Are we unwittingly conditioning our children to conform to gender stereotypes with our words?

It’s coming up to Christmas time. John Lewis and Marks & Spencer will have started to place their Christmas catalogues hopefully by the till. Advertisements will start to appear on the television with an even harder sell than usual, driving parents to tearing their hair out as the eight year old has changed their mind for the sixth time that week. The children’s section is now slightly more aware of its self and will offer some gender neutral toys and gifts, normally with a green border around the pages. But there will still be a blue section and a pink section.  There may be parents who will tut at this out dated attitude and purposefully buy a wooden dolls house for both of their children to share. But come 27^th of December and it’s time to write thank you letters, who will be told to neaten up their writing. Chances are that Flossie needs to sharpen up, whilst there is nothing to be done about Robbie, after all, all boys have messy handwriting. Don’t they? Think, how much easier is it for the alliterative “good girl” to roll of the tongue? And when was the last time you heard the phrase “girls will be girls”.   This is not an attack on manners and children, but simply trying to raise an awareness that the lexical choices that you make when conversing with your child can have just as much of a lasting impression as the clothes you dress them in and the toys you buy for them.

Today we have a better sense of equality; young women are told that they can be both a mother and successful career woman. Young men are encouraged to teach women with respect and not as objects. But sayings, and phrases used in response to a child’s behaviour or characteristics can quickly turn a cliché to reality. Political correctness may have changed some nursery rhymes (such is Ba ba black sheep to Rainbow sheep because of neo-colonist connotations) films now have role reversal of the man and woman.  Some words in theory are harmless and it’s just the connotations that have become attached to them, for example comparing the free man about town sound of bachelor, who could be in his twenties or his sixties to the depressed sounding spinster prematurely old written off in her thirties (although the feisty sounding bachelorette has arisen it has been dismissed in the UK as another ‘nasty Americanism’) Already with terms such as those children start to form an impression about how relationships work. One of the best ways to try and combat this is to try and praise children equally and avoid phrases that attribute their behaviour to their gender. Once you have got in the habit of just using a simple ‘well done Bobby’ Bobby will associate the behaviour not with the noun that classifies his gender but with his own proper noun, otherwise known as his name. It is also much more personal, and when you come to think of it less on the verge of patronization. Would you care for your boss, colleague or partner to congratulate you with ‘good woman/man’? Not only that but does it not just sound plain strange when applied to an adult?

And now think deeper. Think of how names and their connotations have been used and can also affect children. Look at some of the words used to describe the characteristics or gender or names. Male names are associated with being a friendly lively approachable and lovable figure, think of Jack the Lad or Mick maybe a bit of a ne’re do well that’ll break your heart but all is forgiven with the winning smile. Then think of all the girls’ names that have connation’s associated with them. Mary Sue is one of the most recent, imported in from America, used to claim that a female character has become too ‘perfect’ overall, and is unlikely to exist. Or Plain Jane, as the most obviously used. There is a whole list that can be found on the internet to describe the origins of girl’s names or what they are associated with, Emily, one of the most popular pleasant and harmless sounding names means rival. The only names that seem to be spared are names that are feminised versions of men’s. My own, for example, Charlotte simply says ‘male version of Charles’, with Charles meaning, free man from a great German leader. JK Rowling admitted in various interviews that she chose the name Hermione for the main female character as “[I] wanted it to be unusual since if fewer girls shared her name, fewer girls would get teased for it”. The same character has been praised for being a brave and intelligent female in the midst of predominantly male characters, why does she feel the need to apologise for her character?

The best way to try and move forward is to slowly phase out phrases and terms used to link gender and behaviour/characteristics. There is a multitude of negative and positive lexical choices out there. Not all of them require gender tags. Language is what we make of it. It is one of the most powerful tools on earth, which most of us are born with the capability of using. Misused and it can damage a generation.

Mod week

When observing language and gender the most prominent approach to use is the three Ds, Dominance, Deficit and Difference. Although these are the most noticeable they so not account for everything. Several theorists have different ideas for example Debora Tannen suggests that men may not always interrupt to dominant but to support. Also that some differences are purely regional and that how the people interact differently has a large effect on the flow of conversation, gender is not always the cause of every conversational direction.

The deficit approach is the largest approach and can probably is the most identifiable in conversation. Robin Lakoff’s (1975) is the most prolific and applicable of these. For example it is likely that women will use a specific colour compared to men, this is supported by women being generally closer detail however contrasts with the idea that men try and put across what they mean in as fewer words as possible. Therefore there are potential flaws with some of her theory’s but are supported by the results of studies. Other areas of her studies are more evident for example women use more hedges and tag questions. This is because women aim to include people in conversation.  What Lakoff also states is that women’s language is a result of socialisation and biology has only a small role e.g. maternal instincts have nothing to do with that women use less expletives. I believe that this is still evident nearly forty years later for example girls are often encouraged to be polite when boys aren’t due to cultural expectations (i.e. men must not show emotions) and the attitude that ‘boys will be boys’ has left an impression that its enviable behaviour. However Tannen also suggests that because of television people are more aggressive with each other, I think that this can be applied to the UK (she was referring to the US), previously it was undone to share emotions in public or in the media until the rise of reality TV and social networking. People cry on the X factor to gain sympathy but this only works if the person has a ‘sob’ story or is a young female, men are slowly being able to express emotions but in limited amounts. A Father desperately appealing to find his missing daughter is allowed but a widower is expected to keep emotions to himself. Anything else is viewed as incorrect and conflicts with the traditional British emotionless state.

Within the deficit approach ‘umbrella’ Holmes (1992) suggests that tag questions are not uncertainty (opposing Lakoff) but that it’s to try to include and be polite. This would coincide with the theory that women do use more politeness strategies than men. This may not simply be a gender factor though; it’s fulfilling the expectations of other people. This can also be applied to other theories.  A woman  may be more be more likely to say “ I am sorry to bother you but could you tell me the way to the train station?” but it’s likely that a man will still use a similar format such as “ ’scuse me do you know where the station is?”. Both ask the same question with elements of politeness and are likely to achieve the same results; one is simply more formal and longer than the other. The use of slang in the man’s sentence is from the difference approach. Whereas a woman may use the politeness at the start (such as “Oh I am sorry but” or “Sorry to interrupt”) this is to build relationships (so that they seem less aggressive) but men use more general language to get directly to the point as they don’t feel the need to establish in the same way. Likewise as Pilkington (1992) suggests, men use nicknames or general address, such as ‘mate’ or ‘love’ so that they are not as personal, the same goes for banter in all male talk, and it prevents intimacy that men seem to dislike / fear.

The dominance approach compliments the above idea that women try to include and that they use more politeness strategies than men. Zimmerman and Wests studies displayed that 96% of interruptions were made by men in a mixed gender conversation. This is in the attempt to dominate similar to how women supposedly want to include. Other studies suggest that men only interrupt not so that they come out on top with a punch line or that they seem clever but as they have misinterpreted the situation and believe that they are supporting the woman, that they are showing they understand.

As important as it is to observe mixed conversation it’s also intriguing to reflect upon non mixed conversation, women tend to support each other, even if they dislike each other, with a sort of false politeness preferring to complain or ‘back stab’ afterwards. Men do almost the opposite, they will use ‘macho bulling’ or insults to each other’s faces, some times in a fond way, e.g. ‘you daft idiot! What did you get me a leaving present for!?!”  Although sometimes women do tend to use more collaborative language simply as back challenging or to show that they understand, like “yeah I know” or “uh uh I know how that feels”.

On the whole the three Ds have an important role to play when observing language, there may be theory’s or evidence outside of the norm that make it even harder to define what is gender/ language. Geographical elements can challenge, some dialects have different speeds or cultures have different expectations that can throw out of the window all known theories. As own culture develops and what it is to be a man/woman is ever evolving there may be a need for new studies producing new theory’s, old ones may be cast aside, the most recent accepted studies came from the early nighties’ . But when observing the English speaking world at this moment, it would seem that, for now at least that the three Ds are here to stay.

27th January 2012: Language and gender

 My notes from the lesson

In our class the majority are studying arts or humanities. Only one person studies science and two maths (one of which is the only boy). However we cannot generalise based on this alone.

Nature vs. Nurture is the big debate. Is it inevitable that we fulfil stereotypes due to our environment or is it in our genetic makeup? Is there such a thing as masculine or feminine speech? Society reflects the language that we use, for example political correctness means that we no longer use ‘marked’ terms like headmaster, instead we use head teacher. It’s no longer deemed acceptable to denote someone based on gender, society has changed.

Stereotypes have changed, there is no specific definition but how genders are reflected in the media has an effect on our ideals. It has become acceptable for women to have plastic surgery. Women try to stay looking young and are treated negatively for aging whilst a man is a ‘silver fox’. There is not the same amount of pressure for men, is this due to the lack of females in power? Stereotypes are still created and enforced.

Spoken language; men tend to use less descriptive and more direct language, and are more likely to talk in imperatives. Women have more of a range or reactions for different situations.  Men use language in a completive/ comparative nature to assert dominance whilst women are more collaborative.

“Duels and duets” The Times

‘Verbal disputation seems to be something that few men seek or expect to enjoy” John Locke Women use language to be inclusive, men to exclude. Women don’t like to debate as much as men.

“Men’s talk is claimed to be adverse, goal directed and focused on factual information...differing from women’s cooperative, interpersonal and emotional use of language”. Article suggests that language is biological as hormones have an effect on our empathy level, women have more maternal instincts, me have more sexual dominance role and have traditionally held more power, and does this cloud our view?

Simon Baron-Cohen states that women’s nature has evolved from a pre historic need “for survival rates of children and coordinating efficient food gathering”. Men are dominant so that they can be sexually successful.