Gendered language hardly the root cause of injustice

TO THE EDITOR:

Andrew Dunn, editor-in-chief of The Daily Tar Heel, deserves praise for his decision not to indulge petitioners’ demands for a gender-neutral language policy at The Daily Tar Heel.

I am sure the petition’s supporters mean well, but their arguments are too far-fetched to be taken seriously.

Advocates claim that by changing gender-specific words like “fireman” to the gender-neutral “firefighter,” we can spark a subconscious thought revolution that will eventually result in greater gender equality.

OK, but why stop there? “Firefighter” being such an explicitly violent term, why not use “flame pacifier” instead? Then we could all sit back as crime rates plummeted.

The pen may well be mightier than the sword, but is gendered terminology really a root cause of social injustice? Hardly.

In fact, an obsessive focus on words and their meanings can end up creating as many problems as it solves.

One could reasonably argue, for example, that the term “upper-level students” — proposed as an alternative to “upperclassmen” — is misleading and inherently biased against first- and second-year students (or whatever we’re calling them now).

In an academic context, “upper-level” typically implies advanced ability or achievement, not simply one’s position in the student body hierarchy. (And if this were not the case, wouldn’t petitioners also be advocating a switch from “underclassmen” to “lower-level students?”).

If language and its implications are as powerful as “gender-neutral” advocates claim, this change in terminology could end up unfairly benefitting juniors and seniors, once our brains have tricked us into thinking they are somehow more capable than their “lower-level” peers.

As ridiculous as that sounds, it is perfectly in line with the logic behind the petitioners’ demands. Arguments like these can go on indefinitely, but are ultimately a gigantic waste of everyone’s time.

Let’s keep some perspective here. The sad truth is, women in many parts of the world would be grateful to be having this discussion.

Executing rape victims for “adultery” is an atrocity that needs addressing.

Referring to the individual who ties the noose as a “hangman” instead of “hangperson” is not.



Andrew Stiles
UNC ’09
Former editorial board member