Is It My Gender?

In class this past week we discussed language and how it both is utilized by and against women. The thesis of the presentation was this: “Training through conditioning from the age of three denies girls the means to speak strongly. They learn that they must contain their wills and personal identities.” While I struggle with some aspects of Mr. Robertson (my dad)’s presentation, I do generally agree with this thesis. While girls may not be “denied” the ability to speak strongly, it is certainly discouraged. And although many women feel empowered to speak their minds and assume leadership positions, this does not negate the power dynamics caused by biases in our language. 

I often find it difficult to attribute sexism to any particular treatment I receive. My teachers have told me that I speak too much and intimidate my classmates, and that’s probably true. At the same time, I don’t know if a male classmate would receive the same feedback. I can’t assume that my treatment is the result of gender-biases, but I also can’t discount it. Something I have been told by my friends and teachers is that my personality can be rather abrasive (I don’t disagree with this assessment). The term “abrasive” feels somewhat gendered in this context. Maybe it’s just a euphemistic way of telling me I’m an obnoxious jerk, but I think it goes beyond that. The term abrasive calls to mind the word “grating.” It suggests that I am supposed to be soft and instead am rough and irritating. But, again, I’m making an assumption. It is possible, and even likely, that my male classmates receive similar feedback. Similarly, however, I don’t think you can assume that because some women feel empowered to speak their minds that that negates the argument made in the class. A hot day cannot prove that climate change is real, but a blizzard can’t prove it’s a hoax. Some language is obviously gendered, like shrill, while some is more subtly distinguishable, and some may not have necessarily sexist connotations but is sexist in application. The difficulty is sorting through all of this language to correct our own internalized biases.

Another thing I found interesting was that in both this class and the Disney princess class several girls referred to their younger selves as “tomboys.” This is as opposed to “girly girls.” Tomboys like sports and getting dirty and hate wearing dresses, while girly girls love dresses and the color pink and playing house. What I find interesting here is the judgment within these terms: essentially that “girly girls” act like girls and “tomboys” act like boys. This carries with it that a tomboy is less of a girl. And, to some degree, both of these terms can be negative. A “girly girl” is ditzy and shallow, while a “tomboy” is overly masculine and rambunctious. Thus, by creating these two categories, we divide young girls into two groups: those who conform to normative gender expression, and those who do not.

Ultimately, I believe that sexist/biased language re-enforces patriarchal power structures, which in turn perpetuate gendered language. We must be conscious in how we use and receive language related to gender, and work to eliminate biases from our language. We can be perpetuating sexist language unknowingly, and only through concerted effort can we strive for equality in language.