My Sister's Thesis, Part i
I was reading my sister's brilliant thesis, The Differences in Treatment of Sexism in the French Language Between France and Quebec. It made me think about Schoolhouse Rock, specifically Conjunction Junction, the nature of sexism, how the egalitarian movement might benefit from a name change and why class struggles aren't really dead.
Also, I invented a low-effort, tasty snack sandwich that uses liver pudding.
Mara wrote her thesis for a Master of Arts in the Department of Languages and Literature - specifically French - at the University of Cincinnati.
Mara, please forgive me: I plan on quoting from you at length and haven't asked your permission yet. I just need to get the ideas down while they're still in my head.
My sister's thesis opens with a statement and then a definition that creates an equivalence. To wit:
'The equality of women and men is a concept which has gained popularity in the past century. Feminism, as defined by Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, is "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" (837).'
Well, I have to take issue. Not with my sister, who is implying with this statement that feminism has gained popularity in the past century, which is a statement of fact that if challenged could be defended by a number of means. No, I have to take issue with Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged. It's their use of an Oxford comma (a serial comma, if you prefer) in the above quote. I am in favor of a serial comma separating the list from its last element (and before a coordinating conjunction) only when the last item is one where the lack of an Oxford comma would create confusion: "For dinner last night we ate black-eyed peas, corn pone, butter, and macaroni and cheese."
Try that construction without the comma preceding the coordinating construction and the requirement for the clarifying comma is evident. In any event, I'm suspicious of Webster's already for their use of the comma. The comma isn't called an Oxford comma for no reason and to find it in Webster's smacks of editorial sycophancy.
Grammar aside, my sister posits an inadvertent irony: feminism lays claim to a concept that contains nowhere in it the idea of femininity, at least according to the somewhat less than authoritative aforementioned Webster's.
The American Heritage, which has long been a favorite dictionary of mine, has a similar definition: "Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes." Note the Oxford comma. This differs only cosmetically from the definition in Webster's.
Princeton University defines feminism thusly: "a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women." This definition strikes me as a lot closer to the mark. My sister points out in her thesis that if Francophones had meant for women to be professors, engineers, doctors or ministers, those words would have feminine as well as masculine endings or at least neuter endings. Quebec has consequently supported the feminization of titles. By the same token, as a man, I am excluded from espousing "feminism." I may say that I espouse it but the word itself precludes my gender from entering the discourse. I may as well claim to be a lesbian.
The word "feminism" is sexism in language and it's blatant. An honest definition might be: "a system of beliefs that advocates the extraction or reclamation of economic rents by women from society at large." You can't have equal rights for women. Why not? Because if the rights are equal, then they're for everyone. Rather than add this definition to the English language, let's change the term to be more inclusive and call it anti-sexism or egalitarianism. Egalitarianism would be broad enough to include issues of racism and classism.
Classism is the persistent, pervasive evil. The more meritocratic the societal system, the more persistent and pervasive the class structure. After all, if you've earned your place in the hierarchy, are you really willing to surrender it to someone else simply because someone tells you redistribution of wealth is a good idea?
Finally, the sandwich:
1. Slice an onion and carmelize the slices in a bit of butter.
2. Toast two slices of bread.
3. Warm the liver pudding and place on a slice of toast along with some carmelized onions.
4. Pour on a bit of A-1 steak sauce.
Bon apetit!
-Nathan
Comments
Hmm... I see no difference between the use of the Oxford comma in the two definitions. If you prefer Oxford, their definition of feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes". Is that better for you? However, what I really take issue with is your claim about feminism and femininity. You are relying upon your connotation, rather than the denotation. Well, back to Oxford ...: actually, Oxford says "see feminine", so: "of or characteristic of women". Webster's, sorry, defines it as "the quality or nature of the female sex". On those grounds, how is anything I espouse not feminine, seeing as how I am a woman (or "of the female sex")? If I consider myself feminine, who is to say I am not? If I consider my feminism a part of my femininity, who is to say it is not, especially since they are both a part of me - a woman? On the other hand, the definition of feminism does not exclude men. I know you had a horrid experience at Case, but not everyone is like that - in fact, a number of those women have probably grown and may even regret their behavior toward you. Also, I am not the only feminist on the planet who wishes for men to be advocates of the equality of the sexes. How rather futile it would be if they didn't, seeing as how it is equality _with_ men that women are seeking.
Can't have equal rights for women? Well, look at history. For years and years women abided by that theory: nationalism, racism, etc. Women were convinced that the good of society (male-dominated society) was of supreme importance (I'm not disclaiming the theory in general), and supported male-run campaigns for rights, independence, etc... by feeding the men who were going out there and fighting for justice. But that's where women were relegated - the back room. So, surprise, women finally said 'you satisfied? you got your rights? Good. Now it's our time. Give us our rights, too.' Equality for all? Duh, of course that's what we want. But then, as my male friends are so fond of telling me - we can't expect it all at once, over night. We have to be patient about getting equality. So patience, my brother. Of course it's all inter-related, but if we all try to eat the elephant in one sitting, none of us will make much progress. I'll focus on women's rights and you focus on elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty and we'll all make life a little bit easier for the next generation.
Posted by: Mara | January 2, 2004 3:22 AM
Hey, Mara! Thanks for writing back!
I made my point about the Oxford comma poorly - there is no difference between the use of the Oxford comma in either Webster's or in the American Heritage. The definitions are also very similar, with only word order as a difference. I'm just a lot more likely to accept the definitions in the American Heritage - I like this dictionary; its chief flaw is brevity. It has too few definitions.
In the Oxford I would expect to use the Oxford comma; in their definition of feminism it is absent. I was surprised to see Webster's using it. It seemed like they were toadying up to the Brits. And it wasn't a criticism of your thesis, just of a side point in one of your sources and not relevant to your thesis.
Grammar aside, you raise an excellent point about denotations and connotations. In fact, it feels odd to be on the business end of a call to clarity through denotation rather than connotation. Usually, that's my line!
Nevertheless, your thesis is essentially an argument about the grey area between denotation and connotation in French: the gender endings imply the sex of the practicer of medecine, but the definition of the word denotes profession only, not sex. To permit feminine gender endings connotes additional information about the doctor beyond their profession, allowing female doctors to practice without the stigma of the assumption that they will be male as a result of gender endings. Gender endings in French also make me genuinely appreciate English in all of its neuter glory.
In any event, I'd like to advocate equal rights for everyone, in solidarity with my sister and many others, but can't bring myself to fall under the narrowly drawn banner of feminism, partly because of nasty experiences with the Take Back the Night movement at Case and partly because of some extreme rhetoric that's taken harbour under the banner of feminism. I'll take egalitarianism any day, though.
As an aside, you referred to the connotation as "your denotation," as if it were exclusive to me. That's probably a bit facile; the root of the word feminism is the word feminine; it is not much of a stretch to connect them. I have no scientific data to back this up (none whatsoever, not a sausage, bugger all, naught, zilch), nevertheless am pretty sure that a language of inclusion (i.e. "Egalitariansim ensures that we can all work together to the same end: ensuring that no one is left out of any opportunity within the reach of their capability.") would go a long way toward winning over some holdouts who aren't really opposed in principal but balk at the form of the name of the movement.
Admittedly, that might be a small group. I suspect many of my male friends who, when presented with my argument, memorize it and then recite it later may be using my argument as a convenient cover for a self-serving sexist agenda rather than actually thinking "Hey! That makes sense! Let's be more inclusive, it'll be more unifying."
But I am certain of my own sincerity - I can certainly accept an Equal Rights Movement that works hard to eliminate the language of exclusivity from its platform and embraces the ideas that we are all equal in the eyes of God, that each person has a right to recognize his or her potential and that self-determination must be protected by more than representative democracy. That last topic can get a bit esoteric but I'm pretty sure that the rule of law, well constructed law and a strong judiciary are also an important part of rights preservation.
As for eating the elephant, your point is taken. I'll work on class issues, you work on sexist issues and we'll still have a vast common ground in which the two causes will intersect. If we're lucky, the remedies will also intersect.
Posted by: Nathan | January 6, 2004 12:44 AM
Nae,
I've been following this line of discussion and I have to point out that though English may be primarily Neuter, there are issues here as well. For example, our male God that exludes any kind of self-association with this God by females. Even growing up with specific teachings that God is niether male nor female, reading 'He' this and 'Him' that in reference to God in every text leads one to believe differently. We have no neuter for this situation and to say 'one' instead of he or she just doesn't cut it as that refers to a nonspecific entity/being, whereas God is specific and requires he, she or some word we don't have/use. I have struggled my entire life to envision a god that is neither male nor female, but cannot and have to try to fight these all male images by simply giving in an imagining a female god.
Posted by: Rachael | January 12, 2004 12:01 PM
p.s. I've forgotten how to get into my blog. Please remind me:) Also, what is this Skillful Creamery about?
Posted by: Rachael | January 12, 2004 12:34 PM