Defining Womanhood
Defining womanhood
In The Beginning there was the Word and the Word was created by a Man
"When users of the words began to understand how important it was to name things, the one who was the cause of masculinity began to call his body for male and himself for Man. Those who were the cause of feminity called their bodies for feme and themselves for fem.
They understood that it was wise to give both kinds of people names as themselves, as separate named agents, and therefore the wisdom was called sapience. As a whole they called themselves for Homo sapience, living creatures, meant to be wise, and given the name of the reality as it is reflected in the language. Several decades later the man began to believe that he had a special force for innovation and became convinced that the feme had not the same force and that is why she was evil.
To make her more like him, he gave her body a new name Fe + male and he called her conciousness for wo + man. Thereafter, he created the word hu + man to describe the whole group and so he stopped using the name sapience. The word hu + man got wo + man to feel included in the word.
The man thought that the word hu + man assigned innovation of goodness for wo + man and made her goodness like him.
After several thousand years feme had forgotten that there was a time when she was called for fem. Wo + man never enjoyed of living in the man's Republic but she could not give a name to her sense of discomfort. One day she felt courage enough to tell the man and said: "I am not wo + man." The man said, 'OK, what are you? What is your name? "She did not know. She could not give herself a name. And the man said:" Wo + men who do not know who they are, are stupid wo + men. "So, feme continued to be a man who was called wo + man. "
There are a number of linguists who have studied the power between men and women and how language influence them. The language of course, plays a major role in the development of the concept of self and the sense of the self.
Already when a child is small, he/she is able to use a language as a tool in the construction of the concept of the self. Only an eloquent man is able to reflect on himself and his behaviour. The language is not important only for the early self but, in general, assisting in organizing experiences, as well as everything related to one's own person.
There are different views about the impact on the sexistic language. This applies for example, the use of the English pronouns Man and He to describe both sex . Further, we have the universal use of "Son of a Bitch." The word "son" has a neutral connotation, but the evil is after all referred to the mother. I am therefore Bitch while the man is my son. The use of the indefinite article "a" in the front of "Bitch" is suggesting that it may relate to the bitch generally, by implication it means that all women are bitches, because there is no need to refer to any specific bitch; a woman - a bitch.
Some scientists have shown that the use of masculine expression (he, man) or feminine expression (feminist, she) influence visual assignments of discrimination. These terms include the expectations of role behaviour that affects social behaviour. The social behaviour, in turn, affects the concept of the self and the construction of one's own role identity and this identity may become so strong that it can be seen as a prison. If you look closely at how the distinction between man and woman are constructed to be up to the stands for the universal, general, it represents the woman as deviating from the norm and therefore is defined as the second (other). The result is that women are forced either to live their lives in man-made world, or, if you want to do something, in no-woman's land.
Louise Goueffic, whom I quoted above, has calculated that in the "male language pyramide", with the word Man on top, there are 8000 Man-based words. This means that we, every time we open our mouth are talking the man's language. Goueffics study applies first of all the English and French words, but it is interesting that for example the word "parent" can be traced back to "pater-father" (father). She also takes up the role of religion in the world, the man as an image of God; most of us think God as male. She makes a distinction between "theology", the study of the male as a supernatural entity in the universe, and "sheology", the study of the femeness, a subnatural or a fe + male (female) items. Note the difference between being an entity and to be an item: the entity is acting, the item is not.
There are also large gender differences in the use of language. For example, Lakoff, a famous linguist argues that women are more likely to use lexically conservative opinions (you know, sort of, well, you see). In addition, women are using more after-coming questions (is not she / he?), Empty adjectives (divine, charming, cute), reinforcing words (just, so) and grammatically correct language. This is something we all know and to add such as "or what do you think?" after what you just have said, is giving a sense of uncertainty. There are also certain characteristics that represent the female and the male language. Women talk less, talk less time, feel inhibited and want to get it just done. Furthermore, women use dialog when they speak and often undermine themselves. Dialog in speech indicates also to discuss various options instead to present a clear message. In some cases, this may be good but not always. Women have a tendency to play down her bet by putting an adjective after the verb, which tones the message down and makes it non-active: "would you be kind and do this, an ..." rather than saying "if I / we do it, and ...". Women fail to highlight the positive about themselves, have a tendency to have too much empathy with others and have less complex language. The fact that women have less complex language may be due to these arguments, they want to get it just done. In conclusion, linguistic discreet, this is self destructive. What would this be good for? There is of course positive aspects, such as that it is easier to get a discussion when taking account of others' views. Then, why do not men do it? Because they want to decide without unnecessary discussions and to refuse to discuss it or ignore others' opinions is one of the strategies of using power.
Deborah Tannen takes in his book "Talking 9 to 5" up two different style of speaking: a direct expression and an indirect expression. It is defined as direct way to say straight out what you want, while the use of the indirect way means that there is a need to describe a situation and therefore it does not contain any requirement. The indirect way is associated with the speaker's powerlessness, a lack of confidence or some other personality traits. The indirect method is used more often by women and the subordinate when they talk to their superiors. According to the author, those who are in positions of power choose to use direct style when they give an order. Thats why following is true; there is no need to thank for your help because we do not really have asked for anything. It is therefore the most powerful privilege to award orders using a direct way.
Tannen asserts that the person who has the power on his/her side, do use it in discussions by making interruptions, by asking questions to get direct information, by talking more, by trying to change topic, and generally, by controling the interaction. The image illustrating the power is permeated by difference between the man and the woman. One of the reasons why images of women in positions of power are associated with all this, is that the very concept of power is associated with masculinity:; therefor a woman with power is masculine. This may be due to the appearance. The fact that a man is often physically bigger and has a dark voice has from the beginning been culturally recognizable marker of power while a slender physique and a squeaky voice may be deleted from a disadvantageous position. There are speculations about that Margaret Thatcher, under professional instruction, learned to use her voice properly. She learned to use a lower tone and a slower style to speak. The reason given was that her voice was perceived as shrill and associated (according to stereotypes) with femininity and with the excessive sensitivity.
The fact that we associate power with masculinity is thus more than just the look, maybe something to think about before opening your mouth.
Women in positions of power are also inclined to downplay their position of power and not to appear as authoritarian. They do not want to hurt others' feelings and would rather retain the sense of community and togetherness. This often leads to women been perceived as poor leaders. Sociologist Erwin Goffman used the term "attitude" to describe the way we have to show the world what properties we want other people to believe that we have. Those who have a power must speak in a way that is consistent with the right attitude for someone in their position. According to several studies, it seems like women are not capable to have an attitude that exudes power. There are several studies showing that men and women speak in different ways. For example it is known that you have different attitude to a doctor, depending on if it is a male or a female doctor suggesting that they have different views about what the role entails. This may of course not be only negative. Everyone prefers to meet a doctor who talks at the patient's level.
According to the author it still frequently happens that if you hear for example a a word "doctor" or "professor" and only the surname, you most often associate the person with a man. A female professor who arrives somewhere with her male assistant may find herself called Assistant Professor if the sex of the professor is not known in advance.
Tannen also argue that there is a burden that makes it more difficult to be a woman with power than it is for a man, even though the preconditions are the same.This is true if there is not anything special with a certain man who holds a managerial " (for example; he belongs to a minority group), a man with power is considered as a manager. When a woman has power in an area that is male dominated she is judged as a woman, in many people's eyes as THE woman:i.e.all women are drawn in what she does. According to Tannen women with power are standing in front of a special challenge because of our expectations of how a person with power should behave in contrary to our expectations of how a woman should act (and talk). This appears to be pessimistic because it indicates that everything is decided a long time ago: stereotypes are deeply ingrained in society.
All this suggests that we women (many of us anyway), use the indirect way to express ourselves when we talk. The question is whether it is the natural way for a woman to talk, because it is the most natural way to behave in certain cultures. And the female self-image seems to resemble more the eastern self-image, which takes a great account of others' views.
Can we then do something to change all this, or are women simply forced, because of the way they talk, to always find themselves to be assessed as less worthy? We can not do anything to change the very structures of the language and we can not consciously stop using the words derived from the word Man because they are so many.
But we can perhaps do something to change our way to use language. Because the role of language in communication between people is crucial, you can maybe try to get a little bit equality through this path? The risk arising is that a woman who begins to use direct, imperious speech, high and clear voice and to formulate herself well, is often perceived as dominant, not only by men but by other women. Then you you have to make a choice: either to be assessed as an "ordinary woman" or a "Bitch". But since the woman is already known as a "bitch" we maybe have to live up to the name?
Yes, here you have one business bitch!
Literature:
Goueffic, L. (1996). Breaking the Patriarchal Code: The Linguistic Basis of Sexual Bias. Manchester, United States: Knowledge, Ideas & Trends, Inc.
Holmes, J. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. NewYork: Longman Publishing.
Huisman, J. (1987). The Family of Women: A Linguistic Analysis of the Feminist Discourse Wednesday Feminity, Equality and Difference. In D. Brown & de Haan, (eds: s). Women's Language Socialization and Self-image. Holland, Dortrech: Foris Publications.
Markus, H.R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, vol 99, 2, 224-253.
McConnel, A. & R. Fazio, R. H. (1996). Women as Men and People: Effects of Gender-Marked Language. Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol 22, 10, 1004-1013.
van der Meulen, M. (1987). Self-concept, Self-esteem and language: six Differences in Childhood and Adolecence. In D. Brown & D.de Haan (reds). Women's Language, Socialization and Self-image. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.
Tannen, D. (1994). Prat frn 9 to 5: Om mnnen och kvinnors samtalsstilar p arbetet. Finland: Wahlstrm & Widstrand.