If I told you I had a word in mind that was often used to describe men who were perceived to be acting weak, you’d probably be able to guess what it was without me needing to tell you that it was derogatory or that it was slang for women’s reproductive organs. Variations of phrases like “man up” or “a woman shouldn’t act like that” still feel remarkably common, though I doubt many would take issue with the characterization of them as problematic. These instances of gendered language seem glaringly obvious. But I’ve been thinking a lot lately about some of the less obvious uses of gendered words and phrases in our everyday language. They’re so subtle – and common – that they usually just float right under the radar. But they’re also, well, everywhere. Who’s the “man of the hour”? What about his “right-hand man?” Have they made some sort of “gentlemen’s agreement” with their fellow “businessmen”? Are they putting in the “man hours” to make sure there’s enough “manpower” to manufacture enough “manmade” materials to support all of “mankind”? Are their wives hot?

Can I ask you a personal question?

Does it really matter?

As we were not-so-gently reminded in the intro, masculine qualifiers are generally accepted in modern language even when used to describe gender-neutral subjects. “‘Councilmen’ just encompasses all council members regardless of gender,” some might contend. A recent study out of the University of Houston and Vanderbilt University, however, demonstrates just the opposite. Researchers presented participants with information about a hypothetical “chairman” or “chair” of a paperclip company. Though the individual was given a gender-neutral name, participants who were told their title was “chairman” instead of “chair” were even more likely to make the assumption that the leader was a man than those given the name and no title at all. So researchers concluded the following: “Gender-neutral and masculine leadership titles are not just synonyms for each other. Masculine leadership titles reinforce stereotypes that tie men to leadership and undermine the connection between women and leadership.”

Similar research from the University of Waterloo and Duke University sought to analyze the impact of gendered language in job listings on their potential applicants. They found that “gendered wording commonly employed in job recruitment materials can maintain gender inequality in traditionally male-dominated occupations,” particularly by reducing women’s sense of belonging and by leading women to believe that a higher percentage of men were employed by workplaces that posted roles with masculine language. Perhaps then the U.S. Constitution’s use of “he” when referring to the President of the United States is more significant than some might think…

Who comes first?

It will probably take you less than a second to find the pattern in the following phrases: men and women, boys and girls, kings and queens, dukes and duchesses, actors and actresses, congress/police/business/mailmen and -women. We’ve heard these repeated so many times that hearing them in reverse order would probably feel noticeably awkward, in some cases even more awkward than it would sound to just drop the feminine noun altogether. Research published in 2017 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by Selin Kesebir, Associate Professor at the London Business School, explored this exact topic. “Gender,” Kesebir writes, “is more likely to be mentioned first when it is perceived to have higher relevance in a context rather than lower relevance, and audiences assign stronger relevance to a party when the party is mentioned first rather than second.” In other words, this offers “empirical evidence for word order as a means of expressing and perpetuating gender stereotypes.” You might recall my favorite inverted example of this linguistic trend from our recent post, So…what if I’m not sure I want kids?: “mothers and fathers”. While women and men (😉) have progressively broken out of traditional gender norms over the last century, this language still reflects women’s role in the home and men’s in the public sphere. Though there are of course exceptions (ladies and gentlemen), the pattern is hard to ignore.

Within heterosexual marriages, a husband’s name has long been considered superior to his wife's. Centuries ago, English common law instituted coverture, “a legal formation that held that no female person had a legal identity” upon marriage. It is from this concept that the practice of women taking their husbands’ last names emerged. Women were, for all intents and purposes, the property of their husbands. Though women have advanced leaps and bounds in society since this time, “prior to the 1970s in the U.S., marital rape was still legal, and a woman could not obtain a driver’s license, get a passport, or register to vote unless she took her husband’s last name.“ As the Washington Post recently recalled, it wasn’t until that same decade that the newspaper began including women’s first names in their publications rather than – brace for it – Mrs. [husband’s full name]. Decades earlier, aviator Amelia Earhart famously took issue with the New York Times for referring to her as “Mrs. Putnam” after her marriage. (Many a modern woman described one too many times as “the wife of so-and-so” can relate.)

Still today, the standard wedding invitation might read Mr. & Mrs. [husband’s full name]. Roughly 80% of American women in heterosexual marriages take their husband’s last name. An analysis of joint tax returns filed between 1996 and 2020 conducted by the University of Michigan and the U.S. Treasury Department found that men were listed before women 88% of the time, “a far stronger male showing than would be expected if couples simply listed the higher earner first.” Research published in the British Journal of Social Psychology found that “heterosexual couples are named with men's names first more often when such couples are imagined to conform to gender stereotypes” while “first-named partners of imaginary same-sex couples are attributed more stereotypically masculine attributes”; about 75% of couple names they analyzed online listed the male’s name first. Taken in combination with Kesebir’s research above, it may not be a stretch to say this significantly lopsided use of male names before that of their female partners implies some level of perceived superiority.

Just a first name for you, ladies.

Perhaps going hand in hand with the surrender of their surnames, women are also notably more likely to be referred to by their first name alone than their male counterparts. Since we were old enough to begin speaking, we’ve been told to address adults as [title] [last name]. We’ve been told that it’s a sign of respect, a show of formality. Why then do we collectively demonstrate this behavior far more consistently towards men in professional and public spaces than women? Studies conducted by those in the Department of Psychology at Cornell University drew the following conclusions when examining this exact question:

 “This gender bias emerges in archival data across domains; students reviewing professors online and pundits discussing politicians on the radio are more likely to use surname when speaking about a man (vs. a woman)… Participants writing about a fictional male scientist are more likely to refer to him by surname than participants writing about an otherwise identical female scientist…On average, people are over twice as likely to refer to male professionals by surname than female professionals. Critically, we identified consequences of this gender bias in speaking about professionals. Researchers referred to by surname are judged as more famous and eminent. They are consequently seen as higher status and more deserving of eminence-related benefits and awards.”

Many saw this tendency on display at a panel hosted by the World Economic Forum last January. The moderator, Fareed Zakaria, host of GPS on CNN, was observed repeatedly addressing the women on a panel composed entirely of government leaders by their first names, while addressing the men by their titles. In the medical field, 2022 research by the Mayo Clinic revealed that women were nearly twice as likely to be addressed with their first name by patients, which “may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician-patient relationship or workplace” (though perhaps unsurprisingly, women were 40% less likely to use their doctor’s first name.) A similar study evaluated the presentations of speakers at medical grand rounds, meetings in which clinical cases are formally discussed in hospitals. Researchers found that “women introduced speakers by formal titles 96.2% of the time. When the introducer was a male addressing a female speaker, the use of titles went down to 49.2% of the time. If the male introducer addressed a male speaker, the use of title was up to 72% of the time.” Rough.

Let us know what you think by voting in our poll and leaving an anonymous comment.

  💭 Our two cents

Sometime around the 2016 presidential election, it struck me as interesting that Hillary Clinton seemed to be so predominantly referred to as ”Hillary”. And I’ve kind of been thinking about it ever since. Sure, in her case, her extremely well-known husband, former president Bill Clinton, may have taken too large a share of their surname’s usage already. But…the same later seemed to be true for Tulsi Gabbard, whose 2020 presidential campaign posters simply showcased her first name, “TULSI”. Today, many refer to current Vice President Kamala Harris only as “Kamala” (sometimes intentionally mispronouncing her name when doing so). Even in cases when women’s last names are used, it seems to often be in combination with their first names: Nikki Haley, Elizabeth Warren, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Rashida Tlaib. Though you might not normally see that set of names listed together (lol), they seem more similar to each other in first vs. last name usage than they do to (Barack) Obama or (Donald) Trump, respectively. I often wonder where that tendency comes from: a desire to undermine them? Attempts make them seem less intimidating? Or is it simply just the language we’re comfortable with? 

For better or for worse, so much of what we all say is said without thinking twice. I’d be in the running for the biggest liar in the world if I claimed I say “women and men” anywhere near as much as I say “men and women.” The same goes for my use of “mothers and fathers” or “Mr. and Mrs.” or even my gender-based selection of first and last names.  We’re so used to hearing things a certain way that we rarely pause and think about their collective meaning or impact. Often, they simply just don’t stand out enough to us. And we so infrequently intend harm by repeating these words, phrases, and names the ways in which we do. But it’s hard for me to look at the research on this topic as a whole – and reflect on my own experiences – and not feel that there’s truth in its potential biases and consequences. So, why not mix it up whenever you happen to think about it? Why not say “chair” instead of “chairman”, “Dad and Mom” instead of “Mom and Dad”, “Sandberg” instead of “Sheryl Sandberg”? It probably won’t kill you – or anyone else – and it just might shift the way you – or they – see the world ever so slightly. :)

💃 The girls have spoken

Last week, we reflected on the cultural phenomenon around putting marriage and babies above all else when it comes to celebrating life moments. In our poll, you told us that you - like us - spend the bulk of your celebrations focused on marriage-related events (38%), but birthdays closely follow (34%). The comments section made a few great points - one being that when it comes to what really matters at the end of your life, it’s often family. And because of that, we tend to put more emphasis on family-related events. Totally fair! Another reader commented that in their post-retirement years, every birthday is a cause to celebrate. I love that sentiment because why do we wait until our retirement years to do so? Let’s celebrate our 20s and 30s like we will our 60s and 70s! 

💌 Up Next

That’s all for today! If you liked this edition of Not That Personal, we think one of your friends probably will too – refer one (or two or three) below. ;)

Have something to say? We’d love to hear it – reply to this email or leave an anonymous comment here :) 

Up next: So…when did we all get so anxious?

💖 S & J