In the 1970s and 1980s, sexism in language was generally defined by Second Wave feminism as the use of language that is discriminatory towards women. It conveys a negative and biased representation of women because it is based on the idea that male forms are the norm. Such language represents women as deviant and inferior to men, trivializes and belittles activities associated with women, and objectifies women, among other things. Linguistic sexism was challenged by feminists who actively campaigned for nonsexist language during the 1980s and 1990s. These campaigners adopted a number of strategies, such as suggesting alternative terms to replace offensive terms, which have exerted a considerable influence on linguistic choices by individuals and institutions alike, particularly in the public sphere.

Since then, gender relations and sexism have undergone significant changes, which make it necessary to reevaluate sexism in language. To that end, Sara Mills takes “a more fluid and pragmatic, context-dependent view of sexism” (4), and points out that there are two types of sexism, overt and indirect. Overt sexism, which has been closely studied and challenged by feminists since the 1960s, can be observed in such instances as naming practices, definitions and examples in dictionaries, and the use of personal pronouns, nouns, and verbs. In contrast, as Mills discusses in detail, instances of indirect sexism can be commonly found, for example, in humor, presupposition, conflicting messages, scripts and metaphors, and collocation. Compared to overt sexism, which is clear-cut and easy to identify, indirect sexism is contextual and characterized by its subtleties. Furthermore, indirect sexism poses a distinct challenge to identify and contest because it has emerged and developed more recently, along with the controversial notion of “political correctness,” as a way to undermine feminist language reforms sparked by overt sexism. It is necessary to continue analyzing and challenging overt sexism, which remains prevalent. At the same time, due to the limitations of the strategies adopted by Second Wave feminism against indirect sexism, Mills emphasizes the importance of challenging and analyzing indirect sexism from the perspective of Third Wave feminism, which is concerned with the local and global manifestations of sexism. To conclude, Mills defines sexism as “an issue of contestation” (34), and asserts that feminists play a crucial role in determining the representation and treatment of both women and men.

This book effectively explains the comprehensive theoretical underpinnings of overt and indirect sexism in language, using an ample amount of empirical data that was painstakingly collected during the past decade from various sources including magazine and newspaper articles, lyrics, and direct quotations, as well as personal observations by Mills. It should appeal to a broad range of readers inside and outside of academia.