Man up? Person up and put the gendered language in the past

I understand people become quite upset when this sort of gendered language is pointed out. There will be people reading this who, right now, are about to angrily flick to another article. I’m being “woke”. Or indulging in “first world problems”. Or “trying to police other people’s language.”

I’m sensitive to the charge. We all grow up maturated in the language of a previous generation. We use words without thinking about their implications and for no better reason than we grew up with them. The use of these phrases doesn’t always imply bad faith.

Big boys don’t cry. Stop throwing like a girl. Who wears the pants? Man up. Boys will be boys. Don’t be a Karen.

A few years back, I learnt the derivation of the term “paddy wagon” to describe a police van. Some say it refers to the predominance of Irish police officers in the US during a certain period; others argue it’s a racist reference to the drunk Irish picked up in such vehicles.

Either way, it’s perhaps best avoided, and yet every time I see a police van, the phrase pops unbidden into my mind. When I was growing up, it was the only available term. Even now, I must invest a tiny effort into searching for a fresh term.

And so I’ll forgive myself and others if these phrases occasionally stumble from our mouths. But can’t we at least think through their implications?

Consider, for example, the phrase “old wives’ tale”. I’m sure it’s tumbled from my mouth, but I cringe when I think about its meaning.

It’s an assertion that women are particularly susceptible to unscientific nonsense, especially married woman of a certain age. I don’t believe this is true. If you picture the crowd of Trump conspiracy theorists, storming the Capitol on January 6, you’ll know that an “enraged middle-aged man’s tale” might be the more accurate term.

Other phrases insist that women talk all the time, when research and our own experience prove the opposite is true. Or that they are bad at sport – “don’t throw like a girl” – a proposition that might be challenged by a moment watching Australia’s women’s cricket team.

We drag around the values of our childhood, weighed down by the words and phrases of a generation ago. The real “ball and chain” is not a wife, but the language that would describe her so.

Elliott’s supporters will say he was only reaching for a handy phrase. Gender had nothing to do with it. He was merely noting that his rival, Kean, lacked his age and experience, being 40 compared to his 52.

Maybe. Although first tell that to the Premier, who, at 39, is younger than both of them.

And even if Elliott wasn’t consciously trying to exclude women from power, the phrase can still have that effect: the slow drip of freighted words that whisper in our ears about what it means to be a man or a woman.

Big boys don’t cry. Stop throwing like a girl. Who wears the pants? Man up. Boys will be boys. Don’t be a Karen.

And then there are the critical terms that are almost always used to describe just one gender. Shrill. Hysterical. Bossy. Nagging. Gossipy. High maintenance. Overly emotional. I’ll leave you to guess which gender.

People say “don’t police my language” and yet these are the very people attempting to “police” my gender. They are telling me, by their choice of words, what it means to be a man or a woman.

I don’t mean to adjudicate between Elliott and Kean. When it comes to New South Wales politics, I’d merely like a person to take on a person’s job.

Even if they do need to “person up” to do it.