In "The Semantic Derogation of Woman" Muriel Schulz presents an interesting observation and critique of the almost ritual debasement of words which refer to women. She claims that this shows the attitudes and fears that men hold about women. Schultz explains the path that words descend and expounds on several theories of why one can predict with near certainty that words, once neutral or positive, denoting women acquire negative and often sexual connotations.
Schulz points out that while we can not tell how much language effects the culture that we live in, we do know that language reflects the culture that constructs that language. For this reason, Schulz contends, by examining language regarding women we can learn a great deal about the fears and prejudices men have about women. Historically men have made language for many reasons. Mainly men have created language because they were the primary creators of most cultures. So, when Schultz examines biases she is asserting that these are male biases that have been handed down through the generations..
The least offensive form of degradation is what Schultz calls " democratic leveling" (135). This is the method where titles that where once only applicable to those of high rank, but become applicable to those of common standing as well. This form of deterioration may not be abusive or insulting, yet it still helps to assert that women are not fit to hold high office or positions of power.
The largest portion of this reading is devoted to tracing various kinds of words that have gradually come to mean prostitute or sexually promiscuous woman. Words that designate women family often degenerate to equate prostitute or mistress. Work which women historically performed often by women becomes synonymous with "the oldest profession". Strangely enough even terms of endearment for women frequently collate to the word prostitute as well. Schulz notes that it is interesting that terms of endearment, which are meant to stress those things men appreciate, often become acquainted with a degraded, shameful profession.
Schulz does assert that sometimes negative words describing women are not sexual, but that these usually apply to overweight or dirty women. Words which refer to older women have undesirable connotations which imply that older women are unattractive and a bad temper. Schulz states that, furthermore, women who are overweight seem to garner words which refer to old, worn out, and useless animals such as horses and cows.
The final part of the article is devoted to exploring differences
in how words are applied to men and women and some possible explanations
why this happens. She ends by stating that language is circular,
that language reflects culture and then passes the cultures fears
and prejudices on. For this reason Schulz feels that it is justified
to become aware of the path of degradation words relating to women
follow.
"The Semantic Derogation of Woman," by Muriel Schulz, is an informative look at how neutral or positive words which relate to women are systematically degraded. The manner in which she approaches the topic brakes the discussion up into sections relating to the purpose of language, the history of verbal derogation, and an explanation of why this happens to words pertaining to women more than men. This piece is primarily important in bringing the issue to light, as it does not offer any suggestions for ways to prevent this cycle from continuing. It does, however, offer plenty of information that could lead to intellectual discussion and consideration.
Schulz begins by detailing language as a mirror of the attitudes of society. It is important for this reading to understand that language reflects the fears, aspirations, and focuses of the society which created it. Schulz gives a short, yet sufficient, description of why language has mostly been created by men. This part of the article sets up the rest of the article well. Schulz gives enough background to help the reader understand some of the inferences and innuendoes that language possesses, but she does not become entangled in a lengthy debate of the influence language has on opinion, nor does she get caught up in a dispute of who is to blame for language that degrades women. Schulz uses tactful and clear language to outline the problem of language in society.
The majority of the piece is dedicated to discussing the various routes words which refer to women have followed through out history. She demonstrates several different types of degradation, offering examples of each. The examples are clear and to the point. Schulz offers a comparison for most of them to men, which helps the reader see that the problem is unique to words referring to women. This method facilitates discussion because the problem is so clearly illustrated. Using this illustrate then compare contrast method is both effective and intelligent.
The final section of the details three different possibilities for this occurrence, and lists reasons why each one is or is not valid. This section of the work is a little weak due to the fact that Schulz does not spend enough time validating her opinions. She seems to assume that readers will simply share her opinions on the subject. The work would have been stronger and more convincing had Schulz offered a bit more evidence to support what she feels to be the cause of this problem. Aside from that, this section does offer some interesting concepts dealing with the source of degraded words pertaining to women. Schulz explains that the prejudices presented by language are circular in nature. Language reflects the attitudes of the society and then the attitudes are passed on in language. Although the explanations of the prejudice are a little weak, the justification of studying this phenomena are considerably stronger. This piece gives the reader a reason to study language, and offers the reader grounds to attempt to change language.
This work, written by a well recognized feminist author, is intelligent
and well written. The method that Schulz uses is clear and to
the point, which helps the reader to understand the point she
is making. This piece is a good facilitator for discussion on
language and the power that it has. Although at times Schulz
does not offer enough evidence to support her claims, overall
the piece is a good catalyst to bring the derogation of the word
woman into conscious thought.
© Sarah Penheiter, Winona (MN) State University, 30 January 1997. This document may be freely distributed for educational use as long as this notice of its authorship accompanies its distribution.
Return to annotated bibliography on language, gender, and writing.