Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

9-26-89 . . . Yesterday I asked my Critical Thinking students what remains when you subtract “woman” from “lady”. At first they thought I was joking, but I made it clear that I was serious and that it has to do with our discussion of emotive language. Rephrasing the question, I asked whether the words “woman” and “lady” have the same descriptive meaning—that is, whether they pick out the same objects in the world. The consensus was that they do. “So what’s the difference?”, I asked. Suggestions for what is left over ranged from politeness to well-manneredness to gentility to being well-dressed. Not a single student attaches a negative connotation to the world “lady”; all of them think favorably of ladies and believe that being a lady is a good thing for a woman to be. This led to a discussion of standards and oppression. I suggested that the word “lady” contains an implicit standard of behavior for women. In order to be a lady, a woman must be proper in her appearance, manner, and behavior. She must act appropriately. “Isn’t this oppressive?”, I asked. “Aren’t girls and women molded and channeled into certain roles and occupations in our society, and don’t words like ‘lady’ perform this function?” Based on their response, it was clear that the students had never thought of things this way. If nothing else, I illustrated the powerful hold language has on our thought and behavior. A single word like “lady”, when used to criticize a male or reward or congratulate a female, packs a wallop.