# data[].attributes.headline
What kind of terms are equivalent terms?

# data[].attributes.subject
What kind of terms are equivalent terms?

# data[].attributes.body
Waiter-Waitress
Host-Hostess
Bachelor-Spinster
Master-Madam
Actor-Actriss
You can see more;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are three ways of forming the feminine gender.
1) By using an entirely different word.

Bachelor (masculine) / spinster or maid (feminine)

Boy / girl

Man / woman

Husband / wife

Father / mother

Brother / sister

Son / daughter

Horse / mare

Monk / nun

Buck / doe

King / queen

Cock / hen

Dog / bitch

Drake / duck

Earl / countess

Gander / geese

Gentleman / lady

Nephew / niece

Uncle / aunt

2) By adding a syllable (-ess, -ine, -trix etc) to the masculine gender

Author (masculine) / authoress (feminine)

Baron / baroness

Count / countess

Giant / giantess

Heir / heiress

Host / hostess

Lion / lioness

Mayor / mayoress

Poet / poetess

Priest / priestess

In the following -ess is added after dropping the vowel of the masculine ending.

Actor (masculine) / actress (feminine)

Enchanter / enchantress

Duke / duchess

Emperor / empress

Prince / princess

Tiger / tigress

Waiter / waitress

Master / mistress

Sorcerer / sorceress

3) By placing a word before or after

Grandfather / grandmother

Manservant / maidservant

Landlord / landlady

Peacock / peahen

Salesman / saleswoman

Washerman / washerwoman

Notes

A mayor can be a man or a woman. In British English, a mayoress is the wife of a male mayor.

Some words ending in -ess are no longer used. Examples are: authoress and poetess. Author and poet are now used for both men and women. The words steward and stewardess are being replaced by other terms like flight attendant. Note that a flight attendant can be a man or a woman.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are three ways of forming the feminine gender. 1) By using an entirely different word.

# data[].attributes.headline
What kind of terms are 'equivalent' terms?

# data[].attributes.subject
What kind of terms are 'equivalent' terms?

# data[].attributes.body
There are many lexical semantic groups like occupation, behavior, religion, social status etc. There are 170 words in occupation which is the most by %26, such words as  cleaning lady, door man, host. Second one is behavior qnd there are 84 inequal words by %13. Totally there are 660 words.

# data[].attributes.body
There are some differences between the terms referring to men and the equivalent terms for women.

# data[].attributes.body
The pronoun "he" which originally refers to a man and other male-based words are used to refer to women. This makes them feel as if they were inferior, discarded and invisible in society.

# data[].attributes.body
In language, there is a lot of sexism in words. And, women's speaking is often considered as a meaningles unreliable information.

# data[].attributes.body
I want to give an example directly. If we think about bachelor and spinster, bachelor has positive meaning while spinster has negative meaning. Common collocations for bachelor are 'eligible bachelor' or 'bachelor pad'. It is desirable. However, spinster means lonely or  old woman. It doesn't sound good. So it is important to use the same word for both gender. This kinds of useges are rough.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bachelor is a see also of spinster.

Spinster is a see also of bachelor.

In context|obsolete|lang=en terms the difference between spinster and bachelor

is that spinster is (obsolete) a woman of evil life and character; so called from being forced to spin in a house of correction while bachelor is (obsolete) among london tradesmen, a junior member not yet admitted to wear the livery.

As nouns the difference between spinster and bachelor

is that spinster is a woman who has never been married, especially one past the typical marrying age according to social traditions while bachelor is a man who is socially regarded as able to marry, but has not yet.

Other Comparisons: What's the difference?

Noun

()

A woman who has never been married, especially one past the typical marrying age according to social traditions.

* Coke

If a gentlewoman be termed a spinster , she may abate the writ.

One who spins (puts a spin on) a political media story so as to give something a favorable or advantageous appearance; a spin doctor, spin merchant or spin master.

(obsolete) Someone whose occupation was spinning thread.

* ~1601 , William Shakespeare, Twelfth Night , act II, scene IV:

The spinsters and the knitters in the sun.

(obsolete) A woman of evil life and character; so called from being forced to spin in a house of correction.

(rare) A spider; an insect (such as a silkworm) which spins thread.
( Webster 1913)

See also

* bachelor * widow * divorcee ----

Alternative forms

* bachelour ( obsolete)

Noun

()

A man who is socially regarded as able to marry, but has not yet.

* Washington Irving

As merry and mellow an old bachelor as ever followed a hound.

The first or lowest academical degree conferred by universities and colleges; a bachelor's degree.

(senseid)Someone who has achieved a bachelor's degree.

(Canada) A bachelor apartment.

(obsolete) An unmarried woman.

(obsolete) A knight who had no standard of his own, but fought under the standard of another in the field.

(obsolete) Among London tradesmen, a junior member not yet admitted to wear the livery.

A kind of bass, an edible freshwater fish (Pomoxys annularis ) of the southern United States.

Synonyms

* ( academic degree) baccalaureate

Derived terms

* confirmed bachelor * bachelordom * bachelorette ( North America) * bachelorhood * Bachelor of Arts * Bachelor of Science * bachelor pad * bachelor party * bachelorship * bachelor's button * bachelor's degree

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spinster vs Bachelor - What's the difference?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
is that spinster is (obsolete) a woman of evil life and character; so called from being forced to spin in a house of correction while bachelor is (obsolete) among london tradesmen, a junior member not yet admitted to wear the livery.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is there another pronoun to be used for both sexes instead of generic "he"? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Is there another pronoun to be used for both sexes instead of generic "he"? 

# data[].attributes.headline
Is there another pronoun to be used for both sexes instead of generic "he"? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Is there another pronoun to be used for both sexes instead of generic "he"? 

# data[].attributes.body
The necessity of creating a neutral pronoun has been known for thousands of years. It first occurred to people when the feminist movement took place and refused to use generic masculine pronoun to refer to all of the people in seventies. Since then more than 80 different gender neutral pronouns have been offered such as Co, Ey, Ne, Ve, Xe and Ze for English. But neither of them worked well because people couldn't adapt to changes in function (closed) words which include a limited number of words such as pronouns, modal verbs, demonstratives. Today people speaking English prefer to use they instead of generic masculine pronoun to avoid sexism whether the subject is singular or plural but this is only possible in informal occasions. They have to make it plural for formal ones. The only language which was able to make it to use gender neutral pronoun is Swedish which is a natural gender language. The pronoun "hen" was first mentioned in 60's but it started to be used in 2012. Researches show that this neutral pronoun reduces male bias. Also the use of the neutral pronoun is found to be more effective than the neutral word, they.
In order to examine the process of adjusting to a neutral pronoun in Sweden, you can visit this website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Department of Psychology, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden

Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

The implementation of gender fair language is often associated with negative reactions and hostile attacks on people who propose a change. This was also the case in Sweden in 2012 when a third gender-neutral pronoun hen was proposed as an addition to the already existing Swedish pronouns for she (hon) and he (han). The pronoun hen can be used both generically, when gender is unknown or irrelevant, and as a transgender pronoun for people who categorize themselves outside the gender dichotomy. In this article we review the process from 2012 to 2015. No other language has so far added a third gender-neutral pronoun, existing parallel with two gendered pronouns, that actually have reached the broader population of language users. This makes the situation in Sweden unique. We present data on attitudes toward hen during the past 4 years and analyze how time is associated with the attitudes in the process of introducing hen to the Swedish language. In 2012 the majority of the Swedish population was negative to the word, but already in 2014 there was a significant shift to more positive attitudes. Time was one of the strongest predictors for attitudes also when other relevant factors were controlled for. The actual use of the word also increased, although to a lesser extent than the attitudes shifted. We conclude that new words challenging the binary gender system evoke hostile and negative reactions, but also that attitudes can normalize rather quickly. We see this finding very positive and hope it could motivate language amendments and initiatives for gender-fair language, although the first responses may be negative.

Introduction

Language is seen as an important tool for determining gender, i.e., if something is being perceived as feminine or masculine ( Boroditsky et al., 2003; Stahlberg et al., 2007), where gender most often imposes a dichotomy ( Ansara and Hegarty, 2014). This implies that language also could be used as a tool for establishing gender-equality and to challenge gender perceptions. In Western culture and languages, actions toward gender-fair languages have primarily focused on making women more salient and reducing the so-called male bias (for a review, see: Stahlberg et al., 2007). For example, in the seventies, the feminist movement questioned the use of a generic masculine pronoun to refer to people in general ( Moulton et al., 1978; MacKay, 1980; Phillips, 1981; Murdock and Forsyth, 1985).

The literature describes two types of gender fair language: "balancing/feminization' and 'neutralization.' Feminization implies the use of gender-appropriate forms, and is more often used in languages with grammatical gender (e.g., German, French), for example by adding feminine versions to masculine titles (e.g., Lehrer/Lehrerinnen for masculine and feminine teachers; Stahlberg et al., 2001, 2007). Neutralization is more commonly employed in so called 'natural gender languages' (e.g., English, Swedish, Norwegian), and implies that gender-neutral forms are preferred over gendered forms. Examples are using the word parents instead of mum and dad, and humankind instead of mankind (at least in official records).

In Swedish, a recent action was to introduce the gender-neutral third person pronoun, hen, as a complement to the Swedish words for she (hon) and he (han) ( Ledin and Lyngfelt, 2013; Milles, 2013; Bäck et al., 2015). In current time the word first appeared in 2012, figuring in a children's book. In July 2014, it was announced that hen should be included in 2015th edition of The Swedish Academy Glossary (SAOL) constituting the (unofficial) norm of the Swedish language ( Benaissa, 2014; Fahl, 2014), after what had been a long, sometimes offensive and heated debate in the media. No other language has so far added a third gender-neutral pronoun that actually has reached the broader population of language users, which makes the situation in Sweden unique. This article presents a review of the process on how hen became implemented, including the arguments that were put forward from opponents and proponents, respectively. We present data on attitudes toward hen during the recent 4 years and study how time is associated with the attitudes and actual use of the word.

The word hen is very similar to, and pronounced as, the Finnish gender-neutral pronoun hän with the same meaning, i.e., describing any person no matter their gender - although the language of Sweden's cultural neighbor Finland belongs to the language group without gendered third-person pronouns ( Stahlberg et al., 2007; Prewitt-Freilino et al., 2012). Even though the debate about hen took off in 2012, the word was first mentioned as early as in the 1960's ( Milles, 2013), when linguists proposed that a gender-neutral pronoun would be a more rational choice in comparison to a generic he or using double forms (i.e., he and/or she). However, these discussions were more of an academic nature limited to small linguistic communities and did not reach a broader public ( Milles, 2013). In the beginning of the 21st century people in LGBT-communities (Lesbian-, Gay-, Bi-, Trans-) began to use hen, both for people outside the gender dichotomy and as a way of diminishing the salience of gender. A similar movement has been found in the English language, among linguists and among transgender communities, where more than 80 different forms of gender-neutral pronouns have been proposed. Today, one trend in English is to use gender-neutral pronouns such as zie and hir ( Baron, 1986; Ansara and Hegarty, 2014; Love, 2014), although these words have not been very widespread outside the LGBT-communities ( Crawford and Fox, 2007).

When the debate took off in 2012, the spark that started it was the publishing of a children's book ( Lundquist, 2012) that used hen to denote the main character of the book, instead of using a gendered pronoun. The author and the publisher also wrote a debate article in one of the largest newspapers in Sweden together with Karin Milles, a linguist researcher and advisor of gender-fair language planning, arguing for the introduction of a gender-neutral pronoun ( Milles et al., 2012; Milles, 2013). Advocates of the word argued that children are too much influenced by gender categories, where non-gendered pronouns allow them to visualize and develop their stories much more freely ( Milles et al., 2012). Antagonists argued that children listening to such non-gendered stories would be disoriented not knowing their gender, and that having a (binary) gender (i.e., being a girl or a boy) is something to be proud of ( Lagerwall, 2012). At this point in 2012, the use of hen was highly controversial, which is illustrated by an incident when a columnist in one of the largest newspapers used hen. The reactions led the management of the paper to apply a policy against using hen in its news reporting ( Cederskog, 2012). In contrast, an entertainment magazine changed all third personal pronouns into hen in their second issue in 2012 ( Milles, 2013). Later in 2012, the Language Council of Sweden ( Språkrådet) providing official recommendations about Swedish language, recommended that hen should not be used, since it could be irritating and conflict with the content in the text. This illustrates a common argument against gender-fair language reforms - where new forms are commonly described as awkward and potentially steeling attention from the message ( Blaubergs, 1980; Parks and Roberton, 1998). For example the publication manual by American Psychological Association (APA) includes guidelines against sexist language stating that '...combination forms such as he/she or (s)he are awkward and distracting and are not ideal' ( APA, 2012, p. 74). APA recommends the use of 'neutral' words such as the person, or they. However, both they and the person might be associated with gender bias (most often a male bias), which existing literature on gender-fair language has shown is a robust phenomenon (e.g., Hyde, 1984; Stahlberg et al., 2001, 2007; Lenton et al., 2009; Garnham et al., 2012). According to the literature, a gender bias is described as the situation when care is taken to express gender-fairness in the language and people nevertheless seem to create biased perceptions where they associate the gender-neutral expressions with either a masculine or a feminine gender. For example in English, the word they could be used as an assumed generic form ( Gastil, 1990; Strahan, 2008), but in a study where the generic he was replaced by they, children still more often associated they with a man ( Hyde, 1984). Also, supposedly neutral words such as person, mankind, or even human have been associated with a male bias ( Stahlberg and Sczesny, 2001; Douglas and Sutton, 2014; Bäck et al., 2015). These results imply that the creation of new words may be needed to override gender and cisgender bias, although it might take some time for language users to get used to them. However, the implementation of newly formed words is not an easy and straightforward enterprise, maybe especially not for a pronoun. From a linguist perspective, it has been argued that pronouns changes more slowly than other words because they belong to the so called 'function words' or 'closed words classes' ( Milles, 2013; Paterson, 2014). Function words are used to organize the grammatical structure in a sentence and their meaning is only derived from how they are used in context ( Chung and Pennebaker, 2007; Milles, 2013). Pronouns are organized in a grammatical system, thus adding a new word challenges the whole system ( Paterson, 2014), which is not the case when nouns or verbs are added to a dictionary, or when feminine forms of professional roles are added to masculine forms.

Hen can be used in two different ways: either as a third-person pronoun in situations including general descriptions of an individual whose gender is unknown or is considered as irrelevant, or as a third-person pronoun in situations where the described person is not gender-neutral but describing someone identifying themselves outside the gender-dichotomy ( Milles, 2013; Bäck et al., 2015). For people with a non-binary gender identity, double forms of pronouns (i.e., he/she) and guidelines for gender-fair language are excluding ( Ansara and Hegarty, 2014). For example 'APA's binary descriptions of gender reinforce ethnocentric gender ideology that assumes 'woman' and 'man' are the only possible genders' ( Ansara and Hegarty, 2014, p. 264).

The different uses of hen align with the arguments from its proponents and antagonists. Representatives from LGBT-communities propose a gender-neutral pronoun since it dissolves gender expectations and includes all individuals no matter their gender-identity ( Milles, 2013). These arguments have met the strongest reactions where the proponents have been targeted with offensive and hostile attacks. The antagonists have argued that queer people and feminists are trying to change biology, and that gender is one of the most natural categories. A maybe less controversial argument is that the gender-neutral pronoun hen is a shorter and more efficient way in comparison to double forms. Accordingly, hen could be used when gender is unknown, or as a generic pronoun. These arguments have been put forward by some feminists and linguists ( Milles, 2013). Yet, other groups of feminists have been negative toward a gender-neutral pronoun since, they claim, it could be a way of diminishing women. For example, a well-known Swedish feminist and professor in literature has argued that the feminine gender is obscured by the word hen ( Brattström, 2014). Hence, the use of hen and its consequences have not been agreed on, and disputes reside even within the feminist movement.

After 2012 followed a time with progress toward a more official implementation. In 2013, the Swedish Language Council (språkrådet) changed their recommendation and proposed that hen could be used as a gender-neutral pronoun, although with caution because it may distract attention from the message. The next year, in 2014, it was announced that the word should be included in the 2015th edition of the SAOL that constitutes the (unofficial) norm of the Swedish language ( Fahl, 2014). In this year, the language council also formally changed their guidelines for gender fair language in public authorities, and included hen as an alternative to other neutral or gender balanced forms. Using hen is still not mandatory in official publications; each authority decides themselves whether to use it in public documents or not, and so far very few do ( Ledin and Lyngfelt, 2013; Olsson, 2015).

In the Swedish media, the word has become more commonly used ( Ledin and Lyngfelt, 2013; Milles, 2013). For example, during the first 6 months of 2012 hen was mostly seen in a vivid debate about the word itself, while during the second half of 2012, the word was actually used in texts unrelated to the debate about the word, that is, as a gender-neutral pronoun. In one of the bigger newspapers in Sweden the occurrences of hen increased over a year, from 1 in 2010, to 9 in 2011 and to 113 in 2012 ( Ledin and Lyngfelt, 2013). This means that though hen still is rare, an increase is undisputable. The analyzed paper is among one of the conservative papers, thus it was presumed that occurrences in more progressive papers may be higher, however, a quantification of this hypothesis has not yet been done. In an effort to understand how the media used the word (generic or transgender), Ledin and Lyngfelt (2013) showed that 15% of the occurrences were related to transgender use, whereas 85% corresponded to a practice when gender was unknown, irrelevant or, as a generic form.

Since the pronoun is new, there is still limited research about how the word is perceived and what consequences it might have. A few studies have tested whether hen decreases a male- and cisgender bias. In one study ( Wojahn, 2013), 150 participants read a story about a cellphone user, referring to the person either as he, he/she, hen, or he or she. Results showed that hen evoked the least male bias and also less cisgender bias. In a previous study, we have shown that a person described as hen was more often remembered as a person of unknown gender, whereas a person described by a neutral word is more often remembered as having a masculine gender ( Bäck et al., 2015).

Gender-fair language is often implemented over several years. It commonly starts with activist movements who propose a change. Since people have a preference for status quo ( Jost et al., 2004; Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 2005; Crandall et al., 2009), and a preservation of traditional gender arrangements ( Jost et al., 2008), new linguistic gender word forms may be negatively reacted upon. Proponents of non-sexist language have been attacked, words have been defined as being linguistically wrong or awkward ( Blaubergs, 1980; Parks and Roberton, 1998), and feminine occupational titles have been evaluated more negatively than their masculine traditional form ( Formanowicz et al., 2013). However, familiarity and exposure breeds liking ( Zajonc, 1968), thus the attitudes may change the longer gender-fair language has been used ( Eidelman et al., 2009; Moreland and Topolinski, 2010). Whether such attitude change occurs also for gender-neutral pronouns within a country has not been studied before.

In studying the implementation process of gender-fair language reforms and the consequences on population attitudes and use, it is important to consider variables traditionally associated with negative attitudes toward gender fair language. If we are to make a claim that gender fair language reforms will be successful, an important task for the present research is to show that time in use is important to include when studying attitudes and frequency of use, together with other potential explanations. Previous research has identified a number of predictors of attitudes to gender-fair language and the following section will provide an overview of these.

Sexism in terms of attitudes toward gender equality has been identified as a predictor of negative attitudes toward gender-neutral language use (cf. Sarrasin et al., 2012), together with political orientation in terms of right-wing conservatism ( Formanowicz et al., 2013; Norton and Herek, 2013). Also in the 'hen-debate,' more left-wing than right-wing politicians used hen and promoted that hen should be included in the Swedish Dictionary ( Milles, 2013). In Sweden, there are feminist movements both on the left and right of the political map, and in the last election more politicians than ever before openly stated that they considered themselves to be feminists ( Öhberg and Wängnerud, 2014). Thus, feminist values would be associated with more positive attitudes, no matter of political orientation. Jacobson and Insko (1985) showed that feminist attitudes were associated with a higher use of gender fair language, such as using more double forms of pronouns. Feminist attitudes also mediated the effect between gender and attitudes toward gender fair language. Hence, even though the literature suggests that political right-orientation would predict negative attitudes, this is not entirely straight-forward, and we suggest that interest in gender issues may be a potent predictor as well.

Gender (as coded in a binary system feminine/masculine) as a predictor of attitudes to and use of gender-fair language has been inconclusive so far. Some studies have shown that women are more positive than men to gender-fair language (i.e., Prentice, 1994; Sarrasin et al., 2012) others have shown no differences (i.e., Koeser and Sczesny, 2014). Women tend to use gender-fair language more often than men ( Koeser and Sczesny, 2014), and are more easily influenced to adjust to gender-fair language ( Koeser et al., 2014). Notably, using a gender-neutral hen is not as clearly beneficial for women, as compared to other forms of gender-fair language (e.g., balancing masculine and feminine form, or avoiding masculine generics). Hence, it is not certain how, or even if, gender will affect attitudes to hen. Since hen challenges the binary gender system that is prevailing in most cultures, it could be argued that some individuals will show stronger resistance than others, depending on how important the gender system is to them. We argue that biological gender is not of greatest importance in this case, but rather the extent to which one identifies as a woman or a man, and how important this identification is. Indeed, arguments in the debate have touched upon such issues; for example, heterosexual people have argued that they are negative toward the word hen because it 'restricts their right to express their gender identity,' and that 'romance between men and women will suffer' ( Lagerwall, 2012). Very few studies have investigated strength of gender identity as being a woman or a man in relation to gender-fair language. These studies have used forms of BEM Sex Role Inventory (BMSRI; Bem, 1974). The studies showed that a masculine gender identity (no matter of biological gender) was associated with more negative attitudes ( Rubin and Greene, 1994), while androgynous gender identity has been associated with more positive attitudes, and higher use of gender-fair language ( McMinn et al., 1990; Rubin and Greene, 1991). Given that Sweden is an egalitarian society, where the distinction between femininity and masculinity is no longer as strongly rooted in traditional feminine and masculine roles, we believe that the strength of gender identity is a better measure than gender roles as measured by BMSRI ( Bem, 1974).

Finally, we believe that age will predict attitudes and the use, because younger people are more susceptible to new ideas and to challenge traditional roles, than older people are ( Visser and Krosnick, 1998; Eaton et al., 2009).

The main purpose with the present research is to study how time and other factors are associated with change in attitudes and use of hen. In the present research we investigate the effect of time on the outcome variables. However, we do not here study the mechanism (for instance habituation) by which elapsed time can explain such effects, but rather show that other potential explanatory factors are not sufficient to explain the outcome effects alone. To date, time has been proposed as a cause for difference in evaluations (see for example, Sarrasin et al., 2012). However, no studies have followed an implementation over time in one language, with one specific word. It is also known from previous research that time has a positive effect on attitudes such that the longer something has been in effect the better people will like it ( Zajonc, 1968; Moreland and Topolinski, 2010). We present data from 2012 to 2015, on the attitudes to hen and self-reported use of hen from 2013 to 2015. We make the following predictions:

H1. Attitudes towards hen will become more positive over time.

H2. Self-reported use of hen will increase over time.

H3. Sexism and right-wing political orientation will be associated with negative attitudes, as well a lower use of hen

H4. Age will be related to attitudes and use, such that younger people will be more positive, and indicate more use of the word, than older people. Gender is included as a control because some studies have shown that women are more positive to gender-fair language than men.

H5. A strong gender identity (as either a woman or a man) will be associated with more negative attitudes and less use. Interest in gender issues will be associated with more positive attitudes and higher use.

H6. Time will have a significant and independent effect on attitudes and use of hen, also when all other variables are controlled for.

Materials and Methods

Participants and Procedure

We have collected data on attitudes and use of hen at six points in time since 2012. Participants and the datasets are described in Table 1. Dataset 1 and 2 consist of participants that were approached in the waiting hall at the Central station in Stockholm. Dataset 3 and 4 consist of students at Lund University. Dataset 5 consists of participants that were approached in the city of Lund. Participation was rewarded with a lottery ticket in all these data collections. All studies from 2012 to 2014 were completed through 'paper-and-pencil' questionnaires. The experimenter distributing the questionnaire was present during the participation, but on a distance to provide confidentiality. Dataset 6 consists of participants recruited through advertisement on different Internet forums. 243 started to fill in the questionnaire, 190 completed it. Participation was not compensated. This study was carried out in accordance with Swedish national ethical standards put forth by the Central Ethical Review board and the Swedish Research Council and with written informed consent from all participants.

Variables

The attitude to hen was assessed with one item 'What is your opinion about the gender-neutral pronoun hen in the Swedish language?' (Responses were given on a 7-point response scale ranging from '1 = very positive' to '7 = very negative'). A short text introduced to the question and explained that hen was a gender-neutral word that can be used as a complement to the Swedish words representing she and he.

Behavior (use of hen) was measured from 2013 and onward with one item 'Do you use hen yourself?' (Responses were given on a 7-point response scale ranging from '1 = No, never' to '7 = Yes, always').

From 2013, participants also indicated whether they previously were familiar with the word hen from before. Answers ranged on a 7-point scale from '1 = not al all' to '7 = very much'. Because there were very small variations in the responses from 2013 to 2014, in 2015 we dichotomized this response option into 'yes' and 'no.'

Sexism was measured with five items from the Swedish version of the Modern sexism scale ( Ekehammar et al., 2000; e.g., 'Discrimination against women is no longer a problem in Sweden'; 'Humiliating treatments of women in adverts is unusual'; Answers in terms of agreement or disagreement were given on a 7-point scale from '1 = Strongly disagree' to '7 = Strongly agree). Sexism was included in all six datasets. Means and SD over time are included in Table 2.

Political orientation was assessed with one item 'On a political scale from left to right, where is your position?' Answers were given on a 7-point scale from '1 = clearly to the left' to '7 = clearly to the right').

Gender identity was included from 2013 and onward. In 2013 and 2014 it was assessed with two items (e.g., 'To be a woman/man is an important part of my identity,' 'To be a woman/man is important to me,' measured on a 7-point scale from '1 = strongly disagree' to '7 = strongly agree'). In 2015, we began measuring gender identity with a validated sub-scale from Luhtanen and Crocker (1992) collective identity scale (e.g., 'My gender identity is an important reflection of who I am,' 'My gender identity is an important part of my self image,' (measured on a 7-graded scale: '1 = strongly disagree' to '7 = strongly agree'). We used the two positively framed items because these were most similar to the items we used in 2013 and 2014. The reason for this shift was to use a more well-established scale.

Interest in gender issues was indicated with one item 'How interested are you in general in gender issues?' The scale ranged from '1 = not at all' to '7 = very much'. This variable was included from 2013 and onward.

Age and gender was given by participants in a free-text response in order to avoid cisgenderism ( Ansara and Hegarty, 2014). These variables were included in all datasets.

In order to run the analyses, we collapsed all datasets into one. In the regressions, Time was included as a continuous variable for the years 2012-2015. This means that dataset 2-4 was collapsed into 1 year, 2013. Because there were different sample types we controlled for that factor.

Results

Attitudes to 'hen' and Changes Over Time

Virtually all participants responded that they were familiar with the word hen. In 2013 and 2014 more than 95% responded a 6 or 7 on the 7-point scale, while in 2015 99.5% responded 'yes' to the question if they were familiar with the word since before.

The attitudes shifted from negative to positive over time (see Table 3). A univariate ANCOVA with year (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015) as the independent variable, sample type (student/community) as covariate, and attitude as the dependent variable, showed that attitudes changed over time, F(3,679) = 59.22, p < 0.001, = 0.21. Post hoc comparisons (Bonferroni adjusted for multiple comparisons), showed that the means did not change significantly from 2012 to 2013, or from 2013 to 2014, but between all other years ( p's < 0.004). Furthermore, the attitudes were polarized, such that respondents were either very negative or very positive toward the word hen. Figure 1 shows that the very negative attitudes (i.e., 1 and 2 on the scale) decreased over time (2012 = 56.5%; 2013 = 26.1%; 2014 = 17.5%; 2015 = 9.6%); whereas the very positive attitudes increased (i.e., 6 or 7 on the scale; 2012 = 17.4%; 2013 = 40.4%; 2014 = 32.5%, 2015 = 68.9%).

TABLE 3. Means and SD for 'attitude to hen' and 'behavior to use hen' over 4 years (2012-2015).

FIGURE 1. Polarization of attitudes toward hen was reversed from 2012 to 2015. 'Negative attitudes' = 1 and 2 on the rating scale; 'positive attitudes' = 6 and 7 on the rating scale.

Use of 'hen' Over Time

From 2013 and onward respondents also indicated whether or not they used the gender-neutral pronoun hen themselves (see Table 3). A univariate ANCOVA with year (2013, 2014, 2015) as independent variable, sample type as covariate, and behavior as dependent variable, showed a significant shift in behavior over time, F(2,498) = 8.56, p < 0.001, = 0.03. Post hoc pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni adjusted for multiple comparisons) showed that the difference was significant between 2013 and 2015, ( p < 0.001). The responses for behavior were also somewhat polarized but not as much as for the attitudes, and were not reversed over the years (see Figure 2). A majority in 2013 (50%) and 2014 (58%) indicated they never or almost never used the word hen (as indicated with a 1 or 2 on the rating scale). In 2015, this group had decreased to 25%. However, there was no change in those who very often or always used the word hen (as indicated with a 6 or 7 on the rating scale) over time. In 2013, 13% responded they used hen often; in 2014 and 2015, 10% indicated they often used hen. Thus, both H1 and H2 stating that attitudes will become more positive and the use will increase over time were supported, although the attitudes changed more than the behavior.

Predictors Associated with Attitudes and Use

Hypotheses 3 throughout 6 were related tttitude and use. To test the influence of time on the attitudes to hen, while also controlling for, and investigating effects of, the other predictors, a hierarchical regression with all the variables that were measured from 2012 to 2015 was computed. Table 4 contains the correlations of included variables, collapsed across all years. The regression was performed in three steps (see Table 5). Regressions were also computed with dummy coding for time and the results were similar; we chose to present time variable as a continuous variable. The first step included time (2012-2014) and explained 19% of the variance. The longer the word has been known, the more positive were the attitudes. Adding sample type, age, and gender explained further 6% of the variance, such that being a woman, young, and a student was associated with more positive attitudes. Finally, in step 3, modern sexism and political orientation explained an additional 19% of the variance. Those with a right-wing orientation and higher sexism scores were more negative than individuals with left-wing orientation and lower sexism scores. When these factors were included, gender became insignificant, while time was still an important predictor. The total model explained 43% of the variance in the attitude to hen. Hence, H3, stating that sexism and political right affiliation would be associated with negative attitudes, H4, stating that younger people would be more positive to hen, and H6 stating that time will have an independent and significant effect on attitudes even when controlling for the other predictors, were all supported.

TABLE 5. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting attitudes to hen.

From 2013 and onward three more variables were included in the questionnaires: behavior (use of hen), gender identity, and interest in gender issues. In order to test whether gender identity and interest in gender issues account for more variance over sexism and political orientation, we calculated two hierarchical multiple regressions for attitude and behavior separately. The correlations, means, and SD are described in Table 6.

The regressions were computed in four steps to control for the contribution of variance in each step (see Table 7). For the attitude to the gender-neutral pronoun hen, time explained 9% of the variance in the first step, such that the longer hen had been in use, the more positive were the attitudes. The second step, where sample, gender and age were included, explained another 6% of the variance. Again, student samples were more positive than community samples, women were more positive than men, and younger people were more positive than older. The third step included sexism and political orientation, and explained another 21% of the variance, such that modern sexism and being right-wing oriented was associated with more negative attitudes. When these variables were included, gender became insignificant. The third step including gender identity and interest in gender issues, explained another 8%. Having a strong gender identity was associated with negative attitudes, whereas being interested in gender issues was associated with a positive attitude. When interest in gender issues and gender identity was introduced, neither gender or sample type were significant predictors, and the beta-weights for modern sexism and political orientation also decreased but remained significant. Although the beta-weight for time decreased in step 4 it remained significant.

TABLE 7. Hierarchical multiple regression predicting attitude to and use (behavior) of a gender-neutral pronoun hen.

In the regression with behavior (use of hen) as the dependent variable, time itself explained 2% of the variance. When age, gender, and sample type were included in the second step, those variables accounted for another 9% of the variance. Being older and having a masculine gender was associated with less use than being younger and having a feminine gender. The third step included modern sexism and political orientation and explained another 15% of the behavior. Right-wing orientation and sexism was associated with lower use of a gender-neutral pronoun. The fourth step, with gender identity and interest in gender issues explained another 9%, such that a strong gender identity was associated with lower use and being interested in gender issues was associated with a higher use. In the fourth step, time, gender, and sample type were no longer significant predictors. Also the beta-weights for political orientation and sexism decreased. The total model explained 32% of the variance. When controlling for all other factors, time contributed to a more positive attitude to a gender-neutral pronoun, although it did not increase the use of the pronoun hen. Thus, H6 was partially supported. Again hypothesis H3 and H4 were supported, and as predicted in H5, the strength of gender identity was a stronger predictor than gender itself. In addition, interest in gender issues proved to be a strong and independent predictor of both attitude and use. Even though it did not override the effect of political orientation, it should be taken as an indicator that this is an important aspect to take into consideration in future research.

Our results show that an introduction of a gender-neutral pronoun in the Swedish language was met with high resistance, but that both attitudes and behavior became more positive over time. We found that time predicted the attitude to hen also when other factors were controlled for. Other factors that contributed with unique variance to the attitude and the behavior were gender identity (but not gender itself), modern sexism, political orientation, and interest in gender issues.

Discussion

This article has given an overview of the introduction of the new gender-neutral pronoun hen in the Swedish language. Data were collected during 4 years, starting in 2012 when the debate about a gender-neutral pronoun began and continued until 2015, 1 year after the word hen had been officially included in the Swedish dictionary.

The Impact of Time

The results clearly show how the introduction of hen was associated with high resistance (in the media and among lay people), but also that attitudes became positive over time. In 2012, a majority of the study sample was explicitly very negative to the inclusion of a gender-neutral pronoun, whereas only a minority was very positive. However, already in 2013 this polarization was reversed, and in 2015 almost no one was very negative. A similar pattern was found for the use of the gender-neutral pronoun, although this change was smaller.

This is the first study about the introduction of gender-fair language analyzing the attitudes for a specific word over time. Previous research has proposed that variations in attitudes to gender-fair language could be due to how long it has been in use (see for example Sarrasin et al., 2012). This is the first study explicitly testing that hypothesis using data measurements at several time points. Indeed, time was the most important predictor of the attitudes, even after controlling for various other factors. This sends a very important message, because it should motivate language amendments also when there are strong reactions against an implementation.

We found that the attitudes changed faster than the behavior. The debate about hen was very wide-spread in the Swedish society, including the broader media landscape, leading to that the familiarity of hen very quickly included the large majority. Already in 2012, almost 95% of participants were familiar with the word, and in 2015, only 1 out of 190 participants were unfamiliar with hen. This may have been of importance for how fast the attitudes changed. For behavior to occur, hen must be activated and accessible in a specific moment ( Fazio et al., 1989; Fazio and Olson, 2003; Glasman and Albarracín, 2006) as an alternative to, for example, double forms such as she or he. Because pronouns are often processed automatically ( Chung and Pennebaker, 2007) the traditional system with she and he is probably still cognitively dominant over new forms of pronouns. Accessibility is although likely to increase over time, considering the increasingly widespread use of the word in media ( Ledin and Lyngfelt, 2013), and in other arenas. For instance, the word was used in the lyrics of one of the songs to the Swedish contribution to the European Song Contest 2015, indicating its widespread acknowledgment. Social norms also facilitate behavior ( Fazio, 1990), and it is plausible that people have been avoiding using hen because they still believe that the majority are negative to it. Thus, when people realize that the attitudes have changed, the word may be more common also among lay people and everyday users.

Factors Explaining the Attitudes and Use

The more strongly participants identified themselves with their gender identity, the more negative attitudes they held and the least often they used the word. Women were somewhat more positive toward hen and used hen more often than men, but gender identity proved to be a much stronger predictor than biological gender. This supports the idea that a gender-neutral pronoun challenges the traditions of a binary gender system. These results also line up with previous research showing that androgynous gender roles were associated with a higher use of gender-fair language than traditional gender roles ( Rubin and Greene, 1991). A large body of research indicates that people (especially adults) strongly prefer the system that they currently live in ( Jost et al., 2004). People prefer to keep things stable and predictable. Any new word would thus probably elicit some resistance. However, there is reason to believe that a word explicitly challenging such a basic organizing principle such as the binary gender system elicits even stronger resistance. This resistance may also vary depending on individual factors. As was found in the present research a strong gender identity was negatively associated with attitudes toward hen, which can be considered a gender-fair amendment toward neutralization. However a strong gender identity might be positively related to amendments that add feminine alternatives to masculine forms because the binary gender-dichotomy would be even more strongly preserved and perpetuated with such amendments. This is an empirical question.

As in previous research, age, sexism, and political orientation was associated with attitudes to gender-fair language ( Parks and Roberton, 2000; Sarrasin et al., 2012; Formanowicz et al., 2013). However, we also found that the influence of those factors decreased when gender identity and interest in gender issues were included. Even though political orientation still proved to be a significant predictor, this may indicate that interest is an important variable that eventually could diminish this effect, considering that there is a growing feminist movement also within the political right in Sweden.

Opinions associated with feminists may evoke higher resistance among people who do not actively endorse such values ( Blaubergs, 1980). Thus, when the trendy entertainment magazine in one issue exchanged all third personal pronouns into hen, and when newspaper media started to use hen, this might have been of more importance than when feminists or linguists debated why hen should be used ( Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). Koeser et al. (2014) have also shown that the reading of gender-fair texts increases the use of gender-fair language. Hence, the fact that hen occurred more often in ordinary newspapers might have had a positive impact on use and might also imply an increase over the coming years.

Hen in Swedish was adapted from the gender-neutral Finnish word hän ( Prewitt-Freilino et al., 2012). Maybe there are more words in gender-neutral languages that could be introduced either in natural or gender-marked languages. Some scholars have pointed to the need to be creative and come up with new words ( Wayne, 2004), and borrowing them from other languages could be one strategy. New words might have a potential to override previous problems in applying gender fair language, since they may be less associated with a gender bias, which might be the case with other neutral words ( Bäck et al., 2015). It should also be noted that both the Finish word hän as well as the Swedish gender-neutral pronoun hen very nicely fits into the Swedish system of pronouns, as being literally very close to, as well as alphabetically positioned between han ('he') and hon ('she'). There is of course a risk that also hen could be associated with a male bias in future. Due to our results in this study we believe that such a risk is lower as long as hen is used as a generic or a transgender pronoun; however, this is an empirical question. When hen is broadly used in society, it is important to replicate studies that investigate how gender is activated when hen is used to refer to a person ( Wojahn, 2013; Bäck et al., 2015).

Limitations and Future Research

The design of the present study is cross-sectional and not longitudinal, which may imply selection bias in the samples and that other factors such as possible cohort effects may have had an impact on the results. With this in mind, we took care to collect both student and community samples, for which we controlled in the regression analyses. However, these samples were mainly drawn from cities and hence there may still be possible bias in the samples. This implies that generalization from the present study should be done with caution. With respect to cohort effects, our samples were fairly similar, although some minor deviations can be noted. The comparisons of the samples show that sexism was lower in the first year sample and the last year sample, gender interest was higher in the last sample, and gender identity was less strong in the last sample. Political orientation was similar in all samples. Here it can be noted that the last sample was collected using a web survey, which may imply selection bias since those who choose to participate can be expected to be relatively interested in issues of gender and language. With these problems in mind, we computed regressions for 2 years at a time, controlling for sexism, age, gender, and political orientation. Time was a significant factor in all three regressions (2012-2013; 2013-2014; 2014-2015).

This research is fairly explorative and the first of its kind. This entails that the items may not always have been entirely perfectly formulated. For instance, the response scale to the item 'Do you use hen yourself?' ranged from 'No, never' to 'Yes, always.' It may not be very clear to the participant what the response option 'Yes, always' entails, and this could be a contributing factor to why the results in general were weaker for the behavioral measure. 'Always' could indicate that one replace all personal pronouns with hen, or it could indicate that one always use hen when gender is unknown or irrelevant. Another limit is that this measure does not separate between written and spoken language. It is easier to use hen in writing than it is to use it in speaking. Future research should take these limitations into account when exploring how hen is used.

Language and communication have a large impact on the creation of a common ground and reality, for instance concerning what is considered as normal or desirable ( Clark and Brennan, 1991; Hardin and Higgins, 1996). Thus, adding a gender-neutral pronoun to a natural gendered language may influence how individuals with a non-binary gender are perceived. In all our datasets 'gender' was an open-ended question, making it possible to self-categorize as neither woman or man. There were no such responses in 2012-2014, while in 2015, 4% (eight people) indicated a gender identity outside the gender dichotomy. Although it might be a coincidence, it could also be a consequence of the introduction of hen. This is something that could be further studied. A related important question that remains is what impact the use of hen actually has on representations of gender, and interpersonal attitudes.

We believe it is important to empirically test if common arguments proposed as negative consequences of gender-fair language are true. One such argument that remains to be tested is whether new word forms actually steel attention from the text content. If there is a cognitive load associated with hen, reading a text with hen should take longer time, and less information should also be recalled from such a text. Finally, it is important to note that we do not argue that time in use operates in isolation from other factors. One important aspect we believe is of great importance is that the Swedish society is becoming increasingly egalitarian and has a strong feminist movement, which includes people of all gender identities, and people with different political opinions. The fact that hen has its roots as far back as the 1960's indicates that something else must have sparked the onset of the use in modern day than just time. One factor may be a societal 'readiness' to take this debate. Hence, societies of different levels of such readiness will of course receive a similar implementation differently. However, since there is a strong feminist movement in many societies, as indicated by the UN's 'heforshe' campaign, we believe that the global readiness could be relatively favorable in a near future. Another factor is the word's practical implications. In the Swedish case hen was introduced by LGBT communities and within the feminist movement, but clearly it met demands also among lay people as the word became as widespread as soon as it did.

Conclusion

This is the first study analyzing the importance of time in implementing gender fair-language. The introduction of a gender-neutral pronoun in Sweden was firstly met with hostile reactions and negative attitudes, but over the course of only a couple of years, attitudes became largely positive. These results are positive for those working with gender equality and motivate implementations although the initial resistance may be high.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported the Swedish Research Council (grant: 2014-1150). We acknowledge students that have participated in the data collections.

References

Ledin, P., and Lyngfelt, B. (2013). Om bruket av hen i bloggar, tidningstexter och studentuppsatser [The use of hen in blogs, newspaper articles and student work]. Språk Och Stil 23, 141-174.

Love, A. (2014). A room of one's own: afe placement for transgender youth in foster care. N Y. Univ. Law Rev. 89:2265.

Lundquist, J. (2012). Kiwi Och Monsterhunden [ Kiwi and the Monster Dog]. Stockholm: Olika Förlag.

Milles, K. (2013). En öppning i en sluten ordklass? Det nya användandet av pronomenet hen [An opening in a closed word class? The new use of the pronoun hen]. Språk Och Stil 23, 107-140.

Olsson, I. (2015). "Hen Och Andra Sätt Att Skriva Könsneutralt [Hen and Other Ways of Writing Gender-Neutral]," in Klarspråak ( A newsletter from the Swedish Language Council).

Wayne, L. D. (2004). Neutral pronouns: a moderst proposal whose time has come. Can. Women Stud. 24, 85-92.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introducing a gender-neutral pronoun in a natural gender language: the influence of time on attitudes and behavior

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The implementation of gender fair language is often associated with negative reactions and hostile attacks on people who propose a change. This was also the case in Sweden in 2012 when a third gender-neutral pronoun hen was proposed as an addition to the already existing Swedish pronouns for she (ho…

# data[].attributes.headline
Which words should be included or excluded in a gender-neutral language? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Which words should be included or excluded in a gender-neutral language? 

# data[].attributes.headline
How grammatical gender shapes the way people think? 

# data[].attributes.subject
How grammatical gender shapes the way people think? 

# data[].attributes.headline
Which words should be included or excluded in a gender-neutral language? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Which words should be included or excluded in a gender-neutral language? 

# data[].attributes.body
There are so-called innocent but apparently sexist words in languages such as man used to refer to all of the people, mankind, man made, fellow, guys, on one hand some professions that used to be done only by men in the past like chairman, postman, fireman, policeman on the other hand the professions that used to be attributed to only women like nurse have created a drastic inequality in languages which is highly sensed by people. For example when children are given a set of words in which these sexist words are included they primarily think the people in the sentences as males. This makes women and people who belongs to LGBT(Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) excluded.
Let's see how to make these words gender-inclusive:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender-inclusive Language - How to avoid sexism

# data[].attributes.headline
How grammatical gender shapes the way people think? 

# data[].attributes.subject
How grammatical gender shapes the way people think? 

# data[].attributes.body
Languages are theoretically divided into three groups according to their gendering. Some languages such as Finnish, Turkish and Chinese are named as genderless languages as they don't give words a gender and don't have gender pronouns. The other group is named as gender natural languages such as English and Swedish. They don't give words gender either but have gender pronouns. The last group is  gendered languages like German and Spanish which sort words out according to genders. According to researches, this affects the way people think. For example Both German and Spanish people were asked to describe a key in their native languages and German people described the key, a male noun "ein Schlüssel", as something hard, heavy and jogged, the adjectives generally attributed to men while Spanish people described it, a female noun "una llave", as golden, intricate and little, adjectives mainly attributed to women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender Neutral Pronouns: They're Here, Get Used To Them

# data[].attributes.headline
Does society expect man and women speak differently?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does society expect man and women speak differently?

# data[].attributes.body
Semantic derogation is a negative connotation on a word. For example, the word slut at first meant 'A woman of dirty,slovenly,or untidy habits or appearance ;a foul slattern'. only later did it become linked to loose sexual morality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Essay Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

The Semantic Derogation of Woman

In the reading of Muriel Schulz "The Semantic Derogation of Woman", the author talks about words in which describe woman in a slang or profound way. The author says this is because men fear woman's attitudes and this is the only way they can let it out. Schulz's talks about how words over time which were nice and gentlemanly like or had a good meaning have become rude and slanderous towards woman. I hope by the end of this paper you will better understand what Schulz's point of view was trying to make clear.

The main issue the author points out is how the language we use today will carry through to new generations. She says it throughout the paper that men of degenerated all of these words in some way or form to insult woman. For example she says Shakespeare degenerated the word lewd to mean prostitute(Schulz, 45). No matter how small or discrete we are about using slang words sooner or later a new generation will start to use it and unless a generation decides to stop using a part of language it will continue to pass on. Men throughout history have designed the language throughout the generations and have always made unequal's. For example, "all men are created equal" this statement coming from our founding fathers. Two things are wrong with that sentence: founding fathers, not founding mothers, and all men are created equal not all humans are created equal. Though it is true men have wrote the language and laws we currently and had previously used, the future looks brighter and brighter for woman as they infiltrate the government. Not only this, but woman are a huge part of how we are raised. They are not only teaching us in the classroom, but at home too. This I believe disproves the author who states men help women stay out of the office. There is no way woman would be in office if it wasn't for men standing up for woman and voting for them too. This is where I believe Schulz lacks evidence for her case.

The next part of the article Schulz talks about is the slander used to describe old or overweight woman. She talks about how men have made words like "cow" and "warhorse" to describe these women(Schulz, 43). I believe half of this is true. I've never heard an old or overweight woman called a warhorse(Schulz, 44). A warhorse or steed usually refers to a young, fast, athletic person. However, she does list other terms that I would have fully agreed upon like "hag". Older ladies still today are called old hags and still today it's an insult(Schulz, 43). People who are overweight these days are stilled called cows, and old people are called old hags, these are both insults. Once again she lacks evidence and makes a mistake saying that if you called a man a granny he would take it as an insult. If I were called a granny I would just look at the person funny and say do I look like a girl to you.

The next issue Schulz talks about is how words like "tramp" and "mistress" have degenerated over time to become words that describe woman if they have sex too much or cheat on their man(Schulz, 46). She makes a good point in that things woman do which help pleasure men are made to look degrading, and are looked down upon. Such acts for example are stripping and prostitution. I would have to agree with the author full heartily on this issue. Even though men love skimpy little outfits on girls, I can't help and look back on how hypocritical we are on those girls. Some of these girls are well sophisticated young ladies just trying to make a buck, so they can get through college and become a helpful person to society. A good example would be Lady Gaga who is now a well known pop singer in the country. Even though her parents were well off and could pay for her college, she decided to strip to pay for her college and make herself an independent woman.

The final thing the author brings up is why men fear to be inferior with women. She says men just can't stand it that girls are biologically stronger than men during the early stages of life because girls hit puberty faster. Girls also have a longer lifespan and are less likely to get diseases. For this men must say hostile things to woman to make themselves feel superior and make woman feel worthless. The author here is trying to finish off the reader here with a last onslaught against men, but she makes some mistakes. Yes, boys do feel a little weaker when girls start to grow taller than the, so they do say mean things to make themselves feel superior. However, when men in their early twenties are taller than these girls a why do they insult these girls now. It's certainly not because their worried these girls are going to outlast them in life, it's because guys think it's cool to show off in front of their friends, and see how bad they can insult a girl. I just feel the author really never covers this age group throughout the article.

To conclude I think this paper was very well written overall. This feminist really has a passion for what she's talking about and really shows it throughout the paper. However, I do feel that she did lack evidence sometimes during the paper, and this can leave holes in her story. I hope I have helped you understand what Schulz's feminist point of view was trying to make clear.

Works Cited

King, James. http://thejamkingshow.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/snap-lady-gaga-use-to-be-a-striper/. 7 April 2009.

"warhorse." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 15 Dec. 2009. .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Essay Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work here. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

# data[].attributes.headline
Does society expect man and women speak differently?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does society expect man and women speak differently?

# data[].attributes.body
In 1975, Robin Lakoff published Language and Woman's Place. While this book has been criticised for it introspective nature, the questions it raised and the features of 'women's language' that Lakoff identified led to a great deal of research on women's language,Lakoff argues that women's language is characterised by a number of features including the avoidance of swear words, the use of hedges or fillers, the use of tag questions, empty adjectives, intensifiers,specific colour terms, more standard syntax,rising intonation on declaratives and high level of politeness. Subsequent research on what women actually do linguistically doesn't always match up with Lakoff's claims.However, nearly 40 years later, if we understand Lakoff's features as typifying a kind of 'ideal' woman against which real women are measured the list continues to work hell. In this way,Lakoff's features provide us with an account of what people expect from in their language use.An important feature of the concept 'women's language' is not that there actually a way that men and women speak one way and men another is strongly entrenched.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When I give lectures about talk, one of the most frequent questions from audiences is, 'Do men and women talk differently?' Indeed, it is often not asked, simply asserted - 'but, of course, men and women talk differently'. People who raise this topic generally assume I will confirm what they think they already know.

We think we already know that women and men talk differently for many reasons. We know it from the thousands of 'pop' psychology and communication books, from Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus to He's Just Not That into You. There are thousands of scientific articles that report sex differences in behaviour of all kinds. We think we know about gender difference because research that does not show difference is often not published. Indeed, using gender as a research category is often not interrogated at all. That women and men talk differently has long since passed beyond the realm of academic enquiry and is just what we know.

Researchers have addressed questions about gender and language for several decades. In the 1970s, the linguist Robin Lakoff identified a so-called 'women's register'. It is through language, Lakoff argued, that women's inferior place in society is maintained. Women's talk is more polite than men's; women use more tag questions (e.g., 'isn't it?'), use weaker directives, avoid swearing, and use more empty adjectives (e.g., 'cute') than men.

Lots of research followed Lakoff's original ideas, testing out gender differences in who talks most, who interrupts more, who uses more 'minimal responses' (e.g., 'mm', 'yeah'), and who controls the topic of a conversation. But many apparent findings about gender difference are built on shaky foundations.

For example, the idea that men grab power by interrupting women (more than women interrupt men) is based on a mistaken understanding of interruption. Consider Example 1. The square brackets on lines 02 and 03 indicate when the speakers talk at the same time.
Example 1: From Beattie (1983)
01 A: ... so he (.) he gives the impression that he

02 wasn't able to train them up. [Now

03 B: [He didn't try hard

04 enough heh heh heh

The original analyst of this example claimed that 'Speaker B clearly interrupts Speaker A'. Another analyst, Celia Kitzinger, points out that, in fact, Speaker B starts talking at the precise point when Speaker A reaches the end of their sentence - in technical terms, the end of a 'turn constructional unit'. Speakers frequently - and unproblematically - start to speak at the end of another speaker's sentence. B does not interrupt A.

In Example 2, Tony and Marsha are talking about their son's vandalised car. Kitzinger points out that Tony - a man - starts his turn before Marsha - a woman - completes hers.
Example 2: Tony and Marsha
01 Tony: That really makes me mad.

02 (0.2)

03 Marsha: .hhh Oh it's disgusti[ng as a matter of ] fact.

04 Tony: [ P o o r J o e y. ]

Some researchers would use these three lines of talk as clear-cut evidence of men's dominance over women. However, a closer look reveals that when Marsha describes the vandalism as 'disgusting', her turn has already delivered something that could be complete. Adding 'as a matter of fact' is not necessary. So Tony is not interrupting when he says, in overlap, 'Poor Joey'. The parents talk in tandem to share the same feelings about what has happened to their son.

A little later in the same call, Tony and Marsha are discussing a problem for their son, who is travelling on a standby flight from Marsha's home back to Tony's. On lines 05 and 06, both speakers talk at the same time.
Example 3: Tony and Marsha
01 Marsha: What time did he get on the plane.

02 Tony: Uh::: (0.2) I: don't know exactly I think it was

03 arou:nd three o'clock uh something of that sort.

04 (0.2)

05 Marsha: Oh: maybe he g[ot s'm-

06 Tony: [He took it at four. Gerda says.

This time, Tony starts talking at a point in Marsha's turn where she is clearly not finished - she has not completed her turn in terms of its grammar, intonation (there is no full stop) or action (she has not finished her speculation about her son's circumstances). Tony interrupts Marsha. But, as Kitzinger points out, Tony's interruption is cooperative:
In response to Marsha's enquiry about when their son boarded a plane, Tony reports not being sure and then gives an approximate answer ('around three o'clock or something of that sort'). At line 05 Marsha is apparently using this report as the basis for some speculation about what may have happened and it is this speculation, based on his (as it turns out erroneous) report, that Tony interrupts. Tony's new partner, Gerda, who has overheard his report of Joey's departure time, has apparently corrected him and he is relaying this correction ('four o'clock') to Marsha before she can develop a theory about Joey's flight based on incorrect information. The interruption is here used to implement a correction that has consequences for the turn Marsha is in the course of producing, and it is thus clearly a cooperative action, and from Marsha's point of view, a helpful interruption.
All of this shows us that simply counting instances of overlapping talk says very little about interruption.

Other claims about gender differences in talk have also later been revealed to be flawed. A common assertion is that women talk more than men. The words that characterise the way women talk perpetuate this myth - women chatter, gossip, prattle, natter - about trivial matters. At the same time, feminist researchers have claimed to find that men talk more than women, hogging the floor in public and workplace settings. Yet more scientists have found that no gender difference exists in who talks more.

Throughout my book Talk: The Science of Conversation, there are hundreds of examples of men, women, salespersons, mediators, police officers, clients, customers . . . using tag questions (e.g., 'don't you'), 'minimal responses' (e.g., 'mm', 'yeah'), initiating topics, and overlapping each other. If we categorise all of our examples in terms of gender alone, we will make erroneous claims about women and men at the same time as we miss what is going on in each case. We will stop looking for other explanations for the way people talk.

Consider two examples from the start of a telephone call to a double-glazing company (Example 4) and the vet's (Example 5).
Example 4: Calling double-glazing sales
01 Sales: G'd afternoon, Fine Bar Wi:ndows,

02 (0.6)

03 Customer: .shih (.) .hh >hi< w'd it be po:ssible f'somebody

04 t'come an' give me a quote on uh: a window an:

05 some doors please.
Example 5: Calling the vet
01 Vet: Dunnetts Vets.=Highuptown, Maggie speaking, how

02 can I ↑he:lp.

03 (0.4)

04 Pet owner: Hello there:.=um: I need t'make an appointment

05 t'bring the cat in t'get its um: updated ↓vaccina:tions.

In both cases, the callers are making a request. They design their requests differently. For some gender difference researchers, the customer calling about windows uses stereotypically female language, with hedges and modal verbs ('Would it be possible'), hesitations ('.shih (.) .hh'), and in a polite manner ('please'). The pet owner is stereotypically male, with a direct request ('I need . . .') which is less polite.

The caller in Example 4 is a man; in Example 5 a woman. Perhaps these are just atypical cases - obviously not all men and women speak like their stereotype! But if we start and stop with gender as the only lens through which to interpret the data, we identify only exceptions that prove the rule.

Instead, conversation analysts start with action - what are the speakers doing? Are they entitled to do it? Do they know about the service and what it provides? What is at stake? People begin requests with 'I need' when, say, calling for an ambulance, or a doctor, or

for something relatively important and urgent - like vaccinations. People also say 'I need' when they know what the service offers, and that they are entitled to use it. However, when people are less familiar with the service and what it offers, or they are less entitled to ask for it, or if their problem is not urgent, they often ask 'would it be possible'. These kinds of contingencies better explain the differences in the way people talk.

Plenty of myth-busting science about gender difference exists. Yet our ideas about differences between women and men persist. Gender difference studies start with the assumption that all women and all men can be classified, even with caveats, into two homogeneous groups. Often, then, researchers do not really study gender difference. They simply create and maintain it. They make selective observations to confirm what we already know about how women and men behave.

As a PhD student in the early 1990s, I struggled with all these ideas. I wanted to say something about gender and language. But I didn't want to make assumptions about what I would find when I analysed interaction. I didn't want to reproduce stereotypes. At the same time, I felt that gender imbalance and stereotypes were all around me. How could I capture them? The conversation analyst Curtis LeBaron had the answer:
we should not . . . say 'oh, look, here's a man and a woman talking; . . . oh, we can make these conclusions about gendered communication'. But rather we should say, 'gender only becomes an issue when the participants themselves make it one and we can point to different things about that'.
And, it turns out, people invoke gender a lot. Gender matters to people. Making it relevant does things. Here is just one example, from the PhD I eventually wrote. My research was on gender and conversation in university tutorials. My initial interest was in whether or not male students dominated the floor, leaving female students less verbal space to participate.

My data were thirty hours of tutorials. I quickly realised that coding and counting and correlating with gender would tell me little about what was going on in the encounters. I was also increasingly unhappy with the Men Are from Mars . . . view of gender. So I asked LeBaron's question: how does gender become an issue for participants themselves?

In Example 6, four psychology students are analysing an image in a magazine. They have been instructed to produce a collaborative written report about the materials they are discussing. Bob reminds them of this task.
Example 6: University tutorial
01 Bob: Is somebody scribing. who's writin' it.=

02 Ned: =Oh yhe:ah.

03 (0.8)

04 Matt: Well you can't [ read my ] writin' once I've

05 Ned: [She wants to do it.]

06 Matt: [wri:tten it.]

07 Klara: [.hehhhh ]

08 Ned: We:ll secretary an' female.

As the person asking the question 'Is somebody scribing. who's writin' it' - taking the 'first pair part' - Bob relieves himself of the obligation of answering the question and becoming the scribe. Ned is first to respond, saying, 'Oh yhe:ah.'. He remembers that they must do this, but does not volunteer. After a gap, Matt provides a reason why he cannot be the scribe (his writing is indecipherable). At the same time, Ned nominates Klara. He says, 'She wants to do it.' as he points to her. Ned's words and embodied conduct are fitted together.

Klara has also not volunteered to scribe. Her small laughter particle ('.hehhhh') could be responding to Matt's comment about his own handwriting, or Ned's suggestion that she wants to scribe. Ned then provides an account for his nomination of Klara: 'We:ll secretary an' female.'. At this point, gender becomes relevant to the encounter. It is invoked by Ned to do something. The stereotype that women are secretaries is used at a particular point to make something happen. And Klara becomes the secretary. Her participation in the discussion is reduced to note taker.

You might agree that this is a powerful moment in which gender and language come together. You might also think that this is a oneoff. So what? It is much easier to divide the world into two genders from the start and count the things people do. How do we capture sufficient numbers of moments like this to say something meaningful and generalisable?

There are several answers to this question. First, Example 6 is a demonstration of a method of investigating gender and language - one that does not start with any assumptions about women and men. We can capture moments of gender relevance without using gender as a scientists' category, at all. We can investigate gender as a speaker's category.

Second, conversation analysis is neither a quantitative nor a qualitative method. It is sometimes both. One conversation is not a useful unit of analysis. One conversation contains many questions, many answers, many overlaps, many pauses, many 'ums' and 'uhs'. An apparently single conversation delivers lots of instances of particular phenomena. In the conversation analyst Emanuel Schegloff's words, 'one is also a number, the single case is also a quantity, and statistical significance is but one form of significance'. Claims about gender and interruption may be based on large datasets, but if there is a basic error in identifying interruption in the first place, Schegloff is correct to point out that 'quantification is no substitute for analysis'.

Third, conversation analysis is a form of logical analysis. An example from linguistics makes the point: the sentence 'Peter forwarded the letter to his aunt Mary' is grammatical (if you don't agree with me, you don't understand what 'grammatical' means, or you don't speak English), and its grammar can be sensibly analysed. On the other hand, 'To aunt the forwarded Peter letter Mary his' contains the same words but is not grammatical, and has no structure. It is not a matter of counting how many times people say these things, or asking how many people agree about their grammaticality. It's a matter of knowing how to speak English, and you can make definitive analyses of these things from just one example.

What makes a turn in conversation analysable is that it is recognisable and understandable by people, including analysts, who are members of a culture and a linguistic community that talk in those ways. We don't need huge samples and probabilistic statistics to do an analysis, even though we do need collections of instances of a phenomenon to analyse and figure out how they work. But even then, the analysis of each and every 'instance' is done on the same basis, including recognising something as an instance, which is the tacit ability that people have, and that anthropologists need, to understand the uses of their own natural language, or one in which they have acquired some competence.

Fourth, when people ask me a 'how many' question, I respond with an illustration to challenge the presuppositions built into it. I ask how many black holes (or big bangs) does a physicist need to say something meaningful about the science of black holes? Most people laugh, and then say 'one'. I recently asked a physicist this question. He looked thoughtful for a moment, and then replied 'five'. So how many negotiations with persons in crisis do we need to study before saying something meaningful about effective practice? How many times would you need to see that asking people to talk does not get people to talk? I do have more than one example. And it is helpful to show that asking people to talk does not work in other settings too. But the logic and explanation remain the same.

Fifth, quite simply, it would be strange to discount an analysis of a conversation because there is only one instance. Sometimes there may only be one instance to study. If you are at a party, and a guest collapses, hopefully you or someone else will call for an ambulance. If the ambulance takes a long time to arrive, and the guest dies, the telephone call will be a source of evidence in any subsequent investigation. Compared to the numbers of patients calling their GP receptionist, there are very few police negotiations with suicidal persons in crisis. But it is important to know how they work.

Finally, I have spent a good chunk of my career showing that, actually, one can identify and analyse moments like 'Well secretary an' female' systematically. With large datasets of lots of interaction, it turns out that people often invoke gender (or other categories such as age or ethnicity) in the same kinds of settings, in the same kinds of turns, doing the same kinds of actions. We just need to study real talk - the answers are often right in front of us.

Elizabeth Stokoe is Professor of Social Interaction in the Discourse and Rhetoric Group at Loughborough University, using conversation analysis to understand how talk works. Outside the University, she runs workshops with professionals using her research-based communication training method called the 'Conversation Analytic Role-play Method'. She is one of thirteen WIRED 2015 Innovation Fellows; has given TEDx, New Scientist, SciFoo/Google, Cheltenham Science Festival and Royal Institution lectures, and her research and biography were featured on BBC Radio 4's The Life Scientific. Her book Talk - The Science of Conversation, published by Robinson, is available now. This extract is reproduced with kind permission.

You can read more from Professor Stokoe in her Latitude Festival appearance for us (also available as a podcast); or revisit the 2013 'Careers' interview which she says led to all sorts of new opportunities!

Professor Stokoe also introduces a special issue in our December 2018 edition.

See also the recent profile in The Observer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When I give lectures about talk, one of the most frequent questions from audiences is, 'Do men and women talk differently?' Indeed, it is often not asked, simply asserted - 'but, of course, men and women talk differently'. People who raise this topic generally assume I will confirm what they think they already know.

# data[].attributes.body
Many cultures claim that women talk a great deal:
>>Women's tongues are like lambs tails-they are never still.(English)
>>Where there are woman and geese there is noise.(japanese)
>>Nothing is so unnatural as a talkative man and quiet woman.(scottish)
Women as compared to men, tend to talk more — more often, at greater length and about more personal topics. But that’s private speaking — conversations that negotiate and strengthen personal relationships. Research, my own and others’, has also shown that men tend to talk far more than women in what might be called public speaking — formal business-focused contexts, like meetings.In the private domain,however,women talk more than men.