Writing on a Topical Language Issue Practice

Who in here thinks that men's language is generally more powerful than a women's? Hands up.

From what I can see from standing up here is that the men in this room seem to think that this statement is true while the women do not...I can see some of you ladies shaking your heads as if to say 'how dare you even ask that question'.

BUT. Did you know that some theorists of the English language have discovered that men typically are more likely to interrupt in a mixed sex conversation at a whopping 96%. That's crazy right? 96%.

This does indicate that men's language might have more power behind it but could just refer to the study that men tend to interrupt more because they see conversations as more competitive. Fighting and battling for the last breath or relevance they have in a conversation. Men also are more likely to respond than to back channel and use phrases such as 'uh huh' which, is usually seen as a more feminine aspect of social interaction.

Due to stereotypes however, women over many years have been conditioned to have weaker language and to be more quiet when in social situations such as mixed sex encounters. I can see the men in the room are the ones shaking their heads in disagreement now!

Remember this talk later tonight when your wife is begging you to get off your Playstation and load the dishwasher...Men, we understand your pain.

Good morning residents of Godalming, thank you for coming out to here me speak today. This speech is designed to inform you and might possibly be beneficial to the majority of you. 

you sexist pig

careless usage of the English language

Political college chats

Arya: hey there boys and gals, here on another beautiful afternoon.

Zoe: aint so beautiful today though is it mate- Britain remember?

Arya: ahh yes England, my beautiful England

Zoe: your beautiful grey, cold, wet England?

Arya: … shut up. I love this place

Zoe; nah im starting to see the cracks man.

Arya: what are you on about?

Zoe: well first off all we’re leaving Europe politically when clearly this little island needs all the help it can get, led by a career politician criticized purely for gender

Arya: no seriously what are you on about- gender? Theresa?

Zoe: ahh this is what I mean. Men.

Arya: well that’s sexist.

Zoe: yeah I guess you’re right to be fair. That’s allowed

Britain inherently sexist?

It’s been difficult to witness America fall prey to vicious capitalism over the past two years, electing a man with a blatant disregard for individuality. Misogynist, racist, pig- a few of our favourite slurs used by you guys in the comments. 

Are we justified in our judgement? Are we, Britain, any better?

Why don’t we begin with one of the first things we are taught to do, speak. Have you ever said Mrs and Mr? Does this sound strange to you? That’s what we thought. Standard English has opted to place males above females in order of precedence. Following this men are usually placed before women in text. For example The Sun implements address terms such as the widow, the wife, the daughter, weakening their involvement or power in the article. However this may be due to the significantly lower crime rates within females, with women only accounting for 19.6% of arrests in violent crime.

The possessive ‘my’ is frequently used by males to refer to the women in their lives. Undermining their purpose and value, even if they have higher status than their ‘husband’. The term ‘man’ is persistently used to refer to both men and women, eg mankind.

Linguists Zimmerman & West have extensively researched mixed sex conversation and came to the conclusion it’s there that lies the evidence for male linguistic domination. Boys have the balls to interrupt and less inclined to worry about conflict in conversation, using direct orders “do this…” “I want…” “I need you to…”

Further research suggests this difference in language use is because of the gender separation between children at such a young age. Girls interact with girls and boys with boys- therefore develop their language amongst themselves, adopting similar features.

After assessing the issue we believe it may be more probable that context is everything. Men have historically had more power, wealth and influence and this is reflected in the words we use.

To Say the English Language is Sexist is Outdated

Some people, be they linguists or laymen, may make the claim that the English language is inherently sexist, and I would like to take a bearing on how much of this audience believes this as well, so please may I have a show of hands; who agrees with this statement?

Now, of course this may depend upon somebody’s definition of sexist. A very small percentage of men may argue that we allow women to speak at all, and that is a generous gift - a charity which females should be eternally grateful for. However, ignoring those people, as we should generally try to achieve, if we go on the dictionary definition of sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

As a sort of bearing upon English, I have some examples of European languages: German, French and Spanish, all of which have gendered language - masculine, feminine and, sometimes, neutral words are the ways in which these languages classify words, with different articles to describe them. For example, instead of my, German has meiner, mein and meine. This linguistic detail has logically been described as sexist before - with the word ‘kitchen’ being feminine and the such - and the omission of such a feature from English is already a point firmly in the ‘not sexist’ zone. 

Though, in terms of how the English language may be perceived as sexist, there are some features such as how legally, a gender neutral subject is often referred to as ‘he’, which dismisses the possibility of a female or other gender. This has been argued as sexist before, and people are pushing to make so-called ‘legalese’ gender neutral, which would require the extensive rewriting of innumerable documents, and who really wants to go through thousands and thousands of pages of legal nomenclature to look for individual ‘hes’ and ‘hims’. Not to mention the multiplicity of ambiguities which may be caused by this rewriting. As well as this legal gender bias, there is also professional bias, as one may label a female actor an ‘actress’. These gendered forms provide an unneeded distinction between the males and females of the profession, and many people are attempting to get them to go the way of ‘doctress’ and ‘victress’ which, I’m sure many of you will never of heard, unless you are a victorian time-traveller. After many of these have been gotten rid of, a fraction of what once existed are currently used.

While those factors may have covered the discrimination area of the aforementioned definition, these may cater more to the stereotyping factor, as we can ask one of the audience what they first think of when I say the word ‘mistress’ 

Pick audience member to answer, hopefully they answer with “a secondary sexual partner”.

Exactly, but when I ask the same of the male counterpart: master, you will most likely think of a professional who has perfected his practice, which is extremely problematic, as we see female terms for states become more and more negative such as ‘bachelor’ and ‘spinster’. This is yet another reason for which people want to rid this language of gendered terms, and I completely agree, for, in order to language a part of your country’s equality, you must first make equality a constituent part of your language.

We are trying, and managing largely, to achieve this, what with gendered terms being slowly and surely driven out of the country, as well as legal language being slowly perfected and the already successful omission of gendered words. This is exactly why I believe that while the English Language is not void of sexism, it is not forward thinking to criticise it as such, as we are getting much better.

Experts suggest that the english language may have a subconscious bias toward the male gender. Research over the last 50 years has been pointing more and more in this direction, and the public becomes more and more aware of these inequalities. 

Bloody hell you all look bored. Listen up ! Ah now ive got your attention, a prime example of breaking social rules.

'Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me 'old,' when I would NEVER call him 'short and fat?' Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend' I think we all know Donald Trump, who tweeted this 'hittinng back' at Kim Jong-un. But with a net worth of $3.100 billion, he seems to get away with anything, maybe this suggests that we do indeed use language most powerfully when breaking social rules. Now with a rise of expletives and insults in our society, is it becoming the norm? Are we subcounciously being influenced by leaders and those in power?

Take Lord Sugar for example, he may not be as well known as Trump, but he does use language to gain power and argubly breaks social rules consistently. I'm sure you have all watched the apprentice, now picture if you were being made redundant, what would you expect from your boss? 'it was a bloody shambles. your'e fired' or something more 'acceptable'. However, speakers should argubly be truthful, their contributions informative, and they should be able to realte clearly to the purpose of the exchange. So how would you react if you were involved in a conversation where these expected rules were broken?

I don't think i'd fancy arguing with Lord Sugar or Trump and I wouldn't expect to have to protect my self-confidence in a conversation with anyone. Therefore, argubly is it more powerful to break social rules in conversation? Or is it just god damn rude?

Hey lexis lovers,

Welcome back to another weekly blog where we are discussing the concept of breaking social rules! Now this may sound boring and.... it is!! Just kidding, let's discuss the use of powerful language by means of breaking social rules, with a few examples from all of our fave #influencers.

First of all, 'Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me 'old,' when I would NEVER call him 'short and fat?' Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend' I think we all know Donald Trump, who tweeted this, 'hittinng back' at Kim Jong-un. But with a net worth of $3.100 billion (CRIKEY MIKEY), he seems to get away with anything, with maybe this suggesting that we do indeed use language most powerfully when breaking social rules. Now with a rise of expletives and insults in our society, is it becoming the norm? Are we subcounciously being influenced by leaders and those in power?

Take Lord Sugar for example, he may not be as well known as Trump, but he does use language to gain power and argubly breaks social rules consistently. I'm sure you have all watched the apprentice (insert dramatic music), now picture if you were being made redundant, what would you expect from your boss? 'it was a bloody shambles. your'e fired' (again dramatic music) or something more 'acceptable'. However, speakers should argubly be truthful, their contributions informative, and they should be able to realte clearly to the purpose of the exchange. So, how would you react if you were involved in a conversation where these expected rules were broken?

I don't think i'd fancy arguing with Lord Sugar or Trump and I wouldn't expect to have to protect my self-confidence in a conversation with anyone. Therefore, argubly is it more powerful to break social rules in conversation? Or is it just god damn rude? I'll leave it for you decide in the comments, don't forget to tune in next week for another installment! :)