Hooray for the Decline in Sexist Language

Posted on November 19, 2012 by zoeweil
Image courtesy Antony Pranata via
Creative Commons.

For thirty years I’ve been committed to both using and promoting nonsexist language in writing and speaking. I was criticized for using “he or she” on my papers in law school in 1984, instead of the accepted “he,” meaning “people.” When my son was in fourth grade and I sat in on a day of classes, I was dismayed that the teacher used “man” instead of humanity or humankind to refer to homo sapiens, but when I spoke to her about considering using nonsexist language she looked at me quizzically, truly perplexed by my comment, unable to comprehend my concerns.

In our graduate programs at the Institute for Humane Education the faculty all point out to students when they are using non-inclusive language, explaining that “he” used to refer to all people perpetuates assumptions in our culture and fosters continued sexist thinking, and sometimes sexist behaviors.

Because the English language doesn’t have a word to describe a male or female in the singular (we have “they” to describe both in the plural), we are constantly faced with the challenges of using language that is not discriminatory. As a writer, I often turn statements about a generalized person in the singular into a statement about generalized persons in the plural simply to avoid “he or she,” which I admit is awkward.

This is particularly challenging when trying to avoid speciesist language as well as sexist language by not referring to an animal as “it.” It can’t be done without resorting to “he or she,” and so I often choose to subvert our assumptions and challenge the default “he” by referring to a wild animal whose gender I don’t know as “she,” simply to shake things up and get us all thinking. Recently, walking with a group of teenagers in the woods we came upon a snake. I chose to refer to the snake as “she,” and one of the students asked how I knew the snake was female. I explained that I didn’t and why I used the female pronoun, but I knew that none of the students would have asked how I knew the snake was male if I’d referred to “him or her” as “he.”

And so I was delighted to read this article in The Atlantic about the decline in sexist language. It’s about time.

~ Zoe

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDxConejo talk: “Solutionaries”
My TEDxDirigo talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“
My TEDxYouth@BFS “Educating for Freedom”

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to our RSS feed.

Filed under: language, MOGO (Most Good) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

For Deconstructing Advertising “Jingles Every Day”

Posted on December 7, 2011 by zoeweil

Jodie Hittle presented a 7-minute TEDx “poem” that is hilarious, clever, entertaining, but most important of all, elucidating, and one of the most important tools humane educators can use in their efforts to help their students deconstruct advertising and gain some freedom from the insidious brainwashing that occurs through commercial messages which bombard us every day:

For a humane world,

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.   

Filed under: consumerism, critical thinking, humane education | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Challenging Times Call for Kindness, Not Vitriol

Posted on February 28, 2011 by zoeweil

I recently blogged about hateful commentary because, having been subjected to it, I felt compelled to write about it. But I’m revisiting the subject again as an important public issue, one which Maureen Dowd recently wrote about in her New York Times editorial “Stars and Sewers.” Here is an excerpt:

When CBS’s Lara Logan was dragged off, beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob of Egyptian men in Tahrir Square the giddy night that Hosni Mubarak stepped down, most of us were aghast. But some vile bodies online began beating up on the brave war correspondent.

Nir Rosen, a journalist published in The Nation, The New Yorker and The Atlantic, who had a fellowship at New York University’s Center on Law and Security, likes to be a provocateur. He has urged America to “get over” 9/11, called Israel an “abomination” to be eliminated, and sympathized with Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban. Invited to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2008 about the Iraq surge, he told Joe Biden, the committee chairman then, that he was uncomfortable “advising an imperialist power about how to be a more efficient imperialist power.”

Rosen must now wish Twitter had a 10-second delay. On Tuesday, he merrily tweeted about the sexual assault of Logan: “Jesus Christ, at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should at least remember her role as a major war monger.”

He suggested she was trying to “outdo Anderson” Cooper (roughed up in Cairo earlier), adding that “it would have been funny if it happened to Anderson too.”

Sadly, Nir Rosen’s comments are actually tame in today’s climate in which anonymous commenters (as opposed to paid “provocateurs” and commentators) spew the most vile invective imaginable. It’s my deep hope that those who so readily spread their rage and hatred are the minority, but it’s sometimes hard to reconcile the nasty language of commenters that seems to outnumber the thoughtful and helpful ones.

Here are some words of advice from the late Eknath Easwaran, former Berkeley professor and meditation teacher:

“Please do not indulge in unkind words, in negative comments. Criticism, as you know, can only be useful when it is constructive. Comments can only be useful when they are friendly. So even from the point of view of effectiveness, I would suggest that unkind comments add to the problem. Unloving criticism makes the situation worse. It does not mean that we do not have to comment and suggest. Very often we have to. But it is the mental attitude with which you make the suggestion and the loving concern with which you put forward ideas, sometimes opposed to others, that make for effectiveness.”

Please share Easwaran’s words widely. We need to heed them not only for the sake of civil discourse, but for the sake of effective changemaking for a better world.

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“

Image courtesy of SweetOnVeg via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: compassion, goodness, integrity, language, values | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Rubie, Elsie, and the Stick

Posted on September 20, 2010 by zoeweil

Most days, I walk my dogs, Ruby and Elsie, down to the ocean. Invariably, Elsie finds a stick to bring home, although stick is really a misnomer. Little Elsie is more likely to carry home a small tree than a stick, and Ruby and I anxiously check our backs because Elsie tears along the path with the stick, banging it into us at high speed if we’re not quick enough to scoot off the path and into the woods. Ruby has taken to jumping aside long before Elsie can ram that stick into her. This morning, I was not so quick. Elsie came up so suddenly that the stick whacked the back of my legs. I sternly said “No, Elsie,” and she looked chagrined. She begin running through the woods with it and avoiding me, but because it’s hard to carry a tree in your mouth through the woods, she changed the angle, carrying it to the side so that the length of the tree was parallel to her body rather than perpendicular to it. What a smart girl, I thought. Yet, why shouldn’t she be smart? Why should I be at all surprised that she’d modify her behavior at my command? She does it all the time.

Although Elsie doesn’t speak English, she has learned far more “human” than I have learned “dog” in our amazing cross-species relationship. She adjusts to me daily, reading my voice, my posture, my movements, my moods, my desires, and tweaking her own behavior to meet both my and her own needs. I have done little to adjust to her, expecting that she will be the one to change – to go to the bathroom only when I let her out and where I expect her to go, to eat only when I provide food and not to eat or chew on the various things in the house that are off-limits (like the CDs and the furniture), to lick only as much as I am comfortable with and no more, to get off the bed on command but know that she is generally welcome to sleep there as long as she doesn’t take “my” space, to “obey” sit, stay, come, lie down, high five, hug, leave it and a few other choice commands, not to mention learning to carry her sticks a new way through an obstacle course of woods rather than a wide open path. She continues to learn how to better suit me while I blithely carry on with no concerted effort to speak her language or follow her “rules.”

Yet I know that her life is an utter joy largely because of the home and life we’ve created for her and Ruby and Griffin (too old now to run to the ocean). I’m happy she’s willing to always adjust so that the back of my legs won’t be whacked by her stick obsession.

Zoe Weil
Author of So, You Love Animals: An Action-Packed, Fun-Filled Book to Help Kids Help Animals, Moonbeam Gold Medal winner for juvenile fiction, Claude and Medea: The Hellburn Dogs and Most Good, Least Harm

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: animal intelligence and emotion, gratitude, joy, language, learning | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Fun With Pronouns: Bringing “Aha” to Humane Education

Posted on August 19, 2009 by zoeweil

Once a year at the Institute for Humane Education, our M.Ed. and Humane Education Certificate Program students come for a week to our beautiful facility in coastal Maine for the residency component of their otherwise distance-learning program. During residency week, the students each do a 15 minute presentation on a humane education topic of their choice. Two weeks ago, Chrissy Bevens brought the concept of language, and specifically, the pronouns we choose, to our attention in a way that was both funny and educational.

Chrissy began by exploring sexist language — that is, the use of words, such as the pronoun “he,” to describe the gender of an undetermined human. Then she entertained us with a Mad Libs story that called upon us, her audience, to fill in a variety of words. In the context of her lesson, the most important word was naming an animal, and we chose “anteater.” At the end of the Mad Libs, the story unfolded (humorous as is always the case with Mad Libs), and nothing seemed amiss.

But then Chrissy asked us to change “anteater” to “humane educator,” and suddenly the story read very wrong because the humane educator was referred to as “it” in the beginning of a new sentence. When the story was about an anteater the word “it”didn’t seem wrong to most, even though anteaters are comprised of males and females and certainly are not things, but rather beings.

For years I’ve talked about sexist and speciesist language and have written in the margins of students’ papers when such language has been used — raising the questions that Chrissy raised — but without the “Aha” moment her excellent, fun, and amusing approach elicited.

Learning this way – through “Aha” moments and humor – sticks. I’ll be using Chrissy’s activity in the future.

~ Zoe

Image courtesy of di_the_huntress via Creative Commons.


Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: humane education, Institute for Humane Education, language, speciesism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

A Swine Flu By Any Other Name (Like H1N1)

Posted on May 4, 2009 by zoeweil

Swine flu has been renamed. Why? Largely because pork producers are worried that people won’t eat pig flesh from fear that they will get swine flu from bacon. And this could negatively impact the industry, which, during a recession, nobody but animal and environmental protection advocates seem to want. It’s true that you can’t get swine flu from eating pigs, but there’s much evidence that swine flu originated in an industrialized, confinement pig “farm.” It’s also true that there is every reason to reject this form of agriculture, which is not only potentially dangerous to human health, but which is cruel to pigs and a source of significant pollution. Personally, I think it’s important to call Swine Flu, Swine Flu, and Avian Flu, Avian Flu, so that we understand the source of potential pandemics and, both as individuals and societies, oppose industrialized animal farming.

~ Zoe

Filed under: animal protection, Environmental Preservation, food and diet, language, politics, systemic change | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

An Apple by Any Other Name: Language and Change

Posted on March 18, 2009 by zoeweil

In this month’s issue of Ode Magazine, editor-in-chief Jurriaan Kamp writes, “What do the terms ‘organic apples’ and ‘social entrepreneurs’ have in common? Both are pleonasms; they contain unnecessary repetition.”

I pride myself on avoiding sexist, specieisist and biased language. I use humanity not mankind, and she or he, not it, when referring to animals. I say that I’ll feed two birds with one hand rather than kill two birds with one stone, but Kamp’s short essay illuminated a whole new lens with which to view language.

Kamp points out that an apple grown without chemicals is just an apple. As he writes, “If any kind of apple needs a modifier, it’s the kind thatisn ’t grown organically. Those we should call ‘chemical apples.’” Instead, when we read a modifier for non-organic food and clothing, it’s usually the word “conventional.” In fact, I just used that term in an essay I wrote last week to distinguish organic T-shirts from their “conventional” counterparts. The word chemical is more descriptive and honest, although conventional is true enough. But perhaps as we change our words and stop hiding ugly realities through language, chemical foods and clothing won’t be “conventional” anymore and we won’t need modifiers to distinguish our apples.

~ Zoe

Filed under: language, systemic change | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

The Great Ape Project

Posted on January 12, 2009 by zoeweil

I just finished the recently published Nim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would Be Human by Elizabeth Hess and then immediately picked up Roger Fouts’, Next of Kin, which is about Washoe and the other chimps to whom he has taught sign language over his long career as a psychologist. I recommend both books (although my preference isFouts’ Next of Kin). They describe the language studies conducted with chimpanzees during the 1970s and 80s, the astonishing reality of human-chimpanzee communication in our language, and the aftermath for the celebrity chimps.

These books reminded me of my brief volunteer work in David Premack’s primate facility at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Premack had written a book about his research chimp, Sarah, to whom he taught a symbolic language. After reading his book, The Mind of an Ape, in 1985, I called Dr. Premack to see if I could volunteer at his lab. He agreed. I was so eager to meet Sarah, but I felt heartbroken when I did. Although she had quite a spacious cage, she was alone, separated from both humans and other chimps. She was 12 when I met her, and I was told she was too big, strong, and dangerous to interact with people, except through the bars of her cage. Although chimpanzees are social animals, she had no chimp companions. The other chimpanzees at the facility were just a few years old, and while these young ones were caged together, I was told Sarah might harm them if allowed to be with them. And so, while Sarah could often see the other chimps when they were outdoors, she was isolated.

I was told to keep my distance from Sarah, warned that if I got too close to her cage she could grab my arm and pull it off, but one day, standing several feet away, I said to Sarah, “Turn around and I’ll scratch your back.” I twirled my index finger as I spoke, and sure enough, Sarah turned around, pressed her back against the bars of her cage, and sank down to sit on the floor. I walked up to her cage and scratched her back, not worried in the slightest that she would harm me.

I’ve recently learned that Sarah now lives in a primate sanctuary. This is a tremendous relief, because I feared for her future. I had volunteered with the best intentions, imagining that language studies with chimpanzees were not only benign, but wonderful. Reading Next of Kin and Nim Chimpsky reminded me that these studies were anything but. Although Sarah, despite her imprisonment, was treated with great kindness when I volunteered at Dr.Premack’s lab, the chimps in other facilities were often brutalized (as Dr. Fouts describes at length). But even if they were all treated well, chimpanzees live for half a century. Trendy language studies of the 1970sdidn’t carry into future decades very far. In fact, Dr. Premack stopped his research only two years after I volunteered at his facility. The chimpanzees, dangerous and expensive to house and feed for the duration of their lives, were often sold to biomedical research labs, used for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and military research, and other forms of invasive experiments. Many have wound up in tiny isolated cages, going mad, suffering unrelieved depression and anxiety, in addition to the misery of their testing protocols. Raised as human children, and experiencing themselves as human children, such chimps are, ultimately, no more than property, and many have been sold into ghastly, nightmarish lives of abuse.

There’s a way to stop this abuse of our closest living relatives. The Great Ape Project (GAP) seeks to secure rights for great apes. Their declaration is as follows:

We demand the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans. The community of equals is the moral community within which we accept certain basic moral principles or rights as governing our relations with each other and enforceable at law. Among these principles or rights are the following:

  1. The Right to Life – The lives of members of the community of equals are to be protected. Members of the community of equals may not be killed except in very strictly defined circumstances, for example, self-defense.
  2. The Protection of Individual Liberty – Members of the community of equals are not to be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; if they should be imprisoned without due legal process, they have the right to immediate release. The detention of those who have not been convicted of any crime, or of those who are not criminally liable, should be allowed only where it can be shown to be for their own good, or necessary to protect the public from a member of the community who would clearly be a danger to others if at liberty. In such cases, members of the community of equals must have the right to appeal, either directly or, if they lack the relevant capacity, through an advocate, to a judicial tribunal.
  3. The Prohibition of Torture – The deliberate infliction of severe pain on a member of the community of equals, either wantonly or for an alleged benefit to others, is regarded as torture, and is wrong.

You may have heard that in 2008 the parliament in Spain passed a resolution granting certain human rights to great apes. That resolution was based on the work of the Great Ape Project.

If you would like to sign the GAP declaration, learn more, or get involved, I recommend visiting the The Great Ape Project, and reading the books mentioned above.

~ Zoe

Filed under: animal protection, citizen activism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Lipstick on a Pig

Posted on September 11, 2008 by zoeweil

At the risk of adding yet another comment on the endless, ridiculous commentary on Barack Obama’s remark about John McCain’s economic policies (that his policies, no matter how he tried to recast them, amounted to putting lipstick on a pig; the policies were still a pig), I feel compelled to say this:

In a Washington Post editorial we read: “Mr. Obama’s supposedly offending remark was not only not offensive — it also was not directed at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.” Indeed, Obama’s comment was not offensive to Governor Palin, but it was – hear me out – offensive to pigs, even though pigs are not capable of taking offense to human language.

The expression “putting lipstick on a pig,” like so many expressions (“She’s a cow,” “What a dog,” “He’s chicken,” “She’s a weasel,” among countless other pig expressions), subtly perpetuates our perception and treatment of animals. These expressions subconsciously influence how we view other species: as lazy, stupid, worthless, cowardly, untrustworthy, fat, ugly, etc. They lead us to believe that these animals are not worthy of consideration, protection, or kindness. They are ours to use and exploit because they are, after all, just animals.

This is not a criticism of Obama – we all use these expressions; they are embedded in our language and culture. But it’s worth asking, in all the hoopla that has surrounded Obama’s remark, whether, although it was utterly innocuous in relation to Sarah Palin, it was really harmless after all. Given that hundreds of millions of pigs are tortured, and I use that word intentionally, in our modern agricultural systems, perhaps we might want to find new ways of saying what we mean without perpetuating the oppression of other sentient species.

~ Zoe

Filed under: animal protection, compassionate communication, language | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Language Matters

Posted on October 8, 2007 by zoeweil

I found myself in a Starbucks buying tea last week for my mother who was in the hospital in New York. As I stood in line, the employees behind the counter would periodically yell out, “May I help the next guest, please?”

Guest?

When it was my turn I asked the guy serving me if he had to call us guests, and he said he did. I laughed. Guests don’t usually pay for their food, I said. He laughed, too.

In fact, here are the first two definitions of “guest” in my dictionary:
1. Somebody who receives hospitality at the home of somebody else.
2. Somebody who receives entertainment, such as a meal or attendance at a social event, that is paid for by somebody else.

Hmmm… I guess my tea should have been free.

So what if Starbucks execs want me to be called a guest. Does that do any harm? So what if the smallest size Starbucks offers in tea or coffee is called “Tall.” Who cares? What does it matter?

Language matters. Starbucks is manipulating us. My small, single tea bag cup costs almost two dollars, but because it’s “Tall,” perhaps I won’t notice the price. I have to wait in line, but hey I’m just at a party, I’m a guest! Lucky me to be invited to the home of Starbucks!

Language shifts our perceptions and attitudes. Remember the book Brave New World? Remember Doublespeak? Starbucks is just one of many companies attempting to alter our realities through language. Stay alert and call them on it. Think your own thoughts. When you realize that you’re being manipulated, you gain back some of your freedom.

~ Zoe, IHE President

Image courtesy of Simon Shek.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 439 other followers