11 November 1998

The past few decades have seen a major change in the position of women in our culture. Their role has shifted away from being passive, focused on homemaking, rearing large families, and uninterested in the professions, leadership roles and the fields of science, mathematics, etc. They are now quite likely to work outside the home, raise only a few children, go to professional schools, have strong interests in science and math, etc. There are even women in the field of sportswriting, a situation that caused much embarrassment in some of the male athletes when it first arose. To be sure, many women still cling to those older roles. Indeed, some of them are likely to find fault with those others who choose one of the roles previously reserved generally for men.

This trend apparently began around the time of the First World War and accelerated through WW2. The outcome of these wars was so uncertain that the entire culture was pressed into service. In particular, women were called on to fill many of the positions in industry that men had filled before. It looks as though this experience convinced them that there was no need to be limited in their expectations.

As I observed elsewhere, this trend fits in with a general trend in the more technologically advanced parts of the world to have fewer children. I think this aspect of this change is good. We need to have a smaller population for a variety of reasons. Almost any problem in the world would be less of a problem if there were many fewer of us than there are. I despair sometimes that we might not have started this trend soon enough and are not heading this direction fast enough. As a result there will very likely be some severe disruptions in the future. It is quite likely that many people in the world will eventually starve because we will eventually not be able to produce enough food to feed them all. I am optimistic overall because humans are very creative and very adaptive. It would not surprise me, however, to find out that our present standard of living might represent a high point from which we will fade and that we will not return to this level until the population of the world can stabilize at a much lower level. That's a topic for another time, however.

One aspect of this relaxing of the rules regarding the possible roles of women in the world is the changes in language that are taking place because of it. There is a hypothesis today that is much debated. It is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It states, more or less, that thought takes place using words and that the structure of our language can limit or shape those thoughts. The feminists have taken that hypothesis to heart and they loudly demand that they are being debased, disrespected and demeaned by the continuing use of terms which perpetuate the stereotypes that have constrained women in the past. However, a quick check of the literature shows that this hypothesis is still that, a hypothesis. Some people passionately believe that it is true in a strong sense. Others say that it is definitely not true. Still others say that it is true, but only in a weak sense. Personally, I tend to the latter train of thought.

The amazing thing is that our culture is bending to the demand that our language use reflect the desire the feminists have to change our culture. There are several manifestations of this trend. In the larger context, this modification of language is known as being "politically correct". Here are several examples of this trend as it applies to "sexist language":

It is no longer acceptable to use slang terms for women. Words that one must be careful about when applying them to grown women include: girls, chicks, broads, dames, bitches (really loaded), babes, and bimbo's. Of course, there still are some airheaded bimbo's, and when correctly applied, many of these terms are still acceptable.

It is generally preferred not to use variations on terms that specifically indicate a woman. Examples include poet/poetess, steward/stewardess, chairman/chairwoman/chairperson. In the case of "stewardess" the airline industry has dropped the term altogether. The preferred term is now "flight attendant". I am not sure about other modes of transportation. I hardly ever use them. Sometimes the trend is to use an altogether new variant as in the case of "chairperson". This still sounds stiff and awkward, but one hears it more & more. It will probably prevail in the long run. Sometimes the pronoun "one" is substituted for "person". This is a little easier on the ear, but doesn't seem to fit as many cases. I can't immediately recall any such use.

In the past the pronouns "he/him/his" were used to stand for the adjective "each", as in: "Each person should watch his language." It was considered incorrect to use the pronouns "they/them/their" because they were plural in number. Now, however, it is becoming more common to hear "Each person should watch their language." This usage is more acceptable to the hard-line feminists because it does not use the masculine gender for an unknown person who is apt to be a woman. To those of us who managed to learn this rule and usually applied it correctly, this usage still grates on our ears. This usage is taking hold fast, however. This fast acceptance may be partly because this rule was not observed very faithfully by most people anyway. It allowed those of us who "knew better" to be very smug about our superiority. Now we will loose our special status. Sigh.

There is a more general problem about the use of "he" or "she" to indicate a person of unknown gender. No generally accepted substitute has been introduced. Some people still use "he" and start their document with an apology. This strikes me as being wimpish. Others use a made up word "he/she". Still others say "he or she" or alternate between he and she. This latter technique does serve to call attention to the writer's political correctness, but it takes attention away from the original intent of the document. To my way of thinking, paying attention to the "rules of grammar" is worth doing only for this reason. Human languages are very redundant - so much so that we usually know when a mistake has been made and can correct it mentally as we absorb the language. However, making these corrections is distracting. Since the purpose of language is to communicate one's ideas to another person, it only make sense to me to try to stick to the rules. Then the listener can focus on the meaning rather than the mechanics. Using a substitute that is this distracting is counterproductive.

One area that is resisting a change is the use of the word "man" as a verb, as in "man the lifeboats". An acceptable substitute has not been found. "Person the lifeboats" just isn't catching on.

As an illustration of the whole situation, I offer the following "puzzle" which has made the rounds lately. Many people today are baffled by it. If you do not find it puzzling at all, then perhaps things have changed:

A young man is seriously injured in an accident. He is brought to the hospital and rushed to surgery for an emergency operation required to save his life. The surgeon scrubs in and upon seeing the young man says: "I cannot operate on this young man. He is my son." However, the surgeon is not the young man's father. How do you explain this?