Gender Theory: Deficit theory and more

Way back in 1922 even the most credible scholars were usually more ignorant than today's average 11 year old, at least when it comes to matters of being fair and equal in your treatment of other human beings. Certainly if a 1920s man saw the state of society now he would cry out and curse the heavens, shocked at how women are no longer just expected to be child bearing servants . However, what we need to understand is that although today it all seems a lot more progressive, in fact we are only really one lifetime removed from the 1920s. My great grandmother was around during those times, and then she had a child who had a child who had me. That it is not a large amount of generations inbetween.

But anyway, today we are discussing language, and gender. As I said before, we are not at all far from the year 1920 even now. Back in 1922, a man named Otto Jespersen wrote a book about language. One part of that book was his evaluation of the differences between 'menspeak' and 'womenspeak'. Due to the times, the language Otto used to talk around this subject is these days rather inflammatory, but it is not his use of 'sexist' language and ideas that we are looking at. It is the points that he made that matter, not his personal opinions on the subject. Roughly speaking, Jespersen argued that the 'male' sociolect is superior to the 'female' sociolect, in that it is more dominant, more commanding, more authoritative, whereas the 'female' sociolect is far more tentative and subordinate. He believed that manguage is akin to vanilla ice cream and that womanguage is mutant vanilla ice cream, an altogether far less pleasant sounding option. The reason the theory is known as the deficit theory is because Otto believed woman's language to be deficient, objectively inferior to male language. Interestingly, I even found a website that attempts to distinguish the gender of a texts producer by analyzing the lexical choices: http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php which even correctly identified from a Jespersen quote the man's gender, and quite convincingly so, at that.

Having researched Jespersen in some depth now I feel as if I can understand why he thinks this way. Firstly there is the societal norms of 1922 as mentioned above, but I also uncovered some more little tidbits of relavance. Firstly, is that Otto Jespersen seems to have spent very, very little time in the company of real human beings, as many of his examples are merely anecdotal. Sometimes he seems to just toss in statements of opinion and presents them as fact most apologetically: ‘She thought in blanks, as girls do, and some women’. However, Jespersen makes good points, and at the end of the day this is what should be remembered: not the somewhat embarrassing ignorance and chauvinism, but instead the language theories that remain relevant even after almost 100 years since it was written.

By looking at some examples perhaps we can clarify some of the features and techniques Jespersen identified by looking for them ourselves. In Japan, there are certain differences between men's spoken language and women's spoken language as well, but the Japanese made the effort to give this a name. Twice: onna kotoba (女言葉, "women's words") or joseigo (女性語, "women's language").

Even this is an example of the deficit/dominance/difference theories, for example there is no phrase in japanese for 'mens words'...

http://atp.uclan.ac.uk/buddypress/diffusion/?p=736 for quotes