The Goldfish Might be a She!
By Carolyn Kernberger
First published by Mothering, Summer 1991
Sexist language reinforces gender discrimination in insidious ways and limits the development of both boys and girls.
“Did you feed the goldfish? He looks hungry.” “Look at that crow out there! He’s teasing the dog!” “Ask a policeman for help if you’re lost.” What happens when we say these words to our children? Not surprisingly, they begin to think of goldfish and crows and police officers as male. Research shows that children form mental images of males when they hear or read he or man -- even when they know intellectually that such words are meant to refer to both genders.
“There was Brachiosaurus, biggest of all. He weighed as much as 50 tons! But he couldn’t run. He couldn’t fight. When he was frightened, he just hid his head.” These lines appeared in my oldest child’s favorite dinosaur book, and upon hearing them, my 3-year-old son concluded that there were “no mommy dinosaurs.” He argued vehemently that the “daddies” even laid the eggs!
This is sexist language. It socializes and reinforces gender discrimination in insidious ways and limits the development of potential among both boys and girls. The economic bottom line is that, according to the US Census Bureau’s 1989 statistics, women earn only 68 cents to each $1.00 earned by men.
Language Evokes Imagery
While learning their native language, young children constantly verify new concepts. Through trial and error, they discover how others use and understand specific words. For example, when a young child cries out, “He pushed me,” only to discover that the culprit Amy is not among the suspects referred to, the youngster learns to reevaluate the meaning of he. Thus the child learns that if Amy is the guilty one, the correct word is she.
By the age of three or so, most children are aware of the male/female distinction, and they know that these categories do not overlap. Girls know that they are growing up to be women; boys know that they are growing up to be men. And children of both genders know that a daddy is always a he, as are any brothers, and that a mommy is always a she, as are all sisters. Consequently, young children associate the masculine pronouns with male imagery and feminine pronouns with female imagery.
The point is that because children learn language during the concrete stage of cognitive development, their use and interpretation of words are quite literal. Telling a child about a “generic” use of he and man that would apply to a mother simply does not compute. Children know their mothers would never enter a restroom marked “Men”.
So what happens when a four-year-old discovers that the goldfish known for months as “he” has suddenly laid eggs? First, the concept of mommies being the ones who lay eggs is strained. Although confidence is usually restored as the goldfish becomes referred to as “she”, a second phenomenon occurs: the child learns that it is socially acceptable to assume maleness, and to acknowledge females primarily in their reproductive role.
A child who hears “The goldfish … he …”, “The dinosaur … he …”, and “Each child … his …” grows up assuming maleness as the default. Given no indication that any animal or person is equally likely to be female, the child comes to view the male as the standard representative of any species. Simultaneously, the child begins to internalize the implied value system, which suggests that women hold a place of less importance in our world.
Anthropologists and linguists alike have long known that language strongly influences the thought and behavior of cultural groups. Language organizes and labels the social concepts, while giving shape to individual perceptions. As a result, sexist language is not a trivial matter of imprecise word choice, as is often suggested. Rather, it is a powerful generator of sexist imagery -- forming in our children’s minds a world of male dominance.
Sixteen research studies published between 1971 and 1986 show consistently that the words he and man do not function “generically”, but instead produce strictly male images in the minds of both genders. In a 1973 study of college students, explicitly masculine references such as “political man” (as opposed to “political behavior”) and “urban man” (as opposed to “urban life”) gave rise to implicitly masculine imagery. As for young children, when they hear that inventions are “manmade” with “manpower” for the the good of “man”, how can they help but regard a particular gender (male) as more important and more competent?
He lives on past the speaker’s breath. Some researchers even believe that the application of masculine pronouns to indefinite persons or animals has, over the course of history, transferred male imagery to their referent nouns. Perhaps this is why my daughter, at three and a half, stated her Halloween longings and then felt the need to clarify them. “I want to be a mouse,” she said. Then, “I want to be a girl mouse.”
More serious implications arise as our children come to associate such words as writer, student, philosopher, president with male imagery. When the “grammatically correct” he is used so pervasively and the occasional she is used almost exclusively to refer to mothers, both boys and girls develop the unconscious perception that males have a far wider range of contributions to make to society. In essence, our children are growing up with masculine associations in all areas of human endeavor except mothering.
As a result, both boys and girls suffer. Boys, because their worldview does not embrace the equality of genders and the contributions everyone can make in the world. And girls, because living as they do in an ocean of sexist language, they must continually perform mental sidestepping routines to identify with the hypothetical he that interacts with the world. And many times they just don’t, accepting second-place status. According to one group of researchers, girls are at a distinct disadvantage in understanding abstract concepts simply because academic ideas are discussed with masculine references.
On the brighter side, reading passages that encompass both masculine and feminine pronouns go a long way toward increasing self-esteem among girls, and among boys, toward increasing a positive regard for women. Findings such as these imply that the linguistic structure with which girls and women are discussed plays an enormously important role in imparting values.
Historical Roots Run Deep
Sexist language has its origins in the patriarchy that has reigned for centuries. Standard 18th and 19th century English grammars were written by the educated class, which was overwhelmingly male. As such, these texts reflect not only the language but the values of their compilers, including the customary exclusion of women from matters of importance. Each he that appeared on those pages was never intended to include girls or women.
In our times of rapid social change, things have improved, but only a bit. While dictionaries, writing handbooks and publishing guidelines all recognize sexist language as imprecise and ambiguous, actual usage remains bogged down in history. English teachers still approve of using he in any case referring to any individual. Newspapers continue printing man when referring to the human race. And self-proclaimed experts are no more enlightened. One magazine contributor, in a recent article addressing the nonsexist parenting of teens, uses he throughout. Another writer, in a news column about the sexism underlying societal funding priorities, notes that sexist thinking has led to inadequate child care; yet she unwittingly refers to the hypothetical child as he.
Even teachers committed to gender equality have their blind spots. Some may speak of the class pet guinea pig as “he”, describe “the blue whale” with the use of masculine pronouns, or allude to the little Fisher-Price toy people as “men”. All too often, the awareness of sexism is restricted to stereotypical roles, hairstyles, toys and clothing.
One of the first changes brought about by the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s was an insistence on proper language references. Equality for blacks could not be achieved with the continued use of such socially disparaging terms as “boy” in reference to a man, and the “n-word”. In the same way, gender equality cannot truly blossom until we have done away with the use of masculine pronouns to refer to females.
What Can Parents Do?
Speak the truth. To incorporate the feminine into your child’s perception of reality, use precise terminology. Rather than asking, “Has the mailman come yet?” try “Has the mail carrier come yet?” Also use “police officer”, “firefighter”, and “cave dweller”.
When faced with the unknown, you can always remark, “We don’t know if that dog is a male or female, do we?” And if you catch yourself saying “What a beautiful horse! Look at him run!” you can always add, “But it could be a mare or a filly, you know. They run fast too.” And remember that a stuffed animal without a pink bow can still be a “she”.
For lack of a singular pronoun that refers to just anyone, consider using they. Such literary giants as William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens used this word to refer to one individual. Contemporary educated people also use they as a singular pronoun -- primarily in conversation, although it is beginning to appear in print as well. In time, as the rules of grammar change to incorporate current parlance, they will certainly be redefined as both singular and plural in reference.
For now, use they freely. You will be understood, and what’s more, you will be helping to establish a healthy alternative to the ubiquitous he. In formal writing, refer to a non-sexist language handbook or style guide.
Choose children’s books with care. The language used in children’s literature is fodder for imaginative play and, as such, should describe worlds of limitless boundaries. So determine how your child’s books portray females, and whether or not they are excluded by a profusive use of he.
Many children’s books published in years past are sexist (and racist). Dr. Seuss books invariably revolve around an all-male cast of main characters, with the rare exception of those wearing pink bows. [Pink bows reinforce the male-as-default supposition in books and toys.] Other books, such as P.D. Eastman’s Are You My Mother? and Else Minarik’s Little Bear include main characters whose gender is identifiable only through the pervasive use of masculine pronouns. That is, these characters become male through the use of masculine pronouns rather than given names.
Did A.A. Milne, for example, intend to create a world in which Christopher Robin’s animal playmates are all males (with the exception of the mother kangaroo of course)? Or did such characters as Rabbit and Piglet become male through the use of gender-linked pronouns? In either case, by intent or by grammar, the characters populating most children’s books of past decades are perceived as male by their readers. And, although some newer volumes alternate between masculine and feminine pronouns, recent publication is not guarantee of enlightened authors.
One alternative to throwing out all the male-dominated books is to change pronouns with a pen. This strategy is particularly well-suited to the proliferation of nonfiction animal books. If your child asks why you are marking up books, you can simply explain, “The author used the wrong words. I’m putting in the right ones.”
In selecting books for your children, strive to achieve a balance between male and female characters. Also look for a range of attributes that are not gender defined, including courage, fearfulness, intelligence, foolishness, strength and weakness. Both boys and girls need to hear stories about independent, self-confident female characters.
Bring a critical ear to TV. The language patterns heard on TV have a subtle impact on the development of a child’s worldview. “Sesame Street” -- touted as educationally progressive, ethnically balanced, and sensitive to disabilities -- uses sexist language. The show also portrays a male-dominant world. Although the producers have made efforts to include equal numbers of human males and females, all the primary nonhuman characters are male: amounting to a score of something like 13 to 0. As for the nonhuman female characters, they play secondary roles that are often defined only in relation to a male. Alice, for example, is Snuffalupagus’s sister, and Granny Bird is Big Bird’s grandmother.
To counter the negative impact of these images, call attention to them. Ask your child, “Why do you think they aren’t showing any girl cookie monsters?” And while you’re at it, write to the producers.
Think equality. Listen critically to the language people use. Alert them to sexist talk by calling them on it, tactfully. When children are present, rephrase sexist comments as though you were modeling any form of correct syntax. And by all means, discuss sexist language with your older children. A nine-year-old can be remarkably perceptive of inappropriate terminology.
Listen to your child’s words, too. Just as you would correct any ambiguity or inaccuracy -- “You did not ‘barely touch’ your sister. You hit her!” -- so you can insist upon clear messages about the equal value and participation of the genders. Help your child contribute to the overall perception of girls and women as full members of society.
Be creative and accurate with language. Next time your child goes out to build a “snowman”, how about saying “Let’s go out and build snow statues!” Before you know it, the proportion of snowmen will drop, maybe even giving way to androgynous snowducks and other creative expressions.
Notes
Jane Watson, Dinosaurs (Racine, WI: Golden Press, 1979), p 10.
J.W. Schneider and S.L. Hacker, “Sex-Role Imagery and the Use of the Generic ‘Man’ in Introductory Texts,” The American Sociologist 8 (1973): 12-18.
Donald MacKay and Toshi Konishi, “Personification and the Pronoun Problem,” in C. Kramarae, ed., The Voices and Words of Women and Men (Oxford, England: Pergamon Press, 1980) pp.149-163.
Jeanette Silveira, “Generic Masculine Words and Thinking,” in C. Kramarae, ed., The Voices and Words of Women and Men (Oxford, England: Pergamon Press, 1980) pp. 165-178.
Nancy Henley, “This New Species That Seeks a New Language: On Sexism in Language and Language Change,” in J. Penfield, ed., Women and Language in Transition (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987), p. 6.
“Can Parents Be Sexist?” Parents’ Magazine (May 1989):18.
Anna Quindlen, “Stand Up and Shout: We Need Daycare,” Albuquerque Tribune (21 March 1990).
Address your concerns to The Children’s Television Network, 1 Lincoln Plaza, New York, NY 10023.
The published article also had sections “For More Information”, “Literature for Adults”, “Literature for Young Children” and a short bio of the author. These are so out of date as to be useless, but are part of the pdf also on this website for curious minds.