CC BY
142Linguistic Sexism and Society: A Woman's Representation Through Language
Discussion article
Berenger Garnica
Abstract
Feminist linguists have long felt that women are underrepresented in language and cite this as a linguistic parallel to the sexism they face in society. Linguistic inequality can be discreetly manifested through a number of different devices such as the lexicon, morphology and masculine generics. Upon closer examination of grammars, cases of linguistic sexism are able to be repaired through proposed solutions such as language reform and gender inclusive language. These linguistic topics are culminated into the intersection of language with society through consideration of the Whorfian Hypothesis. This theory examines how language acts as a filter through which speakers perceive the world and whether or not creating a more inclusive grammar will create a more inclusive society. Should linguists, and linguistics itself, take strides in forming more balanced languages, the resulting expectation would be that women are subjected to less sexist language and practices. While language change will not happen overnight, the initiation to create a more inclusive language is one solution to slowly creating a more inclusive and progressive society. The manifestation of sexism through linguistic devices can be shown in order to make readers and speakers aware of the ways in which language inherently shows sexist tendencies.
Received:
22 April 2020 Reviewed: 6 November 2020 Accepted: 15 December 2020 Published: 30 December 2020
UDC: 81 ~272
Keywords
feminism; gender; language; language reform; lexicon; masculine generics; morphology sexism; society; Whorfian Hypothesis
Department of Linguistics, McGill University, 845 Sherbrooke St W, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada Corresponding author:
Berenger Garnica (Ms.), berenger. garnica@mail.mcgill.ca
For citation:
Garnica, Berenger. 2020. "Linguistic Sexism and Society: A Woman's Representation Through Language." Language. Text. Society 7 (2). https://ltsj.online/2020-07-2-garnica.
Language. Text. Society
Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 ISSN 2687-0487
Introduction
Linguistic sexism is becoming a considerably larger topic in the field of linguistics, motivated by feminist linguists who feel that many languages marginalize women and create exclusive grammars. This topic, however, cannot be uniquely viewed through a linguistic lens but rather as the intersection between language and society. While it is possible for linguistic prejudice against women to go unnoticed, verbal communication is a powerful medium for gender discrimination in society to be introduced and propagated in discreet ways.
Linguistic tendencies to marginalize women raise the question of how the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis plays a role in shaping societal views of women through the use of sexist language and ideology. If this is true, the use of biased and gendered language would shape the thought processes of members of the speech community and sanction a less progressive society. Through several linguistic devices, women's presence in language has continued to be overlooked and invisible, rendering the masculine forms dominant and taken to be the normative setting for language.
Solutions to resolving the gender bias in language have been proposed for many languages. Specific answers must be considered in their application to the unique grammatical settings of each language, making some problems easier to resolve than others. In addition to obstacles such as these, the political landscape and motivation of the speech community are additionally important in repairing linguistic sexism. The topic of linguistic sexism as a whole and how language reform plays a role in societal reform is a question that reaches far beyond the scope of merely one article and requires a great deal of research and analysis in order to gain a more holistic understanding.
Background
It is without question that women have had to fight for their social and political equality for many years. Misogyny exists at different levels within societies and is perpetuated through different mediums. The word itself has been defined by Srivastava, Chaudhury, Suprakash, Bhat and Sahu as a hatred towards women manifested through forms such as gender discrimination, patriarchy and male privilege (Srivastava et al. 2017, 1). The social context of sexism is not the only channel through which women are marginalized; language also provides a strong platform for women to be perceived as inferior and unequal. In the 1970s, women brought to light how languages tend to show an asymmetrical portrayal of the sexes though the use of biased and discriminatory speech that, ultimately, is damaging (Pauwels 2008, 551). Rather than leaving their trust in men, women have attempted to become the normalizers of language themselves, which can be seen through formulations of proposals and guidelines for non-sexist language use (Pauwels 2008, 551). Attempting to resolve such marginalization is an aspect of language planning, implemented through debates and initiatives whose purpose serves to eliminate sexist language. From a sociolinguistic perspective, an approach to feminist language reform must put emphasis on the social and linguistic interface, directing reforms towards achieving social change that would enable gender equality and access. Different parts of linguistic sexism as well as sociolinguistic research into linguistic variation have both been impacted by the amount of feminist language reform that has already taken place (Coates 1998, 195). The exposition and attention to documenting such sexist language practices have been large interests of feminists involved in the linguistic representation of the sexes (Pauwels 2008, 552).
Linguistic abstraction is a subtle way in which women are perceived as less favourable and which causes them to become subject to gender discrimination, despite that those causing it are often unaware that they are doing so and are, in turn, unintentionally being gender biased towards women (Menegatti and Rubini 2017, 2). Gender stereotypes are defined as pre-existing beliefs about the
attributes of men and women and produce expectations of each sex concerning how they should act and what they are like. These stereotypes have their origins in the social roles that have given rise to gender specifics due to their division of labour and gender hierarchy within society (Menegatti and Rubini 2017, 2). Historically, men and women have played different social roles. While the men were, and in some cases still are, expected to engage in tasks which require more physical strength, women were expected to remain in the home in order to keep house and be care-providers and mothers. While this ideology has become more and more archaic in today's society, there still exists a subconscious mental representation of how social roles and gender correspond with one another.
Such preconceived notions continue to guide speakers in how they interpret gender and restrict them from having a more open-minded approach to language reform (Sczesny et al. 2016, 8). Stereotypical social roles have consequently given men the perception of being more agentic, acting in more active and resolute fashions, while women have been given the expectation of being communal, benevolent, and kind (Menegatti and Rubini 2017, 2). Expectations such as these are engrained in children in their early years of childhood and subconsciously guide them into the expected social roles of their gender as they grow up (Menegatti and Rubini 2017, 3). Traditionally, these stereotypes are not neutral. They give men the upper hand in their traditional roles as occupiers of the higher status of the social hierarchy ladder as compared to women, who are more likely to occupy positions of lower status and have significantly less power than men. The linguistic stereotyping of sexes poses a dilemma, especially for women, reinforcing stereotypes and their subordinate societal status. Stereotyped language has appeared in sources like the mass media as well as educational materials, the latter of which largely affects children and reinforces certain stereotypical ideas of gender (Pauwels 2008, 554). The community's reaction to stereotyped sexism is met with both apprehension and denial to accept its existence (Pauwels 2008, 554).
Many feminist activists whose focus lies in language are unsurprisingly proponents of language change as a means of achieving a more balanced and equal society, in turn one in which men and women are given equal representation in language (Pauwels 2008, 554). Taking linguistic action and responsibility for sexism within language could improve the societal advancement of women as well as be a key to liberating them within sexist linguistic domains, since sexism in language places restrictions on women and their perception within society.
Today, the content of gender stereotypes in language encompasses a large asymmetry between men and women, shown through lexical items and morphology that, although discreet, have a large impact on the speakers of a variety of languages. The content of gender stereotyping is not equal, highlighting imbalances in favour of men, giving them power and status, which correspond to the roles that they are expected to play in society (Menegatti and Rubini 2017, 2). Such linguistic forms tend to make women invisible and inferior in language, creating mental images and representations that lead to greater gender differences which work to the benefit of men by making them appear as larger and more legitimate. People may be susceptible to this gender bias from an early age, giving it a normative respect when dealing with language, consequently participating in gender discrimination whether it is apparent or not, simply by following the means and norms of communication. Gender stereotypes, often incorporated into the mental representations of speakers, can cause social discrimination, such as is the case with masculine generics (Sczesny et al. 2016, 8). Furthermore, it is possible to continue to reinforce this chauvinist belief system by the use of common expressions consistent with gender stereotypes that produce a discriminatory environment towards women (Menegatti and Rubini 2017, 2).
If the theory that linguistic change lingers behind social change is credible, then it is reasonable to expect linguistic amendments to be an important strategy in creating social change as well (Pauwels 2008, 554). It is possible for change to occur at varying degrees of the language system, such as the morphological, phonological, grammatical, or lexical level. However, given the unique parameters of
each language family and language itself, creating a non-gendered and more inclusive language will follow different paths, failures and successes in distinctive languages. There are consistent morphological and lexical differentiations that occur between languages that will have an effect on how speakers view change in the public eye and within a community. Depending on the effort required to create progressive change, speakers may be more resistant to changing certain parts of the lexicon and morphology of the language.
External factors must also be taken into account when considering the speed at which language change will occur. Efforts from members of the speech community of the language under consideration as well as the political landscape in which the speech community exists will play a role in how institutions and speakers view the necessity of language change and progress.
Discussion The Lexicon
The content of gender stereotypes can be reflected in people's every day speech, more specifically in the lexical choices that they choose to employ on a day-to-day basis. On a more basic level, words that are consistent with stereotypes lead speakers to classify gender pronouns as being more or less masculine or feminine categorically (Menegatti and Rubini 2017, 3). The listener is conscious of the lexical choices that the speaker makes and their processes may be affected by the items they select in speech. It must be noted that such processes are very discreet and that the listener may not always be aware of them. Even non-prejudiced speakers that do not endorse stereotypes activate sexism by unconsciously using gender related words (Menegatti and Rubini 2017, 3).
Sexism seems to be an inherent aspect of many languages. To both the trained and untrained ear, it is most notable in the lexicon of a language. In many languages, there is a tendency for an asymmetrical relation between the vocabulary of the sexes, notably one in which one sex has a smaller number of words to describe or denote various aspects of reference. This happens to women in settings concerning high status occupational nouns. Considering the existing vocabulary words for men and women, words describing men in leadership positions or places of power tend to outweigh those that refer to a woman occupying the same title. This cites an evident asymmetry between the sexes and the ways in which they are perceived and treated in society.
French, for example, cites a woman doctor by using the article la in la médecin to signify she is a woman in place of the masculine article, le. The ending, which is normally marked by an -e to denote the feminine form, remains epicene (Elleau 2016, 15). Linguistic favouritism towards men is an aspect well mirrored in society. Attitudes tend to be less positive towards women who occupy a high position of power or leadership roles than men in the same positions. Language then, acts as a reinforcement of women's underrepresentation in occupations that are typically dominated by men, especially through the use of gendered wording in job related materials.
On the other hand, there are other settings in which the vocabulary used to refer to women largely outnumbers lexical items used to refer to men. Terms that apply to promiscuity largely refer more to women than to men, a reflection of the role and skewed perception of them within society. Such linguistic items include skank, ho, harlot, and nympho. Through a process known as semantic derogation, sexual connotations are added to words referring to women, such as Sir vs. Madam and Miss vs. Mistress (Coady 2018, 18). Such vocabulary items are used to refer to women in a more propagated and sexualized societal view. The use of such stereotypical words ripples through society beyond people's awareness, playing a large role in perpetuating gender inequality (Menegatti and Rubini 2017, 3).
Morphology
Much of the foundation of linguistic sexism criticisms come from the asymmetrical treatment of men and women through morphological forms. This practice exists not only in English, but in many other languages. Languages that create feminine-masculine word pairs pattern similarly in how the female form is derived. In many cases, the masculine form is considered to be the "prototype" for the human representation, therefore treating the woman or female as the derivation or "marked" variety. Such concepts render women invisible in language and are thus subsumed in generic representation of the masculine forms. From an etymological perspective as well as a morphological standpoint, this creates more emphasis on how women are treated as a variation of the generic masculine prototype. Such a formulaic way of deriving words is seen cross-linguistically, from Germanic to Romance languages. In many languages, generic forms are represented by those that refer to the masculine gender (Pauwels 2008, 553). When women are made invisible through such language practices, the correlating feminine forms become marked varieties, sometimes considered to be odd to the ear or subject to criticism from the community as their linguistic construction can be undoubtedly seen as a derivative of the male construction through various grammatical and morphological processes.
Language Reform
The way in which gender is represented in language is also a facet of how gender itself is represented within a society. Cross-linguistically, many languages have aspects of inherent linguistic sexism and many are searching for solutions to the problem in order to create a more inclusive language. Languages such as English, Spanish, French and German have found fault in their own grammar systems and have taken steps toward correcting preexisting gender discrepancies. However, the strategies used for each language must be unique to the language in question and be adjusted to fit its parameters. There is not one single template upon which all languages wishing to rectify the gap can be based. Genderless languages will use different measures than those of grammatical gender languages. Aside from the linguistic aspect, the social and political views must also be considered. Speech communities may not always be willing to make modifications to their daily language use in order to fix what they consider to be minor or insignificant problems.
Gender Inclusive Language
One of the most prominent resolutions for linguistic sexism is the creation of a gender-fair language. The goal of this practice is to reduce the discrimination and stereotyping that occurs in languages with overt and problematic sexism. This type of linguistic change was first introduced as a response to the imbalance between the sexes, evident in many languages. The three categories that languages have been classified into when dealing with gender are: genderless languages, natural gender languages and grammatical gender languages (Menegatti and Rubini 2017, 1). Gender-fair language has been used as a broad attempt to reduce the inherent sexism and discrimination in language, instead attempting to make it a more inclusive linguistic environment. The use of both masculine and feminine forms strives to end the asymmetry between the two sexes by referring to and addressing women themselves rather than only men.
Two principle strategies of gender inclusive language, neutralization and feminization, have been proposed in hopes of overcoming such difficulties. Both strategies aim to create gender-neutral and more inclusive languages which treat women and men in an equal and symmetrical manner. In the case of neutralization, male masculine forms are replaced with forms that are unmarked in their gender, or are gender neutral. The argument for neutralization can be broken down into two principal
tendencies, the first being a break from the difficulty to create an equality within a binary-gender language. The intricacy of creating word pairs of all linguistic elements would be large and is an idea better fitted for non-gendered languages (Elleau 2016, 33). The second tendency of gender neutralization is to advocate for a less sexist grammar of language. This would aim to avoid situations in which gender is specified and to resolve the binary tendencies of gendered-languages. This would be solved by changing the morphology and creating epicene terms and endings, thereby moving away from a binary-pole of gendered language (Elleau 2016, 34). Feminization, on the other hand, aims to add feminine forms to the lexicon in an attempt to make female referents more visible (Sczesny et al. 2016, 1). This would include creating new vocabulary terms that refer specifically to women rather than allowing one term to refer to both men and women.
However, not all languages are equally equipped to undertake the same proposed practices as a means to resolving languages biases. Certain language architects struggle more to change the grammar of a given language and to either reverse or create new lexical or morphological forms than others do. The division of languages into the aforementioned principal categories, classified by gender, gives a better insight into the challenges that similar languages may undertake when trying to resolve them. Languages of each of these types all have lexical expressions of sex in common nouns such as women, sister, father, man (Menegatti and Rubini 2017, 1). The languages differ, however, in how and whether they mark grammatical gender. In a natural gender language, sex is not marked grammatically, such that most nouns can be used to refer to both male and female people, however personal pronouns often do mark gender. English exemplifies this through non-gendered terms such as cashier, which may refer to either a male or female referent, but whose personal pronoun makes clear the gender of the person, being either she/her or he/him. Unlike natural gender languages, a grammatical gender language contains nouns that are assigned a feminine, masculine, or neuter gender. This is apparent to any foreign language learner of grammatical gender languages such as French, Italian, or German who must memorize the rules and exceptions of assigning gender to all nouns.
The last category that languages are divided into is genderless languages, such as Turkish and Finnish (Menegatti and Rubini 2017, 1). Genderless languages lack personal pronouns and do not signal gender. In such cases, gender is expressed only through the properties such as 'male/female' or in terms of lexical gendered words like 'woman' or 'wife' (Sczesny et al. 2016, 3). Between these three types of linguistic classes, the grammatical gendered languages tend to show more linguistic asymmetry and gender inequality than either the natural or genderless ones, as gender markings are more apparent.
The creation of a women-centered language is a proposal that can be achieved through gender-fair and gender-neutral language mechanisms (Pauwels 2008, 556). The idea behind this notion is that linguistic equality could be achieved by proposing amendments to existing forms, rules, and other aspects of a grammar. The goal of gender neutralization is to "neutralize" or to decrease the unequal expressions of gender within language, specifically in dealing with the gender-marking in relation to human references. In several languages, this is most evident in the affixes added to male nouns and adjectives to create new feminine forms in the morphology. This would include eliminating the current morphological endings that denote femininity, such as - ess, -ette, -trice (Pauwels 2008, 556). While these endings give a specific gender marking to certain lexical items, seemingly giving females more presence in language, there is fault in how the morphology itself is applied. The creation of feminine forms may be met with apprehension, as many times the masculine form is used as the template from which the feminine word is built, emphasizing a male-dominant culture of male origin and subsequent female derivation of said form. Suffixation such as this is then seen as a correction or as a modification of the original and more natural male noun. In such cases, it is more feasible to create new terms which would not use the male form as a template but rather create a novelty lexical item altogether.
It has been shown that gender-inclusive forms that are used in settings with a wide variety of listeners will reinforce the individual's own use of gender-fair language and will subsequently change their mental representations and imagery to be more inclusive, equal and balanced (Menegatti and Rubini 2017, 11). Furthermore, the use of a more gender-inclusive language has a large impact on women in society and is applied by the speaker's own use of inclusive forms (Menegatti and Rubini 2017, 11). Therefore, those that encounter and continue to use gender-fair or gender-inclusive forms will tend to use them more themselves and in turn, have a more gender-balanced mental representation of social roles (Menegatti and Rubini 2017, 11). Despite such attempts to instigate change, it will only come about when the members of the speech community are ready to implement it into their natural speech patterns.
The Whorfian Hypothesis
The intersection between behaviour and language questions the effect that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis has on how speakers are affected by their native languages. It plays a fundamental role in how linguistic sexism, and by extension its elimination, and the inferior role of women in society go hand in hand. Linguistic sexism provides strong evidence for this hypothesis, suggesting that the thoughts and perceptions of the speakers of a language are shaped by the constraints of the particular language (Lomotey 2015, 168).
The Whorfian Hypothesis, introduced by the linguist Edward Sapir and his student, Benjamin Whorf, gained popularity in the mid 1900s and plays a large role in the interface between society and language. It can be extended to be the groundwork in the discussion regarding feminist linguistics and sexist language. According to Sapir, the experiences of speakers are largely influenced by the language habits of their communities (Elleau 2016, 12). It has been suggested by authors such as Wasserman and Weseley (2009) that linguistic discrimination does have an effect on speaker's behaviours (Lomotey 2015, 168). The general understanding maintains that the thoughts and cognition of speakers of a language are largely affected by their native language. In other words, language acts as a filter through which speakers see and interact with the world. The 'real world' then is, to some extent, built up with the native languages that inhabit speakers of a group (Kay and Kempton 1984, 66). The structure of a speaker's native language, would then largely influence and determine their perception of the world as they attain the language.
Inevitably, the question arises of whether the inherent sexism that languages show has a cognitive effect on speakers of the language, primarily women. If the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis does play a role in the attitudes of speakers acquiring languages, whether they are categorized as grammatical gender, natural gender, or genderless languages, it would be expected that women have a limited amount of aspirations and confidence when it comes to areas that are largely male dominant or of high profession and status.
Within the lines of sexist language, it could be argued that women are more tentative and restricted in pursuing male-dominant domains and attaining higher levels of status in society, of shattering the glass ceiling so to speak. If women are denied appropriate words to describe and express high-level professions in languages, is it the case that they believe themselves incapable of working towards greater goals and aspiring to higher careers? In societies that continue to marginalize women and propagate sexist language, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis would suggest that women believe themselves to be the lesser and weaker sex and to be invisible in society because language allows such ideas to penetrate into the mentalities of its speakers.
As discussed, gender-neutral, or gender-fair language, is a solution that has been proposed to remedy linguistic sexism. In many languages, sexism is largely built into the lexicon, more specifically in the realm of occupational nouns and terms of address, as well as into the morphology. In
consideration of the Whorfian Hypothesis, it is necessary to contemplate how the effects of gender-fair language would promote gender equality in the long term. If reactions to gender-fair language are more positive, it would be expected that women are seen in a more encouraging and progressive light. Changing the normative measures of linguistics and language to incorporate women would give society a push towards including women in higher occupations as well as scaling down the use of sexism and neglection that they are subject to in language.
If there were to be an increase in the number of gender-fair words used, standardization of these forms would become more common in society and would begin to sound more neutral. This would give women an advantage, such that their occupational titles and terms of address would no longer be a seemingly marked case, but rather a normal part of a linguistic system that is more inclusive to the genders. Masculine generics would then play a large role in the perception of gender equality in society.
Furthermore, countries that are home to grammatical gender languages have been found to have lower levels of societal gender equality, especially in comparison to countries where the predominant language is a natural gender or genderless languages. Such findings suggest that there is a correlation between the influence of linguistic gender on a society's perception of societal gender and the inequalities accompanying it (Sczesny et al. 2016, 3).
Conclusion
Many languages show an inherent trait of linguistic sexism, favouring male forms, occupational nouns, and morphology much to the impairment of women. Through such tendencies to discriminate linguistically against females, several questions have been raised as to how to address and rectify this problem.
Solutions such as feminization of the language and the creation of a gender-neutral form have both been considered, although the structure of the language being repaired is ultimately what decides which solution is best to implement. The unique parameters of different languages require different forms of resolution. In non-gendered languages, creating a gender-fair language is much easier to do, since much of the grammar already lacks inherent gender on nouns as well as gender agreement. On the other hand, grammatical gender languages require more effort in changing the language to adapt to a more gender-neutral setting. Gender markings on nouns and adjective agreement give such languages a binary pole of which only two genders can be considered.
The political landscape of countries attempting linguistic reform also must be taken into consideration. While feminist linguists have gained more and more ground in bringing the issues of linguistic sexism to the surface, some countries are not yet equipped to make linguistic change, focusing on other political and economic issues that demand primary attention.
The most pressing matter to be dealt with within the realm of linguistic sexism is how languages themselves are integrated into society. While change may be made orthographically or auditorily, it is ultimately the attitude of the members of a speech community that will lead change. As women are largely recognized as the leaders of linguistic change, and as linguistic sexism almost exclusively applies to the female gender, it is within the interests of women, as well as the rest of society, to begin to take greater strides in creating a more inclusive language.
The interest and desire to create change at the linguistic level ties into the teachings of the Whorfian Hypothesis, which argues that the language used within speech communities is a filter from which societal views and actions evolve. The marginalization of women through language continues to motivate discrimination amongst them in society, regressively impacting their positions within occupations and culture. To create a more inclusive society, women need to be included more in
language, done by renaming occupational nouns to include women and trigger positive mental representations. The downfall to such a change, however, is the way in which the morphology of languages repairs this. More often than not, the stem of a word is taken to be the male, and more natural, form while the addition of suffixes seemingly creates the female derivation, creating a highly marked case resistant to change by the community. While this is problematic from both a morphological and societal perspective, the creation of word pairs for both men and women is, in the very least, a small step towards including women in language.
Linguistic sexism, although inherent, is not without a solution. There are many ways to create a more inclusive language for a humanity that is inevitably changing. If an advancing world is one which includes more people and creates more acceptance, then linguistic change is one of the foundations towards creating a more progressive and inclusive way of thinking. Whether changing language will directly transform society is a question still left to be answered. It is one that will require the participation of forward-thinking speakers and communities and the overt modifications of language in both speech and grammar. Language change will not happen overnight. It is a long and tedious process that requires active support and effort from the community in order to be implemented at the most basic level before it can continue to grow.
References
Coady, Ann. 2018. "The Non-sexist Language Debate in French and English" (Doctoral, Sheffield Hallam University). https://doi.org/10.7190/shu-thesis-00133.
Coates, Jennifer. 1998. "Feminist Futures and Linguistics." Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS) 4 (12): 195-199. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41274002.
Elleau, Valentine. 2016. "La parite linguistique dans la francophonie" (master's thesis, Universitat Wien).
Kay, Paul, and Willett Kempton. 1984. "What Is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?" American Anthropologist 86 (1): 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1984.86.L02a00050.
Lomotey, Benedicta Adokarley. 2015. "On Sexism in Language and Language Change - The Case of Peninsular Spanish." Linguistik Online 70 (1): 167-183. https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.70.1748.
Menegatti, Michela, and Monica Rubini. 2017. "Gender Bias and Sexism in Language." In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, Michela Menegatti and Monica Rubini. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.470.
Pauwels, Anne. 2008. "Linguistic Sexism and Feminist Linguistic Activism." In The Handbook of Language and Gender, 550570. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756942.ch24.
Sczesny, Sabine, Magda Formanowicz, and Franziska Moser. 2016. "Can Gender-Fair Language Reduce Gender Stereotyping and Discrimination?" Frontiers in Psychology 7: 25. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025.
Srivastava, Kalpana, Suprakash Chaudhury, P. S. Bhat, and Samiksha Sahu. 2017. "Misogyny, feminism, and sexual harassment." Industrial psychiatry journal 26 (2): 111-113. https://doi.org/10.4103/ipj.ipj 32 18.
Acknowledgments
I'd like to thank Dr. Beth Clark-Gareca from the State University of New York at New Paltz for guiding me through the researching of articles and whose inputs and edits were invaluable to the writing process.
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author, with publication rights granted to the journal.
This open access article is distributed under a custom license: freely available to download, save, reproduce, and transmit for noncommercial, scholarly, and educational purposes; to reuse portions or extracts in other works—all with proper attribution to the original author(s), title, and the journal. Commercial use, reproduction or distribution requires additional permissions.
