ljanesmith.netL J SMITH

New York Times #1 Best Seller Untitled document Official Home of the ORIGINAL VAMPIRE DIARIES BOOKS! What's New On My Facebook... Snarky Reviews of Good, Bad, and Great Books. No book is without sin . . . against women. Monstrous Regiment by Terry Pratchett Okay, first of all, what is this review series? MORE >>> And Then I Woke Up And Then I Woke Up ~ Lisa Latest: Lisa's Blog Happy Holidays! Meet my New Kitties! Photos! And Then I Woke Up Free Kindle Reading Apps Happy Valentines Day! L. J. Smith’s new Vampires Diaries series A vital announcement from L. J. Smith Latest: Comments Happy Valentines Day! (98) Burning Fan Q & A (300) Guestbook Vault (1980) Guestbook 28 (69) Ask L. J. (408) The Night World (333) Strange Fate Preview (190) Latest: Site Updates Wonkier than a Chocolate Factory Happy Holidays! Meet my New Kitties! Photos! Word Choice and Not-So-Subtle Sexism And Then I Woke Up Vampire Diaries' Writer Bites Back Free Kindle Reading Apps Word Choice and Not-So-Subtle Sexism on Monday, 14 December 2015 10:16. Posted in In the Media Including: Over 50 Terms We Only Use for Women and Girls [Warning: There are some mature words referenced here. This post is meant for responsible teenagers and adults.] Here is the little discussion I talked about in my new Snarky Review of Monstrous Regiment , which can be found on Goodreads . Thank you so much for reading through this post—or at least skimming it—because I actually worked really hard on gathering up all the nasty, sex-specific terms and catchphrases I could find. I think it just possibly may be the most complete list online. Before you read, you might want to see how many words/phrases you can come up with that are only used to refer to females and never (or almost never) to males. Go on, give it a try. It only takes a minute. Come up with at least five: that’s a tenth of what’s included below. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Done? Okay, now I’ll begin. What’s the problem? When you read or hear something like “a postal worker may be forced to turn on his heel and flee from –turning and fleeing. No point in pretending otherwise; I do, too, even though the word “postman” was not used. Studies show that so-called “gender neutral” terms like Man, mankind, and the aforementioned “his” actually do cause sex bias and imply inequality. Imagine what this can do to your subconscious when you hear or read it coming from virtually everywhere, all day, every day, ad infinitum. The Science Behind the Problem Or, if you can’t imagine the consequences, take a look at some of the studies on language that are out there. You’ll find that, as Sherryl Kleinman, the teacher of a sociology course on gender inequality at the University of North Carolina, says, word choice is important “[b]ecause male-based generics are another indicator—and more importantly, a reinforcer—of a system in which ‘man’ in the abstract and men in the flesh are privileged over women.” She adds that changing our language is a relatively easy way to start making inroads toward equality of the sexes. It’s sure as hell easier than eradicating violence against women worldwide—but it may actually be a start toward that holy goal. Anything that nets girls and women more respect and less disrespect may help change the ease with which some males lift their hands or their voices to harm them. Read Kleinman’s entire article, Why Sexist Language Matters . It’s good. And here’s a great study by Pat K. Chew and Lauren K. Kelley-Chew that concludes that “male-gendered generics are exclusionary of women and tend to reinforce gender stereotypes. Yet, these words may not be recognized as discriminatory because their use is perceived as normative and therefore not unusual. In addition, those who use these words may not be intentionally harmful. Complaining about their use may even be criticized as a trivial activity or an overly sensitive reaction.” Here’s another study on gender-biased language by Nancy L. Murdock and Donelson R. Forsyth. It points out that in modern times using “man” and “he” as generic words including women is perceived as “somewhat biased and sexist.” Well, at least we’re somewhat recognizing the problem. There are plenty of other studies out there. It’s easy to google them. And once you’re attuned to the problem, maybe you too will wince when authors continue to cluelessly drivel on about the fate of mankind instead of humankind or talk about manpower and manning the helm and how the next president of the United States will be the most powerful man in the world. Or using the term “you guys” to include a group of girls or women. (Which I have done myself many times in the past—but which I will try my best to avoid from now on.) You too may feel something like a small white-hot ingot ricochet inside your brain when the media uses “he” and “him” as if that included “she” and “her.” And here’s the thing: there’s no need to use even subtly sexist language. There are decent substitutes for all the male-oriented words; we just have to start using them. We need to accept “they” as a singular pronoun and “their” as a singular possessive adjective so that we can say “a postal worker may be forced to turn on their heel and flee” and not get flustered about it. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best we have right now and it’s much, much better than being sexist. As babies we learn from language, and philosophers and philologists have argued for some time whether language actually dictates our thoughts rather than the reverse. I’m not going to insist that the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is correct and there can be no thought without language, because that’s already been disproved. But no one can deny that language influences thought and that once language is learned the two are interdependent. Lera Boroditsky (and no, she’s not Borogravian and I did not make that name up) has written a fascinating article, How Language Shapes Thought . It points out that in recent years “a solid body of empirical evidence showing how languages shape thinking has finally emerged.” Her conclusions, in brief, were: “People communicate using a multitude of languages that vary considerably in the information they convey. Scholars have long wondered whether different languages might impart different cognitive abilities. In recent years, empirical evidence for this causal relation has emerged, indicating that one’s mother tongue does indeed mold the way one thinks about many aspects of the world, including space and time. The latest findings also hint that language is part and parcel of many more aspects of thought than scientists had previously realized.” But, see, you probably already know this yourself. Don’t you, really, when you examine the English language? You realize that you can actually tell something about a culture if it has a word for something. This leads me to some of my pet peeves. Words we only use for women or girls Like “cougar.” Not the innocent ferocious animal, the term meaning an older woman who’s dating a younger man. What’s the male equivalent of a cougar? It’s a man, period. No, it’s a Hollywood star who is probably also a politician. There is no male equivalent because it’s perfectly acceptable for an older man to date a younger woman and no one needs to comment on it. Why should there be a word for it? Aaargh! Or how about minx? Chit? Old maid? Shrew? Strumpet? Broad? Virago? Bimbo? Belle? Slut? Drama queen? Ho? Floozy? Wench? Temptress? Waif? Damsel (which almost begs having “in distress” added to it)? Hag? Crone? Maiden aunt? Dumb blonde? Are there male equivalents for these? Nope. Unnecessary. Okay, you might argue that male equivalents to hag or crone could be geezer or codger, but they don’t really convey the amount of vituperation that the female-oriented words do. Then there’s the fact that despite all that Hogwarts can do, calling a woman a witch is generally a bad thing while calling a man or woman a wizard at something is the s...