Do we talk and write about men more than women?

As I’ve been researching the gendered nature of bossy, I’ve gotten a lot of important feedback from fellow linguists, who have helped to strengthen the argument in favor of viewing bossy as a word that is applied to women and girls more than men and boys.

One particularly interesting point was raised by Lesley Jeffries (Professor of English Language at the University of Huddersfield). She commented that “One argument that you didn’t even use is that women are usually less mentioned in corpora than men”. I did not mention this, and if I could have provided evidence of it at the time, it would have impacted how I presented my findings on bossy. Specifically, it would mean that women were called bossy more than men were even though men were given more attention by speakers and writers in the corpus (suggesting bossy is even more gendered than I found originally).

Beyond that though the other implication that is staggering is this: If women are less frequently mentioned in corpora, which attempt to represent (to the best of our ability) language use in some domain, then that would reflect the idea that, we systematically pay less attention to one group of human beings than another. Read more ›

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Language and gender

No really, bossy is gendered.

My post on the gendered use of the word bossy has gotten a lot of attention in the past week. In it, I presented a modest bit of data to support Sheryl Sandberg’s campaign attempting to raise awareness of the obstacles that hinder young girls from developing leadership skills. Writing for The New Republic, Alice Robb used my own and other linguists’ data to argue that usage of the word bossy is gendered.

However, Sandberg’s campaign has had many detractors, and thus so did Robb’s article. As a result, the legitimacy of my own and others’ arguments about language has been questioned by Sandberg’s critics. For example, writing for Reason, Cathy Young questioned the entire campaign around bossy suggesting that it was designed to address “a fictional problem”.
Read more ›

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Ideology and social change, Language and gender

What I imagine the future Museum of Classism’s exhibit on language elitists will say

Despite the naïve pretensions of utopic meritocracy held by many of the era’s commentators, we now know that the early twenty-first century was one marked by intense inequalities in its inhabitants’ well-being and life opportunities. Indeed, in many ways this era’s incredible rise in inequality called into question the widely-told narrative that humanity and society were making continual progress in the betterment of the human condition. Read more ›

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Ideology and social change, Language and social class, Prescriptivism and language prejudice

Some data to support the gendered nature of “bossy”

Recently, public figures like Sheryl Sandberg and Ariana Huffington have been calling attention to the labeling of young girls’ behaviors and particularly how the labels are often differently applied to young girls but not young boys.

In particular the word bossy is one that these women and others have pointed to as particularly gendered (that is applied differently to people of different genders), leading them to call for a ban on applying the word bossy to young girls. Their reasoning seems sound. If we do in fact use this label more for the actions of young girls than for young boys it would seem that we are socializing young girls out of behaviors that may one day help them be leaders, implicitly telling them “you’re not allowed to lead”.  Read more ›

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Ideology and social change, Language and gender

What they mean when they say “religious freedom”

This December, I went back to the town I grew up in for a brief visit. While there, I noticed a bunch of signs like the one above. They confused me at first, considering that I know the town to be nearly exclusively members of the US’s dominant religious group, Christians, and not terribly invested in the concerns of religious minorities. However, it was obvious enough to me even at the time that this must be about some perceived threat against Christianity, though as-of-yet unspecified.

In the past couple of months, this threat has been elaborated on by numerous state legislatures who have introduced bills claiming to protect the “religious liberty” or “religious freedom” of citizens in the state. Read more ›

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Language and politics, Media discourse and media bias

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 466 other subscribers