Male generic language impacts representation

Close your eyes and picture an image of man discovering fire. I bet you pictured a caveman not a cavewoman despite the fact that the phrase “man discovered fire” is meant to mean that people discovered fire.^[1] This is an example of how male generic language impacts representation. Male generic language is using masculine pronouns when the person being referred to could be a man or woman. It is also using words such as businessman instead of the gender-neutral businessperson and mankind to refer to all people.^[2] Some people argue that the use of male generic language is not a problem because people know that it is meant to include both men and women. However, this has been proven not to be the case. Just as you most likely pictured a caveman discovering fire, studies have found that when male generic language is used people are far more likely to picture men. One study asked children to pick pictures for a textbook with titles such as “Urban Man” or “Urban Life”. When the titles included male generic language the kids almost always picked pictures of men, but when they were gender-neutral they picked pictures of both men and women.^[2] This lack of mental and linguistic representation excludes women and downplays women’s contribution to society. ^[1] It also limits women’s opportunities as seen by studies that have shown that women are less likely to pursue a job when the posting uses male generic language instead of gender-neutral language.^[3]

[P1] When male generic language is used, people are far more likely to picture men. [P2] This results in a lack of mental and linguistic representation, which excludes women and limits women’s opportunities.