Unconscious Oppression

Within the rarified world of the Governor's Academy, extremely overt acts of sexism -  although not completely non-existent - are exceedingly rare. This leads many people who live here, myself included, to underestimate the extent to which gender roles continue to prevail and cause damage within our immediate community.

Mr. Robertson's lecture, as well as Bei Yu's research, go after one of these more subtle forms of sexism: that which is woven into the fabric of the English language.

It is difficult to pull at the sexist roots of everyday speech, as Mr. Robertson and Bei Yu did, without putting one's crowd on the defensive. Nobody wants to think of themselves, or their community, as the perpetuators of an oppressive culture, and I would argue that many, if not most members of our community make a conscious effort to fight against such a culture.

This is what makes language and gender such a difficult subject to tackle: gender roles are so deeply ingrained in our collective psyche that our perpetuation of them through language are fueled by unconscious, rather than conscious, processes. As Mr. Robertson demonstrated through a *rather stunning* recital of second-grade creative writing pieces, our perceptions of what it means to be male and female, and the general degradation of our perceived value of women, can be traced to at least second-grade, if not earlier. He also showed the difference in masculine and feminine writing styles, and how masculine language can disproportionately benefit men within the male-dominated field of business.

Language is the all-encompassing water we in which we swim - invisible to us within it. Bei Wu's research uses quantitative methods to remove us from that water so that we may draw insights into how our language reflects sexism within our culture. Wu found that within congress, the way men and women speak is stratified by gender, and that women generally "[conform] to the normative masculine language" by "[combining] female characteristics and professional expectations." Within congress, Women swear almost half as much as males and tend to focus more on the collective (a traditionally feminine topic) than the individual (a traditionally masculine topic). All in all, as Mr. Robertson puts it, Wu's study shows that, even in Congress, boys "are allowed to assert their will more than girls."

Obviously, the discussion on gender and language, and its corresponding reading, have inspired me to consider my own use of language in its relation to traditionally masculine and feminine gender roles. I also considered my own experience with Mr. Robertson's thesis that "from a young age, boys are taught that they are allowed to assert their will more than girls." How many times have I interrupted some girl speaking in class, or disregarded the point of view of a female student without even realizing I had done it? The thought processes and biases that fuel these actions are mostly unconscious, but, as Mr. Robertson pointed out, that does not make their negative impact any less real.

I consider myself a pretty feminine guy, and I believe most of my friends (and anyone who saw me on the street) would agree with that notion. My personality and style was deeply influenced by my older sister, who I considered somewhat of a role model, and, since middle school, my friend group has mostly consisted of women. However, Mr. Robertson's lecture made me recognize that I am actually rather masculine, in my love of individualism, in my desire to win and conquer, and in the way I speak and write.  This new realization of my own masculinity is strange to me, but I hope it allows me to better appreciate the insidious nature of gender roles within our language, and, ultimately, to better communicate with women in my life.