In Extension English, I study the elective 'Language and Gender'. Basically, it talks about how men and women are supposed to use certain types of language, because of their gender. We also talk about the difference between sex and gender, but let's not go there right now...
According to the 'Language and Gender theorists' that we study, and the way that we look at things, any language that does not comply to the expectations of the theorists is a subversion. I'm still deciding whether I think this is the best way to look at things. Actually no, I know I don't think this is the best way. I think there is one main problem with applying theories to something like gendered language.
If we state that something is 'typically male' or 'typically female', we automatically apply stereotypes. Stereotypes limit. So women apparently lack a sense of humour, according to Robin Lackoff... what about female comedians? What about all the hilarious girls I know who make me laugh everyday? Heck, sometimes I try and be funny on my blog... does that mean I've been really unfunny just because I'm a girl? And men apparently use more commands, according to Deborah Tannen. So does that mean women can't be commanding?
The most interesting theory states that language is a system that sustains the male as the norm - so basically, women can never get ahead because language upholds male power.
In the past, I definitely can see how this was relevant. But now that we've replaced chairman with chairperson, mankind with humankind etc., I don't really see how this can possibly be relevant, unless we accept the stereotypes that the L+G theorists create and which we surprisingly all seem to hold despite never having heard of Tannen or Lackoff or Keith and Shuttleworth...
The main point of my post today is that we are being taught this in Year 12, just before going out into the "real world". So this is one of those things that will probably stick with us after we leave school, given how much we are studying this course and memorising all the theories to use in our essays. When we first started this course, I was pretty affronted that every HSC student's best friend, the beloved Board of Studies, wished us to learn about what were basically, in their most basic forms, stereotypes. Sophisticated ones, sure, but stereotypes nonetheless.
Now I'm starting to think that perhaps the BoS might have manipulated us just a tiny bit... because none of us believe these theories. Maybe that was the intention all along? Maybe the BoS wants us to think about the truth in stereotypes and learn not to believe this theorists?
You sneaky Board of Studies...
