Throughout this book, I have suggested ways in which we can analyse both overt and indirect sexism, despite the fact that sexism is a very complex, unstable phenomenon. Analysing sexism is made particularly complex because of the need, as Talbot puts it, to learn ‘how to side-step the snarl word “PC” while continuing to tackle discrimination’ (Talbot, 2007: 760). ‘Political correctness’ is not the only problem facing us in the analysis of sexism. Cameron (2006) asserts that because of the problem of working out intentionality, all that we can rely on is the hearer's or reader's interpretation in discussions of sexism. By contrast, I would argue that we have to assume an intentionality on the part of the speaker in order to make sense of utterances. However, it is clear that sexism is not simply ingrained in individual language items but manifests itself at the level of discourses and patterns in language use. These discourses may themselves be institutionalised, and this institutional sexism constitutes a resource that can be drawn on by people who wish to authorise their sexist beliefs.

Public sensitivity to issues of sexism

Rather than being the concern solely of feminist linguists, sexism appears to be something which the general public are concerned about. The complexity of public sensitivity to language and sexism and the debates about ‘political correctness’ can be seen to have positive benefits as well as causing difficulties for feminists.