January 31, 2020

Americans — even young, self-identified Democratic women who believed Hillary Clinton would win — were reluctant to use “she” even in the context of a hypothetical president.Doug Mills/The New York Times

By Jessica Bennett

“We are uneasy with the president as ‘she’ because encountering it forces us to have in mind a new conception of ‘president.’”

— Robin Lakoff, linguistics professor emerita at U.C. Berkeley

Continue reading the main story

It was in my first job as a reporter that a colleague clued me into a tiny linguistic rebellion she frequently incorporated into her writing — and one I’ve since adopted. It has to do with the word, “she.”

Irked by the fact that “man” is still often the default in the English language — think, maestro, manning the command, freshman, ombudsman, and the way we always say “men and women,” or “he or she, but rarely “women and men” — I quietly make “woman” the default in my sentences, and hope the copy editors don’t object.

So: A doctor must bill her patients. A scientist takes stock of her lab. The president must win the support of her constituency. And, side note, when I got married, I made sure my male partner and I were pronounced “wife and husband,” not “man and wife.” (Why does he get to be a human while I am merely a product of my marital status?)

I never bothered to rant openly about this (or at least not that often), assuming most people didn’t want my lecture on the effects of gender bias in language. But what if I told you that simply reading the word “her” in those sentences above just cost you a third of a second in reading time? That the mere presence of a female pronoun to refer to a doctor, or a president, caused your brain to stumble?

Continue reading the main story

That’s the finding of a new study, from linguists and cognitive scientists at M.I.T., the University of Potsdam, and the University of California at San Diego, who determined — through a series of experiments conducted during the 2016 presidential race — that Americans were reluctant to use the word “she” in the context of a hypothetical president, and that reading the word, when it referred to a future president, caused subjects “considerable disruption” in reading time.

(And no, these weren’t just men stumbling — these were women, too. Some of them vocal supporters of Hillary Clinton.)

“People had difficulties reading ‘she’ even if the text had previously used ‘she,’ showing how persistent and deeply ingrained this bias is,” said Titus von der Malsburg, the study’s lead author.

Kind of wild, right?

So, could struggling to say or read the word “she” in the context of a president affect our willingness to vote for a woman?

“That’s, of course, the million-dollar question,” Dr. von der Malsburg said.

It’s not unthinkable.

One survey found that even subtly sexist language may influence voters’ likelihood of supporting a particular candidate. At the same time, the use of the pronoun “he” can create a male bias in readers, and countries with gendered language — say, Spain or Germany, for instance — have higher gender inequality over all.

When the subject is presidential candidates, Dr. von der Malsburg said, using male language could indirectly contribute to a culture in which women are not seen as typical candidates. “And that, in turn, would likely influence election outcomes because women would have to do extra work to convince voters that they can do the job,” he said.

Indeed. When it comes to women in politics — and specifically, women in the presidency — there are often unconscious assumptions lurking in our language about women in power, and whether they belong there.

[Listen: Could “She” Be President? A Look at Pronoun Bias in Politics]

Readers: Which gendered words stick out to you? Do you do anything to avoid them? Also, is it just me or has anyone else noticed how odd it sounds to refer to the historic class of female congresswomen as “freshman congresswomen”? And finally, in all seriousness, what’s a good replacement for “you guys”? Write to us.

What else is happening

Here are five articles from The Times you might have missed.

Billie Eilish performing at the Grammy Awards, January 2020.Emma Mcintyre/Getty Images

“She is flipping the idea of beauty to something surreal.” Billie Eilish, the 18-year-old pop star who took home five Grammys last week, is defining fashion by rejecting the flirty babe aesthetic in favor of something less strenuously sexual. [Read the story.]
“Unidentified male DNA present on the dress.” E. Jean Carroll, the writer who has accused President Trump of raping her in the 1990s and is suing him for defamation, asked that he provide a DNA sample to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she had on at the time. [Read the story.]
“There is a great deal of sincerity on the part of a lot of people to change the culture.” Revelations about how Harvey Weinstein wielded his power over women has altered how Hollywood casts actors, with new rules and practices to make the industry safer. [Read the story.]
“$215 million.” The amount that U.S.A. Gymnastics offered to settle legal claims brought by more than 300 plaintiffs, including Olympic gymnasts, who say they were sexually abused by Lawrence G. Nassar, the disgraced former national team doctor. A lawyer representing some of the athletes criticized the offer, saying it was “unconscionable.” [Read the story.]
“We should just see it as normal to have succession.” Ginni Rometty, the longtime face of IBM and one of the country’s most prominent female business leaders, announced that she will be stepping down as chief executive. [Read the story.]

Today’s In Her Words is written by Jessica Bennett and edited by Francesca Donner. Our art director is Catherine Gilmore-Barnes, and our photo editor is Sandra Stevenson.

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here to get future installments. You can also follow us on Instagram or email us at inherwords@nytimes.com.

Continue reading the main story