Robin_Lakoff's_“You_Are_What_You_Say”__Critique

Robin Lakoff's “You Are What You Say”: Critique In her article “You Are What You Say,” Robin Lakoff (1991) uses several examples to argue that there is no such thing as "women's language"; it is the way people interpret it. She argues that whenever a word is used by women or used to describe women, it becomes derogatory. Starting the article out with the tag questions that women often use, Lakoff explains that by using the tag questions, speakers show the lack of confidence. Then, Lakoff provides examples of euphemism that described women demeaningly. Moreover, she comments on the pair words that fully illustrate the double standard between men and women. She concludes that since between men and women there is always a double standard, women need to speak up for themselves. Lakoff has provided well-supported evidences that help the readers to realize the oppression and double standard that women face although her reason of women's tag questions of being uncertain of themselves is a bad approach. Lakeoff's discussion of lady as a euphemism helps her readers to realize that the term actually degrades women. Lakoff draws upon the example illustrating that word usages describing women are also demeaning. Lakoff notes that the euphemism lady doctor or lady atheist is condescending because no one will ever address man as a gentleman doctor. Though the word lady seems as if it is a polite term at the beginning, Lakoff aims to show that the “implications are perilous: they suggest that a lady is helpless, and cannot do things by herself” (296). Because of Lakoff's presenting of this example, readers can better understand that women face the oppression of how once a word is used to describe them, the word becomes derogatory. In addition to the word lady, Lakoff also presents the euphemism girl, which helps the readers to furthermore understand the double standard between women and men. Lakoff examines that once a man is passed the adolescence age, he will not be referred to as a boy anymore; on the other hand, women are still addressed as girls. As Lakoff insists, the word girl, similar to lady, denotes a negative meaning; girl signifies irresponsibility. Thus the fact that women are often referred to as girls become a problem – it suggests that women are irresponsible and immature; they are not capable of making important decisions. Once again, Lakoff's challenging of the euphemism girl guides the readers to realize her argument that double standard exists. Moreover, Lakoff effectively mentions examples of pair words being biased, helping the readers to see more of the double standard. Lakoff notes that when there are two particular words with the same definition – only that one is a term for the females, the other one is the term for the males, the female word always gives a bad connotation. One example of pair words she has mentioned is spinster and bachelor – “gender words for ‘one who is not married’” (297). The definition for these two terms are exactly the same, only that one is the term for men, and the other term is for women. Nevertheless, they give different connotations. Bachelor – the term for male – “implies that one has the choice of marrying or not”, while spinster – the term for female – remains an unfavorable connotation of not being attractive and not wanted by anyone (297). Because of the different connotation of the female term, Lakoff's readers can now see even more clearly of the double standard between women and men. Last but not least, another excellent approach of Lakoff's attempting to show that the disgrace actually comes from the way people interpret language is the example of congratulating a person getting married. In the society, it is fine to congratulate a man getting married since the interpretation is that it is the man's choice of marriage; thus, it is a good thing. In the contrary, it is not ok to congratulate a woman getting married. Lakoff observes that congratulating a woman is like saying “‘Thank goodness! You had a close call!’” (298). More simply, this example shows people's different interpretation between men and women; interpretations of women are always derogatory. From this example, Lakoff once again well supported her argument. Despite all of Lakeoff's strong evidences supporting her argument, there is one bad approach of Lakoff's example – tag questions – that hinders the readers from knowing the real application of tag questions. Lakoff defines the tag questions as “being intermediate between statement and question, used when the speaker is stating a claim, but lacks full confidence in the truth of that claim” (293). Giving the example of “'the situation in Southeast Asia is terrible, isn't it''”, Lakoff claims that this sentence is actually a personal opinion, and that by saying this tag question, the speaker gives the impression of uncertain of herself or himself (293). However, this example does not truly demonstrate Lakoff's argument. Yes, the answer may vary from person to person, but the question does not suggest that the speaker lacks of confidence nor seeks for confirmation from the others. Perhaps the speaker just want to observe others' opinion. Thus, this example of tag question does not support that it is demeaning. Despite the bad approach of the example of tag questions, Lakoff has successfully suggested that the double standard between men and women remains a serious problem. Certainly, the information in her article is relevant; thus, the readers can fully adapt the information from Lakoff. Women should read her article and realize the oppression and double standard, then follow the recommendation of speaking up and changing the situation.