Wordslut

Wordslut is evidently meant to invite controversy both through its subject and its discussion and use of the profane. What claims to be a map to feminist and intersectional language instead resembles a tourist brochure: colorful, selective, and of limited use once the journey begins.

Montell’s main argument is that almost all human societies have been organized as patriarchies due to language. Because the language one speaks influences thought, the “patriarchy” is reinforced by the language we use. She writes, “One of our culture’s biggest obstacles is the idea that language doesn’t matter the way that other more tangible forms of freedom and oppression do.”

Montell’s evidence is highly suspect, relying heavily on anecdotes from feminist professors from the 1970s and 1990s, polls of her followers and friends who are likely to share her views, occasional isolated studies, and a lack of bibliography. Montell presents many examples of sexist language and sexist societies, but examples alone do not establish that language causes or substantially reinforces sexism.

Even if language influences thought, Montell never demonstrates that linguistic reform should be prioritized over more tangible reforms such as changes in law, education, or economic opportunity. Indeed, she acknowledges that language itself is shaped by the culture that speaks it. If culture and language influence one another, then reforming institutions and social norms should naturally produce linguistic change as well. The book never establishes that changing language is the more effective starting point.

Montell may have more convincingly demonstrated a scientific interest in her thesis had she compared linguistic practices across cultures with measures of gender equality. Such an analysis would have required grappling with difficult empirical questions, including the Nordic paradox: why some of the world's most gender-egalitarian societies continue to exhibit persistent sex differences in occupations and preferences despite progressive social norms. At minimum, this suggests that language alone cannot bear the explanatory weight Montell places upon it. Norwegian, for example, contains grammatical gender despite Norway being among the world's most gender-equal societies.

Specifically, she argues:

“In French, for instance, most prestigious job titles are masculine. The French words for police officer, doctor, professor, engineer, politician, lawyer, surgeon, and dozens of others all have masculine gender.”

This is an oversimplification. Modern French contains feminine forms of many professions: un avocat and une avocate (lawyer), un chirurgien and une chirurgienne (surgeon), and un infirmier and une infirmière (nurse). While linguistic conventions may reflect historical social structures, they do not by themselves prove that grammar maintains those structures.

Montell also attacks social perceptions of occupations, describing the harmful “pervasive assumption that many esteemed professions, surgeons, scientists, lawyers, writers, actors are male while models, nurses, and prostitutes are female.” She links these perceptions to implicit biases that maintain occupational segregation and unequal treatment.

However, occupational segregation is not necessarily evidence of unequal treatment. Countries such as Norway consistently rank among the world's most gender-equal societies while continuing to exhibit substantial occupational segregation. Furthermore, many of these perceptions correspond to current workplace demographics. Registered nurses remain overwhelmingly female, while surgeons and lawyers remain disproportionately male. The existence of statistically accurate expectations does not establish that language or sexism against womenhere created these patterns, nor does it demonstrate that changing language will substantially alter them.

Montell introduces several interesting etymologies, such as those of dude and guy, both of which originated as words referring specifically to men but are now frequently used in gender-neutral ways. She nevertheless advocates replacing such terms with alternatives like folks, arguing that their continued use reinforces male normativity.

This argument places too much weight on etymology and too little on contemporary usage. Words routinely diverge from their historical origins. Few English speakers associate villain with its original meaning of peasant or serf, nice with its original meaning of foolish, or decimate with its original meaning of reducing by one-tenth. Likewise, for many speakers, guys and dudes function simply as informal collective terms rather than direct references to men.

It was genuinely surprising, however, how many words for women have pejorated over time. I did not know the origins or historical usage of terms such as “hussy” and had not noticed the broader pattern. However, the argument for language reform remains weak. Montell largely assumes that the derogation of female terms demonstrates language's causal role in maintaining sexism. Another plausible explanation is that these words became derogatory because of existing societal attitudes, and short-term reforms may eventually succumb to the euphemism treadmill. If the latter explanation is correct, changing vocabulary alone is unlikely to eliminate the underlying prejudice.

The existence of gender differences does not by itself demonstrate discrimination. A complete explanation must separate the effects of social pressure, historical conditions, economic incentives, biological differences, and individual preferences. If a theory explains every gender difference primarily through patriarchy, it risks becoming unfalsifiable because any outcome can be interpreted as evidence of the same cause.