Which would you rather use? A weapon or a tool
I’ve been thinking a lot about language choice recently.
One of the last pre-lockdown events I attended was a talk by Caroline Criado Perez about her book, Invisible Women. She spoke about how language has an inherent gender bias. In English, we have the word ‘man’, and then it’s variant, ‘woman’. The collective term is ‘mankind’.
In other languages, such as Spanish, there are gendered nouns - ‘hermano’ for brother, ‘hermana’ for sister' - but the plural for a brother and sister uses the male form - ‘hermanos’.
Does this matter? After all, everyone knows what is meant, right? Perhaps, but when language implicitly puts one gender ahead of another, does that filter into the way we think? I think it does.
***
The Covid-19 coronavirus crisis has led to discussion about the rhetoric used. Some leaders seem to have adopted warlike, militaristic language - ‘We will win this battle against our unseen enemy’, etc. People affected by the virus are described as ‘fighters’.
I understand the reasons for this. We need cooperation right now, and rhetoric that encourages people to work together in times of war can encourage us to work together at other times, too. Talking of overcoming the disease through strength and fortitude helps us believe that we have some sort of control over what happens to us, which makes us feel better.
The danger, however, is that the opposite is implied. Did people die because they were weak, or didn’t try hard enough? Of course not.
***
Heather, my wife, recently told me how she dislikes descriptions of things as ‘weapons’. We wondered whether ‘tool’ would be a better word.
A weapon is destructive, confrontational, negative. A tool is constructive, cooperative, positive.
A rugby player who breaks through tackles is described as a wrecking ball. The alternative is to view them as the key who unlocks the defensive line. This kind of dramatic, war-like language is prevalent in sport.
The bicycle manufacturer, Specialized, have a bike called the ‘Shiv’. Presumably they think it is beneficial to draw parallels between their aerodynamic bicycle slicing through the air, and an improvised knife designed to cause harm to another person.
Many team names evoke confrontation and aggression: Bombers, Buccaneers, Knights, Pirates, Raiders, Saracens, Sharks, Vikings, Warriors. Even teams with neutral names often have logos or mascots that look angry. Team photos have players standing arms-crossed and unsmiling.
I think it would be so refreshing to have a team identity that celebrates skill, creativity, teamwork and the joy of sport - rather than attempting to intimidate the opposition. At the very least, it would stand out.
***
Consider charity writing. Which do you prefer?
Defeat the disease vs Create a cure;
Fight inequality vs Champion equality;
Reduce pollution vs Preserve nature.
The answer isn’t necessarily clear cut, I’ve not A/B tested this to see which is more successful, and both approaches are going to have moments when they’re the most appropriate. It isn’t as simple as only being positive. After all, you can’t have a solution without a problem.
Instead, I’d urge you to look back through your recent writing, whether it’s a sales pitch, website copy, annual report, or fundraising appeal. Consider whether your writing implicitly confirms harmful stereotypes or accidentally alienates elements of your audience.
If there is a ‘call to action’, what are you asking your audience to do?
Defeat or build?
Fight or collaborate?
Wield a weapon or take up a tool?
***
I’d be interested to know your thoughts on this, so feel free to let me know on Twitter or by email.
I’m available for sense-checking and copy-editing, if you ever need a second pair of eyes to check that you’re saying what you really want to say.
If you would like to receive Words about Words, my monthly newsletter, just pop your details in the box at the bottom of this page.