Re: digital and analogue photography -the essay
Judy, I think you've proved no more than that Roget and Webster are a pair
of old fogeys.
By the way "geezer" has been reclaimed, and "codger" seems to be going
unisex.
Don Sweet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: digital and analogue photography -the essay
>
> I seem to have missed the evil comments described (my ISP may be an MCP)
> but here's a simple test: Try, just try to imagine those putdowns to
> someone who signed themselves "Charles Rogers."
>
> It doesn't happen.
>
> Nor can we say that if Catherine were famous (or more famous) she'd get
> more respect. I recall, some 10 years (or more) ago, a couple of boy-os on
> the History of Photography list snickering about "Susan Sontag, the
> bitch." No, I'm not making that up.
>
> In fact the language (English anyway) just about insures it. I did an
> analysis of gender terms in Roget's Thesaurus (see my T-shirt book, pages
> 134-143): Probably the most striking example is the fact that slang for
> "femininity" devolves to "bitch."
>
> The closest equivalent terms for men (other than feminized men) are "bad
> person," or blame for financial ("Bowery bum") or outright criminal
> status. Under "unchastity," men are libertine, swinger, profligate, rake,
> roue, womanizer, woman chaser, gay dog, etc., which is to say, terms that
> are almost admiring; women are "whore" or "nympho."
>
> The unequal status for men and women is even clearer under the entry
> for "old." "Adult Or Old Person" para 2, has 38 terms for old man and
> elder, of which only one, "dotard" is unredeemably bad. The others are
> either respectful, like "golden-ager," "patriarch, or "Father Time," or
> only mildly disparaging, like "geezer" or "old codger." However, the
> category for old woman has 21 terms, of which only 2 or 3 are respectful
> ("grandam," "beldam"). Most, like "old battle ax," "hen," bag, "witch,"
> and "crone." are, to put not too fine a point on it, insults.
>
> I wouldn't say the language causes the sexism, rather that it reflects the
> sexism... and not so coincidentally I noticed that Webster's Unabridged (I
> have 2 editions circa 10 years apart) shows that the word "racism" entered
> the language approximately 10 years before the word "sexism." Which may
> explain why the US press has freely commented on Hillary Clinton's ankles,
> et al, but not a word about -- oh I dunno, do Obama's ears stick out, or
> something ?
>
> I'm not a shrinking violet, and I do get to experience this first
> hand, which I admit, accustomed as I am, still can come as a shock...
>
> But it occurs to me to ask, Catherine, did any of that disparagement come
> from women? From the comments cited just now, it would seem not.
>
> Judy