The Federal Reserve Returns To “Chairman”

The Federal Reserve originally moved away from “chairman” in 2014, when Janet Yellen became the first woman to lead the institution and adopted the gender-neutral title “chair.” Jerome Powell continued the practice, using the title “chair” during his tenure as head of the Federal Reserve.

Now, the Federal Reserve has returned to the title “chairman.” Kevin Warsh began his term as Federal Reserve head on May 22, taking over from Jerome Powell. Soon after his swearing-in, the Federal Reserve updated its website to reflect the new title, and news organizations quickly followed suit, adopting “chairman” in their coverage. A spokesperson from the Federal Reserve didn’t have any comment on why Warsh preferred adding “man” back to his title.

There is no law dictating what the head of the Federal Reserve should be called. The Federal Reserve Act, which established the Federal Reserve as the central bank, does refer to the head as the “chairman” of the Board of Governors. But that document was written in 1913, long before a woman would have been considered for the role.

Unlike the Federal Reserve, other government institutions have formally moved toward more gender-neutral terminology. For example, in January 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives updated its rules document to replace gender-specific terms, including changing “chairman” to “chair.”

While it may seem like an inconsequential move, using the title “chairman” can have more impact than it seems. Abundant research shows that the language we use impacts mental images, stereotypes and feelings of belonging. In other words, the words we use help shape who we imagine belongs in authority.

Why “Man” Is Not Neutral

When the word “chairman” emerged in the 17th century, the word “man” had two meanings. “Man” was used generically to mean person, but it also referred to a male person. The Oxford English Dictionary says “chairman” refers to a person presiding over a meeting and adds, “In early use typically a man; later also a woman, sometimes qualified as woman chairman.”

Some people suggest that, because of its origins, “chairman” is gender-neutral, since it refers to any person. It’s not. When words like “man” or “mankind” are used to refer to all people, research shows they still tend to call men to mind. That’s why people felt the need to say “woman chairman.”

A literature review from as early as 1980 connected the generic use of “man” for all people to sexist thinking and concluded that a reduction in its use “would result in a long-term reduction in sexist thinking.” Nearly a half-decade later, we’re still debating its use.

How Titles Shape Perceptions Of Leaders

Specifically with regard to the title “chairman,” research shows that a leader who uses the title is perceived as more rational, assertive, independent, analytical, and intelligent than someone referred to as “chairperson.” That’s because those are also traits people more readily associate with men. Perhaps it’s smart for Warsh to select the “chairman” title since those qualities are valued in our leaders. In general, men are less supportive of nonsexist language alternatives than women.

Women don’t receive all the same benefits as men from being associated with the term “chairman.” One study showed that women identified as “chairman” are more likely to be forgotten than men who use the same title. If they choose to be called “chairwoman” instead, they are subject to the negative stereotypes associated with female leaders. The use of “chairwoman” also lends credibility to the idea that gender belongs in job titles, which it doesn’t.

The biggest problem with “chairman” arises for women when it’s time to choose the next Fed leader. Using the title “chairman” automatically makes people think a man belongs in the position. It creates another obstacle for women seeking the role.

Using a job title with “man” also has repercussions for children. Studies show that children don’t understand that masculine terms can apply to both genders. As a result, children interpret job titles like “fireman,” “weatherman” and “policeman” as applying specifically to men. The researchers who conducted this study concluded, “It may also be important to modify the language of work to expand the occupational choices that children consider.” In other words, if you want your daughter to be a “chair,” don’t refer to the job as “chairman.”

What If We Used Race Instead Of Gender?

For those who still question the absurdity of including our gender in our job titles, it may help to imagine if a different identity were used. In his 1986 essay on sexist language, Pulitzer Prize–winning author Douglas Hofstadter asked readers to consider a world where “white” functioned as the generic term for all people instead of “man.” In that world, Americans would refer to a “freshwhite,” a “chairwhite,” and “whitepower” instead of freshman, chairman, and manpower. The Declaration of Independence would proclaim that “all whites are created equal.”

Those words and phrases sound ridiculous and racist. Hofstadter’s exercise reveals how a word intended to represent everyone can signal that some people belong more than others. More importantly, it highlights that there is no reason to include your gender or race in your job title.

The next Federal Reserve leader may very well be a woman. The language we use should make that possibility feel expected, not exceptional.