In my last post, I commented on the non-parallel uses of the words "widow" and "widower" and the ways in which these two supposed paired words are used unequally. Something that is typical of non-parallel gender terms is that the female word of the pair can often have negative connotations while the male word remains positive. Examples of this unequal usage are referred to as semantic derogation.
As well as "widow" and "widower", other examples are "master" and "mistress" and "bachelor" and "spinster". While both "master" and "mistress" were used in the Victorian era in examples such as "Master of the House" or "Mistress of the House" and can be used today as in "Master of Ceremonies" or "Mistress of Ceremonies" at stage performances or events, "mistress" unfortunately gained sexual connotations referring to the lover of a married man. By searching on Google, I found that there were 18 results showing dislike of the term used in this sense - not surprising given the connotations of this particular usage.
"Bachelor" is a word that has very positive connotations, while "spinster" has become very negative and is to many people an old-fashioned word. When searching to see the attitudes of people towards the words "spinster" and "bachelor", a search on Google reveals 38 results of people disliking the term "spinster" but just three results showing a dislike of "bachelor". I personally dislike the connotations of "bachelor" myself and would prefer to simply say I am single.
Returning to the words "widow" and "widower", it is again not surprising that a search on Google reveals a dislike of the term "widow" due to its negative connotations, with 33 results appearing. But only 10 results appeared that referred to dislike of the term "widower". Once again, this shows that the male term in positive and the female term is negative.
It is good to see that some people give their views on these words - after all, language is important as it constructs the world we live in. I hope that more people can take notice of language and equality issues. I always find it annoying that people who point out inequality in language uses are sometimes accused of "political correctness" or "PC gone mad". Striving for equality in language use is not "political correctness".
Sunday 21 September 2014
Saturday 5 July 2014
Language Use: Widow and Widower
Dictionaries say that the word "widow" means a woman whose husband has died and that the word "widower" means a man whose wife has died. Some dictionaries elaborate further by saying that a widow is a woman whose husband has died and has not remarried and that a widower is a man whose wife has died and has not remarried. At first glance, these words appear equal. However, the usage of the two nouns is anything but equal.
Newspaper, magazine and Internet articles regularly refer to the surviving spouse of a man who had died as "his widow" yet the surviving spouse of a woman who has died a is much less commonly referred to as "her widower". Even after the death of a man's wife, her surviving spouse is still often referred to as "her husband" despite the fact that he is a widower. An online search reveals a much higher number of results with the words "his widow" that those containing the words "her widower". Also, there were many more results containing "widow of" than "widower of". What are the reasons behind this unequal use of what should be two parallel words?
Robin Lakoff, in her book "Language and Woman's Place" which formed the start of Gender and Language Studies, comments on how this discrepancy has always historically occurred because for centuries women were defined by their husbands and not as people in their own right. In a similar way, the now old-fashioned "man and wife" used at wedding ceremonies instead of "husband and wife" reflected the same unequal status. If a woman was referred to as "John's widow", defining her by her late husband was typical of women's status in patriarchal society, with language reflecting inequality.
No guides to the English Language state that a man's surviving spouse has to be referred to as "his widow" or that a woman's surviving spouse still has to be referred to as "her husband". This unequal use clearly reflects inequality in society, being a throwback from the days when women were defined by men. Lakoff actually mentions in her 1975 book that it wouldn't even be acceptable to say that "John is Mary's widower (Lakoff, 1975, p.63), despite it being grammatically correct. However, more equal uses of language have began to appear in more recent decades, as the equality between men and women increases. There are indeed many examples online of references to a man as "X's widower" or "the widower of X", but there are still a great deal more examples of a woman being referred to as "X's widow".
Changes in society since the 1970s have led to changes in language. But there is still inequality reflected in language use. I hope that eventually more equality will come to the way English is used, and that women and men will be represented more equally in language.
REFERENCE: LAKOFF, ROBIN TOLMACH (2004)(originally published in 1975), Language and Woman's Place: Revised and Expanded Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Newspaper, magazine and Internet articles regularly refer to the surviving spouse of a man who had died as "his widow" yet the surviving spouse of a woman who has died a is much less commonly referred to as "her widower". Even after the death of a man's wife, her surviving spouse is still often referred to as "her husband" despite the fact that he is a widower. An online search reveals a much higher number of results with the words "his widow" that those containing the words "her widower". Also, there were many more results containing "widow of" than "widower of". What are the reasons behind this unequal use of what should be two parallel words?
Robin Lakoff, in her book "Language and Woman's Place" which formed the start of Gender and Language Studies, comments on how this discrepancy has always historically occurred because for centuries women were defined by their husbands and not as people in their own right. In a similar way, the now old-fashioned "man and wife" used at wedding ceremonies instead of "husband and wife" reflected the same unequal status. If a woman was referred to as "John's widow", defining her by her late husband was typical of women's status in patriarchal society, with language reflecting inequality.
No guides to the English Language state that a man's surviving spouse has to be referred to as "his widow" or that a woman's surviving spouse still has to be referred to as "her husband". This unequal use clearly reflects inequality in society, being a throwback from the days when women were defined by men. Lakoff actually mentions in her 1975 book that it wouldn't even be acceptable to say that "John is Mary's widower (Lakoff, 1975, p.63), despite it being grammatically correct. However, more equal uses of language have began to appear in more recent decades, as the equality between men and women increases. There are indeed many examples online of references to a man as "X's widower" or "the widower of X", but there are still a great deal more examples of a woman being referred to as "X's widow".
Changes in society since the 1970s have led to changes in language. But there is still inequality reflected in language use. I hope that eventually more equality will come to the way English is used, and that women and men will be represented more equally in language.
REFERENCE: LAKOFF, ROBIN TOLMACH (2004)(originally published in 1975), Language and Woman's Place: Revised and Expanded Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Friday 14 August 2009
Who remembers Tricky Business - a long forgotten BBC kids' comedy
In the past few years, many British kids' TV series from the 1970s and 1980s have gained "cult" status, such as Bagpuss, Jamie and The Magic Torch, Button Moon and The Flumps. Another programme that has gained the same "Retro" and "Cult" status is the long-running BBC kids' comedy Rentaghost, which ran for nearly 9 years - quite an achievement, even though the later episodes were childish kids' pantomimes full of immature slapstick!
However, anything from the mid-80s onwards, despite how good the programmes of the later 80s and early 90s might have been, is never remembered in the same way or with the same kind of nostalgia. This is a real pity, as some excellent kids' series were produced by both the BBC and ITV during this time.
One series that was one of my favourites was Tricky Business, which was shown on BBC 1 with the first series in 1989. The series featured a magic shop ran by a Mr and Mrs Breeze and also featured a pupet Rabbit called Crabtree who was able to make himself disappear. A number of child actors appeared in the series, one was a then unknown Patsy (EastEnders' Bianca Jackson) Palmer, another character was a bad magician called Wally Cadwalader who could never perfect his tricks. I consider Tricky Business to be a much superior series than Rentaghost, the humour was much more grown-up than the pantomime-style of later Rentaghost episodes.
I was excited when Tricky Business returned in the Spring of 1990. But to my surprise Mr and Mrs Breeze and Wally had left and a new group of kids were now at the shop, which was now run by Woody and Tricky Mickie. But Crabtree Rabbit was still there and despite the cast changes, the series was still very funny, one episode featured a scene where one of the kids had accidentally left a Whoopee Cushion on a chair on which Mr Sadd, the miserable undertaker from next door happened to sit on!
After Series 2 had finished, I guessed Tricky Business would be back the following year and I was right. I can clearly remember the afternoon in the Spring of 1991 when I had not long come home from Primary School, looking forward to seeing more fun from the magic shop with Crabtree Rabbit, Woody and Trcky Mickie. As Children's BBC presenter Andi Peters announced the start of a new series of Tricky Business, I stared at the screen in anticipation. But...what the hell...an unfamiliar theme song began with scenes of Ostrich-riding comedian Bernie Clifton trying to perform magic!!!??? What had they done to one of my favourite shows? It was like another programme with the Tricky Business name. I was so disappointed and another series wasn't made. It really WAS a totally different programme, why change the format to such a great extent that it no longer resembles the original???
I wonder how many people can remember Tricky Business and other classic shows of this era, such as Round The Bend (with Doc Croc and his sewer rats), Uncle Jack and Operation Green (and its sequels) and Dizzy Heights? British Kids TV from this era should be remembered with as much nostalgia as the series from the period of the "cult" shows.
The website for Hands Up Puppets, www.handsuppuppets.com, features images from Series 2 of Tricky Business and some really good photos of Crabtree the Magic Rabbit as well as information from Crabtree's pupetteer and voice, Marcus Clarke.
However, anything from the mid-80s onwards, despite how good the programmes of the later 80s and early 90s might have been, is never remembered in the same way or with the same kind of nostalgia. This is a real pity, as some excellent kids' series were produced by both the BBC and ITV during this time.
One series that was one of my favourites was Tricky Business, which was shown on BBC 1 with the first series in 1989. The series featured a magic shop ran by a Mr and Mrs Breeze and also featured a pupet Rabbit called Crabtree who was able to make himself disappear. A number of child actors appeared in the series, one was a then unknown Patsy (EastEnders' Bianca Jackson) Palmer, another character was a bad magician called Wally Cadwalader who could never perfect his tricks. I consider Tricky Business to be a much superior series than Rentaghost, the humour was much more grown-up than the pantomime-style of later Rentaghost episodes.
I was excited when Tricky Business returned in the Spring of 1990. But to my surprise Mr and Mrs Breeze and Wally had left and a new group of kids were now at the shop, which was now run by Woody and Tricky Mickie. But Crabtree Rabbit was still there and despite the cast changes, the series was still very funny, one episode featured a scene where one of the kids had accidentally left a Whoopee Cushion on a chair on which Mr Sadd, the miserable undertaker from next door happened to sit on!
After Series 2 had finished, I guessed Tricky Business would be back the following year and I was right. I can clearly remember the afternoon in the Spring of 1991 when I had not long come home from Primary School, looking forward to seeing more fun from the magic shop with Crabtree Rabbit, Woody and Trcky Mickie. As Children's BBC presenter Andi Peters announced the start of a new series of Tricky Business, I stared at the screen in anticipation. But...what the hell...an unfamiliar theme song began with scenes of Ostrich-riding comedian Bernie Clifton trying to perform magic!!!??? What had they done to one of my favourite shows? It was like another programme with the Tricky Business name. I was so disappointed and another series wasn't made. It really WAS a totally different programme, why change the format to such a great extent that it no longer resembles the original???
I wonder how many people can remember Tricky Business and other classic shows of this era, such as Round The Bend (with Doc Croc and his sewer rats), Uncle Jack and Operation Green (and its sequels) and Dizzy Heights? British Kids TV from this era should be remembered with as much nostalgia as the series from the period of the "cult" shows.
The website for Hands Up Puppets, www.handsuppuppets.com, features images from Series 2 of Tricky Business and some really good photos of Crabtree the Magic Rabbit as well as information from Crabtree's pupetteer and voice, Marcus Clarke.
Monday 25 May 2009
"Man of the House" and "Man of the Family" - what outdated sexist nonsense
I enjoy watching Family Guy - sometimes the series is hilarious, especially when they spoof well-known TV shows - but I can't help but notice Peter Griffin's sexism and his old fashioned sexist attitudes. In the episode featuring the grim reaper where Peter is afraid of dying, he says to his son Chris "you'll be the man of the family" - in other words, he will be "head" of the house. But where would this leave his daughter Meg - older than Chris - not to mention his wife Lois? Why is being a son more important in this respect - and why is being the "man of family" such an important thing?
Many years ago, if a father died, his son was often perceived to be the "man of the house" or "head of the family" and this patriarchal concept is one of my all-time pet hates. If the son became "head of the family", then what would his mother be? Surely and logically, she would be the "head of the family"- it is her house after all. But this patriarchal idea typically suggests that men in a family are more important than women, and that the "head of the family" has to be a man.
In an early episode of The Simpsons, the same kind of view is taken by Homer after he believes he has eaten a poisonous Japanese fish and that he has hours to live - he teachers Bart to "be a man" and even shows him how to shave, as if Bart, being a boy, should be the "man of the house". A later episode I remember watching, where Homer is away from home, has him telephone home to ask a question, and he asks for Bart, saying that he is "man of the house". Homer believed Bart should give the answer to his question and make the final decision. But what about Marge Simpson? Surely Homer's wife is the person who would decide in his absence, not his ten year old son?
These patriarchal attitudes are very outdated and sexist and they really suggest that in a family, men are the "heads" and not women, rather than believing that both the husband and wife are the "heads of the house" and that they are equal in this sense. The old fashioned "Dad's the boss" and "head of the family" ideas are so outdated in today's society and it is something I really dislike. Surely, this demeans the role of wife and mother, making her unequal, as well subordinate to her husband. Surely, she would be "head" if her husband died?
Recently, in the soap opera Emmerdale, following the death of Jack Sugden who was one of its original characters, his mother Annie - a strong matriarchal character - told her adoptive grandson that he is now "head of the family". This is surprising coming from a character who was "head" of the family for many years at Emmerdale Farm. Isn't Jack's wife Diane "head of the family", then?
It makes me wonder just how much we have moved on in society. It seems society's views still haven't changed for many people, even in television fiction. Do these old-fashioned attitudes really reflect society nowadays?
Many years ago, if a father died, his son was often perceived to be the "man of the house" or "head of the family" and this patriarchal concept is one of my all-time pet hates. If the son became "head of the family", then what would his mother be? Surely and logically, she would be the "head of the family"- it is her house after all. But this patriarchal idea typically suggests that men in a family are more important than women, and that the "head of the family" has to be a man.
In an early episode of The Simpsons, the same kind of view is taken by Homer after he believes he has eaten a poisonous Japanese fish and that he has hours to live - he teachers Bart to "be a man" and even shows him how to shave, as if Bart, being a boy, should be the "man of the house". A later episode I remember watching, where Homer is away from home, has him telephone home to ask a question, and he asks for Bart, saying that he is "man of the house". Homer believed Bart should give the answer to his question and make the final decision. But what about Marge Simpson? Surely Homer's wife is the person who would decide in his absence, not his ten year old son?
These patriarchal attitudes are very outdated and sexist and they really suggest that in a family, men are the "heads" and not women, rather than believing that both the husband and wife are the "heads of the house" and that they are equal in this sense. The old fashioned "Dad's the boss" and "head of the family" ideas are so outdated in today's society and it is something I really dislike. Surely, this demeans the role of wife and mother, making her unequal, as well subordinate to her husband. Surely, she would be "head" if her husband died?
Recently, in the soap opera Emmerdale, following the death of Jack Sugden who was one of its original characters, his mother Annie - a strong matriarchal character - told her adoptive grandson that he is now "head of the family". This is surprising coming from a character who was "head" of the family for many years at Emmerdale Farm. Isn't Jack's wife Diane "head of the family", then?
It makes me wonder just how much we have moved on in society. It seems society's views still haven't changed for many people, even in television fiction. Do these old-fashioned attitudes really reflect society nowadays?
Wednesday 13 May 2009
Gender and Sexism in English
I really dislike sexism in language. Sadly, when the debate of sexism in English is raised with some people, the phrase "political correctness gone mad" is often heard. References to "political correctness" and criticism of non-sexist language can often be seen in the conservative British press. But I think sexism in language is an important issue as many biased words are used, and continue to be used, while parallel male and female words such as master/mistress, boy/girl and even man/woman are used so often in a non-parallel manner. These unequal uses highlight sexism in society and can often place men and women in different positions within society.
Linguist Robin Lakoff noted non-parallel usage of equivalent gendered words in the 1970s in her groundbreaking book Language and Woman's Place, yet even in 2009 many of the non-symmetrical uses of gendered words are still common in both written and spoken English.
A man or boy can be told to "be a man", yet is a woman or girl ever told to "be a woman"? Even nowadays, woman is not equal in usage to man, and it appears that many people find the word impolite in certain contexts, at least since the earlier twentieth century.
A good example of non-parallel use of parallel words are gentleman and lady. Although both can be used in a polite and/or formal setting ie. "this lady has an appointment at 2.00"/"this gentleman has an appointment at 2.00", this is one of only a few parallel examples. Because of people being uncomfortable with the word woman, lady is used much more frequently than its male equivalent and is used to refer to a woman when a man would be referred to as a man. Someone might say, for instance, "she's a nice lady", but when referring to a man they would say "he's a nice man", or possibly "guy", "fellow" or in British English, "chap". It is also obvious here that more words exist to describe men than words to describe women.
How many times do people say that someone is a "real gentleman"? Compare this with the amount of times people would say someone is a "real lady". Lady has to some extent, lost its higher-class and noble associations that gentleman still retains. Generally, it seems that in many contexts a man has to behave in a specific way to be called a gentleman but a woman doesn't have to behave in a specific way to be called a lady. In the United States lady can be used as a sarcastic form of address as in "hey, lady" but a speaker would never say "hey gentleman" if addressing a man in the same context.
I can't see why so may people are still afraid to use the word woman? Does it still have negative connotations that Lakoff noted in the 1970s? I've noticed toilet signs that read "mens" and "ladies" and have also seen a number of gyms whose signs read ladies only. I think these examples show that some people are still uncomfortable with the word woman. But it seems to me that people treat woman like it is a "bad word".
I've heard both female and male bouncers at night clubs call women "ladies", but men are not "gentlemen" or "gents", but most likely "guys", or in the UK at least "lads", a term that I will discuss later.
I also often hear younger women being referred to as "girls" but younger men are hardly ever referred to as "boys". These are some exceptions, such as calling a group of men "boys". I can remember a BBC programme in the late 90s called "Jobs for the Boys" featuring comedians Hale and Pace - there was also "Jobs for the Girls" featuring Birds of a Feather stars Pauline Quirke and Linda Robson. This is an equal use of boys/girls and it is OK - it is the non-parallel uses I have mentioned that really get on my nerves. But in many cases men are still not called "boys", in the UK the informal term lads seems more frequently used and boys themselves are often called "lads" by many people.
When I briefly worked in a City Learning Centre, groups of girls were addressed as girls but groups of boys were always called lads. Personally, I prefer the word boys and I can't see why people often choose lads rather than boys - perhaps it is social class in Britain has played a part in the choice between lads and boys? The famous Salford Lads Club near Manchester has a sign on the one side reading"Salford Lads and Girls Club", which has been its official name for many years. The real equivalent to lad, however, is lass, which is often only used in Scottish or Northern/North-Eastern English dialects. Also, the "lad culture" of the 1990s increased to the word lads being used more, and "lads mags" continue to be popular publications. But obviously these magazines are something I would not touch with a bargepole.
Other unequal uses of parallel words can be seen in the word bachelor, which has positive connotations but its female equivalent spinster is very negative and outdated. Bachelor is also sometimes used incorrectly to refer to a divorced or widowed man, when divorce and widower are the right words. I seems that it is too negative in society for a man to be divorced or widowed - but language use shows this is not the same for divorced or widowed women.
In particular, widower is not used as frequently as its female counterpart - many newspapers continue to refer to the surviving spouse of a woman as a "husband", yet a man's surviving spouse is often referred to as "his widow" in the press and magazines, something that goes back to the era when women were defined by their relationship to men, another example being the archaic-sounding "Mrs Jack Jones" etc. Also, mistress became the term for a married man's lover while master has fully retained its original meaning. I am unsure, though, if mistress is gradually being replaced by the more equal-sounding lover.
Linguist Robin Lakoff noted non-parallel usage of equivalent gendered words in the 1970s in her groundbreaking book Language and Woman's Place, yet even in 2009 many of the non-symmetrical uses of gendered words are still common in both written and spoken English.
A man or boy can be told to "be a man", yet is a woman or girl ever told to "be a woman"? Even nowadays, woman is not equal in usage to man, and it appears that many people find the word impolite in certain contexts, at least since the earlier twentieth century.
A good example of non-parallel use of parallel words are gentleman and lady. Although both can be used in a polite and/or formal setting ie. "this lady has an appointment at 2.00"/"this gentleman has an appointment at 2.00", this is one of only a few parallel examples. Because of people being uncomfortable with the word woman, lady is used much more frequently than its male equivalent and is used to refer to a woman when a man would be referred to as a man. Someone might say, for instance, "she's a nice lady", but when referring to a man they would say "he's a nice man", or possibly "guy", "fellow" or in British English, "chap". It is also obvious here that more words exist to describe men than words to describe women.
How many times do people say that someone is a "real gentleman"? Compare this with the amount of times people would say someone is a "real lady". Lady has to some extent, lost its higher-class and noble associations that gentleman still retains. Generally, it seems that in many contexts a man has to behave in a specific way to be called a gentleman but a woman doesn't have to behave in a specific way to be called a lady. In the United States lady can be used as a sarcastic form of address as in "hey, lady" but a speaker would never say "hey gentleman" if addressing a man in the same context.
I can't see why so may people are still afraid to use the word woman? Does it still have negative connotations that Lakoff noted in the 1970s? I've noticed toilet signs that read "mens" and "ladies" and have also seen a number of gyms whose signs read ladies only. I think these examples show that some people are still uncomfortable with the word woman. But it seems to me that people treat woman like it is a "bad word".
I've heard both female and male bouncers at night clubs call women "ladies", but men are not "gentlemen" or "gents", but most likely "guys", or in the UK at least "lads", a term that I will discuss later.
I also often hear younger women being referred to as "girls" but younger men are hardly ever referred to as "boys". These are some exceptions, such as calling a group of men "boys". I can remember a BBC programme in the late 90s called "Jobs for the Boys" featuring comedians Hale and Pace - there was also "Jobs for the Girls" featuring Birds of a Feather stars Pauline Quirke and Linda Robson. This is an equal use of boys/girls and it is OK - it is the non-parallel uses I have mentioned that really get on my nerves. But in many cases men are still not called "boys", in the UK the informal term lads seems more frequently used and boys themselves are often called "lads" by many people.
When I briefly worked in a City Learning Centre, groups of girls were addressed as girls but groups of boys were always called lads. Personally, I prefer the word boys and I can't see why people often choose lads rather than boys - perhaps it is social class in Britain has played a part in the choice between lads and boys? The famous Salford Lads Club near Manchester has a sign on the one side reading"Salford Lads and Girls Club", which has been its official name for many years. The real equivalent to lad, however, is lass, which is often only used in Scottish or Northern/North-Eastern English dialects. Also, the "lad culture" of the 1990s increased to the word lads being used more, and "lads mags" continue to be popular publications. But obviously these magazines are something I would not touch with a bargepole.
Other unequal uses of parallel words can be seen in the word bachelor, which has positive connotations but its female equivalent spinster is very negative and outdated. Bachelor is also sometimes used incorrectly to refer to a divorced or widowed man, when divorce and widower are the right words. I seems that it is too negative in society for a man to be divorced or widowed - but language use shows this is not the same for divorced or widowed women.
In particular, widower is not used as frequently as its female counterpart - many newspapers continue to refer to the surviving spouse of a woman as a "husband", yet a man's surviving spouse is often referred to as "his widow" in the press and magazines, something that goes back to the era when women were defined by their relationship to men, another example being the archaic-sounding "Mrs Jack Jones" etc. Also, mistress became the term for a married man's lover while master has fully retained its original meaning. I am unsure, though, if mistress is gradually being replaced by the more equal-sounding lover.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
