Think of the positions of CEO, police officer or senator. Unfortunately, the first image that comes to mind is often of a man in a suit or uniform. Unless there was a descriptor beforehand saying female CEO or woman police officer, most people would not immediately think of a woman.

Until we stop using modifiers before a position, women have not gained equality. This reaches farther than simple grammar and word choice.

This is a case of availability heuristics, where our mind has quick shortcuts that rely on immediate examples rather than actually taking the time to evaluate the idea. This is a societal structural issue that goes deeper than a mental timesaver and blaming this completely on a mental shortcut isn’t fair.

So why do we make this association? Considering that a mere 5.2 percent of CEOs in Fortune 500 companies are women, it can be harder to draw an image of a woman in a suit instead of a man when reading the title CEO. And in law enforcement only 13–14 percent of the workforce is female, according to the October edition of The Police Chief, which makes it harder for most people to think of a woman as a police officer.

And let’s not forget Congress. While the recent midterms have put more than 100 women in Congress for the first time, a quick reality check and simple addition and division shows that women are only holding approximately 18.6 percent of the seats in Congress. Meanwhile women make up 51 percent of the U.S. population.

This disproportionate amount of women in positions of authority and power is only slighted more when news outlets describe them as “women CEOs” or “congresswoman.” This may seem rather particular, but think about how ridiculous it would be to read an article saying “a male boss” or “a male senator.” Yet this is exactly what society does to women and various minority groups.

Using a modifier before a noun like boss or senator shows that the reader would not have thought of a woman having that position unless specifically outlined. While it is important to note historical firsts — as we should acknowledge the success of women making advances in the workforce — it should not come in the description of a job title.

This can be seen in the same way society refers to policemen, doormen or chairmen. These all have gender implied in the position, already giving a feeling of exclusion and an image of who should hold these positions. Positions like author or lawyer are good examples of how titles can be more gender neutral and have open interpretations of who would hold the position.

News outlets have been improving, as can be seen with the headlines concerning Loretta Lynch being appointed to U.S. Attorney General on Nov 8. From Fox to CNN to MSNBC, the headlines and descriptions of Lynch were gender neutral and focused on her successes instead of her gender identity. If outlets can continue this trend, women can be a part of our mental shortcuts when we think of powerful and authoritative.

However, there are still far more negative examples than positive examples of describing women in power in the media and in conversation. Until all news outlets and individuals within society change their view and descriptions of women in power, we have not reached true gender equality.

Julia Smith is a junior newspaper and online journalism and sociology dual major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @jcsmith711.

Published on November 11, 2014 at 12:01 am