Once, in a linguistics class, I took a position on sexist language similar to that of Laurie Johnson’s (Northern Star, Feb. 11). Writing about a specific type of allegedly sexist word structure, I contended, as does Johnson, that language is not the problem when it comes to sexism. Language only mirrors the attitudes, beliefs and values of the culture which uses it. That’s what I said, anyway. Don’t ever tell a professor with a Ph.D. in linguistics about a “culture” which you define as excluding language. As I was rather forcefully reminded, language is foundational to culture. And, while it does indeed mirror the values of the culture, it is also the chief means through which the culture’s values are conserved or changed, and through which those values are passed on to the next generation.

We simply cannot say that the problem of sexism is ideas and not words. Ideas are nothing until they are expressed in words. If, early in little Janie’s life, she hears of aldermen and congressmen and statesmen, it will come as no surprise to her when later she observes that the people who fill those positions are predominantly men. That is exactly what she was taught to expect through sexist language which no one thought significant enough to neuter. And, if Janie concludes that such positions are reserved for men, or women who somehow are not feminine, she will have learned her lesson very well.

Johnson suggests that Janie’s parents present her with the possibilities that she, herself, one day might be a politician or a lobbyist or a political scientist. And, when speaking to Janie, Johnson advises, parents should choose their words carefully, as carefully as Johnson has chosen her words, to avoid such sexisms as statesman, congressman, or “father of his country.” But how are parents to learn to do this if professionals in the use of words will not take the lead? If journalists, newscasters, book editors, Northern Star columnists, and even those who compile catalogs of course offerings continue to use sexist language, how can anyone expect the rest of us to do otherwise? “People learn by example and imitation,” says Johnson. This is nowhere more true than in the learning of language. And through language we learn most of all we ever learn, including what we believe are proper roles for the two genders.

Granted, there are some problems in finding substitutes for certain sexist words, substitutes that won’t grate on the ear and that won’t unintentionally change our meaning. But writers like Laurie Johnson who, among others, are in a position to lead in the evolution of language, are highly creative people. And our language has already assimilated such neutered words as workers’ compensation, chairperson and salesperson in place of workmen’s compensation, chairman, and salesman or, uh … “salesgirl.”

I have friends who consciously cling to the old sexist words, even those that have now been replaced by genderless words in common everyday speech. Believe me, these are not feminists who just “don’t like the sound” of a term like salesperson. They choose their words carefully because their words are meant to reflect their beliefs and values. I would hope that those who advocate equality for women would select their words by the same standard.

Michael W. Becker

instructor

department of finance