December 7th 2025
Formerly, I studied English Language as an A-level which allowed me to step back from the reading lists assigned and think of the terminology behind language.
What piqued my interest were the concepts of lexical asymmetry and semantic deterioration. This is essentially the idea that there is a difference between the masculine and feminine version of words that have an imbalance in language, often linked to social biases.
The fact that socially constructed misogynistic stereotypes have found a way to meddle into everyday language is what further enticed me to question why the female equivalent of powerful titles often becomes sexualised, belittled and/or tainted with negative connotations.
I don’t believe these linguistic patterns are coincidences, but rather that they were subconsciously placed there.
Linguists like Robin Lakoff and Geoffrey Schulz explored this concept through their ‘Dominance Theory’ which emphasizes the correlation between words and our society and more importantly how it shapes the conditions in which women are perceived, valued, or dismissed.
For instance, take the noun ‘master’-this word describes a man in charge or when looked at as an adjective, it describes something as highly skilled or an expert.
However, the female equivalent of this word is mistress, meaning lover, heavily associated with sexual impropriety. The word tart, which historically was just a shortening of sweetheart, but in the 19th century this word was also used to describe a female prostitute.
Even in the mythical world women aren’t safe from these sexist patterns.
If the fictional character of a wizard is mentioned, you may picture an old benevolent man with a long beard and a pointy hat. So, where all wizards can be wise, powerful and logical, a witch can only ever be wicked. Witches are pictured as ugly and used as a symbol of the grotesque. The stereotypical idea of a witch often validates the idea of women as hysterical and uncontrollable since a witches’ powers are frequently untamed and controlled by emotion.
Why is power in male hands seen as competence, while power in female hands becomes dangerous and immoral?
This pattern suggests that female authority is culturally establishing, and language works to contain, neutralise or sexualise.
Linguists call this pattern semantic deterioration, when terms decay in meaning over time. This happens with almost every word; however, it tends to affect women the most!
Linguistic asymmetries reflect and maintain social inequalities which Robin Lakoff’s article argued this. She argues that women tend to use devices like hedges (may, perhaps, probably) and mitigators (sort of, I think), these are linked to powerless speech as they show lack of confidence and certainty.
Unfortunately, this type of speech is learned as part of being a woman. These social tools are one of manty factors which eliminates women from positions of power thus reinforcing their subordinate status.
This asymmetry between the treatment of men and women is evident even in the use of courtesy titles. Men are typically addressed with the uniform title ‘Mr’, which does not convey any information about their personal or relational status. In contrast, women’s titles-‘Miss’, ‘Mrs.’ , and ‘Ms’ , historically signal marital status, and by extension assumptions about their social identity and availability. This distinction reflects broader patriarchal norms in which a women’s identity is framed in relation to her connection to a man, thereby reinforcing gendered expectations about dependence and propriety.
Even suffixes support this idea. Why do job roles need specification of gender? Actress, waitress, sculptress. It turns women into deviations of the ‘unofficial’ male norm. Suffixes treat men and women differently, treating women as secondary to men.
Overall, women have even been socially natured through literature to succumb to narratives that normalise their marginalisation and elevate male identity as a default.
Written by Maria Yuosf
Edited by Farah Assi
