Stop it, Man

I am old enough to recall debate about gendered words back when every time a female type person did something it got tagged with -ess or -ette or girl.  And while I fall down on this myself, and certainly I have seen little movement on actress and waitress, the point being made at the time was twofold.  The -ess and -ette are diminutives, and yes, while they can indicate femininity one can argue that it's a little like calling someone a cute little thing  with all the accompanying dismissiveness.  And well, girl is a word for a child, and no one says, oh that new CEO boy for that company, we only seem to regress when referring to female types. 
So, in the interest of equality, I would like to point out it is just as offensive (and annoying and irritating) to stick man in front of everything.  Or merge into everything.  I love intriguing new compound or combined words, but murse and manny, no.  If it's a purse, it's a purse.  If you want to call it something else, you can call it a bag.  Personally I think nanny is a dated term, although I understand that some people might feel it indicates a higher level of skill or time commitment than babysitter, but in general, unless I am the person who needs to recognize your nanny, I'm not clear why I need to know you have a manny, instead of just nanny.  Sure, if you tell me your nanny is called Kevin I might make assumptions, but all that will happen if you say manny is that I will cringe in horror - at the word. 
Man date confuses me since it's used only when it's not really a date.  So, apparently two friends of the same gender who are not attracted to one another cannot just be hanging out now. We must call it a man date. (I must not. Really.) 
But, in case you were wondering what sent me over the edge, mantiquing.  No.  No, no, no.  No.  Stop.  Antiquing does not need or deserve a gender adjusted version.  It's a verb.  The verb contains within it no assumption of gender. Just because it contains to of the letters in the word man does not excuse this travesty of a word. 

What's in a Name?

Yeah, I know - unoriginal title.
Yeah, I know, I actually blogged about names here and here.
But, I have pondered the 'title' for this blog, chosen when I was a nascent blogger who just needed something to go in that space across the top. I do like that "Intro to My Brain" makes my blog fall right before January One in my bloglines, but that's about all it's got going for it.
And then Lani Diane Rich started blogging more and mentioned that if you add pedia it sounds better. And that got me thinking. Well it turns out there is a RandomPedia out there, and while I have no plans to change my URL at this time, it still seems that would be problematic. But it seems that Talkapedia is available. (A google search showed some hits, but no one really using it). And I like it.

Words People Understand

One of the ongoing debates I have with myself is about words. Because words have specific meanings, but those meanings do evolve. My linguistics professor talked about the word intercourse which now is so often linked with the word sexual that the sexual part is almost implied.
But, I also think people understand context and how that affects things. And while there are plenty of jokes to be made in the English language where we have homophones and homonyms and all sorts of things that can be so confusing, we seem to get by.
ChaliceChick had a discussion about words a while back, and one commenter gave the example that the word dike in the Netherlands has a perfectly legitimate and non-pejorative meaning that is unrelated to the possibly offensive or possibly reclaimed slang word for lesbians in the US.
So, while I recognize that the word ho right now is used pejoratively to describe women as whores I also have no trouble understanding that a person in a red and white suit using the word repeatedly is expressing what some might call holiday cheer. So, I am saddened to hear that a recruitment firm warned Santas in Australia that use of the ho, ho, ho might be found offensive and they might want to refrain. Seriously.

Naming of Hurricanes

I was up in Connecticut when Hurricane Bob struck. I was far enough from the eye, that it was more like a really bad thunderstorm, but we were close enough to the coastline that we helped out with some of the boat and dock preparation. And the whole time I was thinking, Bob? Really? Bob is not a scary or even serious name. I recognize that there are a lot of rules about hurricane naming, order of names, concurrent alphabets for the Atlantic and Pacific, use of female and male names and so on. But it was with Bob that I began to wonder if by restarting the alphabet each year, we had somehow run out of good names. Or if the namers had run out, since one imagines there are a lot of names that haven't been utilized.
I was thinking of this as I hear that Flossie is headed for Hawai'i. I mean, Flossie? I do recognize that you don't want to use up really good names, for example, I imagine there are not a lot of people naming their children Katrina right now, and it's a lovely name that right now has a negative association for people. But surely we can do better than Flossie.

Book Rant #12: Word

I went to an all-girls school, so perhaps I am more familiar with this - having letters addressed to, "Dear Alumnae", while my college (which is coed) sends me letters addressed to "Dear Alumni", but really it is such an easy thing. And I get it that there are tons of words in this book and that was the only one I noticed that was wrong. And I have heard authors talk about stuff that they had one way that got fixed in one of the edits. I am sure copyeditors have similar horror stories, I just haven't had the opportunity to hang out with them.
But if your book is about a bunch of girls who attended an exclusive all-girls school then surely they would refer to themselves as alumnae and not alumni. Sure, since alumni is often used for a mixed group in the way that many masculine nouns are, it is not completely incorrect. But, really, when the group is entirely feminine, alumnae is most appropriate. Unless that's the big secret that they've been hinting at with one of the graduates. Somehow, I think not though.

Your Own Words

I'm a little tired of this, so I apologize if you are too. But, despite having talked about the incident before, I find myself compelled to revisit Isaiah Washington's use of words. Because, we all say things when we are mad that we don't mean. Or when we are sick, or cranky. But it doesn't negate your responsibility for what you say, and the words you use to express yourself. I almost see Washington's frustration here, he was angry because a co-worker was late and in expressing his anger over this he became the story and not the co-worker's behavior. (I am not trying to suggest that any of this behavior was intended to garner media attention.) So, here he is, unemployed while the - in his mind - badly behaving co-worker still has a job and the public's adoration. I can see why he might feel it was unfair.
But I'm not sure why he think it is better for him to have used a homophobic slur and to have aimed it at a heterosexual co-worker than a homosexual co-worker. And I have no idea why he would say that the homosexual co-worker only said he was slighted to get more money. (Dear Mr. Washington, if you are wondering why you are unemployed, I have some theories.) That is one of those things that even if it is completely true - you get nowhere by stating it in the press. And I also imagine if, for example, Knight was having a conversation with Dempsey and used a racial slur while Washington was standing right there, Washington might get the impression the racial slur was about him.
But anyway, I know it's boring but my suggestion is this: I used words that were inappropriate and I apologize to anyone who was hurt or offended. I was angry, but should have expressed myself differently. I will not do it again.

Thanks to EW for the link.

Book Rant #11: Words

I am in my thirties. The only time I have ever come across the phrase make time was in Catcher in the Rye. I have never encountered a person of my generation using that term. Instead we use such phrases as: making a move, hooking up, making a play for, and so on. So, in a book published in 2003, if woman who is supposed to be in my age range asked a guy why he was trying to make time with her friend I would expect first, to learn that she had a fetish for fifties slang and second, for the person she was talking to to comment on the phrasing.
Obviously I don't know if this phrase was the author's choice or some strange editorial substitution, but stuff like this is so distracting. (And okay this book is not otherwise grabbing me at the moment, but I feel like possibly a generation check needs to be done on some of these books.

Book Rant #8 - Adjective Police

After a string of really good books, I read quite a few in a bunch that were bad. They didn't speak to me, didn't grab me. And let me tell you, the only thing worse than waiting over twenty minutes for a bus, is waiting over twenty minutes while trying to pass the time reading a really bad book.
And while it seems more noticeable in romances, it happens everywhere - adjective abuse. My personal pet peeve is the word masculine. It is a great word, but it gets over used - heroes often have masculine features, masculine scents, masculine clothes, and masculine furniture. All of which would be fine if that one little adjective wasn't left all by itself to do all the work. Unless this is a mad lib of some sort, I need the author to tell me what the furniture looks like - masculine is not enough. Tell me what he's wearing, or just skip it. Masculine just tells me he's not cross-dressing.
It happens with the heroines too, although a larger bucket of adjectives are misused. Without even talking about all the honeyed this and the creamy that, there are heroines walking around with evocative butts (evocative of what, I ask, no one ever answers me) and diamond tipped breasts (ouch) and they are often sleek. Sleek of hair, sleek of build, sleek, sleek, sleek.
And eyes. Don't even get me started on the eyes. Perhaps I am unobservant or something, but I have never been able to see many of the myriad things that people in books supposedly find in other people's eyes. I get it that people look at each other's eyes to try to gauge things, I do that too, but it's an inexact science and if these folks keep finding stuff buried in other people's irises I start to wonder if they are deluded or if we are in a paranormal and someone forgot to tell me. And I am resigned to the looking deeply (although have you really thought about that, doesn't it sound like it should hurt?) and people's eyes sparkling with intelligence or happiness or tears, but that's it. Again, unless we are in a paranormal, people's eyes should not be glittering, especially in the dark.

Does Anybody Remember What We Were Talking About?

So here's what happened. Someone called in (to my company) with a question, we'll call him John*. The person John talked to got his information and assured him that we would handle things. John called back a few hours later having realized he forgot something. He talked to a different person who could not find record of his prior call, but took his information and assured him we would take care of everything. Understandably concerned that there appeared to be no record of his call, he called his boss. Who called us. We researched. We discovered that the first person wrote his name down as John, the second as Jon, so the records didn't match up but in both cases they had all his info and things were being taken care of. Notes were put in the call tracking system to sync up the two records, changes were made to Jo(h)n's account, all was well.
The project manager relayed this back and asked me to check that the loop was closed. As I was composing my reply, the system person chimed in that he couldn't find anyone in the system named John or Jon. I replied that yes, things were taken care of and if the systems person wanted to triple check - here is the case number where he said he had updated the account.
He replied that he still couldn't find anyone by that name. And then the client replied that hey, they didn't have anyone named Jon who worked for them anyway. So, why do we care if this person's change has been made?

*In order not to violate any confidentiality I am using fake names for this story, but trust me it really is as loony as it sounds. Or I am having one really strange dream.

Semantics

I am slowly noticing - I hesitate to use the word backlash, but an increasing concern about being known as feminist as well as a desire from people who feel they write literary stuff to refute the label chick lit. I don't know if these things are tied together or not. But in both cases it seems there is, in part a misunderstanding about the label or a feeling the the label is not all encompassing. I suggest this because I don't see any reason to believe that these famous-ish people who are stating they are not feminists are against gender equality (which is really the basic premise of feminism) so it seems a backlash against people who take positions they don't agree with under the label of feminism. Just imagine for a moment, what would happen to Christianity if that happened. (And okay, reformation, millions of splits, Protestants of every shape and size, it kind of did.)

I feel like the anti-chick lit issue is similar. As far as I can tell the thing that unites chick lit is that the main character is a girl. And sure often it's a middle class, twenty something, white girl but again, I don't think that is a function of the label. I find book labelling (from a bookstore perspective, rather than a dewey decimal or other cataloguing perspective) morbidly fascinating. Why is Pat Booth in Fiction but Jennifer Crusie is in Romance? And then there are people like Alesia Holliday and Linda Howard and Kay Hooper who have books in both Romance and Mystery and - depending on the store, Fiction too. (Holliday also has books in YA, but under a different name). And why is Christine Feehan in Romance and not Sci Fi? But anyway, the label or section marker is really just a starting point. Sure, I don't spend a lot of time in the History section, so if your book got shelved there chances are I won't see it but that's why books are all over the store these days. That's why there's an information desk. That's why there's kiosks and stuff. And honestly, if your story is about a woman, being called chick lit or women's fiction or whatever today's heading of choice is, is not inaccurate. (We won't even talk about what happens if your story is chick lit about a guy.) So, feminist, chick lit author - it's all good.

Okay, it turns out this is not new, and Sars has spoken eloquently on the feminist label rejection issue here: http://www.tomatonation.com/youare.shtml

Pronunciation of Names

I am blessed with a first name that has two accepted pronunciations. (There are also multiple ways people attempt to spell it despite its seeming brevity.) I understand that on seeing my name in print one would have no way of knowing if my parents chose my name from the Irish or the Sibetan tradition, or if they favored one pronunciation over another, or if I favor one pronunciation over another. Some people are not even aware that there are two accepted pronunciations. Therefore, it's always a good idea when meeting people to ask them, if the you are pronouncing their name correctly. As one friend of mine said, in the end, if I spell my name Querxwyz and tell you it is pronounced Kara - you need to call me Kara. End of story.
One of the things that bugged me (until I fanwanked it away) is in "Star Wars" Leia's name is pronounced differently by different characters. Some pronounce it Lee-ah, others, Lay-ah. Sure you can argue that this happens in real life (which in the end was what I did), but really they all got these scripts and decided individually how they thought it should be pronounced and there was a discrepancy that was never resolved.
I was reminded of this as I watched "The Nine" last night. The episode was entitled "All About Eva". Many of the characters referred to the titular person as Ee-va. But her sister called her Eh-va. And Eh-va makes sense since the character is Hispanic and Eh-va would be the Spanish pronunciation. It could also be Anglicized, or Eva could have given up when everyone at work called her Eva (long e sound) and just not corrected them. And some of the people who were talking about her (lawyers for the case against the robbers, etc) have never met her so they would not have had the opportunity to ask her, and some of the characters only know her from the robbery and maybe in the middle of being held hostage they didn't ask for proper pronunciation. But I found it incredibly annoying and since the episode, as the title implies was focused on her there were a lot of opportunities for me to be annoyed. So, perhaps the continuity peeps need to add that to their checklist.

Words: A New We

We (yeah, I know) all know that there is the Royal We. Originally it referred to the fact that monarchs and other important folk did not refer to themselves in the singular, but employed a we. Then there is the, well, regular we. But there is this we that I have noticed a lot lately. It is employed in such sentences as, "We have to make a better effort to keep this area clean." Very polite and all, but we (again) know that the underlying subtext is often you - as in you need to make a better effort but I'm much too nice to accuse you so I'm saying we.

To my knowledge there is no official term for this we, so I have two suggestions.

The Passive - Aggressive We: acknowledging the currents inherent within the usage of the word we in place of you.

The Reverse We: again an homage to a we that really doesn't include the speaker.

These could also be shortened to PAWe or ReWe.

Wench is not a Bad Word

I am card carrying wench. Really. And what I have noticed is folks using the word wench as if it were some PG version of bitch. And it's not. So I'm here to (try) to set the record straight.

According to Dictionary.com, the primary definition of wench is: "A young woman or girl, especially a peasant girl." So, while it was primarily used to describe those of the peasant class (you know, back when there was one), it essentially means female. So if you want to purse your lips and clench your teeth and call someone, "female", then sure, wench is a fine substitute.

The second definition is "a women servant". And sure, you hear people talking about beer wenches and serving wenches - and I'm okay with that. Although I never hear about beer lads.

The third definition is "a wanton woman". And I think that's where people start thinking it's okay to use the word anytime they want to insult someone, but are too lame or cowardly to use the word they really want to. Because, let's imagine this, "She's such a wanton woman." Yeah, really lacks the sting.

So what I'm getting at here, is - as a card-carrying wench - I think the word is complimentary. So, if you want to insult someone, find a better word. And if you call me a wench - I'll thank you.


The International Wench Guild is copyrighted by Lundegaard Productions.

Amusing signs

I saw a sign that said, "Door Alarmed". I felt the need to comment on this. I have read Eats, Shoots and Leaves. And I appreciate fully that good grammar allows us to communicate clearly - something that I think most people lose sight of. I also understand that there are times when shortcuts are expedient and as long as
everyone understands - it's fine.

But there are those signs that in their attempt to utilize word efficiency lead to confusion. Such as, "Door Alarmed". Because it raises the question. What has alarmed the door? Is it afraid of us. Will it be leaving in fear? Should I be watching the door carefully for sudden movements? Now I suspect what they may have been trying to say was, "Door has alarm". And I guess they felt that those extra
three letters (and accompanying spaces) would interfere to greatly with the expediency of the message.

Words I Despise - Part I

This will be an ongoing (if intermittent) series. There are quite a few words out there who's common usage drives me batty.
First up, we have ethnic. According the Dictionary.com, ethnic means "a. Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage. b. Being a member of a particular ethnic group, especially belonging to a national group by heritage or culture but residing outside its national boundaries: ethnic Hungarians living in northern Serbia. c. Of, relating to, or distinctive of members of such a group: ethnic restaurants; ethnic art. "
It appears to be definitions b and c that cause the problems. I hear media refer to people as ethnic Chinese or ethnic Albanian and I understand that for some reason they have chosen this description because it is handier than saying people of Albanian or Chinese descent (and perhaps a little more accurate). But it always leaves me wondering - as opposed to whom? The non-ethnic Chinese? And since - in these scenarios we are referring to people of a culture, race or country that is different from their current residence - do we need the ethnic?
And the one that really gets me is referred to in definition C. You hear people talk about ethnic food, there are signs for ethnic hair products. Here's the thing. All food is ethnic. It may not correspond with your ethnicity or it may correspond with the primary ethnicity of the area in which you live - but that is still an ethnicity! It wouldn't bother me as much if people were talking about ethnic Chinese food (for example) - although I would still wonder if there was non-ethnic Chinese food. But people seem to think ethnic is shorthand for minority. Which is how we end up with ethnic hair products.
So stop the abuse of the word ethnic. It has a wonderful purpose. But if it gets used incorrectly too often, it will go the way of ironic and metaphorical - words that people don't really understand well anymore.