When words get ‘girl cooties’

A word that starts out as a neutral or even positive term for men feminizes (becomes exclusively identified with women) and often pejorates (gets worse).

Kevin Sprague
Barbara Sims (l.) and Kenajuan Bentley (r.) appear in a production of 'The Taming of the Shrew' at Shakespeare and Company in Lenox, Mass. in 2005.

In the 1939 film “Gone with the Wind,” Ashley Wilkes, icon of intellectual masculinity, is played by the dashing actor Leslie Howard. Ashley and Leslie are now both girls’ names. Since 2000, all the babies given these names – 100 percent – have been female, according to US government statistics. This is a very quick transition, linguistically speaking, and if history is any guide, one not likely to reverse itself. Once a moniker becomes a “girl’s name,” it tends to be out of the running for boys. 

A similar transition goes on, much more slowly, with words. Linguist Geoffrey Hughes calls it “the feminization of ambisexual terms.” (“Ambisexual” simply indicates words that can refer to people of both sexes.) A word that starts out as a neutral or even positive term for men feminizes (becomes exclusively identified with women) and often pejorates (gets worse). Last week’s hoyden is a fairly innocuous example. In the 19th through early 20th centuries, it was a negative term for “tomboy,” but when it first appeared in English in the 16th century, it referred to an ignorant or boorish man.

Scold had perhaps the longest such fall from grace. Skalds were honored Norse poets who composed and recited the sagas, but their etymological descendants are, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, women “of ribald speech ... addicted to abusive language.” Scolding was actually a crime in medieval and early modern England.

This feminization and pejoration occurs again and again with what Mr. Hughes calls “opprobrious terms.” Witch was originally gender-neutral, and before men became sorcerers or wizards, everybody practicing magic was a witch. Shrew, meaning “a rascal or villain,” was used exclusively for men in the Middle Ages – Pontius Pilate was described as a “shrew” – before it came to mean “a woman given to scolding,” as in Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew.” Harlot was originally a term for a lower-class man, a jester or vagabond, but by the early 16th century referred to a sexually loose woman. As with harlot, the feminization of a word often happens when sexual immorality becomes part of its definition.  

The feminization of ambisexual terms seems to me to reflect the logic of cooties. Traditionally, once a word has “girl cooties,” it can’t be used for boys. There is some evidence this is changing, however. A couple of our very worst “opprobrious terms,” which can’t be printed here, began life gendered female but recently have begun to be used equally for men. 

And in the past few decades, a few given names appear to have become truly unisex. Charlie and Armani, for example, are split almost 50-50. We will see if the growing questioning of gender binaries allows these names to stay gender-neutral or if the old pattern remains in force.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.