Language and Gender: Gendered identities, roles and socialisation (18 November, 2005)

Language and Gender: Gendered identities, roles and socialisation (18 November, 2005)

In the 8th chapter (The Flight from Feeling: Sociopsychology of the Sex War) of his book, Christopher
Lasch refers to the trivialisation of personal relations, through which the family shrinks to the
marital unit, whose sexual relationships are neither formed nor bound by the law, while - akin
to parent-child relations - man-woman relations, which often come to a divorce, have been
increasingly weakened, resulting to the inevitable deterioration of care for the young.

Language was originally formed to serve as a facilitator for communication. However, as

society grew and evolved, so did language: this process turned language into a vehicle for the
verbalisation of certain notions, trends and concepts that reflected that particular societys
conception of the world. The ideas were embedded and entrenched into language, which is, by
definition, much less resilient to change than society. Thus, they were linguistically retained,
even if, socially, they ceased to exist. This is evident when we examine the various fossilised
expressions of a language: although we may understand them, we oftentimes find ourselves
unable to explain their history1. This may also occur when we etymologise words2. Language

By providing the social history of the battle of the sexes, Lasch states that the overall
superficial impression we have is that chivalry is dead. Yet, he goes back into the whole history
of chivalry, only to reveal that chivalry was actually a reciprocal contrivance of men simultaneously constricting mens ability to physically exploit women, and charming its
recipients at the same time, by cleverly concealing their social limitations. Today, women share
in the burdens, as well as the benefits of liberation and are perhaps not so appealed by their
treatment as equal to men. Paternalism, as a means of controlling women, is also in decadence.
The sexual revolution takes us through the processes that enabled women to divest sex of
love, marriage and procreation, now relying almost solely on the pleasure they had longed for
centuries, thus becoming more accessible as sexual partners, but also more threatening. Exploiting
their multiple orgasms, women attack the mono-orgasmic male and sexual performance becomes
another weapon in the war between men and women, while sex has become an end in itself.
In togetherness, we are confronted with the modern life controversy: while living everything
else shallowly, we demand the intensity of a religious experience from our personal relations,
thus turning to sexual excitement to satisfy all our emotional needs. Lasch mounts a realistic attack
on feminism and the intensification of sexual warfare that has transformed the original
attempt of feminism to discredit the sexual stereotypes which kept women in their place to a bizarre
kind of misandry, at the same time unwilling to accept any alternatives or settle for a
compromise in its elusive vision of a combination of sex, compassion and intelligent understanding.
Marriage is seen as the ultimate trap and banality, allowing the male to be free and to present
womens ultimate routine as a rose-covered cottage. However, attempting to see men as class
enemies, feminists fail to realise that precisely because of the symbiotic interdependence of men
and women, it is hard to attain such intellectual detachment (consider SEX AND THE CITY).
Moving on to the strategies of accommodation, we have a powerful critique on feminism,
which is full of painful contradictions. This fact has made common practice for feminists to
cosily renounce their own programme and retreat into some kind of accommodation with the
existing order, whenever they see fit. Militants envision an illusory solidarity of sisterhood, by
reviving discredited myths of moral superiority of women and by institutionalising alternatives to
the male death-culture, thus actually avoiding arguments about the proper goals of the feminist
movement, while radical lesbians stretch the logic of separation to its ultimate extent, a
protected enclave for themselves. Nowadays, men and women make extravagant demands on each
other, experiencing unjustified cruelty when failing to meet those demands.
In the castrating woman of male fantasy, we are let in the common secret that we all experience
our own impulses as intolerably urgent and menacing, while the entire ego-superego-id framework
balance has been irrevocably disturbed. Men are fixated with the breast, but terrified of the
vagina and, at the same time, womens sexual demands terrify men. He finds the resentment of
women towards men rational, but mens antipathy towards women is irrational. Finally, in the
soul of man and woman under socialism, Lasch expresses the idea that a revolution of property
relations does not automatically put an end to the polemics of gender, so deeply interwoven
with our own psyche. The warfare may never cease!
Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra, ID: 99362

and society often reflect each other, in a vicious circle.

Paradox: Language reflects bygone conceptualisations. Does this mean that language
imposes them on present society? Will Laschs contemplations be encoded into language?

Classical Greek grammarians and philologists often projected their own views of the world onto
their language. Is it accidental that most beautiful and arbitrary concepts in Greek are
female? (cf. , , , , , , , ). Those men viewed women
as attractive entities, but at the same time were puzzled by their mental complexion. And, why
are negative and powerful notions male in Greek? (cf. /, , , ,
, , , ). HOW ABOUT HURRICANES/TORNADOES NAMES?
Another view projected on language is that certain passive qualities correspond to
femininity, something which is expressed linguistically. In all probability, a transvestite will be
referred to as she, although he has male genitalia, in the same way certain words employed
to refer to homoerotic men traditionally refer to or are associated with women3. Conversely,
the lesbian words vocabulary includes some examples of reference to men4. Sociologically,
however, it is equally interesting to observe that, in all probability, cross dressers and queers at some point of their career - will adopt a female alias, thus allowing them to integrate into
society as quasi-females. The same happens with hermaphrodites: Is it easier to be raised
as a female? SEE CARTOON p. 4

Nevertheless, these examples are marginalised by default. The most sexist kind of language per
se is to be found in the vulgar way male language is used to refer to women, animalising them
or reducing them to their genitalia: bitch/slut/tart, cunt/twat, grimalkin/virago (cf. Greek /
/, , /). It is interesting that the male counterpart of cunt
(prick) has become conventionalised and, hence, tolerable, but the female word is considered
one of the most highly offensive lexical items in the English language.
Compare the effects that the female equivalent of a bachelor induces: Stereotypically, we
think of a bachelor () as a man who has chosen to remain single, whereas we think of a
spinster () as a woman who has failed to marry. In William Shakespeares Othello,
1

. The Brazilian counterpart of keeping the appearances is para Ingls ver, which may be translated as for the English to
see. Non-native speakers would not understand it (because they have not been familiarised with it through use), and many
native speakers are unaware of its origin: it dates back to the 19th century, when Brazil, under the pressure of the British
abolitionists, enacted laws against slavery for the English to see, but continued to practise it nevertheless.
2
. The English word sincere has an interesting etymology: During the Renaissance period, Spanish sculptors that made slight
mistakes when chiselling expensive marbles, used cera (candle) to cover their flaws. A flawless statue was called sin cera
(without candle); in time, the expression became synonymous to anything honest and truthful.
3
. English examples include: bitch/slut, daffodil/pansy, drag queen/jaw queen/leather queen/protein queen, effeminate/fairy/
flitty/lisper/queeny/sissy, faggot [cf. Greek //, , , //,
// /, / (instead of )]. Notice that, between
16th - 19th centuries, the term faggot was pejoratively used to refer to women.
4
. Such as the words butch/mannish and tomboy (Tom considered very masculine) (cf. Greek , ).

Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra, ID: 99362

Language and Gender: Gendered identities, roles and socialisation (18 November, 2005)

Language and Gender: Gendered identities, roles and socialisation (18 November, 2005)

manipulative Iago, attempting to diminish Michael Cassio, claims that he has never set a
squadron in the field, nor the division of a battle knows more than a spinster (1.1.24-26).

and who can forget the notorious Dark Lady in William Shakespeares sonnets? This
smouldering misogyny may be part of the reason that dejected the Virgin Mary in the whole
conceptualisation of Protestant faith. A latent form of misogyny may also be the reason why
Orthodox and Catholic churches have no deaconesses.

And what about sexuality? If a male scores many females, he is referred to as a stud, a stallion,
with a number of positive connotations. But what about the other way round? Other than the
public outcry, there is also the linguistic ostracism: bitch, doxy, harlot, hooker, paphian, slut,
strumpet, tart, whore5. Othello, at the very thought of his Desdemona having an affair with
Cassio, calls her impudent strumpet (4.2.80). But he does not seem to be pre-occupied with
Cassios playful love life. Au contraire, most characters in Othello appear to approve of Cassios
amorous feats. Do they think of the Cypriote courtesan, Bianca, in the same way?
Fidelity within wedlock is also highly controversial, usually in favour of men and at the expense
of women. If a husband has been unfaithful to his wife a couple of times, he is forgiven: he is a
man! But if a wife commits conjugal infidelity once, not only she is castigated, but she has also
given her husband a solid ground for a divorce. WHY THIS UNFAIR TREATMENT?
Yet our amazement never ceases! Certain professions have been identified with a particular
sex, even in English, which is admittedly much less sex-partisan than inflective languages, such
as Greek or Italian. Military officers are supposed to be male6, but nurses are supposed to be
female. In the film Courage under fire (1996), Lieutenant Colonel Nat Serling is stunned when
he realises that Captain Walden (whom he investigates for a posthumous medal of honour) is a
woman! In the same vein, Pams father, in the film Meet the Fockers (2004), laughs at the
profession of his daughters boyfriend: a male nurse! When political correctness movement
neutralised this division by inventing new words for certain professions (policeman, policewoman
=> police officer), the absurd happened: either the new words were not widely employed, or, if
they were, they were qualified in terms of male/female: a female police officer! What does this
tell us about our society?

The very concept of some words reflects (or, perhaps, perpetuates) certain stereotypes or
envisagement. Consider the fairly common word misogyny and its relatively rare and widely
unknown counterparts misandry and philogyny. The word misogyny was first recorded circa
1656. Philogyny is a bit newer (c. 1745-1755), but misandry (hatred of men) is a much novel
concept (and word), which was first recorded in 1909.
What does this tell us of the attitudes bore by these words?

Words are coined or invented to fill in possible gaps that exist in a language, and to express
concepts that language was previously unable to convey (e.g. the new word metrosexual, coined
in 1994). In this vein, misogyny occurred much earlier than its counterparts, precisely because
this kind of behaviour was considered normal! Throughout history, literary men have been
relying upon inspiration, which they usually epitomised as female7. But how many men would
tolerate a woman as their competitor8 and (nowadays) supervisor? Misogyny was thus natural,
5

. And the catalogue goes on. It is amazing how many words can be used to describe a woman with a somehow progressive
perception of sexuality. Extremity: nymphomaniac (cf. Greek , ).
. Until a few years ago, the Greek military had been one of the last bulwarks of male hegemony. Is clergy next?
7
. Homer begins his grand Epics by evoking the Muse: , , , ,
(ODYSSEY); ,
, (ILIAD). Virgil also starts his AENEID with the famous: Musa, mihi
causas memora, quo numine laeso quidve dolens regina deum tot volvere insignem pietate virum, tot adire labores impulerit.
6

. In Greek antiquity, any woman who pursued higher education and wanted to become a philosopher had to demote herself to
the social status of a hetaera. Renowned hetaerae were Aspasia, Glycera, Lais, Phryne, Theodote and Thargelia.

Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra, ID: 99362

Admiration of women (philogyny) is a much later concept, and it occurred probably because of
competent women in the letters and sciences, or simply because of their appellation as the
beautiful gender. But misandry? How could anyone hate men? Less than a century old, the word
is largely unknown to the public and is often omitted in many dictionaries. Could this mean
something about language, and about the regulators of the language (male lexicographers)?
It all boils down to the famous Tongue breaks bone and herself has none! Words are not innocent,
because it is on them that we depend on to feel, understand and experience our own reality.
Language is neither neutral, nor is it simply a bearer of conceptions: it is a modulator of
concepts. The human superiority compared to animals does not reside solely on biological
differentiation (use of the thumb, bipedality and the ability to solve complex problems): it also
lies on our ability to speak and to verbalise the abstract concepts that dwell our mind. The
famous Sapir-Whorf hypothesis asserting that language determines our conception of the
world seems to be finding a firm grasp when it comes to gender expressed through language.
This cartoon by Arkas graphically reproduces a number
of stereotypes that dominate present society. It is
interesting that this alternative knowledge comes from
an angel, who catechises the mortal, representing the
average (and ignorant) individual:
Although the established point of view is that
homosexuality is a sin, there is an alternative
opinion, that it is normal, Gods work.
Prototypically, we think of homosexuality as a
male besetting (to quote the language used by
the Greek Archbishop, Christodoulos), that is
why we have a male name (Evadam).
The mortal seems to be interested in listening to
something on the matter, since he doesnt get to
hear these things often.
Because of the binary way we think of society
and because of the way gay people think
themselves (as integral parts of the society,
usually as quasi-females), we see that Evadam
has changed his name into a female name,
Barbara, so as to fit societys expectations.
The question asked by the mortal shows
amazement, which is oftentimes the case when
straight people learn about gay people.
Homosexuality is considered a taboo, hence the
reference to uncanonical (apocryphal) books of
the Bible. This concealment entails some sort of
oppression, but, at the same time, its revelation
encompasses the notion of alternativeness.
e-mail: katoomba@cytanet.com.cy
REFERENCES:
9 Goddard, Angela & Patterson, Lindsey Men: Language and Gender (Routledge, 2003). EN
9 Lasch, Christopher: The Culture of Narcissism (W. W. Norton & Co., 1991:187-206). EN
9 , : ! ( , 1999). EL
9 FOR YOU TO DOWNLOAD: http://rapidshare.de/files/7736040/Iron-house.zip.html EL
9 http://www.aegean.gr/gender-postgraduate/synedrio.htm EL

Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra, ID: 99362