re : 6 . 1083 , disc : sex / lang , re : 1079 , 1080 alexis mr writes : > lydie meunier seems to be asking which comes first , sexist language > or sexist behavior . but there is surely a third alternative , that > language and behavior evolve together , reinforcing each other . > it is also important to distinguish the question of how some form > of language or behavior arose in the first place from that of how > it is transmitted to successive generations . i would have little > doubt that sexist language plays a major role in transmitting > ideas which lead to sexist behavior , but it is difficult for me > to believe that historically sexist language came before sexist > behavior . you ' re probably right ! historically , sexist behavior probably came before sexist language . yet , today we are born in a society already in place , and sexist language is likely to influence a child 's mind and lead to a sexist behavior . are we born with a sexist attitude ? i do believe that many traditions ( sexism being one of them ) and perspectives are partially conveyed through language . however , like you , i tend to believe that language and behavior evolve together . i do believe that historically today 's sexist interactive patterns are influenced - - among other factors - - by sociolinguistic practices during biblical times when a wife had to address her husband as slaves had to address their master , or subjects their king . this implied that a man could also address his wife as a master his slave and a king his subject , i . e . , using a clear rhetoric of authority . today , conversational dominance by males in our judeo-christian society is not as extreme as during the biblical times , but interestingly it is still inherent to male-specific discourse and has become the focus of some interesting sociolinguistic research . as a matter of fact , i moved to the bible belt one year ago ( i spent 10 years on the east and west coasts in the us prior to my arrival in the bible belt last year ; originally i come from europe ) , and after observations of interractive patterns among couples around me , i came to the hypothesis that the stronger a religious ( or traditional ) impact on people 's life , the more sex discrimination is reflected in language use . i have also noticed much more instances of sex discrimination in language use in offices i had to go to in the bible belt ( e . g . doctor and lawyer offices , insurance agencies , etc . ) than in other professional offices i visited elsewhere in the u . s . i found this extremely interesting . > ( a ) i do believe that people in all kinds of cultures themselves > believe that men and male behavior are superior in some sense to > women and female behavior , and i hold that this perception ( even if > it were not accurate ) is what must matter to us as we discuss > sexist language . whether the perception is accurate is of no importance > in this context . why should it be of no importance ? shall we just accept the discriminatory status quo as it is ? what is the point of studying linguistics if it is for no other purpose than the pleasure of intellectual analysis ? shall we just remain at the analytical level and ignore the implications revealed by research , or could we also use research findings to help improve communication or even change subsconsciously ( socially ) acquired schemata ? studies in psychology have shown that females reading texts written in a generic " he " retain less information than when they read texts using a generic plural . obviously , the impact of using a sexist language goes beyond the simple interest of linguistic studies within a certain context . personally , i like to believe that my research will somewhat help society at large . what is the point of considering discriminatory perspectives as unchangeable or questionable facts whereas we all know that both languages and human psychology have the potential to change ? > ( b ) i do not make any necessary connection between oppression of > womn and oppression of black people at all . i simply used the > example of black slavery as an example of the general principle that > to admit the existence of a form of oppression practiced by some > group ( by white people ) does not mean that one must necessarily > hate them . my point was that i am not a mysandrist just because > i accept that men have historically not been very nice to women . you are absolutely right ! hate does not help any purpose nor does it improve communication . yet , black people needed the cooperation of open-minded white people to help them reach a status based on the principle of equality . the same applies to females who keep trying to communicate with males , and who meet open and understanding men whereas others still believe that sexism is a nonsense political issue brought up by angry feminists . before being a political issue , it is a serious social issue that needs to be addressed through mutual understanding and respect . if males refuse their cooperation , some females may end up hating men as a natural psychological reaction . simone de beauvoir wrote in her book the second sex that there is no black problem yet a white problem ( referring the civil right movement in the us in the 50 's 60 's ) , because so called black issues essentially stem from the whites ' disciminatory attitudes . black problems can be addressed by first revealing the problem of racism , and then by educating people to open their mind to differences as an enriching asset to the society , not a sign of deficiency . likewise , women issues are primarily men issues , because we are still living in a world which has been historically organized by men who believed in female inferiority , whether politically , socially or linguistically . communication between men and women is therefore the key to social improvement , hence the social mission of our research in linguistics , considering that language use is a social phenomenon . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * je pense donc je baragouine . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * lydie e . meunier / department of languages university of tulsa / tel : 918 631 2813 ( o ) lang _ lem @ centum . utulsa . edu / fax : 918 744 1902 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *