[Prolly NSFW] Words For Women

[OceanMinded]

So, a word of warning towards Stormcrow before he clicks this link: There are certain (and I don't use that lightly) words and explanations involved. In every day usage, they'd be highly inappropriate. Click it with an open-mind and probably not at work or where your elder kids can read it, if you prefer.

A friend linked this to me this morning with the comment of "You're one of those womynfolk, aren't you? You'll find this interesting, then." INDEED. I found it a fascinating glance into wordplay, word origins, language, and society (particularly the fair gender side.) I actually want your response to this one, Stormy (and others are welcome, ofc.)

Onward to link. http://the1585.com/wordsforwomen.htm

[Stormcrow]

You know, while I appreciate the caveat very much, you've managed to kill my curiosity.

Sorry. :-/

[OceanMinded]

You know, while I appreciate the caveat very much, you've managed to kill my curiosity.

Sorry. :-/

*laughs* It's all good. I still was curious to know your response. It's not a bad essay, really. It's intelligent, but some of the words would've made you raise an eyebrow, I figured I ought to have warned you first, neh?

[Stormcrow]

Righto. Maybe some copy/paste of the "safer" parts?

[OceanMinded]

Righto. Maybe some copy/paste of the "safer" parts?

Wow, I'm delayed on finding this. Clearly.

I'm not sure that's possible *lol* Since it revolves ENTIRELY around word-choices to make its point, I can't exactly substitute out words like I do when we're talking. I'll certainly give it another look through after work tonight and see what I can come up with.

[OceanMinded]

Okay, right. I can see that most of the first few paragraphs are "safe" but you get further down and it's a bit iffy. Basically, what the author was trying to do was explain how certain words came to be misconstrued and what the origin of their meaning was. A little lesson in perception!

So lemme post the first bit since that'll probably give you a better idea than a sleepy Liz typing at 4AM when she OUGHT to be in bed. I did censor one word at the very end, actually because it wasn't a word involved with the essay itself, just one trying to get the point across.

You don't really have to read it, BTW, it's not going to hurt my feelings. Was just something that Leo d`Green threw my way and we were curious about your opinion on it. ;p

Examine, if you will, the following three sentences. First:

“In some ways all human beings are the same.”

There is nothing objectionable about this sentence. In fact, quite to the contrary, if anything the sentiment is reassuring and smacks of hope for the future; the sort of thing you expect to hear people say at Christmastime. Second:

“In some ways all men are the same.”

Once again, no-one would be bent out of shape. Yes, in the English language we’ve got that confusion about whether men here means humans or males, but even if it were specified that the sentence concerns males, there’s nothing inherently insulting about it. Virtually everyone is inclined to agree with the sentiment, and instantly and involuntarily starts making a mental list of the ways in which all males are indeed the same, most of which are harmless and amusing. Finally:

“In some ways all women are the same.”

As you knew right away upon reading it, all of a sudden this sentence is objectionable. But why? Logically, it is a subset of the first sentence, and so must be true if the first sentence is. Forgetting even the first sentence, it is also logically implied by the second sentence: if all males, and only males, are similar in ways XYZ, then all females are ipso facto similar insofar as they are not males. Furthermore, it is (as are the first two sentences) inarguably true in hundreds of ways no-one can dispute: all women breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, all women are warm-blooded, all women lack prehensile tails, and so forth.

But of course, these are not the traits to which we assume the sentence refers. So what are? Presumably, in the mind of someone who finds the sentence objectionable, it is being spoken by a man and the traits being referenced are harmful or silly stereotypes: all women are addicted to shopping, all women are obsessed with marriage, all women are bad at telling jokes, etc. Sure, the sentence could be Oprah talking about how all women have ESP or something, but this is not the first context that pops into our heads. And even someone who does not find the sentence objectionable personally will still recognize it as something it would be better not to say, because many others will find it so.

The question, then, is why, when all three sentences are presented out of context, do people assume malice where the third sentence is concerned, but not the others? Absolutely, malice is possible, but it is possible in the other cases as well. The sentence about men being the same could be coming from a radical feminist or pissed-off stand-up comedienne and setting up comments that are quite critical, even damning—but this is not the first context we assume. The sentence about human beings could be setting up a derogatory slam about Earthlings from a speciesist Martian—but (obviously) this is again not the first context we assume.

So, the problem is that, unless we have first received explicit specifications to the contrary, our default interpretation is that all statements about women are insulting and motivated by a desire to belittle or wound. Conversely, ambiguous statements about men (or humans generally) are given the benefit of the doubt.

The goes not only for statements about women, but even applies to mere terms for women, designed simply to refer to human females as a category and nothing else. “Chicks” is just an Anglicization of the Spanish chiquita, or “young woman.” Why is it offensive again? “Skirts” is an example of metonymy, identifying women via an article of their clothing; if we called men “pants,” would anyone care? A “dame” is the female equivalent of an English knight, and the word itself is just Old English for mother—how in the hell did an honorific title become offensive? I have even known people to be upbraided from time to time for using “ladies.” What is the problem with any of these words—is it just that we imagine them being spoken by smarmy jerks?
Fine. But you could imagine the words “spoon,” “microscope,” and “giraffe” being spoken by a smarmy jerk if you wanted to.

…Or, you could not.

[Stormcrow]

*Shrugs*

Not much to say, really. I've discussed very similar issues repeatedly in other places.

It's good to note that the author is thinking, though.

[OceanMinded]

*Shrugs*

Not much to say, really. I've discussed very similar issues repeatedly in other places.

It's good to note that the author is thinking, though.

Yup, no worries! Like I said, Leo d`Green and I were curious.

[Stormcrow]

Hopefully I've satisfied your curiosity.

[OceanMinded]

Hopefully I've satisfied your curiosity.

Mmm, yup. I pretty much expected your response (you've grown predictable, old friend) but I figured it was worth a shot. Dunno if you satisfied d`Green's curiousity, though. Granted, I think his was just idle. Now, I wonder about your wife's opinion. Just kidding.

[Stormcrow]

Predictability isn't necessarily a bad thing, neh?