Let Biased Language Be

Revised Essay 1

Words: 904

Bias-free language does not help to create equality for the minorities because it distracts attention from the real problems of prejudice and injustice that exist in society.

As Kakutani says: "Calling the homeless ‘the underhoused' doesn't give them a place to live; calling the poor ‘the economically marginalized' doesn't help them pay the bills"(456). Changing the way we speak makes no difference, for those histories of the suffering people remain. Rosalie Maggio insists that: "Mankind, forefathers, brotherhood are not generic, because they leave out women" (448). But even if we stopped using "forefathers" and instead talking with "foremothers and forefathers", would women no longer experience gender discrimination? We can't just focus attention on surfaces, on words or metaphors, for signs and symbols are not so important as content (Kakutani 456).

Words themselves are innocuous, it is the consensus that gives them true power. The spoken word, like the written word, amounts to a nonsensical arrangement of sounds or letters without a consensus that assigns "meaning" (Naylor 460). So referring to the biased language, how derogatory it is would depend on the context and the relationship between the speakers. Like a white person can use "ho" when she and the other women have a very close relationship, reciprocally use it and they are in an informal or intimate context (Geis 465). So, simply using biased free language but without focusing the real social problems is just like changing no-meaning words. That is not our purposes.

Bias-free language does not help minorities, but by playing down their plight, such language might even make it easier to shrug off the seriousness of their situation (Kakutani 456). Here are examples: Gay men today demand to use the word "gay". Because starting to use "boyfriend", "girlfriend" or "partner" does not mean they are treated equally, in some states they are still not allowed to show love or get married .And this specific word is just what they use to show their uniqueness and self-respect. Without it, we might gradually neglect the fact that they are still fighting for their rights. The same is as the speech codes adopted by some universities in recent years. Although such codes are designed to prohibit students from uttering sexist and racist slurs, they would extend, by logic, to blacks who want to use the word "nigger" to strip the term of its racist connotations, or homosexuals who want to use the word "queer" to reclaim it from bigots (Kakutani 455). Then it turns out to be a hurt not a protection to the racial victims.

Using