Sex Roles

, Volume 39, Issue 5–6, pp 445–461 | Cite as

Contemporary Arguments Against Nonsexist Language: Blaubergs (1980) Revisited

  • Janet B. Parks
  • Mary Ann Roberton
Article

Abstract

Two studies investigated whether undergraduatesenrolled in sport management classes at a midwesternuniversity supported or resisted nonsexist language.Resistive statements were classified using arguments identified by Blaubergs (1980). In Study 1, 82primarily Caucasian students reacted to a videotapeabout language. Half (48%) supported nonsexist language;32% were ambivalent; 21% were opposed to nonsexist language. The negative comments fit 7 ofBlaubergs' 8 categories after 2 were modified; 2additional categories (Sexism is Acceptable andHostility toward Proponents of Change) emerged. In Study2, 164 primarily Caucasian undergraduates speculatedon why others resisted nonsexist language. Theircomments led to the addition of 2 more new categories:Tradition and Lack of Understanding. The finalmodification of Blaubergs' classic arguments contains 12categories that should be useful in studying resistanceto nonsexist language.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Blaubergs, M. (1980). An analysis of classic arguments against changing sexist language. Women's Studies International Quarterly, 3, 135–147.Google Scholar
  2. Bodine, A. (1975). Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: Singular “they,” sex-indefinite “he,” and “he or she.” Language in Society, 4, 129–146.Google Scholar
  3. Cameron, D. (1985). Feminism and linguistic theory. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carroll, J. B. (Ed.). (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.Google Scholar
  6. Cronin, C., & Jreisat, S. (1995). Effects of modeling on the use of nonsexist language among high school freshpersons and seniors. Sex Roles, 33, 819–830.Google Scholar
  7. Eitzen, D. S., & Zinn, M. B. (1989). The de-athleticization of women: The naming and gender marking of collegiate sports teams. Sociology of Sport Journal, 6, 362–370.Google Scholar
  8. Eitzen, D. S., & Zinn, M. B. (1993). The sexist naming of collegiate athletic teams and resistance to change. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 17, 34–41.Google Scholar
  9. Etaugh, C., & Spandikow, D. B. (1981). Changing attitudes toward women: A longitudinal study of college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 591–594.Google Scholar
  10. Gastil, J. (1990). Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics. Sex Roles, 23, 629–643.Google Scholar
  11. Hamilton, M. C. (1988). Using masculine generics: Does generic he increase male bias in the user's imagery? Sex Roles, 19, 785–798.Google Scholar
  12. Harrigan, J. A., & Lucic, K. S. (1988). Attitudes about gender bias in language: A reevaluation. Sex Roles, 19, 129–140.Google Scholar
  13. Henley, N. M. (1989). Molehill or mountain? What we know and don't know about sex bias in language. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Hyde, J. S. (1984). Children's understanding of sexist language. Developmental Psychology, 20, 697–706.Google Scholar
  15. Jacobson, M. B., & Insko, W. R., Jr. (1985). Use of nonsexist pronouns as a function of one's feminist orientation. Sex Roles, 13, 1–7.Google Scholar
  16. Jaggar, A. (1983). Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
  17. Kidd, V. (1971). A study of the images produced through the use of the male pronoun as the generic. Moments in Contemporary Rhetoric and Communication, 1, 25–30.Google Scholar
  18. Kingston, A. J., & Lovelace, T. L. (1977). Guidelines for authors: A new form of censorship? Journal of Reading Behavior, 9, 89–93.Google Scholar
  19. Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 2, 45–80.Google Scholar
  20. MacKay, D. G. (1980). Psychology, prescriptive grammar, and the pronoun problem. American Psychologist, 35, 444–449.Google Scholar
  21. Martyna, W. (1978). What does “he” mean? Use of the generic masculine. Journal of Communication, 28, 131–138.Google Scholar
  22. McMinn, M. R., Lindsay, S. F., Hannum, L. E., & Troyer, P. K. (1990). Does sexist language reflect personal characteristics? Sex Roles, 23, 389–396.Google Scholar
  23. Merritt, R. D., & Kok, C. J. (1995). Attribution of gender to a gender-unspecified individual: An evaluation of the people = male hypothesis. Sex Roles, 33, 145–157.Google Scholar
  24. Messner, M. A., Duncan, M. C., & Jensen, K. (1993). Separating the men from the girls: The gendered language of televised sports. Gender & Society, 7, 121–137.Google Scholar
  25. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, C., & Swift, K. (1988). The handbook of nonsexist writing (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  27. Moulton, J., Robinson, G. M., & Elias, C. (1978). Sex bias in language use: “Neutral” pronouns that aren't. American Psychologist, 33, 1032–1036.Google Scholar
  28. Ng, S. H. (1990). Androcentric coding of man and his in memory by language users. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 455–464.Google Scholar
  29. Nilsen, A. P. (1977). Sexism in children's books and elementary teaching materials. In A. P. Nilsen, H. A. Bosmajian, H. L. Gershuny, & J. P. Stanley (Eds.), Sexism and language, Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  30. Parks, J. B. (Executive Producer), Harper, M. C. (Script Writer), & Lopez, P. G. (Director). (1994). One person's struggle with gender-biased language [Videotape]. Bowling Green, OH: WBGU-TV.Google Scholar
  31. Parks, J. B., & Roberton, M. A. (1996). Attitudes toward sexist language in sport: Validation of an instrument. Future Focus: Ohio Journal of Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 17(2), 33–34.Google Scholar
  32. Parks, J. B., & Roberton, M. A. (1998). Influence of age, gender, and context on attitudes toward sexist/nonsexist language: Is sport a special case? Sex Roles, 38, 477–494.Google Scholar
  33. Rubin, D. L., & Greene, K. L. (1991). Effects of biological and psychological gender, age cohort, and interviewer gender on attitudes toward gender-inclusive/exclusive language. Sex Roles, 24, 391–412.Google Scholar
  34. Rubin, D. L., Greene, K., & Schneider, D. (1994). Adopting gender-inclusive language reforms: Diachronic and synchronic variation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 91–114.Google Scholar
  35. Schneider, J. W., & Hacker, S. L. (1973). Sex role imagery and use of the generic “man” in introductory texts: A case in the sociology of sociology. American Sociologist, 8, 12–18.Google Scholar
  36. Shimanoff, S. B. (1977). Man = human: Empirical support for the Whorfian hypothesis. Bulletin: Women's Studies in Communication, 1(2), 21–27.Google Scholar
  37. Simpson, P. (1993). Language, ideology, and point of view. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (1983). Language, gender, and society: Opening a second decade of research. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender and society. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet B. Parks
  • Mary Ann Roberton

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations