Is Gendered Language Sexist?
Hilary Clinton speaks in Elyria, Oh
Originally uploaded by bridget commisso-caswell
In this political year, we are particularly sensitive to gender-specific language which may brand one as a sexist. There are certain speech patterns that are followed by gender and they have been known for a long time. Here are a few patterns which we hardly notice are even gender specific.
1. In all styles women tend to use less local, idiomatic language than men.
2. In formal contexts women seem to be more conscious of prestige patterns than men.
3. Lower to middle class women make major shifts in style from the least formal to the more prestigious.
4. Non-standard idiomatic forms are more often associated with working class men than with working class women.
There are no surprises I think in any of the above. I’m not really saying more than just “women do not swear as much as men.” The interesting question is why are men more attracted to non-standard forms of language than are women? We do know that there is prestige attached to a certain style of “in-language.” Most “clubs” from the Cub Scouts to the Elks have some “in-language” associated with them that only members know.
One explanation for the gender difference in language is that women occupy more socially insecure positions in our culture than men. Certainly part of the problem Hilary Clinton was having with the press was linguistic expression even though it was often couched in different terms. If women speak in more standardized forms they may have greater access to male territories. However, that is rife with danger as well, as we have witnessed in the primaries. Language reflects one’s perceived position in a culture and if one tries a new position, it can take a while to find a comfort level with the new language forms.
– Dr. Paul Schneider, Director of Teacher Education Programs, WAL