"Gendered Voices in Children's Television Advertising"--Fern L. Johnson and Karren Young Blog #16

This article brought a lot of things to my attention. I knew that advertising companies blatanly markets countless products to children--something I that I believe is completely ludicrous in and of itself. However, I hadn't thought about the effect of those advertisements outside of the material. I never thought about the fact that children take many of their social cues from television, and now more than ever, advertisements and the media have the power to shape children. It's no wonder that gender biases and female oppression has continued to be such a virus. Children are spoon-fed all of this nearly before they can even talk. It's very sad to think that advertising agencies have so much control over what children believe and how they learn to behave. The article mentions that advertising to children trains them for consumer culture, and that they are a daily part of life for children. It's baffling to think about how many cues children take from what they see in advertisements and on television, and what impact it has on the adults they will become.

"Gender Issues in Advertising"--Jeanne Munger Artz and Warren Pundy Blog #15

After reading this article, I realized that I haven't noticed gender bias in advertising so much when it comes to language. I haven't considered the bias that exists most likely because I am so used to hearing things that way. The article did mention the issue of "objectification"--this is something that I have noticed and that continues to bother me. To say it plainly, I really can't stand the fact that women are used purely as sexual objects and are devalued for advertising purposes. Reading this article reminded me of a specific television commercial. A few years ago, Carl's Jr. released two separate ads for some product. One had Hugh Hefner and the other had Paris Hilton with almost no clothes on. Both commercials completely objectified women in very different ways. Those ads completely soured my opinion of that company as a whole, and my father actually wrote a complaint and has altogether boycotted the restaurant chain because of them (which I am very proud of). It is a shame that, while there has been so much advocacy to change language, advertising companies and the media continue to treat women purely as objects.

"Beyond the He/Man Approach"--Wendy Martyna Blog #14

One of the things I found interesting in Martyna's article was the discussion about our ability to identify with a pronoun grouping. She explains that men have an easier time identifying with statements that use a neutral "he" pronoun, and that they are naturally identifying with the specific form of the pronoun. Conversely, women have to think quite differently to be able to identify with "he", and they are more likely to use alternatives, like "person". It's amazing to me that there is such a distinction between using "he" and "person". In my opinion, "person" is far more all-encompassing and respectful of either gender. It's not nearly as cumbersome and doesn't sound as strange as trying to include "his or her". I don't understand why using "person" or "oneself" isn't more widely accepted and used.

I'm beginning to see just how difficult introducing changes in the language would be. Furthermore, just because a formal change is made or gender-neutral terms are introduced doesn't mean that people will start using them. I imagine that many people are so conditioned to use the terms they use that a big change would be just about impossible. As an argument in the article pointed out, people use pronouns in the generic and specific form so many times throughout the day. It would be extremely difficult to be conscious enough of one's usage to make a lasting change.

"The Epicene Pronoun: The Word the Failed"--Dennis E. Baron Blog #13

In this article, it's interesting to note that several other languages have a gender-neutral pronoun for "his or her". Baron explains that in French, there are two different phrases for "his or her" and "him and her". In my opinion, "everyone", "everybody" and even "they" all imply gender neutrality, and I've never felt personally affronted by the use of one of these terms. They are less cumbersome and sound far more natural then constantly trying to say "him or her" and "he or she". One thing the article pointed out is the use of "one" as a pronoun, as in "oneself". I agree that this hasn't been the most widely used pronoun outside of formal environments or the highly educated.

Even in formal academic essays, many college students opt for the incorrect second-person pronoun "your", rather than using "one's" or "oneself". It's interesting to me that this hasn't really caught on as a gender neutral pronoun in our language as much as using "they" or "everyone".

The thing that is most sad to think about is how these gender biases came to be in our language. I really have never felt bad or offended through the use of the masculine bias in language, however, it's sad when I consider the fact that at one point, women were not considered to be any different from property. The bias came to be over the years because of the fact women were devalued and treated as less than men. So, while it may not bother people enough to be changed, the reasons behind the bias should be enough of an issue to spark change in our language.

"Making Changes: The Debate on Sexist Language" by Deborah Cameron Blog #12

I agree with many of the arguments presented in Cameron's article. I'm not surprised that there are more insults readily available for women as opposed to men. In my opinion, it's a lot more common for women to be ostracized in general. Another thing that stands out to me is the "terms of endearment" often used by men to address women. I'm sure that many men do not mean disrespect when they refer to a woman as "Dear" or something like that. I worked through college at a coffee shop, and many men, especially seniors, would call me dear or hunny. Generally, I found it to be friendly, because I worked in more of a friendly environment, serving people. However, there were instances that I've experienced these types of terms where they have not been in friendliness. When a man is referred to as "sir" but then a woman is referred to as "sweetie", it does communicate disrespect. That person is communicating an entirely different level of respect toward the man, and is placing him on a "higher level" than the woman. It's interesting to see that woman are often infantilized and devalued by our language.

"This New Species that Seeks a Language: On Sexism in Language and Language Change" by Nancy M. Henley Blog #11

After reading this article, I can honestly say that my mind was changed a little. I used to think that most of the idea that sexism exists in language was just "left-wing" notion. The evidence in this article has convinced me that it does exist in our language, and the bias in language only prolongs the sexism against women in our culture. One of the things that stood out to me was the fact that, while men are usually referred to according to their occupational status, women are reffered to by their relational status. This never really occured to me, even though it's obvious because a woman's "title" shifts between Mrs., Miss, and Ms., while a man is always Mr., despite his marital status. This emphasizes the fact that woman continue to be defined by their relational and marital status. I also found it interesting that "neutral" occupations are still modified with gender, like "lady judge". It shows that our language is truly biased toward men, because occupations without a specific gender attached are immediately registered as male in most people's minds.