Labelling high-status women with masculine references

Abstract

Around the world, women have been telling their stories and making their voices heard, from the suffragette movement fighting for the right to vote to the global diffusion of the #MeToo movement calling out sexual misconduct. The route of women’s empowerment in the shadow of cultural norms is full of difficulties, such as motherhood mandate, workplace harassment, gendered language. A noteworthy phenomenon has emerged in recent years in China. When confronted with certain kinds of women, people often label them with masculine references, such as “gē” (“brother” in English), “yé” (“master” in English). What are the function and mechanism behind the tendency to use masculine references? Social role theory posits that different gender roles perpetuate gender stereotypes and dictate expected behaviors. Women, who typically play the role of caregiver, are expected to be relationship-oriented and confined to the domestic sphere. Social identity theory posits that female leaders can be perceived as a threat to the male group; system justification theory suggests that as disruptors of the existing gender status quo, female leaders pose a threat to both men and women. Female leaders are subject to social sanctions for status violations, such as being labelled as “ball-breakers.”

In this thesis, the following hypotheses were proposed. First, the perceived status of women labelled with masculine references is higher than that of women with feminine references. Second, high-status women are more likely to be referred to by masculine references than low-status women. Third, high-status women cause anxiety for perceivers, and labelling masculine references responds to the perceived threat. Six studies were conducted to test these hypotheses. Study 1 laid the groundwork that female stereotypes were aligned with neutral and low status, and male stereotypes aligned with high status. Studies 2 and 3 revealed that women labelled with masculine references, rather than feminine references, were perceived to have higher status in the workplace for male individuals who endorsed the gender status quo. Studies 4 to 6 revealed that masculine labels increased the level of likability for high-status women; males who endorsed the gender status quo were more anxious when confronted with high-status women, and therefore more likely to refer to them by masculine references.

These findings contribute a new category of sexist labels----the gender reassignment labels. In addition, these findings suggest that whereas masculine labels may look like respectful and likable appellations at first glance, they, functioning as a new strategy for some individuals in responding to the perceived threat from high-status women, fail to advance women’s status as a group and still position women subordinately. Language not only conveys biased attitudes, but in turn shapes our attitudes. The present research sheds light on the fact that masculine labels are not a shortcut but rather a barrier to women’s empowerment, provides a linguistic perspective on the study of women's empowerment, and has implications for enhancing sensitivity to the use of gender biased language.