Nu Hoo

Unlike words, characters can often reveal hidden insights about the society and views of thousands of years ago, when roughly the same characters were used. The character ‘女’ (nü3), meaning ‘female’, seems harmless at first glance, such as in ‘ 女儿’ (daughter), ‘ 女高音’ (soprano) and 女朋友 (girlfriend), but when looked at in closer detail, many 女 compounds reveal the blatant sexism from the ancient society creating these words which are used today with little thought to what they mean.
‘你好’ is the first phrase pretty much anyone learns in Chinese – the first post on this blog was about the wonders of this phrase. You’ll be able to see the 女 in there at the start of 好, which literally means ‘good’. 好 is a compound of ‘woman’ and ‘child’, implying that the only ‘good’ thing for a woman to do is to have children. Perhaps not surprising for a primaeval society, but in a language of the 21st century, it seems shocking that a common word like ‘good’ is just a compound of ‘woman’ and ‘child’.


The 女 radical appears to be everywhere in words with negative connotations – 婪 (greedy), 妖 (demon), 媸(ugly), and even ‘安’, which depicts a woman under a roof, meaning ‘peaceful’. Some words even go as far as ‘奻’, a clear depiction of two women together, the most revealing of all, meaning ‘argument’. In early Chinese society, it was common for men to have more than one wife, and so wives would tend to argue with any new woman the man ‘brought home’, so that they would inherit a larger part of his share – but does this character need to be part of Chinese dictionaries today?
Modern Chinese feminists have called for these characters to be changed to the more neutral 彳, a symbol for two people, but changing a 5,000 year old pictographic language throws up (as you might expect) a few issues. These characters might seem shocking to learners of the language, but for native speakers they are just a word, and do not even show up in spoken Mandarin.

What do you think? Should the Beijing authorities alter the language to remove these compounds and replace them with more gender-neutral replacements, or is changing the building blocks of a language a step too far? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this, make sure to share with your friends or subscribe on the homepage to be notified when ‘The Laws of Where to Put the Sofa’ is published in the week beginning February 6, 2017.


One thought on “Nu Hoo

  1. Mystery says:

    You make a very good point, labrador. However, to change one character would mean to change all characters including that character- like you said, the character for ‘nu ’ comes up in many other words, and I personally do not think that that is possible (to change all characters and avoid wars due to misunderstanding). Even if it were possible, it would take a lot of time and confused people to do so.
    Perhaps we should all just be aware of the way (the character for) ‘nu hoo’ has been used, and acknowledge that (most people will hopefully agree) it is not right.
    Or perhaps we should be trying to change the current way the character for ‘nu hoo’ is used, instead of merely acknowledging the problem and not acting upon it to help change it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s