“The law,” declared Mr. Bumble, one of author Charles Dickens’ memorable characters in his novel Oliver Twist, “is an ass.” I wouldn’t go quite that far. But I would say that the law is almost always behind the times. Witness the American Bar Association’s recent ruling that lawyers are guilty of professional misconduct if they use sexist language in court. No, not about witnesses. Nor about accused criminals. But about their colleagues, other lawyers. The Bar Association’s resolution refers to “conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination,” which includes “sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical comment.” The New York Times explained, “The ethics rule now forbids comments or actions that single out someone on the basis of race, religion, sex, disability and other factors. Nearly two dozen state bars and the District of Columbia bar have similar rules. But there has been no national prohibition of such behavior, which, many female lawyers complain, results in too many ‘honeys,’ ‘darlings’ and other sexist remarks and gestures toward them while they are trying to practice their profession.”
Personal criticisms
Lori Rifkin has experienced that kind of language. Rifkin told The Seattle Times that she asked an opposing lawyer to stop interrupting her while she was arguing a case in court. The man responded, “Don’t raise your voice at me. It’s not becoming of a woman.” Other women, I gather, have had a run in their stockings equated with carelessness in preparing a case. Or accused of wearing short skirts to distract a jury. And have had comments made about their hairstyle, posture, size, or tone of voice. You may feel that the female lawyers are being too sensitive. So how would you feel about a female lawyer attempting to influence a judge or jury by making comments about a male lawyer’s beer belly? His choice of socks or ties? His attempt to conceal an unflattering bald spot with a Trump comb-over? It would certainly not be acceptable to make derogatory comments about another lawyer because he’s black or Jewish, gay or confined to a wheelchair. But some male lawyers still seem to feel they have a right to make personal comments about women.
Resistance is futile
It’s taken courtrooms over 40 years to catch up with society. As I recall it, the issue of gender-neutral language surfaced in the 1970s. And I have to admit that, at the time, I resisted it. I saw no reason to amend my vocabulary for the sake of what we called, somewhat scornfully, “politically correct language.” Or to amend my attitudes, for that matter. I still thought that I, as the male, was automatically the head of my household. I even grew a beard as a protest against feminism!
Then, slowly, I began to realize that the words I use affect the convictions I live by. As long as I expect committees to have chairmen, corporations to have spokesmen, and car dealers to have salesmen, I will inevitably treat males as the norm I those contexts. I have to make exceptions for people who don’t fit my preconceptions. It is not true, by the way, that we think in words. We decide, without knowing how, how we feel about a person, a pipeline, a project, a program. We need words only when we try to rationalize those feelings, to explain them or defend them. Obviously, a limited vocabulary limits one’s ability to express complex reasoning. Unfortunately, many people assume that a grunt or a gesture will communicate as effectively as well-chosen words.
Feedback loops
But the words we use also create a feedback loop. When we persist in using negative words for racial groups, genders, or sexual orientations -- or, for that matter, political choices -- we perpetuate the patterns of thinking associated with those words. Nigger. Chink. Broad. Faggot. Bimbo. Redneck. Commie. Oh yeah -- and Muslim. Breaking an addiction to demeaning language is just as hard as breaking an addiction to alcohol, heroin, or sugar. Maybe harder -- because it hasn’t occurred to us that it is an addiction. Self-monitoring demands constant vigilance. That’s unsettling. You can’t just coast along. So no doubt some lawyers will bitterly resent the bar association’s new regulation. A few will deliberately flout the rule, convinced it violates their god-given right to make comments about women, whether complimentary or crabby. Others will be cautious. All will be uncomfortable in their new environment. Good. It’s about time. ********************************************************
Copyright © 2016 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved. To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca
********************************************************
YOUR TURN
Most of the comments about last Sunday’s column, on the “lone wolf” model for terrorism, were favourable.
Chris Duxbury wrote, “I agree with you -- there are no safe places anymore. But, I actually don't ever think there were any in the first place. Atrocities can happen at anytime, anyplace. What is important is that we can still differentiate what is bad and what is good. When we lose that ability we are simply in hell.”
Tom Watson: The ‘lone wolf guy’ bent on wreaking havoc wherever he can doesn't require a whole lot of stimulus to set him on his mission. A few radically charged code words here and there will do it nicely. How about Donald Trump saying that if Hillary Clinton is to be stopped from taking away people's gun rights, ‘the 2nd Amendment folks might have something to say about it?’ Yes, the words could be understood more than one way, but the lone wolf will hear the whistle quite clearly. Meanwhile the NRA cheers from the sidelines, promotes even more gun sales to stop such lone wolf guys, and the gun manufacturers laugh all the way to the bank.”
Isabel Gibson mused, “I love that poem of Yeats (or bits of it , anyway: ‘And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?’ Wow. It puts a shiver down my spine.). “But.
“If his lines from almost a century ago describe today as well, then maybe they're always apropos, in some sense. And that suggests we're not going to hell in a handbasket, even though there is much nastiness in the world. It was ever thus -- or words to that effect. Maybe we just have new nastiness, not more.”
Steve Roney challenged my interpretation of facts: “You seem to be equating open carry with growing violence. But this is the opposite of the truth statistically. You are right that gun ownership and open carry are growing in the US. But at the same time, the rate of violent crime in the US has, overall, been going down. And you yourself proceed to cite other countries, with much stricter rules on gun ownership, which have also recently seen violence, and worse violence. They are, you say, ‘no safer’.”
John Baker wrote about a previous column, on getting annual checkups: “I enjoy your columns. This was a particularly good one. A friend, who is no longer with us, used to take out a tape measure, extend it and substituting years for inches say this is how much of your life is gone and this is how much is left, leaving of course the end to whatever one thought it might be. Like your article, it caused one to focus on some of the essentials of life we need to consider from time to time.”
********************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
This column comes to you using the electronic facilities of Woodlakebooks.com. If you want to comment on something, send a message directly to me, at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the “Reply” button. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedgesunsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. You can access several years of archived columns at http://edges.Canadahomepage.net. I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly, at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedgessubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca
PROMOTION STUFF… Ralph Milton has a new project, called Sing Hallelujah -- the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at www.singhallelujah.com Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://www.hymnsight.ca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.) Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://www.churchwebcanada.ca> Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, www.traditionaliconoclast.com Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawood@gmail.com to get onto her mailing list. Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatso@gmail.com or twatson@sentex.net
***************************************