I was once given a paper to edit for a history of science journal. It argued that Darwin was entirely sexist for using the term anthropomorphic, man-centered, throughout On the Origin of Species. Darwin's thoughts on women aside, the author's argument was faulty at its core - anthropos is the Greek masculine noun for 'man' as in human or mankind (as a point of interest, 'aner'- is the male root while 'gune'- is the female root).
That was the first time I really realized that English has the huge disadvantage of being without a gender neutral personal pronoun.
I've been reading the IABC book - aka the ABC guide to excellence - and noticed that unspecified individuals are more often than not designated by 'she'. I can't decide if this is a result of the female dominance in the Communications and PR, or if ethics are behind the 'she's. Or if it's some remnant of neo-post-feminism or where ever the women's movement is these days. Either way, I feel like drawing attention to the individual as a 'she' puts more emphasis on gender division which in turn makes it an issue.
And it doesn't have to be. I can't say I've ever felt my gender to be either an asset or a hindrance when applying for a job. If you're good at what you do, you'll prove it. Although, as Sex and the City pointed out, it doesn't hurt to not cry at the office.
Maybe I've read too many history of science texts written by dead guys, or the live guys who study them, who refer to everyone as 'he'. I've never really seen a problem with male dominance in writing. Or maybe it's my years of Greek translating that makes me see a male pronoun as one that could be understood as neutral.
I don't really have a solution - I'm certainly not in a position to change the English language. It's just a thought I had...
So, thoughts on gender division in the workplace?
No comments:
Post a Comment