Filtering by
male bias in the English language. Male bias can be traced through American history in the form of laws of coverture and the categorization of women in law. Taking into account the connections between sexist language, history, and law, this paper investigates 1) how and why legal language is biased, 2) why male bias has persisted in law over time, and 3) what impact male-biased law has on women. The works of ancient philosophers, feminist historians, psycholinguistic scientists, and modern philosophers of law are used to explain the patriarchal gender hierarchy’s influence on law. Case law and legal policies demonstrate that sexism has been maintained through history due to the preservation of male-biased language and the exclusion of women from the public sphere. Today, the use of masculine generics continues to taint the legal profession by reflecting, rather than denouncing, its patriarchal roots.
The popularity of feminism is growing. Every day more people claim to be feminist and work is done to end the control of patriarchy. Feminism though, because of its different waves and isolated recognition in the media, the actual goals seem unclear to males in particular; it is predicted that this increase in popularity in conjunction with the lack of clarity contributes to the development of toxic masculinity. “Feminism” is defined by bell hooks as a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression and “toxic masculinity” is a specific model of manhood, geared toward dominance and control and fear of the opposite. To understand the relationship between the two, the documentaries The Mask You Live In and Miss Representation were reviewed as well as books by bell hooks and C.J. Pascoe. Popular culture articles contributed to contemporary views at the public level. Using the knowledge gained from the literature, further research was done through one-on-one interviews with males age 18 to 32. Much of the literature does support toxic masculinity being encouraged and reinforced in varying ways including through the lack of acceptance of femininity and society’s strict gender roles. The interviews were inconclusive in defining a direct relationship between feminism promoting the development of toxic masculinity.
The cyborgs in these films, however, refuse to let categorizations like female, or even their status as human, alive, or real, restrict them so easily. As human-robot hybrids, cyborgs bridge identities that are assumed to be separate and often oppositional or mutually exclusive. Cyborgs reveal the structures and expectations reified in gender to suggest that something constructed can as easily be deconstructed. In doing so, they create loose ends that leave space for new understandings of both gender and technology. By viewing these films alongside critical theory, we can understand their cyborgs as subversive, hybrid characters. Accordingly, the cyborg as a figure subverts and fragments the coherency of narratives that present gender, technology, and identity in monolithic terms, not only helping us envision new possibilities but giving us the faculties to imagine them at all.