Women at the Turn of the Century: Individuals or still Second-Class Citizens?

Writing an introduction to a collection of papers about Women’s Studies is not an easy job. Firstly because the discipline incorporates many different aspects, and secondly for “its interdisciplinary nature”. Following D. Tannen, “interdisciplinary dialogue is in it-self a kind of cross-cultural communication, because researchers bring with them completely different notions of what questions to ask and how to go around answering them”. Moreover, one should never forget that not all women are equal and consequently one of the goals of the discipline is to study the many differences existing, not only between men and women, but also among women themselves. Differences which could be related to race, culture, to the social environment, and to the different approaches women have to themselves and to others. In this regard it is interesting to observe that “the theme of diversity, difference and conflict among women is a significant one in current feminist debates”, and also in non-specific feminist debates, I would add. Moreover we should not forget, that men and women use different languages, which in most cases is still recognized to be the main cause, though not the only one, of misunderstandings between sexes. Except from the different use of language, there are many other differences between men and women. These differences are connected with the various aspects of life (the affective sphere, the working environment, the family context, emotional life etc.) and depend on various factors (biological and cultural factors, race, different ways in which boys and girls are brought up etc.). All the same, many scholars maintain that these differences are reflected in the different use men and women make of the language. Misunderstandings often arise just from the different meaning men and women give to words, or from the different way men and women encode or decode the same message. It has often been underscored that usually men encode and decode a language, while women encode and decode a metalanguage. D. Tannen (1992) demonstrates that men act and consequently use the language following categories of status, while women follow categories of intimacy. And this is also reflected, apart from their different behaviour, in a different use of the language. Misunderstandings connected to the different use of language have also been observed in the working environment. As we already said, language is only one aspect, even if for some scholars it is the most important, of the differences between men and women. But if we consider the different use of language as a starting point, we should underline that any language is influenced by the culture in which it is spoken. For this reason it is important to take into account the social context to which the speaker belongs, the education received, the environment in which the speaker is acting or has been brought up. Putting it in another way, it is not possible to dissociate the language from the social and cultural phenomena in which it is produced. As regard the working sphere, or in politics, women have to work harder than men to reach high positions. In some cases it occurs because men start their training to reach their status from a very early age, while girls are mainly taught to behave and speak like little young ladies. Since a very early age boys and girls are treated in different ways either inside their families or outside, at school or in the games they play. So, since their very early age, boys and girls are taught, and consequently, learn to use two different languages, a fact which is discriminatory in itself. Following a study by R. Lakoff (1975) women are denied access to a specific male linguistic style, which denotes power, because this style not only characterizes the male linguistic creativity, but also underlines the authority, the power, of males themselves. A consequence of the use of different languages, is the choice of different conversational styles. Recent studies conducted on mixed adult groups demonstrate that men and women use overlaps and interruptions in different ways. The result of these researches shows that more than 90% of overlaps and interruptions are caused by male speakers interrupting women. In most of the cases the outcome of these interruptions is women’s silence. Another characteristic of women’s conversational style is their attitude to frequently ask questions on matters they do not know or on matters they simply want to deepen. On the contrary, as it has been widely demonstrated, men tend not to ask questions, even if they do not exactly know the subject. So the fact that women ask more questions is seen as a factor of insecurity and it is interpreted as incompetence or very little competence of the subject, even if it is not. Moreover, women use a less direct language than men often fragmenting their speeches with words such as probably, you know, don’t you think … (P. Fisherman 1980). This type of phraseology is used by women with the clear intent to involve their interlocutors in speech, so as to create intimacy and consolidate the relationship. In the majority of cases this also is seen as insecurity and/or continual research of approval, even if, whether the speaker is a man or a woman, the choice of a linguistic style which denotes insecurity and shows a lack of determination, puts the speaker in a position of inferiority. All this represents a disadvantage for women in general, for women in the working place but above all for women who want to make a career in their jobs or in politics. It is probably for these reasons that women who succeed in their careers or in politics most of the time assume behaviours, manners, ways of speaking and of using the language which are typical of men. Speaking of Women in / and Politics, Pippa Norris emphasises that, “women continue to be strongly underrepresented in elected office despite the scale of trends in the family and work-force, transforming almost every aspect of women and men’s lives during the post-war era, and the growth of women’s movement altering the political culture”. Later in her article, analysing the percentages of women’s representation in parliaments worldwide (5000 in Spring 1999), she states that “ … the rank order of countries reveals that the level of socio-economic development is not a necessary condition for women’s success; in South Africa, Mozambique and Costa Rica, for example, female representation is far higher than in the United States, Italy and Japan. Following a recent research published in The Economist (March 16th-22nd 2002), entitled “Women in Parliament”, “One in seven of the world’s parliamentarians is a woman. But the average hides big differences between countries. Nordic countries have the highest percentage of female politicians: 43% in Sweden. At the other extreme, only 2% of Egypt’s members of parliament are women. Huge differences can exist within regions. In Brazil, 7% of members are women; in Argentina, 31%”. The statistical study was conducted on 34 countries with the USA positioned at n. 16, Italy at n. 23, France at n. 21 and Britain at n. 12, just to give some examples. Many countries, in recent years, through the introduction of Parity Bills or Equal Rights amendments, are trying to make it easier for women to reach high positions in politics as well as in the working area. In France, for example, in 1999, a constitutional modification was introduced to integrate the principle of equality in electoral mandates and in elective offices (Article 3) assigning the political parties the duty to contribute to the realization of an equilibrium between sexes in the electoral lists. In India, 33% of seats in local governments is reserved to women. The European Union itself has also planned many different financial initiatives whose goals are to increase the presence of women in decision-making places. Looking back over the last twenty years in the history of women in politics and to the more or less successful attempts to reach parity, it is possible to sum up some of the most important steps. In 1979 the United Nations discussed and approved a programme for the elimination of any form of discrimination regarding women. In the same year in Italy, Nilde Iotti was elected President of the Chamber of Deputies and in the Election of the First European Parliament, 61 women won a seat. In 1982 the Swedish Minister for the Disarmament, Alva Myrdal, received the Nobel Prize for Peace. In 1984 the European Union approved a sort of recommendation on positive actions in favour of women. In the same year in Italy the Council of Ministers set a National Commission for Equal Opportunities between men and women. In 1986 Corazon Equino was elected President of the Philippines and in 1990 Mary Robinson was the first woman elected President in Ireland, Violetta Chamorro was elected President in Nicaragua and Carmen Lawrence was the first woman premier in Western Australia, an Australian State. In 1994 Emma Bonino was the first Italian woman appointed to the European Commission and in 1985 Susanna Agnelli was the first Italian woman to be placed in charge of the Foreign Office. In the same year, the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization established an action programme which stated the general guidelines in favour of an equilibrium in the presence of men and women in public institutions. In 1997 the 15 Member States of the European Union signed the Amsterdam Treaty in which they expressed an absolute veto towards any form of discrimination based on gender differences and established the principle of parity between men and women. In Italy, in 1999, a new law was introduced regarding the public financing of political parties in which it is confirmed that each party has to use at least 5% of the funding it receives for specific initiatives to implement the participation of women in politics. Despite all this, the Italian landscape is still quite discouraging. At present we are at the bottom of nearly all the statistics regarding the presence of women in public institutions. In working places, such as big international companies, or the niche of women entrepreneurs, or in universities, the situation is a bit better, especially in Northern European countries or the United States. Thinking of this situation, of Equal Opportunities, Parity Bills etc., one question comes to mind. “Why is Miss X or Mrs Y in the job? The answer probably is “because she is a woman and some posts here are reserved to women”, and not “because Miss X or Mrs Y are in that job because they are competent”. This is, I assume, the goal we ought to reach.