History

Identity is a matter of self-definition, and humans usually define themselves by what they are not rather than what they are, i.e. though the construction of the Other. Gender, which is an element of identities and consequently product of social construction as well, is created and recreated in language, social praxis and culture, including music, art, stories, games, and other symbolic productions (Lorber, 1994, p. 143). 
Language is of particular importance for the construction of gender, since identities function within the realm of language of the dominant culture. As a close analysis of English grammatical and semantic structure reveals, females are constructed as part of men, deprived  at least linguistically  of autonomous, independent existence (linkages between language and social reality will be explored below). This is evident in womens inclusion under the term men, while generic pronoun he can mean a person of any gender. Psychological studies have shown that people usually visualize men when they hear the pronoun he. Thus, women are excluded from the collective imagination. At marriage, women take up names of their husbands, and not vice versa (Richardson, 1988).
Moreover, women are categorized together with children (women and children first), the infirm (the blind, the lame, the women) and the incompetent (women, convicts, and idiots). Women are constructed as immature, childlike and powerless, while men are regarded as mature, autonomous and active. In addition, women are sexualized and objectified their primary role being sexual attractiveness in the eyes of males. Terms that describe females become pejorative in the process of their use weak men are referred to as sissies (diminutives of sisters), rookies in the army are called pussies, and a widespread way to offend a male is to call him a bastard or son of a bitch, both derived from an implicit statement about the honesty of his mother (Richardson, 1988).
Even when sex is ascribed to non-human objects, female gender is used to talk about things small (e.g. kittens), graceful (e.g. poetry), unpredictable (e.g. fate), nurturing (e.g. church or school), and controlled or owned by men (e.g. boats, cars and nations). Masculinity is associated with things forceful and uncontrolled (e.g. Satan or tiger). These categories, alongside the obvious discourse of control and power, are representative of gendering of another important concept, which is rationality. Since rationality is central to Western modernity, and females are often describes as irrational and emotional, women are regarded as unable to function meaningfully as decision-makers and even citizens. They are relegated to the private sphere, while rational males are in charge of public life. 
How much do such linguistic peculiarities actually matter Our reality is conditioned by the relationship between text, talk, social cognition, power, society and culture (Van Dijk, 1993, p. 253). Critical discourse analysts such as Fairclough (2001) suggest analyzing discourse as a) a text b) a discursive practice c) a sociocultural practice. Hay and Rosamond (2002) regard discourse as being of paramount importance for our understanding of social and economic phenomena, since it is the ideas that actors hold about the context in which they find themselves rather than the context itself which informs the way in which actors behave (p. 148).
This is echoed by Storper (1997) who argues that interpretations and constructed image of reality are now just as important as any real material reality, because these interpretations and imagesbecome the bases on which people act (p. 29). Individuals and actions are made real and meaningful through discourse (Phillips and Hardy, 2002). Discourse delimits the conceptions of the possible among actors it defines acceptable ways of both saying and doing things. Actions are constrained by the ideational context, a repertoire of discursive resources in the form of available narratives and understandings at their disposal (Hay and Rosamond, 2002, p. 151).
Let us examine, for instance, the interplay of discourses and material conditions of employment of males and females. It has been noted that persons in high-status occupations  doctors, lawyers, engineers, judges, presidents  are usually referred to using the pronoun he, while those with lower status  nurses, secretaries, elementary school teachers  are described with the pronoun she. As a consequence, even if the relationship is indirect, women are underrepresented in senior management and politics. In organizations, gender discrimination can be manifested in a variety of forms, some of them subtle and latent
Evidence of the glass ceiling a set of factors and attitudes which prevents women from advancing to higher ranks has been described as invisible, covert and overt. At the root of the glass ceiling are gender-based barriers, commonly cited in the literature and noted anecdotally. These barriers run the gamut from gender stereotypes to preferred leadership styles to tokenism in the high managerial ranks (Lockwood, 2004, Signs of the Glass Ceiling in the Workplace, para. 1). 
Indeed, the regimes of inclusion and exclusion are frequently subtle and dynamic, based on discourse rather than formal requirements (Allan, 1999). Inequality exists in all societies, and as part of a stratification system that ranks these statuses unequally, gender is a major building block in the social structures built on these unequal statuses  gender ranks men above women of the same race and class (Lorber, 1994, p. 143). The major problem with inequality is that it often goes unnoticed white is not ordinarily thought of as a race, middle class as a class, or men as a gender
The characteristics of these categories define the Other as that which lacks the valuable qualities the dominants exhibit (Lorber, 1994, p. 143).
This is perhaps the best explanation of the dichotomy of male vs. female being constructed as essential vs. inessential. If a change is possible, it should perhaps start with language. Nowadays, when women have entered business and academia, they are gradually changing male-dominated upper-class vernacular into a more inclusive system of knowledge and communication, since epistemology and language as elements of oppressive hierarchical systems.
For example, prescriptive he is being replaced with plural they and he or she. A policeman is now a police officer, a postman is a mail carrier and a stewardess is a flight attendant. More and more women demand to be called Ms. rather than Mrs. or Miss as a sign of striving for equality with men, for whom the title Ms. does not immediately refer marital status (Richardson, 1988). 
In such a way, women try to get an existence of their own  at least in the realm of language  instead of being defined in relation to men. However, it will take decades if not centuries before linguistic changes cause massive reconfiguration in the social praxis. Yet present efforts should not be dismissed at trivia in the 21st century, women will struggle to achieve de facto equality with men and fight for the right to define and redefine themselves and people of the opposite gender.