Page 118 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 118
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 5–6
believed to be immune to the asymmetries found in common social rela-
tions. Empirical – i.e. corpus-based – research shows that “feminisation”
denotes the process of women “taking over” in many spheres of public life,
and is typically associated with negative evaluation. There is a strong per-
ception in society that women increasingly dominate certain areas such as
education, law, journalism and health care, and even the military, which
is seen as a social problem. As for the discourse analysis of discussions on
GNL (e.g. Šorli, 2019; Mikić & Kalin Golob, 2019), it is worth noting that
arguments opposing efforts to reduce male-centric language come from
different and even opposing ideological positions, indicating the complex
nature of societal perspectives that determine whether GNL would be
supported or opposed. However, what really connects the different find-
ings in gender-related theories is symbolic power, which is presented as a
universal despite being simply power, which is also discussed by Bourdieu
(1991). Another expression similar to many other feminine grammati-
cal forms in that it is devoid of content is “feminine writing” (the French
term écriture féminine being a rare exception to the rule), which is most-
ly used pejoratively to “discredit female writers as ‘peculiar’ or ‘particular’
in relation to the ‘universal’ or supposedly ‘gender unmarked’ writing of
men.” This struggle is similar to that taking place in linguistics. Slovenian
female author and translator Barbara Simoniti sums it up with the follow-
ing thought: “I have never heard anyone say that ‘William Shakespeare
was one of the greatest representatives of male world literature.’ Literature
is universal – or at least it wants to be. However, it is fascinating that this
universal feeling disappears almost instantly when a text is written by a
woman.”8
References
Antić Gaber, M. (2014). Biološki/družbeni spol ali kako misliti razmerja so-
cialnega, kulturnega in biološkega. In A. Fausto-Sterling. Biološki/
družbeni spol: biologija v družbi. Krtina.
Bahovec, E. (1992). O feminizmu in psihoanalizi: onstran problema poimen-
ovanja. Problemi-Eseji, 30(1-2), 131–136.
Bajić, N. (2012). Spolno (ne)občutljiva raba jezika v Srbiji in Sloveniji v teoriji
in praksi. In Ideologija v slovenskem jeziku, literaturi in kulturi, (A col-
lection of articles Seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture, 48)
(pp. 124–128). Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete.
Béjoint, H. (2000). Modern Lexicography. An Introduction. (1st edition
1994). Oxford University Press.
8 http://www.cityofwomen.org/sites/default/files/VsakDan8Marec_Slovenscina.pdf
116
believed to be immune to the asymmetries found in common social rela-
tions. Empirical – i.e. corpus-based – research shows that “feminisation”
denotes the process of women “taking over” in many spheres of public life,
and is typically associated with negative evaluation. There is a strong per-
ception in society that women increasingly dominate certain areas such as
education, law, journalism and health care, and even the military, which
is seen as a social problem. As for the discourse analysis of discussions on
GNL (e.g. Šorli, 2019; Mikić & Kalin Golob, 2019), it is worth noting that
arguments opposing efforts to reduce male-centric language come from
different and even opposing ideological positions, indicating the complex
nature of societal perspectives that determine whether GNL would be
supported or opposed. However, what really connects the different find-
ings in gender-related theories is symbolic power, which is presented as a
universal despite being simply power, which is also discussed by Bourdieu
(1991). Another expression similar to many other feminine grammati-
cal forms in that it is devoid of content is “feminine writing” (the French
term écriture féminine being a rare exception to the rule), which is most-
ly used pejoratively to “discredit female writers as ‘peculiar’ or ‘particular’
in relation to the ‘universal’ or supposedly ‘gender unmarked’ writing of
men.” This struggle is similar to that taking place in linguistics. Slovenian
female author and translator Barbara Simoniti sums it up with the follow-
ing thought: “I have never heard anyone say that ‘William Shakespeare
was one of the greatest representatives of male world literature.’ Literature
is universal – or at least it wants to be. However, it is fascinating that this
universal feeling disappears almost instantly when a text is written by a
woman.”8
References
Antić Gaber, M. (2014). Biološki/družbeni spol ali kako misliti razmerja so-
cialnega, kulturnega in biološkega. In A. Fausto-Sterling. Biološki/
družbeni spol: biologija v družbi. Krtina.
Bahovec, E. (1992). O feminizmu in psihoanalizi: onstran problema poimen-
ovanja. Problemi-Eseji, 30(1-2), 131–136.
Bajić, N. (2012). Spolno (ne)občutljiva raba jezika v Srbiji in Sloveniji v teoriji
in praksi. In Ideologija v slovenskem jeziku, literaturi in kulturi, (A col-
lection of articles Seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture, 48)
(pp. 124–128). Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete.
Béjoint, H. (2000). Modern Lexicography. An Introduction. (1st edition
1994). Oxford University Press.
8 http://www.cityofwomen.org/sites/default/files/VsakDan8Marec_Slovenscina.pdf
116
