Audience - Guardian readers with interest in the English language.
Why is our language changing due to gender issues?
Despite believing we are a gender friendly community, equal to all, only recently has our language been changing due to issues regarding gender. Why were there issues in the first place? To what extent are these issues changing our language? you may ask...
According to many language theorists, it may actually be our views on language that is changing - not the language itself. Renowned gender theorist Robin Lakoff claimed that female language is 'deficient' compared to men's due to certain language features women use which supposedly show uncertainty and a weakness in language such as 'tag questions', added onto the ends of sentences to gain an understanding with the receiver such as "isn't it?" You know? In response to Lakoff believing women are 'deficient', Pamela Fishman claims that actually these uncertainty features women use are signs of showing power in the conversation without actually dominating it, dictating who speaks, co-operating with other members of the conversation. This adds a different perspective on the whole issue of gender equality in language, along with the straightforward approach Deborah Cameron has in insisting that men and women do not talk differently, therefore discounting the fact there are gender issues in language, as people 'do gender' - a way of talking in a way that suits your audience and situation.
Scholar Mary Beard once claimed that women who claim a public voice get treated badly - like 'freakish androgynes' - and are not valued as highly as men when seemingly trying to establish authority, declaring that women are a 'mute' in the public sphere. In addition to this, she later claimed that men are 'deep-voiced with connotations of profoundity', something that females are stereotypically not associated with, meaning men generally dominate conversations using their 'rapport' style according to Deborah Tannen, a way in which men hold centre stage through communication giving 'anecdote' style talks to maintain authority. Is our language changing because of this? To accommodate women without the 'connotations of profoundity'? This is shown through Margaret Thatcher having lessons to make her voice more 'manly', to sound like a person (man) who holds authority, showing that in the past people have tried changing their accent and language use. Was this a wise thing for her to reveal, or did that start the whole frenzy on sexism involved in language and why our language now has to change because of women not feeling 'valued' enough to appeal to be powerful when talking?
To 'put to bed' a lot of issues surrounding gender inequality in language, Gary Nunn's article suggested releasing a 'gender-neutral pronoun' - this way, people can have the choice of keeping themselves anonymous in many different scenarios by not giving away information on their gender, and can help with supposed sexist terms where men are perceived to be superior such as phrases like "it's every man for himself", and "man up" - both have connotations to strength and willpower, something stereotypically linked to men, and unfortunately not to women, linking to Mary Beard's thoughts on the matter.
In addition to this, changes have already been made in relation to a change in language due to gender issues, mainly relating to sexist terms, as many previous marked terms such as policeman and policewoman now becoming police officer to offer equality in occupational job roles.
Some really good cohesion and a good tone. In your intro, look at my punctuated re-draft and see if that clarifies what you meant or whether I misunderstood: 'Why were there issues in the first place?', 'To what extent are these issues changing our language?' you may ask...
ReplyDeleteI think you could clarify your understanding of what Cameron said and try that paragraph again.
When you talk about Fishman saying these features are powerful, you undermine it if you call them "uncertainty features". And you didn't introduce her, so watch out for that.
Men use report not rapport acording to Tannen and small slips can really reduce your mark so don't amke more than one (which is forgivable, just about). Get used to proofreading veeeeery carefully.
Do you remember, I said to include features in square brackets if you want to indicate to the examiner they'd have been included? After you said Gary Nunn's article, you could have put [hyperlink on this noun phrase] to show your awareness of the conventions. (It's also not clear why you brought Nunn's article up.)
Speaking of conventions: strapline? I know it is supposed to be a blog but if you put it in 'Comment is Free' they all have straplines and it is a great way to create an overview to guide the audience.
Opinion needed - this is an exploration rather than an opinion-led piece - the title gives that away. Choose something controversial/sensational for click bait.