Examine your own language for:
n derogatory terms for members of a particular race.
n maintaining stereotypes and interacting with members of other races based on those
stereotypes.
n including reference to race when it’s irrelevant, as in “the [racial name] surgeon” or “the
[racial name] athlete.”
n attributing an individual’s economic or social problems to the individual’s race rather than
to, say, institutionalized racism or general economic problems that affect everyone.
Heterosexism
Heterosexism also exists on both an individual and an institutional level. Individual heterosexism consists of attitudes, behaviors, and language that disparage gay men and lesbians and includes the belief that all sexual behavior that is not heterosexual is unnatural and deserving of criticism and condemnation. These beliefs are at the heart of anti-gay violence and “gay bashing.” Individual heterosexism also includes such be- liefs as the notions that homosexuals are more likely to commit crimes than are heterosexuals (there’s actually no difference) and to molest children than are heterosexuals (actually, child molesters are overwhelmingly heterosexual, married men) (Abel & Harlow, 2001; Koppelman, 2005). It also includes the belief that homosexuals cannot maintain stable relationships or effectively raise children, beliefs that contradict research evidence (Fitzpatrick, Jandt, Myrick, & Edgar, 1994; Johnson & O’Connor, 2002).
Institutional heterosexism is easy to identify. For example, the ban on gay mar- riage in most states and the fact that at this time only a handful of states allow gay marriage is a good example of institutional heterosexism. Other examples include the Catholic Church’s ban on homosexual priests and the many laws prohibiting adop- tion of children by gay men or lesbians. In some cultures homosexual relations are illegal (for example, in India, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Singapore); penalties range from a “misdemeanor” charge in Liberia to life in jail in Singapore and death in Pakistan.
Heterosexist language includes derogatory terms used for lesbians and gay men. For example,
surveys in the military showed that 80 percent of those surveyed heard “offensive speech, deroga- tory names, jokes or remarks about gays” and that 85 percent believed that such derogatory speech was “tolerated” (New York Times, March 25, 2000, p. A12). You also see heterosexism in more subtle forms of language usage; for example, when you qualify a professional—as in “gay athlete” or “les- bian doctor”—and, in effect, say that athletes and doctors are not normally gay or lesbian.
Still another form of heterosexism is the presumption of heterosexuality. Usually, people assume the person they’re talking to or about is heterosexual. And usually they’re correct, because most people are heterosexual. At the same time, however, this presumption denies the lesbian or gay identity a certain legitimacy. The practice is very similar to the presumptions of whiteness and maleness that we have made significant inroads in eliminating.
Examine your own language for possible heterosexism and consider, for example, if you do any of the following:
n use offensive nonverbal mannerisms that parody stereotypes when talking about gay men
and lesbians. Do you avoid the “startled eye blink” with which some people react to gay couples (Mahaffey, Bryan, & Hutchison, 2005)?
n “compliment” gay men and lesbians by saying that they “don’t look it.” To gay men and
lesbians, this is not a compliment. Similarly, expressing disappointment that a person is gay—often thought to be a compliment, as in comments such as “What a waste!”—is not really a compliment.
n make the assumption that every gay or lesbian knows what every other gay or lesbian is thinking.
It’s very similar to asking a Japanese person why Sony is investing heavily in the United States.
n stereotype—saying things like “Lesbians are so loyal” or “Gay men are so open with their
feelings,” which ignore the reality of wide differences within any group, and are potentially insulting to all groups.
The difficulty in life is the choice.
n overattribute—the tendency to attribute just about everything a person does, says, and
believes to the fact that the person is gay or lesbian. This tendency helps to activate and perpetuate stereotypes.
n forget that relationship milestones are important to all people. Ignoring anniversaries or
birthdays of, say, a relative’s partner is resented by everyone.
As you think about heterosexism, recognize not only that heterosexist language will create barriers to communication, but also that its absence will foster more meaningful commu- nication: greater comfort, an increased willingness to disclose personal information, and a greater willingness to engage in future interactions (Dorland & Fisher, 2001).
Ageism
Although used mainly to refer to prejudice against older people, the word ageism can also refer to prejudice against other age groups. For example, if you describe all teenagers as selfish and undependable, you’re discriminating against a group purely because of their age, and thus are ageist in your statements. In some cultures—some Asian and some African cul- tures, for example—the old are revered and respected. Younger people seek them out for ad- vice on economic, ethical, and relationship issues.Individual ageism is seen in the general disrespect many show toward older people and in negative stereotypes about older people. Institutional ageism is seen in mandatory retirement laws and age restrictions in certain occupations (as opposed to requirements based on dem- onstrated competence). In less obvious forms, ageism is seen in the media’s portrayal of old people as incompetent, complaining, and, perhaps most clearly evidenced in both television and films, without romantic feelings. Rarely, for example, does a TV show or film show older people working productively, being cooperative and pleasant, and engaging in romantic and sexual relationships.
Popular language is replete with examples of ageist language; “little old lady,” “old hag,” “old-timer,” “over the hill,” “old coot,” and “old fogy” are a few examples. As with sexism, qualify- ing a description of someone in terms of his or her age demonstrates ageism. For example, if you refer to “a quick-witted 75-year-old” or “an agile 65-year-old” or “a responsible teenager,” you’re implying that these qualities are unusual in people of these ages and thus need special mention. You’re saying that “quick-wittedness” and “being 75” do not normally go together. The problem with this kind of stereotyping is that it’s simply wrong. There are many 75-year-olds who are extremely quick-witted (and many 30-year-olds who aren’t).
You also communicate ageism when you speak to older people in overly simple words, or explain things that don’t need explaining. Nonverbally, you demonstrate ageist commu- nication when, for example, you avoid touching an older person but touch others, or when you avoid making direct eye contact with the older person but readily do so with others, or when you speak at an overly high volume (suggesting that all older people have hearing difficulties).
One useful way to avoid ageism is to recognize and avoid the illogical stereotypes that ageist language is based on and examine your own language to see if you do any of the following:
n talk down to a person because he or she is older. Older people are not mentally slow; most
people remain mentally alert well into old age.
n refresh an older person’s memory each time you see the person. Older people can and do
remember things.
n imply that romantic relationships are no longer important. Older people continue to be
interested in relationships.
n speak at an abnormally high volume. Being older does not mean being hard of hearing or
being unable to see; most older people hear and see quite well, sometimes with hearing aids or glasses.
n avoid engaging older people in conversation as you would wish to be engaged. Older peo-
ple are interested in the world around them.
Even though you want to avoid ageist communication, there are times when you may wish to make adjustments when talking with someone who does have language or commu-
nication difficulties. The American Speech and Hearing As- sociation offers several useful suggestions (www.asha.org /public/speech/development/communicating-better-with -older-people.htm):
n Reduce as much background noise as you can.
n Ease into the conversation by beginning with casual
topics and then moving into more familiar topics. Stay with each topic for a while; avoid jumping too quickly from one topic to another.
n Speak in relatively short sentences and questions. n Give the person added time to respond. Some older peo-
ple react more slowly and need extra time.
n Listen actively. Practice the skills of active listening dis-
cussed in Chapter 4.
Sexism
Individual sexism consists of prejudicial attitudes and beliefs about men or women based on rigid beliefs about gender roles. These might include such beliefs as the idea that women should be caretakers, should be sensitive at all times, and should acquiesce to a man’s decisions concerning politi- cal or financial matters. Sexist attitudes would also include the beliefs that men are insensitive, interested only in sex, and incapable of communicating feelings.Institutional sexism, on the other hand, results from cus- toms and practices that discriminate against people because of their gender. Clear examples in business and industry are the widespread practice of paying women less than men for the same job and the discrimination against women in the upper levels of management. Another clear example of institutionalized sexism is the courts’ prac- tice of automatically or near-automatically granting child custody to the mother rather than the father.
Of particular interest here is sexist language: language that puts down someone because of his or her gender (a term usually used to refer to language derogatory toward women). The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) has proposed guidelines for nonsexist (gender-free, gender-neutral, or sex-fair) language. These guidelines concern the use of the generic word man, the use of generic he and his, and sex-role stereotyping (Penfield, 1987). Consider your own communication behavior. Examine your own language for such examples of sexism as these:
n use of man generically. Using the term to refer to humanity in general emphasizes maleness
at the expense of femaleness. Gender-neutral terms can easily be substituted. Instead of “mankind,” say “humanity,” “people,” or “human beings.” Similarly, the use of terms such as
policeman or fireman that presume maleness as the norm—and femaleness as a deviation
from this norm—are clear and common examples of sexist language.
n use of he and his as generic. Instead, you can alternate pronouns or restructure your sentences
to eliminate any reference to gender. For example, the NCTE Guidelines (Penfield, 1987) suggest that instead of saying, “The average student is worried about his grades,” you say, “The average student is worried about grades.”
n use of sex-role stereotyping. When you make the hypothetical elementary school teacher
female and the college professor male, or refer to doctors as male and nurses as female, you’re sex-role stereotyping, as you are when you include the sex of a professional with terms such as “woman doctor” or “male nurse.”
Racist, Heterosexist, Ageist, and Sexist Listening
Just as racist, heterosexist, ageist, and sexist attitudes will influence your language, they can also influence your listening if you hear what speakers are saying through the stereotypes you hold. Prejudiced listening occursVIEWPOINTS What do you feel is the current status of sexism and sexist language in your area of the world? Can you identify specific types of sexism that you’ve observed? In what types of situations is sexism seen most clearly (for example, on the job, in schools, in the military, in the ministry)?
For an article on sexual equality in different countries, see “Gender Gap” at tcbdevito.blogspot.com. Do you see “gender gaps”? Where are they most prevalent?
when you listen differently to a person because of his or her gender, race, affectional orientation, or age, even though these characteristics are irrelevant to the message.
Racist, heterosexist, ageist, and sexist listening occur in lots of situations. For example, when you dismiss a valid argument—or attribute validity to an invalid argument—because the speaker is of a particular race, affectional orientation, age group, or gender, you’re listening with prejudice.
Of course, there are many instances when these char- acteristics are relevant and pertinent to your evaluation of a message. For example, the sex of a person who is talking about pregnancy, fathering a child, birth control, or surro- gate motherhood is, most would agree, probably relevant to the message. So in these cases it is not sexist listening to take the sex of the speaker into consideration. It is, how- ever, sexist listening to assume that only one sex can be an authority on a particular topic or that one sex’s opinions are without value. The same is true in relation to listening through a person’s race or affectional orientation.