DOES PATRIARCHY CAUSE SEXIST LANGUAGE?

It is also claimed that patriarchy has given rise to sexist exclusive language. This is the basis of much of the call for inclusive language within and outside the church. Language has been shaped and created by the patriarchy; "He who owns the world names the world."¹⁸ Thus we say 'he' and 'man' as generic terms, and call God 'Father' because males have controlled the language and women are non-people. The name 'Father' has been projected onto God. Males conceive of Him in their own image.¹⁹ 

Some suggest we do not so much use language as we are used by it. Since we are all born into a world .. in which the naming has already taken place, we only own our world to the extent that the naming that has occurred is our naming. Feminist theologians are claiming that the world of Western religion is not their world; it was named by men and excludes women. As aliens in a man's world [says Mary Daly] ... women are beginning to realise that the value system that has been thrust upon us by the various cultural institutions of patriarchy has amounted to a kind of gang rape of minds as well as of bodies.²⁰  For women to be liberated it is not just a case of institutional and legal reforms; the very language must be "castrated" of words and images that perpetuate sexism.²¹ Thus, logically, Daly (and others) wish to move 'Beyond God the Father'.

Although later in the essay I argued a special place for the name "Father" I now basically agree with the statements to the left.  I think just as the victors write history, so do the owners name what they own.  It is for this reason that discordant voices are so angrily opposed.  For example, in our own country in 2001/2 the government is scathing of those who name differently its treatment of asylum seekers.

The language used in the essays sources (Daly et al) was extreme, and needed to be, to make its point.  But there is a basic truth in what it said.  I think any kind of spiritual and / or human maturity hinges around learning to name the earth and our experiences for our selves.  We need to become free of other people's defining of experience and use our own authority. 

This is what worship should be, in part.  Leading to a maturity of person.  I think exclusive language not only holds people away from the communal experience of worship. It also holds people in a state of immaturity... infancy.  It has been my common experience to find highly technically educated people who were theologically naive, or even infantile.  A worship life that excludes women's experience almost certainly betrays a situation where much other expression and exploration is restricted too.  An insistence on avoiding new forms of language, which is the real reason for not being careful to not use language which excludes, is a marker or litmus for theological closed minds in the power elite of a congregation.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says of the classification of words that although there may be classification into male and female or animate and inanimate, "it is very often impossible to determine why a word belongs to one gender and not another.²² Tavard goes further to say that the culture does not give rise to gender; language is not an ideology. ²³ To go beyond saying that language may in places correlate with sexism or be used by it, and say the English language "translates a social system in which women are dominated by males" so that the male terms 'man' and 'mankind' express this power structure, requires ²⁴ that this be generally the case in language. That is; other power structures such as race and ethnicity should also be reflected in the structure of the language. This ²⁵ is linguistically not so. 

As Tavard says, if the thesis of the feminists was correct, one would expect to find a stable relationship between "degrees of feminine subservience and degrees of sexism in language." Yet Turkish has only one gender whilst that culture is far more sexist than ²⁶ our own.

In fact, our association of gender with sex is a linguistic accident, and erroneous. [Languages other than English have from 1 to 16 (Bantu) genders. Swahili has 6, none of which correspond to the sexes.] ²⁷ In English the name of the genders comes from the early Greek grammarians who analysed and described their language in the first two genders as male and female. The genders already existed. Aristotle called the third "intermediate"- later it was called "neither," which was finally translated into "neuter" in Latin. This gives us 

the widespread but erroneous view that gender means sex, that there are only two genders, and the third is a misnomer for the nonsexual in nature and culture.²⁸ 

Tavard also notes that the use of 'man' as a generic term does not fit into the feminist theory that patriarchy gives rise to the structure of language. Whilst French also uses 'man' (homme) for the male, German (Mensch/Mann.), Swedish (Manniska/man), Hebrew (adam/ish), and other languages have separate generic terms. 

These non-English speaking cultures are also patriarchal. In Old English there was a generic term; Manncynn.

[To suggest]... the present paradigms of our language express a past power relationship in which males dominated females ... is linguistically naive.³⁰ 

When I read this now, it seems most unconvincing.  I don't have the background to thoroughly critique what I once wrote, or the time. More than that, I no longer have the desire.  It seems that an issue grips us for a while and then we grow beyond it.  I no longer have any need to assure myself of the power of language to include and validate a person, or of its power to exclude and invalidate.  I know it and have seen it.  I am also now secure in my escape from Fundamentalism so that whole struggle which contributed to this essay now no longer energises this issue.

What then is one to make of assertions that

even in 'clear' contexts, people of high educational standards do not envisage [man and] woman when 'man' is used[?] ³¹ 

Fromm's "classic" statement would seem to speak for itself:

Man's vital life interests are life, food and access to fernales.³² 

Tavard says it is not a question of language structure, but what one means when one speaks. Language reveals not just 

the generally accepted meanings of the terms used as interpreted in keeping with generally accepted grammatical rules, [but also] the state of mind of the speaker. ³³

Strictly speaking, 'he' and 'man' are sexist terms only if the speaker makes them so, if that person is playing a sexist 1anguage game'. One might, as Tavard implies, ³⁴ even use impeccably non-sexist language and yet be quite sexist. I saw this happen in a meeting where the speaker for the main part said "he or she" whilst amicably answering questions. Yet when asked a question by a female minister he replied with what I (and others) thought was a belittling (certainly different) tone, "If a minister was going to work so that he... "

In many respects sexism has very little to do with language. Language may correlate  with sexism or the patriarchy of a society. By "correlate" I mean that the same word is used sexistly on many occasions, but is also used non sexistly. It may then, because of its sexist use in some situations, be (mis)understood as sexist when used in a non-sexist manner.

Language may also be used sexistly; English speakers can say 'man' to purposely exclude women whereas a Turkish speaker cannot. The language may be described in sexist categories; that is, in the names given to genders, but language is not inherently sexist.

"Sexist language is an invention of the feminist movement say Briggette and Peter Berger, The whole theory raises "infantile misunderstandings to the level of hermeneutics. ^{37 ,38} Contra to this, "If God is male, then the male is God. In the polemic it is easy for the church to see that the language is not sexist of itself, react excessively to the excesses of a Mary Daly, and ignore the fact that Christians can and do use English to play potent sexist language games. It is no good to say that the consciousness of women (and men) has been falsely raised about the so called sexist nature of language and leave the discussion at that. Their consciousness has in many cases been raised to the sexist nature of our society and will continue to be raised. And it soon becomes obvious that although the linguistics are 'naive' the correlation between gender (and other language) and sexism is strong, and is used to reinforce patriarchal attitudes. 

Patriarchy has not given rise to sexist³⁹ exclusive language. But the church and its liturgy must deal with the fact that people (and the belief is probably ineradicable) increasingly believe it has. It must also deal with the fact that language (including words we use in our liturgies) is used sexistly. It needs, also, to confess that the correlation between language and patriarchy has been a correlation in the church and used by the church to reinforce patriarchy, despite its repudiation by Galatians 3:28 and the whole life of Jesus. We must act to amend this.

But the church and its liturgy must deal with the fact that .... language (including words we use in our liturgies) is used sexistly. It needs, also, to confess that the correlation between language and patriarchy has been a correlation in the church and used by the church to reinforce patriarchy, despite its repudiation by Galatians 3:28 and the whole life of Jesus. We must act to amend this.

Especially important is the note on the church using language to reinforce patriarchy.  What ever we call it, language has been used to reinforce and maintain a power structure.  I constantly hear men use big words whether about theology, finance, or the engineering of church buildings as a way of keeping the women in their place.  The same language based power games are played in liturgy and are un-Christian.

John Gaden commented at this point that although patriarchy may not have given rise to sexist language "it has given rise to the notion that all reality and experience is to be understood from categories drawn from male experience."