Sexist Expressions?

[Paul Whybrow]

This year, I've been writing a short story to keep me sane (ish) while I queried agents and indie publishers. One of the protagonists is an incomer to a village in decline, who's purchased the rectory which was empty for ten years, during which it was vandalised. It needs restoring, so I went to write:

'He'd be busy renovating his new home—even if he employed tradesmen.'

I paused, fearing the wrath of sensitivity readers—should I say tradespeople?—which looks clumsy to my eyes. Also, it jars with the dynamic of the story, where males are in positions of influence, and smug with it, unaware that the village really runs on the efforts of a coven of modern-day witches.

Etymologically, the use of man as a suffix came from it meaning person in Old English—there wasn't a gender differentiation. However, political correctness has seen a few expressions of longstanding being replaced with descriptors that are gender-neutral.

Actresses have become actors, police officer describes policeman and policewoman, and there are no longer air stewards and air stewardesses, but rather flight attendants. Surgeon has long been used, with no differentiation based on gender. Firefighter was swiftly adopted and rightly so.

Although some jobs might have gender-neutral titles, like mail carrier, people still commonly say mailman and mailwoman or postman and postwoman without it being seen as sexist. And, sporting activities appear to have escaped being lumped together: sportsman and sportswoman are commonly used, rather than sportsperson.

Most artistic activities have long been described inclusively, such as painter, though one still occasionally sees sculptress and, less commonly, poetess and authoress.

It's a shame, in a way, that political correctness has led to smoothed-over, catch-all terms that are vague and which imply we're all the same. Can't we celebrate the differences anymore, by acknowledging that someone is masterful at what they do with a special word, such as a female pilot who is worthy of being called the delightful-sounding aviatrix—rather than the bland aviator?

How do you handle potentially sexist expressions, terms and job descriptions?

 

[KateESal]

The trouble with differentiating the job title according to the gender of the person doing it, is that most people in the world we're living in tend to attach greater respect to some groups of people simply because of who they are. When there is true equality, differentiating titles could be regarded as celebratory, but arguably in that world, we wouldn't think to differentiate in the first place. And as every author knows, choice of words matters. A lot. Those choices are constantly shaping our perceptions of the world and while "political correctness" can feel irksome (note how the very term has become pejorative...funny, that?), it is at the frontline of fighting prejudice.

How about "builders and decorators" instead of "tradesmen"?

 

[Carol Rose]

How about tradespeople?

 

[Steve C]

Personally I don't think writers should bother with being politically correct. Some will take offence but it's the same with swear words. Sometimes they are needed so to worry about a minority that may not like them will only serve to give you a headache. Write whatever sounds right is my thinking.

 

[Barbara]

even if he employed tradesmen

... even if he did pay others to do the work for him.

I remember in the 80's, back in Switzerland: the term Cleaning Lady was swapped with Hoover Pilot in some job adds. (I'm translating here, obviously). But that lasted about a month. It then changed to Cleaning Personnel. No idea what it has morphed into now.

 

[Susan]

You may be overthinking. If your character imagines tradespeople can only be male, have him say 'tradesmen'. Personally, I don't see why tradespeople is clunky.

 

[Carol Rose]

... even if he did pay others to do the work for him.

I remember in the 80's, back in Switzerland: the term Cleaning Lady was swapped with Hoover Pilot in some job adds. (I'm translating here, obviously). But that lasted about a month. It then changed to Cleaning Personnel. No idea what it has morphed into now.

*SNORT* Hoover pilot... I’d apply for that just for fun.

 

[Leonora]

Agree with Susan. If it's close third POV then have him say what he would say.

 

[KateESal]

@Paul Whybrow What kind of person is your protagonist? To my ears "tradesmen" or "tradespeople" sounds a bit formal or pompous. If that's the kind of guy he is, then stick with it. But other alternatives would possibly be better if you want the character to seem more progressive or down-to-earth.

It's a shame, in a way, that political correctness has led to smoothed-over, catch-all terms that are vague and which imply we're all the same. Can't we celebrate the differences anymore, by acknowledging that someone is masterful at what they do with a special word, such as a female pilot who is worthy of being called the delightful-sounding aviatrix—rather than the bland aviator?

Incidentally, my post above was in answer to this from @Paul Whybrow followed by suggested alternatives to "tradespeople". I should say that while I think writers would do well to avoid lazy stereotypes in general, if a character is regressive in their views, then by all means reflect that in the language they use to express themselves.

 

[CageSage]

The voice of the character is the one who matters, and (as stated above) it's his views being expressed. If that's what he'd say at this point in the story ...
Does he change his view later? That would be an excellent 'show' piece for the change, and all with a simple word: tradesman to tradie or chippie or specific trade-person.

 

[Nikky Lee]

Is 'tradie' Aussie slang or is it used widely? Could be another way around the issue if so. I agree with what has already been said. Use tradesmen if it's close 3rd and how the character would think. If not, I think tradespeople is fine.

Also consider setting. If it's modern day, tradespeople seems normal to me. But if it's set in the 80s, I might find this modern, more pc term, a bit jarring as its out of context with the setting.

Without knowing much about the piece, you could always include a nice twist for his character if he thinks "tradesmen" and then a female tradie comes knocking on his door.

 

[Dan Payne]

Even if it's not third person close - third person omniscient can take the voice of the village itself. If the story is set any time before about the 1990s, "tradesman" would be perfectly in character. If it's set in the modern day, I'd use the "tradespeople", understanding that such a clunky word will immediately key the reader in to the fact that the character is modern enough to avoid gender stereotypes. "Tradesmen" will probably fly right past most readers in a way that "Tradespeople" would not.

And if the sexist term jars with the reality of the village, being run by a coven of witches, so much the better! Jarring might be exactly what you need...