by Rupa-vilasa Dasa

A charge of sexism has been leveled on authors and editors of books, magazines, journals, newspapers, etc., including ISKCON’s BBT publications, for exhibiting a preference for male gender pronouns when referring to both males and females. This bias has rankled many women and men as it appears to indicate a hierarchical attitude favoring men over women in terms of importance or significance. Bias against females has been a sensitive issue in contemporary society as well as in the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Many statements minimizing or denigrating the importance and significance of female contributions to science, literature, religion, mathematics, and other fields of knowledge have been written by men, and women and men of the present era see the male pronoun bias as indicative of such a mentality.

Many have wrestled with this charge of favoritism being shown to the male members of society. Such critics point out many ways in which this bias is expressed in language. For example, the term “history,” indicating the accounts of previous events, contains the words “his” and “story.” Some people argue that this is in itself indicative of a traditional male bias. This etymological analysis is flawed, however, since the term “history” is derived from the Greek historiä, from histor meaning “knowing.” However, it is a fact that whenever men and women are referred to together, terms like “mankind,” “man,” etc., are often invoked. Authors, lawmakers, journalists, writers, etc., have tried using other conventions: avoiding personal pronouns wherever possible, and using the “his/ her,” “himself/ herself,” and “he/ she” constructions; however, these conventions tend to become either misleading, in the case of avoiding pronouns, or awkward and tedious, in the case of repetitive use of the dual pronoun convention. Some have argued for the exclusive use of the female referents instead, i.e., using “she,” “her,” “herself,” etc., to indicate both genders, but this tends to create confusion for those unaccustomed to the convention, and further it may be seen to smack of the same charge of sexism presently being leveled against the use of the male pronouns.

In legal writing, some writers use the dual pronoun convention exhaustively and exclusively. However, just as commonly, law books, cumbersome by nature, tend to take a simpler approach: they include a set of definitions and terms at the beginning of the volume. When such volumes come to the term “gender,” the editors explain that the pronouns “he,” “his,” “him,” “himself,” etc., always includes the terms “she,” “her,” “herself,” etc., and that all gender-specific pronouns are understood to include both the male and female genders, unless the convention would make no sense, as in the case where the pronoun in question is meant to refer specifically to a male or female. By adhering to this convention, confusion, awkwardness, and excessive wordiness are avoided.

However, there are those who are still dissatisfied with a convention whose “history” seems to reflect a male bias. Those in favor of such a convention argue that it is practical and simpler than other conventions, that it is familiar and ultimately inclusive due to the way the male pronouns are defined and applied, despite no specific mention, in text, of the feminine pronoun, unless a female is referred to specifically.

Therefore, although there are many who insist on the dual gender approach, there are also many who favor the simpler approach of having the male pronoun referent include the female. By adhering to this convention, Srila Prabhupada’s books are, in this sense, not out of step with modernity. If an editor’s note at the beginning of newer BBT publications explained (as in the law writer’s example) that any gender-specific pronoun should not be taken as such (unless the context required it) and is meant to indicate both male and female genders, this might go a long way to removing the charge of bias. By directly acknowledging that the apparently exclusive male pronoun usage could give a false impression of sexism, many will be satisfied. This will certainly not satisfy everyone; however, it is, at the same time, not out of step with modern convention.