“Man, like the other mammals, breast-feeds his young.”
“Everyone should be able to decide for himself whether to have an abortion.”1
The incongruent sentences above were created to protest the use of “he” and “man” to refer to humans in general. Although they employ contrast humorously, they are part of a pretty important issue—that of “sexist” language. I was first alerted to this topic when I was reading an English handbook and, among tips about split infinitives and comma placement, I found a recommendation to use “police officer” instead of “policeman.”2 Now, to change the way we English-speakers have been talking for hundreds of years should take some serious arguments. The women’s movement presents such arguments. One writer summarizes the feminist position: that using “man” or “he” to mean “person” “makes women invisible, reinforces stereotypical gender roles, and limits women’s opportunities and even their aspirations.”1 To evaluate the merit of this perspective, we should ask two questions. First, is a language shift regarding gender necessary? Second, would it be beneficial?
As to the first question, some history is in order. Any etymological dictionary will reveal that the word “man,” about a thousand years ago, meant “human.”3 In that day, “wer” meant “male person,” and “wif” meant “female person.” We still see “wer” in the word “werewolf,” and “wif” has come to mean “wife.” Over time, people came to use “man” in the sense of “adult male person,” and so, to indicate the female sex, they began saying “wif man,” which became “woman.”4 In many contexts, however, the word “man” retains its older signification of “person.” Additionally, somewhere along the way, the singular form “Man” came to be used metaphorically to mean “the human race.”
One more thing—pronouns. English has always had three genders: male, female, and neuter. In Old English all nouns and pronouns had endings to indicate their gender, just like in German and other languages. Time has effaced such distinctions from our nouns, though leaving them on pronouns. But even time has not bestowed on our tongue a common-gender pronoun. In other words, we have no word like “he” which means “he or she.” So English-speakers have always just used the masculine pronoun when they have had to refer to a person of unknown sex. Does this betray sexism? Have it as you will. In any case, it has never been difficult to tell whether a person was using “he” to refer to a male or just to an unidentified human.
With all this etymology under our belts, we’re ready to get to the point and analyze arguments that traditional usage is sexist. To begin, let’s look at the sentences quoted in the introduction. One is, “Everyone should be able to decide for himself whether to have an abortion.” Of course this sounds strange. The reason, however, is not that every generic use of “he” excludes females. The real reason is that the word “he” is being used out of context. We know that we are talking about women, because only women can have an abortion, and it is of course absurd to try to use the generic “he” when the subject is female. A traditional speaker of Standard English would use “he” to indicate a person whose sex he did not know, but never to indicate a woman. The other sentence is similar: “Man, like the other mammals, breast-feeds his young.” Let’s deal with the pronoun trouble. It seems improper to use “he” for anything that breastfeeds. If we remove that mix-up, the sentence sounds much better: “The race of Man, like other species of mammals, breast-feeds its young.” Notice that “Man” is not the problem here, because the latter sentence still includes it.
A person could certainly object that we can say “Pigs breast-feed their young,” but not “Men breast-feed their young.” The explanation is that the word “pig” is always generic, but the word “man” is only generic under two conditions—when it refers to a group that includes both males and females, or to a person whose sex is unknown. Breast-feeding is a female activity and meets neither condition, so “man” can’t be used generically in that sentence. The same applies to people engaged in male activities—when the word man refers to them it means “male adults,” not “people.” Thus when we say “Men grow beards” the word “men” is specific, and does not denote people in general; to use the word generically we could say something like “Despite their efforts, men have never walked on Mars.”
Another objection is sure to be raised. Doesn’t using the same word for a male or a person assume that “male is the norm—the significant gender”?5 To which I reply, “The words for men are absorbed in the general words for humans, but women are clearly marked by separate words. Doesn’t this imply that women are the significant gender?” It’s a two-way street.
The reader has probably observed that the discussion so far has centered on context. Since the words “man” and “he” can have different meanings depending on their contexts, many well-meaning reformers have been confused into thinking that the two meanings of each word are somehow inseparable. The puzzling aspect about their error is that they do not make the same mistake with other words. They never have trouble choosing whether a person means a river bank or a savings bank.6 The cause of the confusion is that feminists already think that our society treats women as second-class people, and have therefore concluded that certain nuances of our language stem from sexism. Knowing this is important, because to accept their linguistic interpretation is a step toward accepting their social views, whether or not the latter are correct.
Something else that is important to know is that a switch to “gender-neutral” language must take place despite, not in accordance with, most people’s preference. Giving both a male and a generic meaning to a single word is the way people like to talk. Take, for instance, the relatively modern slang word “guy.” Although its use became ubiquitous after women had been “liberated,” a “guy” is a male person, but the phrase “you guys” includes females. And while “he” has been replaced by “they” in some cases (e.g. “One of the neighbors drove their car last night.”), it still persists in others (e.g. “A fool and his money are soon parted.”), and repeated attempts to create a common-gender replacement pronoun7 have been futile.
There is one more argument to discuss before we move on to the second main point. Many writer’s handbooks or English textbooks will instruct the student to avoid “gender stereotypes.” For example, the student must never say “businessman,” “congressman,” “craftsman,” or “layman,” unless the people in question are known to be males, and the adjective “manmade” is off limits. These taboos are related to the others we have dealt with. Of course, if we are talking about a woman, we should use “business-woman” or some other substitute. However, “businessman” can be a general term as well as a specific one; it does not refer exclusively to males.
So the first question is answered. It is not necessary for a person to avoid the generic “man” and “he”; and words like “businessman” are not sexist stereotypes. The second question remains. Would a language revision be advantageous? The reader will not be surprised by now to hear that I think it would be disadvantageous. Here are three negative effects that would result from a complete usage change, in ascending order of importance.
First, while many have protested what they see as sexist language, they have not provided a clear, single alternative. Indeed, it would be hard to find some artificial substitute for the way people have been talking for centuries. A good many authors I have read use “she” generically instead of “he.” This is no solution. First, it leaves us right back where we started in terms of uninclusiveness. Second, it sounds strange and incongruent because “she” is a specific pronoun and until recently has only been used for females. To use it generically is to try to force a new meaning into an old word, and would have delayed acceptance even if it were universally attempted. But it is not. Each author, it seems, has a unique way of avoiding “sexism.” My favorite example is one I found on the packaging of a toddler’s plaything. It had four paragraphs; the first referred to the toddler by “he,” the second by “she,” and so on. Other writers use plural when they could be more precise by using singular. This very essay is a good example of awkward substitution. For the sake of an objective tone I have not used “sexist” language. I said a few sentences ago that each writer has a unique way of avoiding sexism, but what I meant is that each writer has his own way of avoiding sexism. The word “unique” implies that each writer’s own way is different from all other writers’ ways.
Second, by eliminating the generic “he,” we break with a literary tradition centuries old. Of course, natural changes in language often make old writings hard for us to understand; but that is no reason to intentionally shift one of our common grammatical forms. If the generic “he” is finally eliminated, it will be seen not only as archaic, but as sexist and wrong; and it will make even an objective reading of almost any historical text difficult. If our language is transformed, who will be able to enjoy such lines as this example from Hamlet: “For the apparel oft proclaims the man”? The importance of this point can be appreciated when one reflects that English has one of the most extensive and valuable bodies of literature on earth. Every major change of our language moves us a step away from millions of volumes of poetry, history, biography, science, information, and more—the accumulated thought of centuries.
Third, a transformation of English usage for solely ideological, not grammatical reasons is Orwellian.8 Let me explain. In his book 1984 George Orwell described a fictional totalitarian government that created a language called Newspeak in order to control the minds of its subjects. Newspeak was a modified form of English. It did not contain words like “liberty” or “independence,” and the ideas that pertained to freedom were obscured by equivocation and lack of proper vocabulary. What does this have to do with “gender-neutral” language? The modern movement against “sexist” language is the first widespread effort (that I am aware of) to change English usage habits for ideological purposes. Thought patterns, rather than speech patterns, are the target; and the momentum comes largely from a few large publishers, not from the general public (see how people like to use “sexist” language, above). Accomplishing the transformation will have one of two effects. If language can heavily influence thought, then a gender switch will bring the populace closer to feminism simply by reading their grammar books. But if (as many linguists hold) thought is independent of language, the whole shift is a charade and a colossal waste of time and effort. Either way, the general public loses.
Interestingly, this usage revolution has met with relatively rapid success. For hundreds of years language sticklers have bootlessly proclaimed the incorrectness of “ain’t,” but in just a few decades they have made significant process in spreading guilt and sensitivity over the word “man.” The reason for this strangely speedy change of habits is that it is based not on an appeal to an academic standard of proper speech, but to kindness—and who doesn’t want to be kind? According to advocates of the change, if you use “he” and “man” traditionally, you are unfeelingly brushing aside women as worthless beings, whether intentionally or not. Thus the feminist perspective on the English language has gained common acceptance by portrayal of its opponents as ogres and of its proponents as benevolent. (This is evident even in the terms that characterize the discussion. There are no non-emotional equivalents for the negative phrase “sexist language” or the positive phrase “gender-neutral,” even though the former merely refers to traditional usage and the latter to ideologically revised usage.)
At this point our two questions have been answered. I hope the answers are effective. History and observation reveal that there is no need to eliminate so-called “sexist language,” and further thought shows disadvantages in doing so. Here is a closing word. Some writers of the “gender neutral” school say that the debate is over—that “sexist” language has been purged from our tongue and a person who uses it will “risk offending” readers.9 Anyone who attentively reads or listens will soon find that this is not so. More and more writers, cowed by accusations of sexism, are using “humankind” for “man,” but the traditional word is still common in conversation and existent in print. The generic “he” is all but universal. This essay began with examples, and it will end with them. Here are representative sentences from printed sources10 which prove that we are not yet severed from the gender-use of Shakespeare, Wordsworth, and Dickenson. Now grab your pen and help make sure we never are.
“…that man and forest were fated to be not enemies but partners.” (Newsweek, February 16, 2004, p. 44; in an article discussing economics and the rain forests)
“There are still parts of the Caribbean where you can settle into the unhurried island pace, surrounded more by nature than fellow man.” (American Way, magazine of American Airlines, June 15, 2004, p. 42)
“The most moving speeches summon us to the cause of what is actually possible. Perfection in the life of man on earth is not.” (Wall Street Journal, January 21, 2005, p., A8)
“ASU archaeologist honored for research on early man” (The Arizona Republic, headline, February 26, 2005, p. E1)
"Do not use they when the antecedent is a distributive expression such as each, each one, everybody, every one, many a man. Use the singular pronoun. [incorrect:] Every one of us knows they are fallible. [correct:] Every one of us knows he is fallible." (William Strunk, Jr., and E. B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000), p. 60.)
"...use the pronoun his when an indefinite antecedent may be male or female: A reporter attempts to protect his sources. (Not his or her sources . . .)" (Associate Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law, edited by Norm Goldstein (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus, 2002), p. 114.)
“Ask any American if he has the right to work at the job of his choice and you’re likely to get the kind of look that says, what kind of dumb question is that?” (Wall Street Journal, January 22, 2003, p. A14)
"… two people with herniated discs can lead radically different lives: one spends his days popping painkillers, the other waltzes through life like Fred Astaire.” (Newsweek, April 26, 2004, p. 45; in a section discussing herniated discs)
“When one person dies, his money goes to pay the others in the pool.” (USA Today, February 11, 2005, p. 3B; in an article about annuities)
1From the website of Diana Hacker, author of A Writer’s Reference. Accessed 12-21-2006 <http://www.dianahacker.com/writersref/subpages_language/sexist.html>.
2H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron. The Little Brown Handbook. 9th edition. New York: Pearson, 2004. pg. 549.
3For example, see The Online Etymological Dictionary at <http://www.etymonline.com>.
4See note #3 for the source. One can still recognize the origin of the word “woman” in the pronunciation of its plural form, which sounds like “wymen.”
5George L. Grice and John F. Skinner. Mastering Public Speaking. 6th edition. Boston: Pearson, 2007. pg. 248.
6To give proper credit, I must admit that I found this example on wikipedia.org.
7Steven Pinker. The Language Instinct. New York: W. Morrow and Co., 1994. pg 56.
8This point as well as others throughout this essay was inspired by thoughts in the following: Kelly L. Ross, Ph.D. “Against the Theory of ‘Sexist Language.’” The Proceedings of the Friesian School [an online journal]. 2006. Accessed 12-22-2006 <http://www.friesian.com/language.htm>.
9 Diana Hacker says “Today those early battles are largely over. Many people, both men and women, now find sexist language offensive. And most writers, no matter what their personal feelings on the issue, don’t want to risk offending readers.” See note #2 for the source.
10All of the following examples were found and documented in this article: “Modern examples of ‘man’ used to mean ‘the human race’ and ‘he’ used to illustrate a general truth that applies to both men and women.” genderneutralbibles.com. 3-23-2005. Accessed 12-22-2006 <http://www.genderneutralbibles.com/article.php?id=3>. For more examples of the generic “he” see the fourth section of Chapter Ten of this book: Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem. The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2000.