Language rooted in patriarchic value

IN LAST WEDNESDAY’S Collegian, I made a few errors. One was the misspelling of the word womyn. I had spelled it, wymen. The other mistakes were grammatical. I apologize for the misrepresentation through misspelling, and for making it more difficult to read because of the other errors.

Having said that, I want to continue with my line of reasoning, which is that language helps to keep womyn “in our place.” Of course, that would mean, for many, second place, behind men.

Feminists have worked hard and long to raise consciousness about both the obvious and covert sexism.

I’m not out to slam men. In general, I like men. But I believe that my comments last week about language being an important contributor in maintaining the inequality of women, is a valid one.

Mr. Tim Ellison wrote a rebuttal that appeared in last Monday’s Collegian. He made several points.

But due to lack of time between reading his article and writing my own, I am not going to proceed in responding to his charges. However, I may pick it up for my next article.

To recap, last week I said that women are the “second sex,” a phrase that was coined by Simone de Beauvoir. I think most, if not all feminists, would agree that language is closely related to the subrogation of women.

For instance, the idea that a father “gives away” his daughter in marriage seems like an innocent tradition at weddings.

But in the past, the father actually did “give away” his daughters, because they belonged to him, just as property (including what she brought to the marriage as a dowry) belonged to him.

And in some countries, it continues to be so.

It may seem absurd to be making this reference in our postmodern world. But what are some of the words we use in our speech to differentiate woman as tied to man, but not the reverse; that is, man tied to woman?

Let me explain. Besides the fact that the words women and woman, both contain a form of the word man within them, a woman generally gives up her last name (which is of course her father’s name) in order to take on her new husband’s name.

You might ask, so what? Well, the answer to that is, again, the use of language aids in keeping a woman in second place. I think we might want to consider how to change that.

But first, I must point out that while women today are able to change their names, or keep their maiden names, it goes to the foundation of the institution of marriage in our society; a society based upon a patriarchal system.

So how might we change this? Well, I have a couple of radical ideas. How about if we had men take on their brides’ names? I expect many of the readers will say that is absurd, but why is it so hard to contemplate?

The reason is that the idea of men being second to women is beyond many of us to grasp, because it just is, and again, language perpetuates it.

But back to my example: One might say that it is less confusing to keep it the way it is. It helps to keep genealogy correct. Well, I have a solution for that problem too. We could let women take on the husband’s last name as usual, but have the husband take on her maiden name so that in the future everyone would know who is who.

So if a Jane Johnson married a John Smith, she would end up being Jane Johnson-Smith and he would be listed as John Johnson-Smith. Seems reasonable doesn’t it? After all, both have the same last name, but the woman can retain her pre-married name.

This would have an added benefit for gay and lesbian couples as well, since they are both one sex; that is if they are ever granted the same rights, such as marriage, that heterosexuals so readily enjoy.

And another point I want to make is that a man is always “Mr.” But a “Miss” becomes a “Mrs.” This means that she is defined by her marital status, whereas men are not.

We have seen the rise of the term, “Ms.” Well; there was a reason to fight for this alternative title, for there are a lot of women who prefer to keep their marital status to themselves, just as the title, “Mr.,” gives men the same opportunity.

So perhaps men can keep the title, “Mr.,” while women can all be “Ms.”

Of course, there are always some holes in an argument. For one, men could complain that women get to choose the title that depicts their marital status.

Or, may love to be called, “Mrs.,” instead of, “Ms.” But until the latter term came into common usage, she did not have a choice.

It took feminist activists to give us a fresh approach to this inequality. But perhaps there is a way, through language, to give men the same privilege.

Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>