). Or to anything that gave males and the male experience hegemony. Such a project (is that another male word?) would require that we try to undo several thousands of years in which slowly, over time, deep shared assumptions were built into our language and values. This was Daly’s task.”
I always use mam and sir when addressing strangers when I don’t know their name and even when I do in some cases I use it for a certain effect.
My rule of thumb is always treat people with respect no matter what. Therefore, my operative word for my behavior is edify. No matter the person or their behavior. I allows me to set the tone and I’m receive like treatment in return.
Dear Gary and Sherry,
I’d like to be polite, to treat both of you with respect. I greatly agree with Sherri that respect is a tone I’d like set.
How do I set that tone, if I don’t know what race the person I am typing to is? Answer? I can linguistically, politely ignore my very ignorance, and still be respectful! Happy!
Now, how do I set the tone of respect if I don’t know if someone is male, female, intersex, non sexed, or something less common.
Gary’s technique, letting us know it’s HIS blog still concerns me, in the context of this discussion. The other two points would have been covered with the link saying “Gary’s Blog” I think.
Sherri’s mam and sir technique, while I too have used it, turns out to be quite difficult if you do not KNOW the gender identification of the person you are addressing. I have had that happen. I still want to set a tone of respect.
I am concerned that commonly relying on techniques which require me to know your gender identification set me up to be disrespectful in many situations, I might not predict.
Yours truly,
Telzyln Marie Vosbury Garcia