Education of the republic of uzbekistan termez state university foreign philology faculty the department of english language and literature

The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing says that the words children hear affect their perceptions of the gender-appropriateness of certain careers (e.g. firemen vs firefighters).^[8] Men and women apply for jobs in more equal proportions when gender-neutral language is used in the advertisement, as opposed to the generic he or man.^[9] Some critics claim that these differences in usage are not accidental, but have been deliberately created for the purpose of upholding a patriarchal society
Various criticisms have been leveled against the use of gender-neutral language, most focusing on specific usages, such as the use of "human" instead of "man" and "they" instead of "he". Opponents argue that the use of any other forms of language other than gender-specific language could "lead one into using awkward or grating constructions" or neologisms that are so ugly as to be "abominations".^[11]
Opponents of gender-neutral language often argue that its proponents are impinging on the right of free expression and promoting censorship, as well as being overly accommodating to the sensitivities of a minority.^[12] A few commentators do not disagree with the usage of gender-neutral language, but they do question the effectiveness of gender-neutral language in overcoming sexism
Some critics oppose the practice of women changing their names upon marriage, on the grounds that it makes women historically invisible: "In our society 'only men have real names' in that their names are permanent and they have 'accepted the permanency of their names as one of the rights of being male.'... Essentially this practice means that women's family names do not count and that there is one more device for making women invisible."^[15] Up until the 1970s, as women were granted greater access to professions, they would be less likely to change their names, either professionally or legally; names were seen as tied to reputations and women were less likely to change their names when they had higher reputations.^[16] However, that trend was reversed starting in the 1970s; since that time, increasingly more women have been taking their husband's surname upon marriage, especially among well-educated women in high-earning occupations.^[17] Increasingly, studies have shown women's decisions on the issue are guided by factors other than political or religious ideas about women's rights or marital roles, as often believed.
The practice of referring to married women by their husband's first and last names, which only died out in the late 20th century, has been criticized since the 19th century. When the Reverend Samuel May "moved that Mrs Stephen Smith be placed on a Committee" of the National Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, Lucretia Mott quickly replied: "Woman's Rights' women do not like to be called by their husbands' names, but by their own".^[18] Elizabeth Cady Stanton refused to be addressed as "Mrs Henry B. Stanton".^[19] The practice was developed in the mid-18th century and was tied to the idea of coverture, the idea that "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law; that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage."^[20]
There is a tendency among scientists to refer to women by their first and last name and to men by their last name only. This may result in female scientists being perceived as less eminent than their male colleagues