Choose your words carefully: How active and passive voice might uphold the notion of the patriarchy
Since the middle of the last decade, I have been fascinated by the debate and politics of gender and gender equality. On the surface, it seems straightforward. Most people, at least in our part of the world, agree on most of the founding principles. For instance, no one outside some religious groups would argue against men and women having the same rights under the law. And yet, for some reason, neither the debate nor the politics are straightforward at all. Something is lurking beneath.
Attempting to understand this, I wrote a book which was published a few months ago. The book is in Danish, and translated its title is ‘Never Your Fault, Always Your Fault – The Two Stories of Gender’. In it, I propose that our debate as well as our politics of gender equality are heavily influenced by two fundamental stories (or narratives), one about women, and one about men.
“If we did live in a patriarchy, women would in fact not be responsible for their problems, as they would have limited agency, if any at all. Conversely, men would indeed be to blame for their problems, given their absolute power.”
The first story goes like this: Women’s problems are never women’s fault and thus are not to be solved by women changing their behavior, but by changing structures, cultures, and institutions. The second story goes like this: Men’s problems are always men’s fault and thus are not to be solved by changing structures, cultures, and institutions, but by men changing their behavior. Of course, I should add, these stories are ideal types in the Weberian sense. I don’t claim you can’t find empirical exceptions from them. But I do claim they express something analytically valuable.
While I was finishing the book, I discovered the concept of gamma bias. This was highly interesting to me, as the concept, it turned out, lies close to my own concepts and ideas. They are not entirely similar, but they are attempts at answering similar questions. What is more, they seem fueled by similar observations. Barry and Seager might have been looking at the ocean of gender and gender equality from the other side of the North Sea, but when doing so they noticed the same waves I did.
The two stories of gender are at the same time upheld by and upholding the notion of the patriarchy, and it is easy to see how. If we did live in a patriarchy, women would in fact not be responsible for their problems, as they would have limited agency, if any at all. Conversely, men would indeed be to blame for their problems, given their absolute power. After all, if men really did control every aspect of society, who else would be to blame for their miseries? Clearly, the two stories of gender express an understanding of gender which is appropriate and useful in a patriarchy. The problem is, however, that in non-patriarchal societies this understanding is both unfitting and dysfunctional. Not only does it limit our analysis of gendered problems, it also limits our solutions to them.
Barry and Seager encourage scientific investigation of gamma bias and its components, acknowledging that maybe they missed out on something or got something wrong. I find that admirable and the right way to go. Social science should be about testing hypotheses. A never ending interaction between ideas and reality, narrowing the gap between the two.
Not being a researcher myself, I am left hoping others will do the work. But if I was able to take part, one thing I would be interested in is the usage of active and passive voice in the media with regard to gender. My thesis is this: Women’s problems are more often described using passive voice than men’s problems, whereas men’s problems are more often described using active voice then women’s problems. If you’re not familiar with active and passive voice, let me explain the thesis this way: In the media, women are people things happen to, whereas men are people who do things.
“…women sometimes are victims of external forces. Similarly, men sometimes are the cause of men’s problems. […] Sometimes women are the cause of women’s problems, and sometimes men are not the cause of men’s problems.”
If this is true, it could help explain, at least in part, why our thinking about gender equality is out of touch with the massive changes our societies have undergone in recent decades. Don’t get me wrong. It is perfectly fine to quote, say, Simone de Beauvoir and her 1949 classic The Second Sex. Books, after all, don’t die. The problem arises, though, if you forget or fail to realize that the world de Beauvoir was looking at and trying to understand is long gone today. We need an understanding fit for the 2020’s, and not every idea, theory, concept or observation gets better with age.
Furthermore, the thesis is relevant, because the media influence all of us. If the media routinely frame women as victims of external forces through the use of passive voice and men as people of agency and responsibility through the use of active voice, we are at risk of unconsciously incorporating this gendered logic in our own thinking about similar issues. After all, how many people actually think about active and passive voice? Hardly anyone does. So if certain phenomena are commonly described using one of the two, few will recognize the underlying premises.
This illustrates why concepts like gamma bias are useful and valuable. It does matter how men and women are portrayed in the media, because the media’s portrayals shape not only our understanding of the sexes, but also our understanding of their levels of agency, responsibility and possibilities in the world. The media, you could argue, co-create the very map we look at when we navigate reality. And this is the same map decision makers consult when deciding what policies to implement. If they believe women are never responsible for women’s problems, they will act accordingly, just as they will, if they are convinced men’s problems are always caused by men themselves.
Adding to this, the gendered use of active and passive voice is not limited to the media. Rather, it exists everywhere, not least in organizations working with gender and gender equality and on social media, the town square of the 2020s. Let me give you an example.
On January 29th 2024 psychologist Lisa Damour, PhD, shared two images with quotes from her New York Times best seller under pressure – Confronting the Epidemic of Stress and Anxiety in Girls. Her post was reX’ed by amongst others Richard V. Reeves, author of Of Boys and Men. The quotes were as follows: 1. “Our culture holds girls and young women to unfair and unwavering expectations.” 2. “We want them to be agreeable, forthcoming, and attractive. Each of these ideals exerts pressure on girls.” 3. “Recognizing these irrational standards to which girls are held is the first step in addressing them.”
When reading these quotes, I notice two things. First, they fit my notion of the two stories of gender, in this case the story about women and women’s problems. It is “our culture” that is to blame and needs to change, not the decisions and behaviors of girls and women. Their agency is set to zero, as if they were entirely unable to combat the ideals themselves through, say, wearing different clothes, wearing different or no makeup, being less agreeable and so on. Secondly, the quotes fit my thesis on active and passive voice. Women and girls are held to irrational standards, we are told. They don’t hold themselves to them. They are victims of external forces, and this premise is communicated silently to the reader through the use of passive voice.
Needless to say, or so it should be, women sometimes are victims of external forces. Similarly, men sometimes are the cause of men’s problems. Furthermore, sometimes men cause women’s problems, such as is the case in regard to sexual violence perpetrated by men against women. All of this is self evident. What apparently is less obvious to a some, though, is that these explanations only cover part of the explanatory area, not all of it. Sometimes women are the cause of women’s problems, and sometimes men are not the cause of men’s problems. If we fail to understand that on a societal level, we end up with suboptimal solutions for both sexes.
This is why further research of gamma bias and similar concepts is so important. It is a crucial first step on the road towards an understanding of gender and gender equality that reflects the world we live in today. An update of the map, if you will. Both men and women still have plenty of gendered problems. Viewing them through an antiquated lens of yesteryear, however, helps no one.
Scroll down to join the discussion
Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.
Like our articles?
Click here to subscribe to our FREE newsletter and be first
to hear about news, events, and publications.
Have you got something to say?
Check out our submissions page to find out how to write for us.
.
