Blog #6 Parks and Robertson reveal connections between attitudes towards women's and sexist language

So it seems that this article is investigation the idea presented by Benjamin Whorf's theory of linguistic relativity. I don't mean to give a linguistics lesson in this blog, but basically this theory postulates that there is a connection between language and culture. So in relation to sexist language and attitudes towards women, it would appear that someone's view of women will also influence their view towards women.

This study looked at four different areas and provided some interesting, if not predictable results. I had some difficulty understanding the statistics, as I always have when reading linguistics studies, so I'm more or less going off of what the discussion presented. So of course women are going to be more supportive of women's rights but it's sad to see that men appear as if they don't care about women's issues or not. Of course they wouldn't because in this society, they have more privileges than women, no matter what progressive steps we have made. This isn't right though because women deserve to have these rights, there really aren't any differences between men and women and their capabilities.

I can easily see how this blog can be turned into a rant, haha. Ok, ok I'll try to keep it on track.

I know I have mentioned sexist language here briefly and have made suggestions such as using their/they instead of he/him. It can be done, but whether everyone else wants to use it is another matter in itself. Do I think there is a connection between language and culture? There is somewhat but I need to read more articles to see that. So do I believe that sexism still exists, even in this day and age? Oh you know it. As advanced a society we may proclaim ourselves to be, there is still the presence of many archaic notions that don't benefit those who have been denied certain rights. Might there be a connection between attitudes towards women and attitudes towards sexist language? Yes I think so. I think the problem is that language is a very commonplace thing for native speakers. We just accept it as it is. Only if you study the intricacies of the language do you understand the concept of morphology, syntax, gender, etc. The average everyday person may not understand it so they might need to have it explained.

I do agree though, that having a sample that is 87% Caucasian doesn't help their study very much. I hope someone is conducting a similar study that is taking into consideration other ethnicities, social status and even socio-economic status. I think it would be interesting to see those results with different samples.