This Language Is Teh Br0ken And I Want a New One

[omorka]

I hate it when the language codes sexist assumptions (which it does all the time).

Today's irritant:

Consider the two sentences "She mothered the child" and "He fathered the child." These should be exactly parallel sentences, right? The only thing that changes is the gender of the subject, right?

But the first sentence describes what the subject is doing. She is behaving towards the child as a caretaker - perhaps cuddling the child, feeding hir, putting hir to bed, or even being overly protective of hir welfare. The sentence also implies that the subject is not actually the child's mother - it would be really odd for the child's birth mother to be described in this way, although it's not an impossible construction; we assume that the child's actual mother will behave this way, and it doesn't need a verb. In fact, the sentence "He mothered the child" is a little strange, but perfectly intelligible - a male (related or not) can feed, comfort, etc. a child well enough.

The second sentence describes the physical relationship between the subject and the child. It means that the subject is the genetic begetter of the child, and that's it. It says nothing about the subject's behavior towards the child. And no one would ever use this sentence about anyone other than the child's begetter (except in error); the sentence "She fathered the child" is so bizarre as to require SF to explain it (the parents are lesbians who had a pair of eggs fused in a lab, and she's the one who didn't carry the pregnancy).

This is (a) blatantly sexist and (b) not very fair to fathers who actually do (to use the gender-neutral term) parent their children, genetic or not.

Comments

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

Well, consider this: until paternity testing, there was no proof of any child's male parentage, aside from testimony. On the other hand, in most circumstances a child's mother is impossible (or at least impractical) to hide or confuse. Who a child's father was was a frequent question; who a child's mother was was either known or could be safely assumed.

To this extent, at least, the issue is not so much prejudice as biology.

I grant you, however, the "mothered" sentence implying that the speaker is -not- the mother is a definite slap; ditto the fact that the English word for parenting with affection is "mothering."

[memeslayer.livejournal.com]

Interesting. My alternative would be "he was (like) a father to the child", which also implies that the person doing it isn't a biological parent.

[quantumduck.livejournal.com]

Funny, I totally missed the notion that someone who 'mothered the child' wouldn't actually BE the mother. It makes sense, now that you've pointed it out, but my first feeling was that mothering is what mothers do. I agree that it's still unequal. Fathering seem infinitely simpler.

I suspect these phrases have largely fallen out of common use. I've heard 'she mollycoddled the child'. I've heard 'he was a father figure'. 'She was like a mother to them'. Yet I don't recall ever hearing about a child being 'fathered'. 'He's the dad', sure, but no verbing of 'father'.

Of course, I've also heard 'aye papi!' But that's another story...

[omorka.livejournal.com]

Hmm . . . "Zie was like a mother to the child" and "Zie was like a father to the child" still aren't exactly parallel, but they do at least both imply active parenting, so they're much closer. That doesn't really help much, though. "He was a father to the child," without the "like," is ambiguous for me - it either implies that "he" is not the child's sire and that he is doing the parenting, or implies that "he" is the sire and that he acknowledges it (which "he fathered the child does not), but says nothing about whether he is parenting or not.

At base, though, what I'm angry about is the disparty between "to mother" and "to father." Offering alternatives is a weak salve at best.

[omorka.livejournal.com]

I haven't heard either phrase used in speech recently, but they're both still live usage in print.