Final answer:
The use of emotive language in gender discourse has historically positioned women as inherently emotional and ill-suited for specific roles. However, feminist scholars, authors, and activists have challenged these stereotypes.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question pertains to the use of emotive language in discussions about gender roles and expectations. The passages provided point to a historical context where emotive language has often been used to characterize women as more emotional and less suited for certain roles such as soldiers or public office, versus their male counterparts. This has been a topic of contention and has led to various feminist movements and scholars re-evaluating and pushing back against such language and ideals.
For example, Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour" uncovers how language and societal institutions suppress women's desires, showing the need for linguistic analysis in feminist studies. The 1970s marked a significant shift in this area with linguists like Robin Lakoff who showed how speech patterns could subjugate women. American activists and authors have continued this legacy of scrutinizing and reclaiming language, as highlighted by the examples of Hillary Clinton, Chrissy Teigen, and Chanel Miller.
Janet Hyde's psychological research, demonstrating negligible differences between boys' and girls' communication styles, refutes longstanding stereotypes and suggests that gendered language norms are more cultural than inherent. The recent criticism of "mansplaining" further exemplifies the ongoing discourse where both men and women strive to foster a more equal and respectful communication environment, debunking the myth that all men communicate in a condescending way to women.