How our vocabulary struggles when professionals cross traditional gender lines
A stay-at-home man cooking. The term "houseband" was coined in the 1990s by Benson Riungu to describe stay-at-home husbands, highlighting the lack of male equivalents for traditionally female terms like "housewife."
What you need to know:
- Language shapes gender norms, and outdated terms reinforce stereotypes.
- Words rooted in gender, from "mankind" to "policeman," persist despite professional domains no longer being gender-exclusive.
- Language reform is needed, with neutral alternatives such as "birth attendant," "chairperson," and "police officer" better reflecting today's reality.
It was fellow scribe Benson Riungu who, in the 1990s, coined the word “houseband” to describe a man who stays at home taking care of domestic chores while his wife goes to work for pay. He was humorously trying to capture the notion that while “housewives” existed for women who stayed home while the husbands went to work for pay, there was no equivalent word for men in similar circumstances. This is the stereotyped idea of women being homemakers and men being breadwinners.
The attempt came to mind on reading Oscar Kakai’s piece (Daily Nation, February 11) featuring a male midwife in Tiaty West, Baringo. Because Robert Aule was doing a job traditionally associated with women, he was considered to have defied gender norms. For his over three decades of work in delivering women of their babies, clients fondly referred to him as their “mid-husband”, doing precisely what Riungu had tried to do: Create a word to describe a man in what is considered a female domain.
In itself, the word “midwife” is quite gendered. From old English, it compounds “mid” meaning “with” and “wife” for “woman”. It, therefore, literally meant someone who was with a woman, in this case to assist her with birth.
The history of midwifery shows that men joined the profession in the 17th Century although it has remained female-dominated the world over. But while women preferred natural deliveries, the men introduced medical interventions beyond the natural. Today, both men and women get trained in medical colleges to deliver women of babies in a course still referred to as midwifery. And there is no evidence that men are less effective.
But must the word “midwife” persist or are there not clearly gender neutral alternatives? Well, we have “traditional birth attendants” in Kenya, but this largely connotes women who have little professional training and operate in rural settings. Should we then not remove the “traditional” element and just have “birth attendants” instead of “midwives”?
Beyond “midwife”, there are legion words, which require rethinking in the modern world where a lot of crossover has occurred into domains that were originally exclusive to women or men.
Neutral versions
First are words rooted in “man”. “Mankind” is a good example. Thus, some would propose “womankind” to capture the female group. But maybe we should just say “people”. And then we have “cameraman”, “spokesman”, “chairman” and “manpower” for which the neutral versions are “photographer”, “chairperson”, “spokesperson/ representative” and “labour/staff”. For “fireman” and “watchman”, you are better off with “firefighter” and “security guard”, not “firewoman” and “watchwoman”. And instead of “manual work”, would “physical work” not be better? Then we have “manufacture”, “manager” and “man-made”, which can be easily replaced with “make/process”, “executive/coordinator” and “artificial” or “not natural”. In the same vein, “salesman” is replaced with “sales executive”.
For those who maintain law and order, “policeman” or “policewoman” is not advised but “police officer”. And in universities, the idea of a “freshman” obviously conjures a male person. Since there are also such female learners, we must then talk of “first year student” or “sophomore”. Which brings to mind a “headmaster” or “head mistress”, for which the gender neutral option is “head teacher” or “principal”, the latter being preferred by Kenyans occupying such positions—it sounds more prestigious.
The worlds of transport, manufacturing and artisanship have their own share of gendered words. The term “turn boy”, the assistant to the driver in a public service vehicle, is common. But what happens if such a person is female? Maybe just a “transport assistant”. The words “steward” and “stewardess” were once commonly used to differentiate workers in the aircraft cabin. In today’s world, it is more appropriate to talk of a “flight attendant” or “cabin crew”. And you will certainly hear of “spanner-boys” among artisans. In the gender world, consider “technical assistant” or “apprentice”. Then on construction sites, one would usually come across a “foreman”. But that leaves out women in the same occupation. How about just “supervisor”?
Likewise, anyone “manning” anything is outdated. Consider “handling” or “operating”. What about the famous “manhole”? Of course, there are women plumbers and technicians who use this aperture. To be inclusive, how about “inspection hole” or “opening”? And when you talk about “workmen”, you are out of order and should talk about “workers”, “labour” or “staff”. Then there is “prostitute”, normatively defined as a woman who engages in sexual activity for pay. In today’s world, “commercial sex worker” is in vogue.
Coming back to Tiaty where it all started, we must hope that Robert Aule has never and will never introduce himself to the husbands of his clients as their “mid-husband”. The risk is not worth it.
The writer is a lecturer in Gender and Development Studies at South Eastern Kenya ([email protected]).
