Current Trends He/She/They/It?: Implied Sexism in Speech and Print

S. ALLEN WILCOXON

S

ensitivity to issues of sexism has been considerable in recent years. Attempts to reform customary, traditional distinctions based on gender have led to developments ranging from modifications in employment practices to changes in styles of apparel. As a necessary first step in reformations of any type, sensitivity to and recognition of existing inequities and improprieties precede initial changes. This process of enlightenment and sensitivity preceding change has resulted in modified attitudes and behaviors related to prejudicial racism, respect for aged and disabled citizens, and recognition of lesbian and gay rights.

Enlightened attitudes, or the lack thereof, are often quite subtle in nature. Perhaps no greater illustration of these subtleties can be noted than through the content of our written and spoken language. In the second edition of The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing, Miller and Swift discuss insensitivity and oversight regarding linguistic sexism, as well as suggestions for avoiding difficulties in this regard. This article features a discussion of their text and its implications for counselors.

SEXISM IN LANGUAGE:

SUBTLE AND BLATANT

Miller and Swift introduce their work by noting that, while some may wish to develop more nonsexist ways of verbal and written expression, resistance to change often comes from those who would view change as an affront to the purity of language. They begin with an examination of man as the equivalent of human being in a chapter titled "Man as a False Generic." To illustrate their notion, they offer the following excerpt:

114

As for man, he is no different from the rest. His back aches, he ruptures easily, his women have difficulties in childbirth..." (p. 15). The authors note that, to remain truly consistent and parallel with the use of man as the equivalent for human being, the excerpt should read "... he has difficulty in childbirth..." to appease the linguistic purists. Similar confusion can be noted in a report titled "Development of the Uterus in Rats, Guinea Pigs, and Men," as though uteral development was possible in men.

The authors provide alternative suggestions for the various uses of man in common language. For example, they note that cliches such as "common man," "average man," or "working man" may be altered using terms such as citizen, worker, or even phrases with no gender reference (e.g., "typical wage earner," "one with common characteristics"). Man has also been used as a verb in instances such as "man the pumps," "the emergency room must be manned at all times," and even "the Girl Scouts will man the exhibit." Changes in such terms

can be relatively simple yet quite meaningful in avoiding sexist language (e.g., "work the pumps," "staff the emergency room," and "run the exhibit"). Regarding the use of man in discussions of historical significance, the authors suggest substituting ancient people, forebears, and ancestors for expressions such as mankind, ancient man, and forefathers.

Other uses of man in compound terms are identified and discussed. As a prefix, expressions such as mankind, manmade, and manpower pose only minimal difficulties for those wishing to avoid implied sexism in language. These terms may be replaced with humankind, manufactured/synthetic, and human power/muscle power.

Suffix substitutions to denote gender symmetry have typically relied on the use of -person to replace -man (e.g., layperson, spokesperson, chairperson). Again, the authors offer alternatives to express clarity and inclusion. For example, while chairwoman or chairperson might be symmetrical and parallel form in relationship to chairman, unless gender is of critical importance, terms such as presider, coordinator, or presiding officer are quite acceptable. Job titles with -man or -men as suffixes may also be altered to avoid sexist language (e.g., foreman becomes supervisor, salesman becomes sales agent). On the other hand, the authors also offer insightful comments regarding the "person binge of today" (p. 44) as an attempt to achieve equality in descriptions. They suggest that the use of person can imply a subtle derogation of the woman to whom the reference is being made (e.g., Golda Meir as an elder statesperson). Similar problems with attempts to "feminize" (p. 61) nouns by using suffixes such as -ette (e.g., chauffeurette) or -ess (e.g., editoress) imply subordinate or trivial meanings to such terms.

A subsequent problem concerns the use of pronouns (e.g., he, she, him, her) in instances when gender specificity is not essential. The authors note the tendency of many to refer to unspecified or hypothetical persons or things using male pronouns while assuming he or him implies a generalization for both genders. Miller and Swift offer a variety of suggestions for solving the pronoun problem. One response to the pronoun problem is the symmetrical yet awkward double-pronoun solution (e.g., "The average American, regardless of his or her career, must consider the realities of retirement," "If an employee desires an extended leave, he or she should discuss his or her needs with his or her supervisor"). This solution can be wordy and distracting. Other options are the use of plurals (e.g., "During his fourth year of study "becomes "During their fourth year of study..."), elimination of pronouns (e.g., "A disabled child may be able to feed and dress himself"

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1989 VOL. 68

becomes "A disabled child may be able to eat and get dressed without help"), or nongender terms such as it or one (e.g., "One can spend as much as one is willing," "A wise child knows its telephone number').

Miller and Swift offer some rather humorous yet pointed illustrations in their discussion of implied sexism related to generalizations. For example, they note the use of adult as a term equated with adult male (e.g., "Another difference between the Mariners and other corps is that it is strictly an adult group that takes neither women nor high-school students," "H. G. Wells has the ability to exert his magnetism on the small boy in all adults"). The writers also discuss "linguistic abuse of wives" (p. 74) by noting text in which a woman's marital status is used as the point of reference for commentary (e.g., "Our neighbors aboard the train were two Norwegians and their wives," "It's the great secret of doctors, known only to their wives, that things get better by themselves"). Similar instances of recognizing women's personhood on the basis of their marriage can be noted in terms such as corporate wives, faculty wives, and service wives. Miller and Swift also comment on the need to develop sensitivity to terms such as working wife and working mother, preferring terms such as employed woman/parent/spouse or jobholding wife/parent/spouse.

Miller and Swift also discuss terms to denote "the female of the species" (p. 77). In this regard they note the connotations of tenderness, weakness, vulnerability, and timidity implied in terms such as feminine and womanly in contrast to connotations of determination, strength, decisiveness, and bravery implied in terms such as masculine and manly. Within this genre, one need only consider the insinuation of statements such as "John Wayne displayed a manly fight against cancer" or "The assemblywoman gave a womanly response to her critics." By contrast, consider the lack of fit in the statement "Golda Meir will always be remembered for her womanful determination to carry on with her leadership responsibilities despite her illness." Similar derogatory suggestions of inferiority or substandard treatment can be noted in the use of lady or woman or girl (e.g., "A lady's tool kit," "a woman's electric razor," "Luggage for the Career Girl"). The authors conclude that woman is preferable in reference to mature females, noting the clinical and biological nature of female.

While their book may appear to be parallel with texts discussing good manners or cultural protocol, Miller and Swift offer some helpful thoughts for those wishing to avoid linguistic sexism. The text is not without its liabilities, which are primarily related to infrequent yet pointed editorial liberties taken in sarcastic generalizations about men. Aside from this minor distraction, however, the text offers common illustrations of sexist language and useful suggestions for alternative expression.

IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNSELORS

After reading The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing, I have gained a heightened awareness of insensitivity and oversight regarding sexist language. I have also noted some rather clumsy and awkward attempts to avoid linguistic sexism, such as a newspaper article with reference to a committee headed by a "co-chairwo/man" and a radio interview with a "mail woman" (sounding like a "male woman"). In terms of general implications for counselors, this book and a logical extension of its treatise are summarized in the authors' sensible rule of thumb: If gender distinction is critical for accuracy, illustration, or consistency in text or speech, distinctive language should be

Sexism in Speech and Print

used; if not, care should be taken to avoid generalizations, stereotyping, or implied meanings reflected in gender-specific

terms or attributes.

The most pervasive implication of this book is the need for counselors to be keenly aware of and sensitive to using genderdistinguishing language in written and verbal forms of expression. Failure to recognize the impact of intentional or inadvertent sexism could impede a number of areas of counseling services. For example, I recall reviewing the work of a practicum student completing a placement in a university counseling center. Despite his efforts to be sensitive to the young woman with whom he was working, their exploration of her career aspirations was hindered by the practicum student's frequent reference to civil engineers using pronouns such as he and him, although the woman was considering a major in civil engineering.

Announcements and brochures about counselor training programs can be a particularly visible element of recruitment. Unintentional sexism may be offensive to prospective students (e.g., "The student will find that he is facing a considerable task in preparing for departmental qualifying exams," "Prospective students and coeds will participate in orientation prior to enrollment in graduate courses").

Career and educational literature produced by university counseling centers could feature inadvertent sexist content that might sabatoge an otherwise excellent plan or program (e.g., "We particularly urge all interested junior and senior girls to attend the campus conference on contemporary women's issues; bring your boyfriends, too!"). Conversely, attempts to avoid sexist language could be quite unwieldly, with well-intentioned but distracting use of he/she or his/her throughout a brochure or announcement.

Guidance activities in school settings can feature subtle yet clear elements of implied sexism in something as harmless as an introduction (e.g., "Children, today's next guest speaker for Career Day is Mr. Jones, a male nurse at City Hospital"). By contrast, activities or discussions to distinguish genders might be appropriate and severely hampered in their potential benefit by a failure to recognize gender differences or to force a gender symmetry that might not exist (e.g., "We can all benefit from a frank discussion of menstrual complications, even the boys," "Now, remember, giving birth to a baby is experienced equally by both parents").

Unintentional gender stereotyping can also be conveyed in dialogue with clients. In this regard, consider the implications of the following example:

Female Client: I'm torn between needing to bring home a paycheck and needing to be home with my kids after school. Counselor: So becoming a working wife and mother is adding considerable strain to your life.

Female Client: What do you mean "becoming"? I haven't been watching television for the past 11 years. You sound just like my husband!

Similarly, one can perceive the subtle change in counseling based on stereotypical language and attitudes in the following example:

Male Client: And, at work, my boss is a real slave driver. There is no compassion in that woman.

Counselor: You mean your boss is a woman?

Male Client: Yes, but I don't think that's the point. Counselor: Uh,... Well, certainly you're right.

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1989 VOL. 68

115