Sociolinguistics Reading Responses 2 & 3
I have another round of reading responses to share! For those who didn’t read my previous post Sociolinguistics Reading Response 1, these reading responses, among other assignments as they are graded, that I will be posting this semester are from my graduate English studies at Texas A & M in Corpus Christi. As I have time I will also be posting about my experience in my grad studies as I experience them. One of the reasons why I’m doing this is because I believe that there isn’t enough transparency with higher education, I want to do my part in fixing that.
Before you begin reading these two responses I have a few things I would like to go over first. The reading, though from a book published in 2004, is on a paper by Robin Lakoff which was written in the 1970s. I know most people use the “it was a different time” excuse, however, I have always disagreed with that statement. It doesn’t matter the time period, morality is absolute when it comes to treating people with respect. Lakoff’s thinly veiled racism in this paper is abhorrent and because it is present I feel as though I must address it before starting my reading responses.
In addition to my disavowment of Lakoff’s racism, I must also clarify that these reading responses are written with the intention of getting a good grade, hence why I still say that Lakoff has some good points. I actually think that the racism completely destroys all credibility for Lakoff in this paper and it is not something I will be using in the formation of my personal thoughts and feelings about gender in language.
The reason why I am telling you this is because I want to highlight the fact that sometimes in academia you have to answer the questions asked of you in a way that will ensure you get good grades. There have been countless of times throughout my schooling where I have not answered honestly about my thoughts and opinions because I wanted a good grade. I understand that this may upset some people, which I understand, however, because of the nature of academia students must pass so that they can eventually enter the field to change things when they have the power to do so. Whether these statements are right or wrong universally is irrelevant as these are just my personal opinions and observations and you are free to come to your own conclusions.
A few last disclaimers before we move on to my reading responses; 1) the first in this post is long, over 2,000 words long. As such the second reading response is purposefully shorter so I didn’t go over our limits for these reading responses. According to the syllabus they are only supposed to be a little over half a page (double spaced) but I have no self control when it comes to writing so I tend to have a hard time keeping myself reigned in with these kinds of assignments. 2) I am very personal in my regular assignments (not so much in full on papers) and will address professors directly in my writing, which is something I did often in these two reading responses.
Lastly, some trigger warnings for sensitive readers. The paper mentions misogyny and my reading responses address that. My paper also address Lakoff’s racism, though I don’t go into too much detail I do want to make sure that I warn readers first. And as for the last trigger warning, I do briefly mention Andr*w T*te in the one of the two reading responses.
You can find a copy of Lakoff’s work here.
Reading Response 2. 8/30/22
Okay, I am still in the middle of reading, however, Lakoff makes a claim on page 40 that I must fervently disagree with. Lakoff claims that “If a little girl ‘talks rough’ like a boy, she will normally be ostracized, scolded, or made fun of.” And whereas I am sure this happens in some places, it is not as wide-spread of a reaction as the author claims. In America’s patriarchal society, anything relating to femininity is devalued — especially for women. The basis for my claim is the tomboy/”not like other girls’’ phenomenon that has been observed in southern American society for generations. My first piece of evidence, which I would argue is just as valid as the evidence provided so far in the reading due to the section about where the Lakoff collected the data presented in the book, is how when little girls growing up acted more like boys they were more accepted by their peers in coed spaces. They were also only chastised if what they were doing was dangerous to themselves or others, but praised for their “boyish” behavior by adults so long as no physical threat from the child’s actions were present. But my main focus for my argument is the early 2000s to mid 2010’s. Social media websites like Pinterest, Tumblr, Instagram, and even Facebook during this time period are a good example of the rejection of femininity by females of various ages. This article, Misogyny, Media, and Male Approval: The “I’m Not Like Other Girls’’ Phenomenon, from Future Female, published in 2021 explains the phenomenon well. “It’s not “I prefer blue’’ anymore, it’s “I hate pink.” And so the phrase is born, intended to be a rejection or avoidance of those stereotypical traits.” (Sreesha Ghosh, 2021). These feelings begin in childhood as young girls learn that to be a boy or rather to be boyish is better than to embrace their feminine traits, just as young boys learn that to act “girly” is bad. To paraphrase last Thursday’s reading: boys are taught that they are too good for feminine behavior and girls are taught that they are not good enough for masculine behavior, which still enforces that masculinity is seen as superior in our society. And though the following quote is long, I do believe it provides the best evidence for my counter argument, “Anyone who has outgrown these feelings knows that they stem from internalized misogyny. But being aware of internalized misogyny doesn’t mean we can’t still be susceptible to it; in fact, I don’t think many of us realize just how deep it runs. Forget stereotypes — what about film, TV, and literature that young girls inevitably consume? Take early 2000s rom-coms: the main antagonist is always the “other girl,” the pretty blonde in promiscuous clothing. The protagonist, on the other hand, is different. She’s not like other girls. She’s a brunette, probably wears glasses, shy, unpopular, doesn’t dress well, and likes alternative things like reading and listening to music.” (Ghosh, 2021). Media that exhibits what is claimed in this quote are the majority of Taylor Swift’s discography, movies such as Mean Girls, The Hunger Games, Another Cinderella Story, tv shows like Two Broke Girls, The Wild Thornberrys, Daria, etc. All of which push the idea that to not be girly is to be superior to other girls who embrace and accept their femininity. I have more sources if you would ever like to discuss this more, but I need to make sure that I cover all of the reading in this reading response. (Also my apologies for going on and on about this, it’s a topic that I am really passionate about and Lakoff’s claims struck a chord.)
One thing that I do agree with Lakoff on is that women are for sure “damned if they do and damned if the don’t” in that I have personally seen how women who continue in their childhood socialization of speaking softly and “in their place” are often not taken seriously or seen as real people by those (of any gender) who are more outspoken and forceful about their place in the conversation/society as a whole. Personally, I learned how to code switch to more masculine language (especially in written correspondence) at a young age, and do so when it benefits me. This I feel like should not be necessary to get as far as I have gotten in life at only 22, but it has been necessary. Which is just another piece of evidence for how the masculine in society is practically worshiped and the feminine in society is vilified and demeaned. Another thing that stuck out to me in this section of the reading is how Lakoff basically states that those who learn to code switch are essentially bilingual and how that ultimately disadvantages the person because they could never be completely fluent in either code. I’d argue that is only true for neurotypical people. And it may be childhood trauma, or the adhd (I can’t say for sure which caused this), but I am hyper aware of social cues in social situations, and can detect even the slightest change in people when interacting with them, which has made code switching easier for me. However, it does have other negative consequences such as inducing anxiety when I notice subtle changes in how people behave and speak. And again I have to agree with Lakoff, it is exhausting.
The section on the differences in language between men and women has caused me to conclude that men just do not care, and women may care too much. Men are also more narcissistic and less likely to be cognitively aware of social interaction (specifically how they make people feel) because they do not have as many social rules placed on them as women do. Obviously this is just a generalization and not indicative of all men, but that’s just what I understood from the reading. I do think that this is less likely the case now than it was in 2004 when this was written though.
Another interesting section of the reading is the discussion about the use of expletives and how that looks differently between the sexes. A fun little personal anecdote to illustrate this further, a couple of weeks ago I was in the office and my male co-workers didn’t hear me come in and they were cussing up a storm and one of them came out of their office and saw me and apologized because they didn’t realize I was in there. I told them that it doesn’t bother me but that I “don’t cuss because I’m a lady” which is an absolute bold face lie. But I found the interaction funny nonetheless. However, this interaction is indicative of what Lakoff is talking about in this section of the reading; men are generally afforded the ability to cuss and women are not in general society. But I do need to make the distinction that my coworker was not acting out of the wider gender inequality when it comes to harsh language but rather from the perspective of the fact that we are in Texas, which has strict “politeness rules” especially when it comes to cussing. And refraining from cussing is more of a sign of respect than a sign of demeaning the people around you. For example I’ll cuss when I’m with my peers/friends, but not when I’m with older adults or speaking with people in a business setting.
With all of that said, again I do think that cussing women are much more accepted in wider society now than in 2004 and maybe in a few generations the information in this reading will be a thing of the past and we’ll start having “historical sociolinguistics” studies to discuss these things.
One thing that I must point out is that regional linguistics also play a role in gendered language. For example the reading gives some different adjectives and places them into 2 columns, 1 is neutral and the other is for women. But the example sentences given are “What a terrific (neutral) idea!” and “What a divine (women) idea!” the reason why I point this out is that Lakoff says the second is more restricted in its situational use while the first is more appropriate for various situations, however, in the south I’ve heard “divine” used in wide contexts by all genders without the need to question male speakers sexuality when using the word. I understand that Lakoff does not claim to be the end all be all on the subject of gendered language, but I still think it is important to produce counter arguments and experiences when reading about topics like this.
I’ll be honest, I mainly use tag-question when speaking to my bosses, parents, grandparents, and anyone else I view as having some sort of authority over me (like in a professional and social way and not in the religious way that people usually use “authority” as). But I also noticed that tag-question is used more by southern Americans (specifically Texans) than used by people who grew up in other states. For example, I’ve noticed that people from north east USA (both genders) are much more direct in their language, whereas we (southerners) talk in a more roundabout way (both genders). I’m not sure why but I have my suspicion that it has to do with the “politeness rules” I mentioned earlier.
One thing that I would like to add is concerning upspeak (though not really mentioned by name but rather description) in the reading. From what I’ve experienced in my life and observed in the lives of others, upspeak is used most in uncomfortable situations or in conversations with people the speaker feels unsafe/unpredictable. I myself use upspeak with people who are visibly upset whether the negativity is directed towards me or not. I feel like the context for these things should be discussed more by linguists like Lakoff because context can clarify and answer questions much better than assumptions.
I didn’t mean to basically write a whole paper length for this assignment but I still have more I want to talk about from the reading so bear with me while I quickly go through my thoughts.
Compound requests are confusing to understand but I think I have a slight handle on what it is? It’s like asking if the receiver will comply with the intended request. Which is something that I don’t see a whole lot in real life and rarely use personally. But I do notice a difference in direct request use and simple request use. For me the connotation of a request is determined more by tone than the actual words used. For example I personally use direct requests but with a friendly tone so they don’t sound as harsh but still get the point across that I need something done. And I usually use simple requests like “please *requested action*” 2 ways, the first is sincerely which is how I use it most often. The second is with ill intent. For example when my sister has friends over and they are being loud late at night I’ll shout at them to “please shut the *expletive* up” but I emphasize the “please”. I don’t know if other people do this too but I find it interesting that simple requests are seen as more polite when they can easily be made less than polite.
My understanding from the section “Talking About Women” is that women have both external misogyny acted upon them and internal misogyny acting within them. I for one have had to spend years unlearning internal misogyny and learning how to recognize misogyny from the people around me.
It really does not sit right with me that Lakoff is essentially placing negative euphemisms for women on the same level as slurs against black people. Yes both are bad, but comparing the terms “broad” and “lady” to the n-word (with a hard “er” as Lakoff wrote it) is disgusting and akin to how people were comparing covid restrictions to the holocaust. I think it is important to note that Lakoff is a white woman and has absolutely no business making those kinds of comparisons or using that word. I understand that throwing around the word “racist” is counterproductive to ending racism, however, the fact that Lakoff (again I must point out that she is a white American) felt comfortable writing the n-word with a hard er so many times in this section is reprehensible and gross. There are plenty of other more appropriate comparisons in society that Lakoff could have used but chose not to. Also not to mention the fact that Lakoff felt comfortable saying the slur for black people (multiple times) but not the slur used for Jewish people is indicative of a racist mindset.
Aside from the racism, Lakoff trying to push that the term “lady” is inherently bad shows a lack of cultural understanding for what the term means and how it is used in various regions of the US. For example, in Texas “lady” is used more as a term of respect than it is as a way to demean women. Lakoff would have a point if she focused more on “bitch” or “broad” because those are universally negative words used to describe and refer to women.
Seeing as this reading response is already so long I will conclude with this thought. The reading from Lakoff has some great insight but it also is on the verge of being outdated, and has racist elements throughout the second half of the reading. I won’t throw out the good completely, but I definitely feel as though the bad in the reading has tainted my view of all the information presented and has made me wary of listening to anything that Lakoff has to say.
Links to the articles I quoted in this reading response Future Female 2021: https://featurefemale.com/the-im-not-like-other-girls-phenomenon/
Reading Response #3. 9.1.22
One thing that I found really interesting from the beginning of this section of reading is how Lakoff acknowledges that women may feel insulted by what Lakoff is trying to do. She mentions, and I’m paraphrasing here because it took me a couple of read throughs to fully understand, that society teaches women that the inequalities in language surrounding gender and gender expectations are actually not inequalities against women, but rather in favor of them. Which of course is obviously a lie told by society to keep women in their “place.” I do wholeheartedly agree with Lakoff that it is exceptionally degrading to women to force them to be the sole group tasked with upholding morality and civility in society. And obviously this hurts men as well, but it disproportionately hurts women more.
But Lakoff lost me again when out of nowhere she starts talking about black people again. And I understand that she is trying to make a comparison, however, the way she does it is off putting and takes away from her arguments in favor of feminism and women’s liberation.
Moving on though. The part that has stuck out the most to me is when Lakoff lists the different basic characteristics of “women’s” language. More specifically the use of italics in writing. I do this. I didn’t even understand why I do this, but this part of the reading has convicted and confronted me. And now I’m an hour into analyzing why I do this in my writing. And Lakoff is entirely correct (at least for me personally). It’s because I am used to not being heard. I feel as though I have to put an emphasis on topics important to me in my writing because I worry that people who read it won’t pay attention. This is just another reason why I am so glad to be in this class, even though I’ve put in a lot of work in self reflection and unlearning my own internalized misogyny there are still things I didn’t even know that I didn’t know. I think, through my own personal experience, that this also intersects with the fact that I have adhd but was not made aware of that until about a year ago. The consequence of which is the feeling that I need to extra clarify my meaning and over communicate so that neurotypical people (and men) will actually listen to/understand what I’m saying.
I’m going to be really honest for a second. It is taking every fiber of my being right now to not go on and on about the reading due today, so these next few thoughts are only a small portion of what I think. This is an attempt at keeping the word count reasonable but it may end up still being longer than I hoped to restrict my response to.
First, I identify with Lakoff when she discusses how not performing as feminine as the women in media do makes her feel like a failure at being a woman (something that I expressed in a previous reading response).
Second, I agree that men have extreme constraints on them as well when it comes to gender and language, which is a shame because if all pretense and rules were dropped for both genders we may end up finding ourselves in a more polite and evolved society. Assuming of course that the removal of this rigidity means that more men become more polite and kind as women typically are. Which thankfully is slowly happening today, but at the same time there is currently a growing community of women-hating men on the internet (look up Andrew Tate as an example of what I mean.)
Third, the cognitive dissonance when it comes to women’s language still persists today. Growing up, and even now, my code switching has both made me more respectable and less respectable depending on where I am. Lakoff called this a Double-bind.
Fourth, the mass institutionalization of women, historically speaking, is false imprisonment on the basis of misogyny in a patriarchal society. Yes what Lakoff discusses is a portion of that, but not the sole reason as her writing makes it sound.
Lastly, because this next section discusses a topic that I am extremely passionate about and could write a whole book’s worth of analysis on and I’m trying to keep this reading response a relatively reasonable length, I think that the abolition of politeness for everyone could cause a societal collapse. My counter argument is that the rules of politeness should be expanded for men when they are not in the presence of women. For example: men should start holding each other to a higher standard when in public and in private. Take locker room talk for example, it is disgusting and should be stigmatized and removed from acceptable social interaction for men.
This is already around 800 words so I’m going to end with that, but will hopefully have the opportunity to discuss in class the parts of the reading that I have not written about in this response.
I did get perfect points on these two assignments, and I do have verbal permission from my professor to share my work done for the class.
