18b
SUSAN SONTAG
feotive ownership O'f their O'wn bodies (through easy access to contra–
ceptives and the legalization O'f abortiO'n). But these cDncessiDns, however
desirable they may be, dO' nO't ohallenge the fundamental at6tudes that
maintain WDmen as secO'nd-class citizens nO'r tO'uch the root O'f male
privileges.
A radioaJ., as O'PPO'sed to' a liberal, change in the status O'f wO'men
will abolish the mystique O'f "nature." WDmen shO'uld wO'rk toward an
end to'
all
stereO'
typing
O'f any kind, positive as well as negative, accO'rd–
ing to' peO'ple's sexual identity. Changing the laws that discriminate
against women in specific situations (with respect to' suffrage, entering
intO' cDntracts, access to' educatiO'n, and emplO'yment) is nO't enO'ugh.
The fO'rms of wO'rk, sexual custDms, the idea Df family life have to' be
altered; language itself, which crudely enshines the ancient bias against
WOInell1,
cannot remain unaffeoted. For, however advanced O'ur ideas,
every time we speak we continue to' affirm the superiority (aotivity) Df
men and tJhe inferiO'rity (passivity) O'f WDmen.
It
is "grammatically CDr–
rect" to' assume .that agents, active persDns are men. Grammar, the ulti–
mate arena Df sexist brainwashing, cDnceals ItJhe very existence Df WDmen
- except in special situations. Thus we
must
say "he" when we mean a
person who miglht be Df either sex. "Man" is the accepted way to' refer
to' all human beings; "men" is the literary way Df saying peO'ple. (As
"men in dark times," a line from a poem by Brecht and the title Df one
of Hannah Arendt's books, means peDple in dark times. Indeed, of the
ten peDple Arendt writes about in her brilIi:ant, noble boO'k two are wO'm–
en. But Dne, Isak Dinesen, adO'pted a male pseudO'nym and tme other,
RO'sa Luxemburg, was, as the jacket CO'Py comments coyly, "the man–
liest O'f them
all!")
The pronO'un that substitutes fO'r nO'uns like student,
worker, citizen, artist, public O'fficial, athlete, industrialist is "he." Lan–
guage is nO't, of course, the sO'urce O'f the prejudice that identifies "men"
afi the human race, and assO'ciates mO'st human activities with men only.
Language merely expresses the sexist order that has prevailed thrDugh–
out histO'ry.
The wDmen's mO'vement has already made the sexist bias of grammar
feel offensive to' a vocal minO'rity Df wO'men. Sensitizing increasing num–
bers O'f people to sexism in language - as most people have Dnly re–
cently becO'me alert to' racist cliches in language (and art) - is an im–
portant task. More generally, people must be helped to' wake up to the
profound misogyny expressed O'n all levels Df human interchange, not
just in laws but in the detail of everyday life:
in
forms Df
pol~teness
and in the conventiDns (clO'thes, gestures, etc.) which
polarize
sexual
identity, and in the flow of images (in art, news, and advertizing) which
perpetuate sexist stereO'types. These attitudes will change only when
