Happy International Women’s Day! I did think a little about whether it was appropriate to wish one a happy International Women’s Day, seeing as there’s still a lot of work being done around the world to secure women’s rights in a variety of areas. But I think today should be a day for celebration, as well as reflection and protest, so happy International Women’s Day! In honour of the day, I’ve decided to take a look at the word woman, and a little bit at how we gender language. And I hope you won’t accuse of mansplaining: I’m just doing what I usually do, just with a feminine focus today (and I’m observing A Day Without a Woman, so who else could I get to do it!).
You may have noticed that the words human, man, and woman are all quite similar. This is the point where I usually say something like “Actually, the similarity is entirely coincidental, and all three have separate etymologies. Our story begins in the 4th century, in what is now Bavaria…” But in this case, the similarity is far from accidental, and you may have guessed that it’s also no accident that man is the common factor in all three. Woman is a simplification of wifman, from the old English wif, meaning woman, and man, which could, as now, refer to either a single masculine person, or all of humanity in general. Wif is obviously the origin of Modern English’s wife, but originally meant simply woman. It’s interesting that the word wif wasn’t deemed sufficient to represent women (more on this strange plural form here), and it was appended to the decidedly masculine man. To me, it seems like an effort to deny female independence and agency. Why give them their own word, and therefore a strong sense of their own identity? Do that and they might be looking to inherit property or somesuch! Better attach them to the word man, make them seem like an appendage to men, something that exists only in their relation to men, as an aspect of male existence. Sadly, it’s not the only way in which English over the years has been used to maintain gender equality. (Human, by the way, originally meant of or related to man, existing as an adjective before a noun).
Unlike other languages such as French or Italian, English is not a gendered language. That doesn’t mean that it still can’t have some gendered nouns though. Actress, manageress, policewoman, stewardess: though most female-variant words for titles have fallen out of fashion now (except, largely, for actress), until quite recently they were commonplace. And it might not seem to be an issue at first glance, but if you were to look up any of these words in a dictionary while they were widely in use, I’m sure you’d find the male version. Having different male and female forms of words isn’t necessarily sexist, but when the male form is clearly marked as the “standard form” from which the female version deviates, that’s at least suggestive of institutional sexism. Plus, why not have male and female versions of every title? Only using them for some positions suggests that these were “male” positions, and a woman occupying them was an aberration: (A woman manager!? I suppose it’s possible, but how would that even work!?) Or in the case of stewardess, the opposite. Poor Mr. Bouvier…
Another example of linguistic sexism is the term hysteria. While it’s now seen as a little old-fashioned, it was originally considered a genuine disorder when the term was coined at the beginning of the 19th century. It was originally considered a neurotic disorder specific to women caused by an imbalance or disruption in the uterus (consider the root shared with hysterectomy). Again, sadly telling that the stereotype of women as highly emotional, irrational beings was so ingrained that it was believed that women were influenced by their uteruses, and not their brains, like men.
In the sake of fairness, I should also point out that other languages have some apparently sexist features. Many will use a male plural word to refer to a group of men and women (e.g. ils in French, and ragazzi [boys] in Italian), though we’ve started to do that informally with guys in English. Anyway, I don’t mean to pick on English: it’s just what I know.
There are other examples of sexism inherent in some common words (see here for example), and of course there are plenty of words that are still commonly used with very deliberate sexism in mind. I could write again about how we can tend to infantilise women through the words we use. But I don’t feel like going on. Language has played its part in maintaining gender stereotypes, and though things are far from perfect, we have come a long way, and it’s hopefully comforting to think that the next generation will grow up with far fewer gender stereotypes.
11 thoughts on “International Women’s Day”
I am personally rather surprised to see the word executrix is only used rarely but dominatrix is still very much around. Just me but I always HATED executrix however I hate spokesperson too. ~~dru~~
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder if it’s telling about humanity that “dominatrix” is the only word with the -trix suffix that’s anything close to being in common use. I’m not such a fan of “spokesperson,” or “chairwoman” either, purely because the rhythm of “spokesman” and “chairman” are better. Which is probably why both are usually used without much controversy.
Here’s something i’m reminded of by the “hysteria” thing : “lunacy” and “lunatic” (originally meaning a sort of craziness brought on by the full moon/luna , yeah? I’m guessing you’d know the details, anyway. ) I’m *sure* i read or heard somewhere that this was at some stage ( or originally?) applied mostly to women due to our our menstrual cycles corresponding with the monthly cycles of the moon. It would make sense, but i can’t remember if this was something i read, or whether i heard it in conversation with some hippy in a chai tent or something.
Anyway. Words are interesting. And that episode of The Simpsons was hilarious. Cheers for this post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it’s true, I know I’ve heard about that link too. And it tallies with how language has historically painted women as irrational, emotional, and mysterious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] to refer to multiple siblings in these languages, you need to use the plural word for brothers (and not sisters). Dutch doesn’t feature a word for sibling either, though German does – Geschwister […]
[…] realise that having separate adjectives for homosexual men and women isn’t really necessary, and maintains gender divisions, when gay works fine as a unisex word. I think it’s also significant that lesbian is usually used […]
[…] nouns, featuring an adjective or noun that defines the character, followed by man or woman (or girl). Spider-man. Batman. Superman. Wonder Woman, etc. The practical, pragmatic explanation for this is […]
[…] misogynistic worldview, then what better insult could you consider other than calling a man a woman, or womanly, especially if they don’t embody what you see as stereotypically masculine qualities? […]
[…] think it’s a sign of the inherent sexism of much of our language that Miss and Mrs lived on while Master fell by the wayside. It shows how […]
[…] and say that it’s just a hangover from less enlightened times, and there’s no conscious sexism going on. People in general are reluctant to accept change in language, after all. But even […]
[…] woman/women, and child/children cause similar confusion. I always like to remind students that they’re […]