In 2011, an interesting study was done between Chinese-American bilinguals and English speaking monolinguals. Both groups were given sets of images of Jet Li and Brad Pitt at differing ages and asked to organize these pictures in an order of increasing age. In the monolingual English group, a majority of the participants organized the images horizontally, whilst a majority of the Chinese-speaking bilingual group organized the images vertically. What caused this difference? In Chinese, the idea of next, as in “next week” or “next year” is “xià,” which also holds meanings of “lower” or “down.” Thus, this difference in language might explain why many of the Chinese-Americans labelled their images in a vertical fashion. These differences hold profound implications and show that language controls our perception of space and time. 

If language can control our perception of time, one of the most abstract yet universal aspects of life, then it undoubtedly controls or, at least strongly affects, every other construction of our reality and identity. Colonialists, of course, utilized language, or perhaps the absence of language (along with acts of violence) to impose their constructs onto indigenous populations. Removing someone’s language essentially removes one’s identity and connection to others. Thus, we can say without doubt that language has always, and will continue to, construct our view of the world and ourselves. 

In the context of sexism in the United States, the English language controls how people in the United States view sex and gender. Many words, for example, are so gendered that they almost become synonymous with “man” or “woman.” Think of the word “receptionist,” and an image of a woman almost inevitably pops into your mind. Sure, some might argue that these words are gendered simply because women hold the majority of certain occupations or roles. However, most of these words, such as “receptionist,” hold diminutive connotations. This isn’t to say that a receptionist is not a vital role, but a receptionist is always an assistant to someone else (stereotypically, a man.) In other words, feminized words are taken less seriously.

On the note of being taken less seriously, what do women hear when they show distress and emotion? That they’re being “hysterical.” Where does the word hysterical come from? Hysterical comes from the Greek word “hystera,” which means “uterus.” The word “hysterical” holds historical medical context; in the 18th century, women who were having a stroke or epilepsy were labeled to have “hysteria.” 

The English language is also asymmetric in respect to sex and gender. The word “virgin,” for example, has no direct male equivalent. The most would perhaps be “male virgin,” but if you have to put the word “male” in front of a word, that probably implies the word is inherently associated with women (just like how “male nurse” or even “murse” is used to indicate a nurse who is male.) We also don’t hear any phrases like “working father” or “careerman” as we hear “working mother” or “careerwoman.” The implication there, evidently, is that a woman in a household is not expected to have her own career and, when she does, she needs a new label. 

Finally, the grammar with which we speak about women and men is markedly different. Women are placed in a sentence passively: “a woman was assaulted,” for example, places the spotlight, and, consequently, the blame on a woman who is in a situation where someone takes advantage of her. The way we talk about the biological process of fertilization, even with the “sperm fertilizing the egg,” labels the egg—that is, the female—as passive and waiting. Some might argue that these are just facts. This is just science. But science is biased, science is changing and science has room for improvement always. 

It is important to know that this is happening and that this contributes to the language we speak. Languages are extensions of ourselves, just as much as our own body parts. We live with and within language. Thus, it is necessary to be aware of the sexism ingrained within it, to understand just how much we chafe against sexism every day.