"We would choose each other each day," Dr. Dingman said, adding, "since we were all too aware of our ownmost, not-to-be-outstripped potentiality, death."
Only a fool would sacrifice the "man" and spare the "Ding."
Hard to improve on that observation.
They wanted a relationship that was "more egalitarian," she said. "More feminist. More in line with what our gay and lesbian friends did."
But they didn't want to show favoritism to one same-sex pairing or the other, so on Friday it was crystal meth behind the Mineshaft and on Saturday, vegan lasagna and Aimee Mann Personn.
Good thing bitchphd is still banned, or we might have to discuss Zach's blithe assumption that feminism today is all about things like chaning your name from "Dingman" to "Dingperson" (which is funny). In comments Zach does mention that it may have come off more negative than he intended.
I actually disagree with Zack's #2; I think the language does make a difference, and people do imagine (insofar as they imagine) a man when they say "human" (not because there's a "-man" in it, but because that's still the default exemplar)--some of the neologisms are stupid, but getting people to think about what they assume is what academics are for, even if they're annoying personally and in the particular.
But the door holding thing? I couldn't put up with that for two seconds. I well recall, upon first meeting the ex, we were at a restaurant with a door, entryway, door: I held the first door, she stepped through and held the second. Perfect, and not so difficult, dingbat.
Dr. Dingman is a little silly. The post and comments at Veiled Conceit brings the hate pretty hard though.
Feminism really has changed the world. The number of women at colleges and in careers has drastically expanded. Workplaces have changed. But, just use the word "feminist" and people go spastic. People don't pretend the expansion of civil rights for blacks was caused by magic pixie dust.
The post and comments at Veiled Conceit brings the hate pretty hard though.
Sure does. It's like Castro -- I can't quite see what drives all the energy. There's a lot of things to get pissed off about in the world; how do feminists get to the top of anyone's list.
(On gender neutral language -- one of these days, I should give my little speech about how most of the gender asymmetries in English are modern. "Man", in OE, was a non-gendermarked word for human like the Latin "homo" or the German "Mensch" -- there was a word for female person ("wif" or "wombman") and a word for male person ("wer" as in werewolf, cognate with Latin "vir"). Where the gender neutral language activists went wrong was in trying to get rid of the word "man", rather than reintroducing "wer" and so reclaiming "man" as a non-gendermarked form.) < /Feminist--medievalist geek >
"Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: 'Mankind'. Basically, it's made up of two separate words - 'mank' and 'ind'. What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind." - Jack Handey
"Oh wise and omniscient Gloria! How shall we conduct ourselves!? We are incapable of crafting our own worldview, and await your command! We burn this issue of Maxim before you in offering!"
[OE. wífmon(n, -man(n masc., later fem., pl. wífmen(n, f. wíf woman, WIFE n. + mon(n, man(n human being, MAN n.1 A formation peculiar to English, and not extant in the earliest period of OE., the ancient word being WIFE.
The regular ME. descendants of OE. wífman, -men, viz. wimman, wimmen (cf. OE. léofman, ME. lemman, LEMAN) continued in use until the 15th century. By c 1200 the rounding of wi- to wu- is clearly established, and is at that time characteristic of western ME. texts. The form womman appears in the late 13th century (first in western texts), and the corresponding pl. wommen in the late 14th. The simplification of mm in womman, -en and wimman, -en, and the consequent conversion of the first syllable into an open syllable gave rise to forms with {omac} and {emac}, which, continuing to the early modern period, provided the occasion for punning analyses of w{omac}man and w{emac}men (see 1k below). From c1400 woman and women became regular spellings for sing. and pl., and have been retained as a properly corresponding pair to man and men; but in the standard speech the pronunciation (wu-) was ultimately appropriated to the sing. and (wi-) to the pl., probably through the associative influence of pairs like foot and feet.
There's a lot of things to get pissed off about in the world; how do feminists get to the top of anyone's list[?]
I mean this sincerely and without sarcasm or intended slight of any kind: don't you think a lot of people might say exactly the same thing about door-opening or chair-pulling-out being at the top of anyone's list? Or, as Zach points out, the character sequence "m-a-n" being in a word, even when it has no relationship to maleness? Aren't there innumerable worse things in the world for the condition of women?
I've never seen epithets directed at a man for holding a door like the epithets directed toward Dr Ding* in the comments of the post above. You can draw the parallelism all you like, but being extravagantly pissed-off about feminism is pretty common; being similarly extravagantly pissed-off about chivalrous manners or non-gender neutral language is pretty uncommon. I don't think you can explain the first as a reaction against the second.
Speaking of academics complaining about word-choice: I had a TA in medieval history in the late 90s who insisted that there was something wrong with saying "Anglo-Saxon" to mean "Old English." I don't remember what his reasons were, or if he had any.
See my 19; I remember wifman as a alternative synonym, but wombman as a word that was also in use. (This is all complicated by the whole kennings thing -- to anyone who calls the ocean a whale road, womb man is a pretty obvious formation.) Anyway, I'm googling.
I don't think you can explain the first as a reaction against the second.
I wasn't trying to at all.
being extravagantly pissed-off about feminism is pretty common
OK, you're referring to the vehemence of it, which is a good point.
Even so, my point was less about the general population than about feminists: what I mean is, don't you think a lot of feminists (such as Dr. Ding-whatever) might be reasonably said to perhaps have their priorities just slightly mixed up? And since they're often the most vocal ones, then maybe that might at least partially explain some misperceptions of the feminist movement?
24: Right, I saw that, but only after my last comment went through (was having connection errors). The first OED citation that looks plausible for a womb-man interpretation is from the 1200s, though.
Walter, where do you get the idea that most feminists care about this sort of thing more than about real issues? Well, probably from media sources that like to play up this sort of thing more than what feminists have to say about real issues.
This Katha Pollitt column is somewhat relevant--when people accuse feminists of having misplaced priorities, often it's because they haven't bothered to figure out what feminists' priorities are.
So my answers to your questions are "no," and "I reject the presupposition." Some people may spend too much energy worrying about this, but what makes you think that this is characteristic of feminists in general?
After some googling, it's a fair cop. Either my memory or my Old English prof at the U of C was in error -- in my defense, I'm going to fall back on the 'I must have been remembering a kenning" defense.
Walter-
All you've said here is that there some feminists are silly people, and get excited about silly things (gender neutral language, not in itself silly; 'Dingleperson", silly). Sure thing. That can be said about members of any group -- there are silly democratic socialists, Christians, football fans, etc. It doesn't explain why people get so bent out of shape about feminists generally.
The "priorities are wacked" accusation is a bit of pet peeve. If someone sees something wrong, and objects, or tries to do something about it, that's all to the good: we don't need to agree about what's most important, or whether grievance X is worth addressing. There are both enough grievances and people to go around.
(And, as silly as it sounds, if a guy insists on always being the one to open doors, or to pay, or whatever, that really is fucked up, and needs to be addressed; insofar as a culture agrees that a guy needs to always be the one to do those things, that also needs to be addressed. We can talk about how it should be addressed--taking it as an insult if a guy opens a door for you seems pretty fucking stupid to me--but we have to remember that it's a legitimate complaint.)
I think part of the problem is that it's not quite clear what identifies "feminists" aside from a vagina. (And yes, as a general rule, I think "masculine feminists" are ponces not to be trusted a'tall). You're talking about a large collection of people whose specific interests are not constantly contiguous; note that there was a 30% split between the way white women and non-white women voted in 2004. So it's sometimes hard to identify which "feminist" claims are core and credible, and which are merely stealing the "feminist" tag as a useful badge.
If I've got a gripe about door opening, it's that manners are not standardized. I spend a lot of time dealing with clients, and I hate the moments of awkwardness when I'm trying to figure out if they're going to treat me like a male associate ("Carry my files, peon!') or like Milady Lizard ("Let me get that door for you, ma'am".)
To gracefully let someone hold a door for you, you have to be expecting it: you hang back a little, you make sure you're on the right side so he isn't standing in your way when it opens, etc. When I don't know which way a guy is going to jump, I've got a choice between looking ungracious by getting the door myself when he was planning to go for it, or looking like a princess by hanging back and expecting the door to be held. I admit I'm seriously mindfucking here, but it does create awkward moments, and awkward moments with clients are not a good thing.
So, while there are much bigger things to worry about, I do wish people would drop the chivalrous manners entirely outside of an explicitly romantic context. (Within an explicitly romantic context? Go crazy! I favor the Pirate/Hapless Cornish Shepherdess game myself.)(All right, not really.)
I hold the door for whomever's behind me if I happen to be in front, and if I'm not, I don't bother leaping ahead. People should standardize on that behavior as the most sensible.
It doesn't explain why people get so bent out of shape about feminists generally.
This is an easy one. Because feminists are hot!
What really gets me going about the article is the rationilizationizingesque (crap, what do I mean?) stuff that goes on.
I mean, they can't simply say "We were hot for each other because that is the way nature made us and we went with it." They have to dance around with all this egalitarian talky talk crap trying to hide the simple fact that they did what they wanted to do.
Which brings me to my hopeful conclusion. Females dig males and vice versa and that brings me hope for the future of the human race.
On chivalry, I like this excerpt from Stephen Potter's Lifemanship. I tried to quote it but I won't. Read it yourself. The last paragraph is the funniest thing eva.
I hope you people are commenting on my site as well. A lot of you make some good points. When I ranted about that last night I was a little drunk and just sort of went with what was on my mind. THis isn't some hasty post-facto apologia, I'm just saying that I absolutely recognize that what I said was imperfect and subject to better arguments.
My only apology is if it seemed I was undermining feminism as a whole. I'm troubled by certain aspects of it, but these aren't fatal to the entire movement. Whoever linked to that Katha Pollitt article makes a good point. I hope I didnt' come across as making the same accusations that Kristof did in the article Pollitt critiques, because I don't feel that way at all.
If someone had the impression that Unfogged was something of an anti-feminist environment, this link to such an egregiously stupid post would only reinforce that impression, Ogged's pro-feminist comments notwithstanding.
Also, there's the fact that Walter's abject ridiculosity on this particular topic is never checked, while a feminist contributor who is no more obnoxious has been shown the door.
My only apology is if it seemed I was undermining feminism as a whole.
Sure did! The comments you got might be a tip-off.
I'd like to congenially suggest that the next time you find a nitwit who identifies as a feminist and hold her up as an exemplar of feminism, you shouldn't be surprised at the chorus of "Damn straight feminists are all nitwits!" I would further like to suggest that you not worry so much about the elements of feminism you find silly. If you agree wih the general goals, that's lovely -- there's no need to start trying to organize purges.
If I can draw an analogy between feminism and political leftism generally -- there are silly and unpleasant feminists, just like there are unreconstructed Stalinists out there. People who get all het up about demanding that "the Left" cleanse itself of all association with Ward Churchill or similar loonies, are generally not people who wish the Left well. If you wish feminism and feminists well, you're better off focusing on the bits of it you can approve of.
Zach, I appreciate your desire to have us say these things on your site--I'm not commenting on your site because I've realized the hard way that when I respond to trolls (like the "muff-diver" guy) I wind up raising my blood pressure rather than the tone of the discourse, if you know what I mean.
I very much enjoy your "making fun of silly people" thing, and I think you made good political points about W.R. Grace and that pro wrestler. But here you wound up, I think, making fun of a vulnerable group that does important work--and gets a hell of a lot of shit (from those "sarcastic comedians and drive-time FM DJs you mention"--bet it spills over into AM as well). So when you say--explicitly--that "the majority of prominent feminists" are focused on silly stuff--well, grrrr.
Yeah, my comment was a mess. I think I meant that I'm not sure that "feminism" doesn't include too much to be a useful reference in most cases. As you mention, it's a bit like talking about the Left, but worse - I'm less than sure what feminism is, unless it is in favor of goals that have, within our socioeconomic/education set, been significantly accomplished.
But I'm not sure I agree with what I just wrote, so I withdraw the whole thing.
Zach has zilch to apologize for. His post was funny, and that couple is a complete self-parody. C'mon, Dingman was inspired to reconsider marriage when Gloria Steinem did. That's bona fide hilarious, and warrants a bit mockery with a bit of an edge (and it was just a bit of one).
Also, the man is culture hero -- did you see the fake I-banker blog?
And another thing! I suppose this comment could be conceived as braodly anti-feminist:
Transfeminism. Material feminism. Post-colonial feminism. Equity feminism. Post-structuralist third-wave feminism. Did you ever hear shit like that in the discourse of the civil rights movement?
But if so, it's anti- feminism as it curently exists as a cultural phenomenon, not anti- feminism as the goal of equity and justice. So I think attempts to pull the guy's blue state card are premature. Also, it's kinda true.
Well that sentence structure could have been better,.
Craven academics content to endlessly spin their tenured tires arguing about the "language of our discourse." Just think of all the leaps of equality brought about in the last few decades by the hundreds of university feminism departments scattered around the country. Thanks, ladies. English may already be the most gender neutral of all the Western languages, but I'll grant that there may be a few instances where we could easily amend our usage (such as scattering a few "she"s among all those "he"s). But when we go so far as to craft grotesque neologisms like "herstory" I think it's an embarrassment to the cause. And you can save that Sapir-Whorf nonsense. The theory may be sound in other applications, but I assure you that when I think of the word "human" I don't picture some dude with a massive, oppressive cock. The presence of the word "man" in many words is not strapping women to a patriarchal gender yoke. It's just our language. Don't attempt to rob English of its beauty because you can't think of anything else to write your thesis on....
Get your own shit together before you go overboard with the man-hating. This virulent misandry only emphasizes the misdirected blame and anger of many feminists.
Yeah, this looks lightheartedly witty to me. Where did the accusation of virulent misandry come from? The woman doesn't say negative thing one about men generally.
Make fun of a silly person if you want, but if you turn it into a rant about the hatefulness of feminists generally, we're going to take it kinda personally. Being all humorless and all.
I admire Zach as much as you, baa, but "the majority of prominent feminists" is even more broadly anti-feminist as the bit you quoted. And while it may be targeting feminism as currently construed, it's also factually inaccurate. That's a problem.
I was also discomfited by his suggestion that feminists should be going after other women who are consumerist, or slutty, or something. There's just something wrong about men telling women that they should spend their political energy on internal purges.
Making fun of the self-parodying dingbat aspects, great. Spending about half the post attacking feminism in general, not great. (Also, if you're implying that the blue states are more intolerant than the red states, that's not really true of Utah; I will report from Texas.)
No, I was implying that blue states are more tolerant. Rather, I was suggesting that as Zach wasn't being broadly "anti-feminism as rightly understood," and thus shouldn't lose his membership in the cool kids club (blue state card).
There's just something wrong about men telling women that they should spend their political energy on internal purges.
Whatever. I think women can tell men what to do, and vice-versa.
LB:
I am sorry that you are humorless! Seriously tho, I'll grant there's a degree of screed-i-tude here. But what you quoted wouldn't be my example:
The theory may be sound in other applications, but I assure you that when I think of the word "human" I don't picture some dude with a massive, oppressive cock. The presence of the word "man" in many words is not strapping women to a patriarchal gender yoke.
C'mon! That islighhearted! More controversial and offense-provoking are the implications that most academic feminists are crappy, and that prominent political feminists are corrupt. That's on the edge of ranting for VC. But consider the following:
I mean, I like a broad with nice gams just as much as the next guy, but does that make me sexist? Sorry for the joke, but I really do generally sympathize and agree with most arguments of the feminist movement. There are some true gender disparities that should be remedied. But my biggest concern is that the majority of prominent feminists are little more than self-serving blowhards interested less in advancing the cause of women, and more in building a name for themselves, getting published, and conjuring new areas of "conflict" that they can be paid to talk about on campuses across the country. These pointless sub-movements undermine the cause, and make the entire enterprise laughable.
So replace "the majority" with "many" -- it's the web! -- and understand that the guy is on the side of the angels.
baa--It was the internal purge aspect that bugged me on this one. "You know what Jews should be doing, if they're worried about anti-Semitism? Helping us to stone stereotype-perpetuating Jews!" Brrr.
(No, I don't think it's at that level, but I hope it's clear that what I'm doing isn't just "men can't criticize women.")
More controversial and offense-provoking are the implications that most academic feminists are crappy, and that prominent political feminists are corrupt.
Yup, those implications sure are offensive.
So replace "the majority" with "many" -- it's the web! -- and understand that the guy is on the side of the angels.
No.
You don't have to care what I think, but Zach accused this woman, or some unspecified feminist, of going "overboard with the manhating" and "virulent misandry" based on a little jargony silliness that doesn't express any actual anti-male sentiments.
If you find it funny to accuse this woman of hate based on nothing more than the fact that she is a feminist, then that's the kind of thing you find funny. I don't share your sense of humor.
baa -- what makes you so sure that this guy is "on the side of the angels"? as other commenters (notably LB) have described, the guy takes this one silly woman, mischaracterizes her position, and then generalizes his vicious, invented stance to the "majority of prominent feminists."
sure, he professes to "generally sympathize and agree with most arguments of the feminist movement." i, for one, don't buy it.
Also, there's the fact that Walter's abject ridiculosity on this particular topic is never checked, while a feminist contributor who is no more obnoxious has been shown the door.
Oh dear Adam. Oh Adam Adam Adam Adam Adam. There are so many ways in which this sentence simply oozes the rancid pus of spitefulness and True-Believerhood that it almost beggars description.
First of all, my "abject ridiculousity" was checked by numerous others, including Your Reverend Self and your unfortunate little ally-of-convenience, Mithras.
Second of all, perhaps the response of the blog-owners may have been slightly different because that was the first time I have ever in seriousness criticized any current or former commenter or co-blogger on this weblog, including the hooly blisful martir herself.
Third, Tripp is probably right - I'm sure I do make the rest of them look better by comparison.
Fourth, if I apologize for offending your delicate sensibilities, will you ingest a significant quantity of chill pills and just accept the fact that not everyone shares your opinion of Dr. Bitch?
Ok, that's the end of that, Walter. This is not going to be the flame war blog. Let's all drop it.
If someone has a criticism to make of my decision, post it on your blog (it's easy enough to start one), email me, and I'll link to it, no questions asked. Otherwise, we're done with this topic.
I'm coming in late to the flame war here, but that struck me as an inappropriately over the top anti-feminist rant, and so, while it contained some very funny bits it was not, overall, funny. more of the pissing me off. just thought I'd share.
No one's addressed SCMTim's comments, probably out of the sense that he should look this stuff up before he goes off on it. (sorry Tim, you're generally a great commenter, but here...)
Feminism, simply and broadly, is about equality. And no, that hasn't been achieved. I'll just quote a bit of Amy Sullivan:
Where bias does exist, men are not exclusively at fault. Some fascinating studies have documented the extent to which both men and women downgrade female work, particularly when they rely on subjective standards of evaluation. In his recent book, Blink, Malcolm Gladwell wrote about the impact blind auditions have had on the gender composition of symphony orchestras. Since orchestras started requiring musicians to audition behind screens instead of in full-view, the number of women hired has increased fivefold. A study by economists Cecilia Rouse and Claudia Goldin found that the results are even better for women who play what have been traditionally considered “male” instruments like brass and percussion. The same thing happens in art—in studies that switch the nameplates identifying a male or female artist, both men and women always attach higher value to the painting they assume was created by a man. The same phenomenon that happens in symphony orchestras and art galleries undoubtedly happens to editors, who rely on bylines to form quick judgments about what to expect from authors before they read articles.
There's a lot more of unintentional bias you can read about in education. And not to even get into public policy....
"We would choose each other each day," Dr. Dingman said, adding, "since we were all too aware of our ownmost, not-to-be-outstripped potentiality, death."
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 10:18 AM
There is no romance beyond the romance of anticipatory resoluteness.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 10:39 AM
Only a fool would sacrifice the "man" and spare the "Ding."
Hard to improve on that observation.
They wanted a relationship that was "more egalitarian," she said. "More feminist. More in line with what our gay and lesbian friends did."
But they didn't want to show favoritism to one same-sex pairing or the other, so on Friday it was crystal meth behind the Mineshaft and on Saturday, vegan lasagna and Aimee
MannPersonn.Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 10:40 AM
Good thing bitchphd is still banned, or we might have to discuss Zach's blithe assumption that feminism today is all about things like chaning your name from "Dingman" to "Dingperson" (which is funny). In comments Zach does mention that it may have come off more negative than he intended.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 10:40 AM
I actually disagree with Zack's #2; I think the language does make a difference, and people do imagine (insofar as they imagine) a man when they say "human" (not because there's a "-man" in it, but because that's still the default exemplar)--some of the neologisms are stupid, but getting people to think about what they assume is what academics are for, even if they're annoying personally and in the particular.
But the door holding thing? I couldn't put up with that for two seconds. I well recall, upon first meeting the ex, we were at a restaurant with a door, entryway, door: I held the first door, she stepped through and held the second. Perfect, and not so difficult, dingbat.
I am so not hiatusing yet.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 10:44 AM
Shit, didn't see Weiner's comment. Ogged, in the role of the bitch (yet again).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 10:45 AM
I am so not hiatusing yet.
reference
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 10:49 AM
Dr. Dingman is a little silly. The post and comments at Veiled Conceit brings the hate pretty hard though.
Feminism really has changed the world. The number of women at colleges and in careers has drastically expanded. Workplaces have changed. But, just use the word "feminist" and people go spastic. People don't pretend the expansion of civil rights for blacks was caused by magic pixie dust.
Posted by joe o | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 10:51 AM
Yeah, a few of the comments are pretty disturbing; some people reach for "bitch" very quickly.
Apo, I have a half-decent reason, maybe I'll post about it ;)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 10:54 AM
Shorter ogged "Everytime I try to get out, they pull me back in."
That wasn't really any shorter.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 10:58 AM
The post and comments at Veiled Conceit brings the hate pretty hard though.
Sure does. It's like Castro -- I can't quite see what drives all the energy. There's a lot of things to get pissed off about in the world; how do feminists get to the top of anyone's list.
(On gender neutral language -- one of these days, I should give my little speech about how most of the gender asymmetries in English are modern. "Man", in OE, was a non-gendermarked word for human like the Latin "homo" or the German "Mensch" -- there was a word for female person ("wif" or "wombman") and a word for male person ("wer" as in werewolf, cognate with Latin "vir"). Where the gender neutral language activists went wrong was in trying to get rid of the word "man", rather than reintroducing "wer" and so reclaiming "man" as a non-gendermarked form.) < /Feminist--medievalist geek >
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:07 AM
wombman!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:09 AM
Spelling approximate -- it's been awhile -- but "woman" is originally a compound of "womb" and "man".
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:12 AM
"Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: 'Mankind'. Basically, it's made up of two separate words - 'mank' and 'ind'. What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind." - Jack Handey
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:15 AM
"Oh wise and omniscient Gloria! How shall we conduct ourselves!? We are incapable of crafting our own worldview, and await your command! We burn this issue of Maxim before you in offering!"
I think I'm in love.
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:21 AM
Spelling approximate -- it's been awhile -- but "woman" is originally a compound of "womb" and "man".
Lizardbreath, you just blew my mind.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:21 AM
Etymology of "woman", courtesy the OED:
The regular ME. descendants of OE. wífman, -men, viz. wimman, wimmen (cf. OE. léofman, ME. lemman, LEMAN) continued in use until the 15th century. By c 1200 the rounding of wi- to wu- is clearly established, and is at that time characteristic of western ME. texts. The form womman appears in the late 13th century (first in western texts), and the corresponding pl. wommen in the late 14th. The simplification of mm in womman, -en and wimman, -en, and the consequent conversion of the first syllable into an open syllable gave rise to forms with {omac} and {emac}, which, continuing to the early modern period, provided the occasion for punning analyses of w{omac}man and w{emac}men (see 1k below). From c1400 woman and women became regular spellings for sing. and pl., and have been retained as a properly corresponding pair to man and men; but in the standard speech the pronunciation (wu-) was ultimately appropriated to the sing. and (wi-) to the pl., probably through the associative influence of pairs like foot and feet.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:32 AM
And LB,
There's a lot of things to get pissed off about in the world; how do feminists get to the top of anyone's list[?]
I mean this sincerely and without sarcasm or intended slight of any kind: don't you think a lot of people might say exactly the same thing about door-opening or chair-pulling-out being at the top of anyone's list? Or, as Zach points out, the character sequence "m-a-n" being in a word, even when it has no relationship to maleness? Aren't there innumerable worse things in the world for the condition of women?
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:32 AM
Perhaps my memory is in error, as I'm pulling this out of Anglo-Saxon class fifteen years ago. Let me me find a citation.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:33 AM
So you see it's not a combination of "womb" and "man" (meaning person) but of "wif" (meaning woman) and "man" (meaning person).
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:34 AM
Walter--
I've never seen epithets directed at a man for holding a door like the epithets directed toward Dr Ding* in the comments of the post above. You can draw the parallelism all you like, but being extravagantly pissed-off about feminism is pretty common; being similarly extravagantly pissed-off about chivalrous manners or non-gender neutral language is pretty uncommon. I don't think you can explain the first as a reaction against the second.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:37 AM
Yeah, well, neither the vengeful god OED nor its earthly envoy Wolfson will stop me from calling the fairer sex wombmen from here on out.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:37 AM
Speaking of academics complaining about word-choice: I had a TA in medieval history in the late 90s who insisted that there was something wrong with saying "Anglo-Saxon" to mean "Old English." I don't remember what his reasons were, or if he had any.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:38 AM
Ben-
See my 19; I remember wifman as a alternative synonym, but wombman as a word that was also in use. (This is all complicated by the whole kennings thing -- to anyone who calls the ocean a whale road, womb man is a pretty obvious formation.) Anyway, I'm googling.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:39 AM
He was a Jutish activist?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:40 AM
But what if we replaced the "apostropher"/"apostrophess" pair with "apostrophron"?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:43 AM
I don't think you can explain the first as a reaction against the second.
I wasn't trying to at all.
being extravagantly pissed-off about feminism is pretty common
OK, you're referring to the vehemence of it, which is a good point.
Even so, my point was less about the general population than about feminists: what I mean is, don't you think a lot of feminists (such as Dr. Ding-whatever) might be reasonably said to perhaps have their priorities just slightly mixed up? And since they're often the most vocal ones, then maybe that might at least partially explain some misperceptions of the feminist movement?
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:45 AM
24: Right, I saw that, but only after my last comment went through (was having connection errors). The first OED citation that looks plausible for a womb-man interpretation is from the 1200s, though.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:51 AM
Apostrophon, plural apostropha?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:51 AM
Walter, where do you get the idea that most feminists care about this sort of thing more than about real issues? Well, probably from media sources that like to play up this sort of thing more than what feminists have to say about real issues.
This Katha Pollitt column is somewhat relevant--when people accuse feminists of having misplaced priorities, often it's because they haven't bothered to figure out what feminists' priorities are.
So my answers to your questions are "no," and "I reject the presupposition." Some people may spend too much energy worrying about this, but what makes you think that this is characteristic of feminists in general?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:52 AM
But what if we replaced the "apostropher"/"apostrophess" pair with "apostrophron"?
Replace as you see fit, but back at the ranch it breaks down to:
Apostropher
Ms. Postropher
Jr. Apostropher and
Apostrophyte.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:52 AM
plural apostropha?
Wolfson, I refer you to here: apostropher has no plural form.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:54 AM
I was talking about apostrophon, Apo.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:55 AM
Ben-
After some googling, it's a fair cop. Either my memory or my Old English prof at the U of C was in error -- in my defense, I'm going to fall back on the 'I must have been remembering a kenning" defense.
Walter-
All you've said here is that there some feminists are silly people, and get excited about silly things (gender neutral language, not in itself silly; 'Dingleperson", silly). Sure thing. That can be said about members of any group -- there are silly democratic socialists, Christians, football fans, etc. It doesn't explain why people get so bent out of shape about feminists generally.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:56 AM
And what Weiner said.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 11:59 AM
LB, have you read much Susan Faludi?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 12:19 PM
Backlash, back when it came out. Since then, not that much that I can remember.
I thought well of Backlash when I read it, but don't remember it well enough to discuss it in detail.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 12:33 PM
The "priorities are wacked" accusation is a bit of pet peeve. If someone sees something wrong, and objects, or tries to do something about it, that's all to the good: we don't need to agree about what's most important, or whether grievance X is worth addressing. There are both enough grievances and people to go around.
(And, as silly as it sounds, if a guy insists on always being the one to open doors, or to pay, or whatever, that really is fucked up, and needs to be addressed; insofar as a culture agrees that a guy needs to always be the one to do those things, that also needs to be addressed. We can talk about how it should be addressed--taking it as an insult if a guy opens a door for you seems pretty fucking stupid to me--but we have to remember that it's a legitimate complaint.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 12:55 PM
I think part of the problem is that it's not quite clear what identifies "feminists" aside from a vagina. (And yes, as a general rule, I think "masculine feminists" are ponces not to be trusted a'tall). You're talking about a large collection of people whose specific interests are not constantly contiguous; note that there was a 30% split between the way white women and non-white women voted in 2004. So it's sometimes hard to identify which "feminist" claims are core and credible, and which are merely stealing the "feminist" tag as a useful badge.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 1:23 PM
If I've got a gripe about door opening, it's that manners are not standardized. I spend a lot of time dealing with clients, and I hate the moments of awkwardness when I'm trying to figure out if they're going to treat me like a male associate ("Carry my files, peon!') or like Milady Lizard ("Let me get that door for you, ma'am".)
To gracefully let someone hold a door for you, you have to be expecting it: you hang back a little, you make sure you're on the right side so he isn't standing in your way when it opens, etc. When I don't know which way a guy is going to jump, I've got a choice between looking ungracious by getting the door myself when he was planning to go for it, or looking like a princess by hanging back and expecting the door to be held. I admit I'm seriously mindfucking here, but it does create awkward moments, and awkward moments with clients are not a good thing.
So, while there are much bigger things to worry about, I do wish people would drop the chivalrous manners entirely outside of an explicitly romantic context. (Within an explicitly romantic context? Go crazy! I favor the Pirate/Hapless Cornish Shepherdess game myself.)(All right, not really.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 1:28 PM
SCMT-
Not really getting you here -- can you expand?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 1:33 PM
I hold the door for whomever's behind me if I happen to be in front, and if I'm not, I don't bother leaping ahead. People should standardize on that behavior as the most sensible.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 1:34 PM
LizardBreath,
It doesn't explain why people get so bent out of shape about feminists generally.
This is an easy one. Because feminists are hot!
What really gets me going about the article is the rationilizationizingesque (crap, what do I mean?) stuff that goes on.
I mean, they can't simply say "We were hot for each other because that is the way nature made us and we went with it." They have to dance around with all this egalitarian talky talk crap trying to hide the simple fact that they did what they wanted to do.
Which brings me to my hopeful conclusion. Females dig males and vice versa and that brings me hope for the future of the human race.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 1:41 PM
Females dig males and vice versa and that brings me hope for the future of the human race.
Just you wait until those damn gays get legal marriage! We'll be DOOMED!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 1:43 PM
On chivalry, I like this excerpt from Stephen Potter's Lifemanship. I tried to quote it but I won't. Read it yourself. The last paragraph is the funniest thing eva.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 1:44 PM
Hello Unfogged.
I hope you people are commenting on my site as well. A lot of you make some good points. When I ranted about that last night I was a little drunk and just sort of went with what was on my mind. THis isn't some hasty post-facto apologia, I'm just saying that I absolutely recognize that what I said was imperfect and subject to better arguments.
My only apology is if it seemed I was undermining feminism as a whole. I'm troubled by certain aspects of it, but these aren't fatal to the entire movement. Whoever linked to that Katha Pollitt article makes a good point. I hope I didnt' come across as making the same accusations that Kristof did in the article Pollitt critiques, because I don't feel that way at all.
And I fully subscribe to the Wolfson 42 Doctrine.
Posted by Zach | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 1:51 PM
If someone had the impression that Unfogged was something of an anti-feminist environment, this link to such an egregiously stupid post would only reinforce that impression, Ogged's pro-feminist comments notwithstanding.
Also, there's the fact that Walter's abject ridiculosity on this particular topic is never checked, while a feminist contributor who is no more obnoxious has been shown the door.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 1:54 PM
ben,
I knew someone would bring up the gay thing. I spoke in general, of course, and whatever trips a person's trigger etc etc.
In a way it is very strange that we all are not gay. It would certainly make more sense in some ways.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 1:54 PM
Adam,
I hope the mysterious someone you speak of hangs around awhile to get a better view.
And regarding Walter, I'm pretty sure they let him be because he makes them look better by comparison.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 1:59 PM
Tripp, she's already gone. It would not be productive to go over it again.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 2:01 PM
You betcha AK.
Zach:
My only apology is if it seemed I was undermining feminism as a whole.
Sure did! The comments you got might be a tip-off.
I'd like to congenially suggest that the next time you find a nitwit who identifies as a feminist and hold her up as an exemplar of feminism, you shouldn't be surprised at the chorus of "Damn straight feminists are all nitwits!" I would further like to suggest that you not worry so much about the elements of feminism you find silly. If you agree wih the general goals, that's lovely -- there's no need to start trying to organize purges.
If I can draw an analogy between feminism and political leftism generally -- there are silly and unpleasant feminists, just like there are unreconstructed Stalinists out there. People who get all het up about demanding that "the Left" cleanse itself of all association with Ward Churchill or similar loonies, are generally not people who wish the Left well. If you wish feminism and feminists well, you're better off focusing on the bits of it you can approve of.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 2:06 PM
And Weiner? Best. Link. Ever.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 2:07 PM
Weiner? Link?
Bwah!
Best juxtaposition ever.
I sincerely hope that was deliberate.
I also sincerely hope that it wasn't so obvious/previously discussed that I look like a complete mouthbreather for pointing it out.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 2:20 PM
Pure fortuity.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 2:29 PM
Zach, I appreciate your desire to have us say these things on your site--I'm not commenting on your site because I've realized the hard way that when I respond to trolls (like the "muff-diver" guy) I wind up raising my blood pressure rather than the tone of the discourse, if you know what I mean.
I very much enjoy your "making fun of silly people" thing, and I think you made good political points about W.R. Grace and that pro wrestler. But here you wound up, I think, making fun of a vulnerable group that does important work--and gets a hell of a lot of shit (from those "sarcastic comedians and drive-time FM DJs you mention"--bet it spills over into AM as well). So when you say--explicitly--that "the majority of prominent feminists" are focused on silly stuff--well, grrrr.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 2:31 PM
LB:
Yeah, my comment was a mess. I think I meant that I'm not sure that "feminism" doesn't include too much to be a useful reference in most cases. As you mention, it's a bit like talking about the Left, but worse - I'm less than sure what feminism is, unless it is in favor of goals that have, within our socioeconomic/education set, been significantly accomplished.
But I'm not sure I agree with what I just wrote, so I withdraw the whole thing.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 2:55 PM
Bah!
Zach has zilch to apologize for. His post was funny, and that couple is a complete self-parody. C'mon, Dingman was inspired to reconsider marriage when Gloria Steinem did. That's bona fide hilarious, and warrants a bit mockery with a bit of an edge (and it was just a bit of one).
Also, the man is culture hero -- did you see the fake I-banker blog?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 3:43 PM
And another thing! I suppose this comment could be conceived as braodly anti-feminist:
Transfeminism. Material feminism. Post-colonial feminism. Equity feminism. Post-structuralist third-wave feminism. Did you ever hear shit like that in the discourse of the civil rights movement?
But if so, it's anti- feminism as it curently exists as a cultural phenomenon, not anti- feminism as the goal of equity and justice. So I think attempts to pull the guy's blue state card are premature. Also, it's kinda true.
Well that sentence structure could have been better,.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 3:47 PM
did you see the fake I-banker blog?
That was hilarious. Link.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 3:48 PM
Craven academics content to endlessly spin their tenured tires arguing about the "language of our discourse." Just think of all the leaps of equality brought about in the last few decades by the hundreds of university feminism departments scattered around the country. Thanks, ladies. English may already be the most gender neutral of all the Western languages, but I'll grant that there may be a few instances where we could easily amend our usage (such as scattering a few "she"s among all those "he"s). But when we go so far as to craft grotesque neologisms like "herstory" I think it's an embarrassment to the cause. And you can save that Sapir-Whorf nonsense. The theory may be sound in other applications, but I assure you that when I think of the word "human" I don't picture some dude with a massive, oppressive cock. The presence of the word "man" in many words is not strapping women to a patriarchal gender yoke. It's just our language. Don't attempt to rob English of its beauty because you can't think of anything else to write your thesis on....
Get your own shit together before you go overboard with the man-hating. This virulent misandry only emphasizes the misdirected blame and anger of many feminists.
Yeah, this looks lightheartedly witty to me. Where did the accusation of virulent misandry come from? The woman doesn't say negative thing one about men generally.
Make fun of a silly person if you want, but if you turn it into a rant about the hatefulness of feminists generally, we're going to take it kinda personally. Being all humorless and all.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 3:55 PM
Sorry, second para should have been italicized as well.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 3:56 PM
Fixed.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 3:57 PM
Full service blogging. I like that.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 3:57 PM
I admire Zach as much as you, baa, but "the majority of prominent feminists" is even more broadly anti-feminist as the bit you quoted. And while it may be targeting feminism as currently construed, it's also factually inaccurate. That's a problem.
I was also discomfited by his suggestion that feminists should be going after other women who are consumerist, or slutty, or something. There's just something wrong about men telling women that they should spend their political energy on internal purges.
Making fun of the self-parodying dingbat aspects, great. Spending about half the post attacking feminism in general, not great. (Also, if you're implying that the blue states are more intolerant than the red states, that's not really true of Utah; I will report from Texas.)
The I-banker blog rocked, anyway.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 4:00 PM
Matt:
No, I was implying that blue states are more tolerant. Rather, I was suggesting that as Zach wasn't being broadly "anti-feminism as rightly understood," and thus shouldn't lose his membership in the cool kids club (blue state card).
There's just something wrong about men telling women that they should spend their political energy on internal purges.
Whatever. I think women can tell men what to do, and vice-versa.
LB:
I am sorry that you are humorless! Seriously tho, I'll grant there's a degree of screed-i-tude here. But what you quoted wouldn't be my example:
The theory may be sound in other applications, but I assure you that when I think of the word "human" I don't picture some dude with a massive, oppressive cock. The presence of the word "man" in many words is not strapping women to a patriarchal gender yoke.
C'mon! That islighhearted! More controversial and offense-provoking are the implications that most academic feminists are crappy, and that prominent political feminists are corrupt. That's on the edge of ranting for VC. But consider the following:
I mean, I like a broad with nice gams just as much as the next guy, but does that make me sexist? Sorry for the joke, but I really do generally sympathize and agree with most arguments of the feminist movement. There are some true gender disparities that should be remedied. But my biggest concern is that the majority of prominent feminists are little more than self-serving blowhards interested less in advancing the cause of women, and more in building a name for themselves, getting published, and conjuring new areas of "conflict" that they can be paid to talk about on campuses across the country. These pointless sub-movements undermine the cause, and make the entire enterprise laughable.
So replace "the majority" with "many" -- it's the web! -- and understand that the guy is on the side of the angels.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 4:58 PM
baa--It was the internal purge aspect that bugged me on this one. "You know what Jews should be doing, if they're worried about anti-Semitism? Helping us to stone stereotype-perpetuating Jews!" Brrr.
(No, I don't think it's at that level, but I hope it's clear that what I'm doing isn't just "men can't criticize women.")
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 5:04 PM
More controversial and offense-provoking are the implications that most academic feminists are crappy, and that prominent political feminists are corrupt.
Yup, those implications sure are offensive.
So replace "the majority" with "many" -- it's the web! -- and understand that the guy is on the side of the angels.
No.
You don't have to care what I think, but Zach accused this woman, or some unspecified feminist, of going "overboard with the manhating" and "virulent misandry" based on a little jargony silliness that doesn't express any actual anti-male sentiments.
If you find it funny to accuse this woman of hate based on nothing more than the fact that she is a feminist, then that's the kind of thing you find funny. I don't share your sense of humor.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 5:15 PM
baa -- what makes you so sure that this guy is "on the side of the angels"? as other commenters (notably LB) have described, the guy takes this one silly woman, mischaracterizes her position, and then generalizes his vicious, invented stance to the "majority of prominent feminists."
sure, he professes to "generally sympathize and agree with most arguments of the feminist movement." i, for one, don't buy it.
Posted by mina | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 5:25 PM
Also, there's the fact that Walter's abject ridiculosity on this particular topic is never checked, while a feminist contributor who is no more obnoxious has been shown the door.
Oh dear Adam. Oh Adam Adam Adam Adam Adam. There are so many ways in which this sentence simply oozes the rancid pus of spitefulness and True-Believerhood that it almost beggars description.
First of all, my "abject ridiculousity" was checked by numerous others, including Your Reverend Self and your unfortunate little ally-of-convenience, Mithras.
Second of all, perhaps the response of the blog-owners may have been slightly different because that was the first time I have ever in seriousness criticized any current or former commenter or co-blogger on this weblog, including the hooly blisful martir herself.
Third, Tripp is probably right - I'm sure I do make the rest of them look better by comparison.
Fourth, if I apologize for offending your delicate sensibilities, will you ingest a significant quantity of chill pills and just accept the fact that not everyone shares your opinion of Dr. Bitch?
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 5:37 PM
Ok, that's the end of that, Walter. This is not going to be the flame war blog. Let's all drop it.
If someone has a criticism to make of my decision, post it on your blog (it's easy enough to start one), email me, and I'll link to it, no questions asked. Otherwise, we're done with this topic.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 6:03 PM
So why are there no childfree female political bloggers?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 7:31 PM
Because of the Jews.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 7:34 PM
Man, can those guys hold a grudge.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 7:35 PM
You're not kidding. They're almost as bad as black people.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 7:39 PM
Ok, that's the end of that, Walter. This is not going to be the flame war blog. Let's all drop it.
10-4, good buddy.
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 7:43 PM
I'm coming in late to the flame war here, but that struck me as an inappropriately over the top anti-feminist rant, and so, while it contained some very funny bits it was not, overall, funny. more of the pissing me off. just thought I'd share.
Posted by alameida | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 8:01 PM
No one's addressed SCMTim's comments, probably out of the sense that he should look this stuff up before he goes off on it. (sorry Tim, you're generally a great commenter, but here...)
Feminism, simply and broadly, is about equality. And no, that hasn't been achieved. I'll just quote a bit of Amy Sullivan:
Where bias does exist, men are not exclusively at fault. Some fascinating studies have documented the extent to which both men and women downgrade female work, particularly when they rely on subjective standards of evaluation. In his recent book, Blink, Malcolm Gladwell wrote about the impact blind auditions have had on the gender composition of symphony orchestras. Since orchestras started requiring musicians to audition behind screens instead of in full-view, the number of women hired has increased fivefold. A study by economists Cecilia Rouse and Claudia Goldin found that the results are even better for women who play what have been traditionally considered “male” instruments like brass and percussion. The same thing happens in art—in studies that switch the nameplates identifying a male or female artist, both men and women always attach higher value to the painting they assume was created by a man. The same phenomenon that happens in symphony orchestras and art galleries undoubtedly happens to editors, who rely on bylines to form quick judgments about what to expect from authors before they read articles.
There's a lot more of unintentional bias you can read about in education. And not to even get into public policy....
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 9:41 PM
That last sentence was truly awful. "There's a lot more to read on the subject of unintentional bias, particularly in education."
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-13-05 9:45 PM
Walter,
Regarding 69 - admitting one's own foibles goes a long way in my book, so I want to commend you for it.
Not! Actually, I just wanted to make a 69 reference.
No, I really do commend you.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 04-14-05 1:06 PM