mjm@ahimsa.intel.COM (Marjorie Panditji) (05/23/91)
Someone commented on inappropriate synonyms for woman in a thesaurus (such as baggage and gold digger). Alex Matulich writes: > Degrading or not, the function of a thesaurus is to provide synonyms for > words, and regrettably, those synonyms you found are indeed words used to > describe women on occasion. ... > (If one is talking about women who *are* gold-diggers, > and such people do exist, then why not use the term?) I am a vegetarian. Should vegetarian be a synonym for woman? Some men are rapists. Should rapist be a synonym for man? In my opinion, the answer to both these questions is no. Similarly, the meaning of gold digger is quite different from the meaning of woman (gold diggers are not necessarily women, and not all women are gold diggers). I don't believe that people are saying the term should not be used. They are saying that these terms are inappropriate as synonyms. -- Marjorie Panditji mjm@ahimsa.intel.com -or- uunet!intelhf!ahimsa!mjm
mara@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Mara Chibnik) (05/23/91)
>From Alex Matulich: > Degrading or not, the function of a thesaurus is to provide synonyms for > words, and regrettably, those synonyms you found are indeed words used to > describe women on occasion. ... > (If one is talking about women who *are* gold-diggers, > (If one is talking about women who *are* gold-diggers, > and such people do exist, then why not use the term?) In article <m0jg2LI-0000TAC@intelhf.hf.intel.com> mjm@ahimsa.intel.COM (Marjorie Panditji) writes: >I am a vegetarian. Should vegetarian be a synonym for woman? Some >men are rapists. Should rapist be a synonym for man? In my opinion, >the answer to both these questions is no. > >Similarly, the meaning of gold digger is quite different from the >meaning of woman (gold diggers are not necessarily women, and not all >women are gold diggers). I don't believe that people are saying the >term should not be used. They are saying that these terms are >inappropriate as synonyms. Ah, yes. But a thesaurus is a tool for finding a word. Under "virtue," for example (a not exactly random selection on my part, as I'll explain in a bit), I find listed: virtue, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness etc.; aretaics; "_mens sibi conscia recti_" (Vergil); morality, moral rectitude; merit, worth, excellence, value, credit, desert; cardinal virtues, prudence, fortitude, temperance, justice; well-doing, good behavior, well-spent life; integrity etc. (probity) and then a list of related possibilities: probity, innocence, purity, reputability, self-denial (temperance), self-control, courage, morals (ethics), piety Certainly I wouldn't assume that I could use these words interchangeably. (For extra credit, use "aretaics" in a sentence.) However, and this is how I happened to be just a page away from "virtue" in my thesaurus, it is enlightening to consider the entries under "Good Person": 1. good person, worthy, nature's nobleman, salt of the earth, Christian; white man, brick, trump [all slang]; gem, jewel, diamond, petal; flower, cream, _creme de la creme_ [F.]; one in a thousand _or_ ten thousand, a man among men; paragon, _chevalier sans peur et sans reproche [F.]; good example, exemplar, model, pattern, standard; hero, god, demigod; saint, angel, seraph; rough diamond, diamond in the rough; the good, the righteous; Galahad; honest man etc. [ref]; innocent etc. [ref]; philanthropist etc. [ref]; benefactor etc. [ref] 2. good woman, heaven's noblest gift, "a perfect woman, nobly planned" (Wordsworth), queen; goddess, demigoddess; virgin, vestal, vestal virgin, Madonna; Lucretia; Diana [Rom. Myth.], Artemis, Athena Parthenos [both Gr. Myth.]. (I use the notation [ref] where the thesaurus refers to numerical entries elsewhere in the volume; italics are designated by underscores only at either end of the entire expression, diacriticals are omitted.) I have the following comments. 1. The entries under #1 include some terms that distinguish by sex and some that do not. This is an example of the confusion that arises from our habit of defaulting to the masculine. Some of the #2 items are just mappings from masculine to feminine versions. (Which reminds me: I'm surprised not to see "prince" under #1.) 2. The list under #1 includes a number of obviously offensive entries. 3. The list under #2 consists of fourteen different entries. Two include the word "woman" and five are proper nouns. The list under #1 consists of thirty-six entries before the cross-references, of which three include the word "man" and one is a proper noun. A woman, but not a man (or a "generic person") is good if she hasn't had sex. Further observations I leave to your own amusement. But since it generated the discussion, I notice that "gold digger" appears under the category "Love-making, Endearment" in the following list: flirt, coquette, gold digger, vampire, vamp, male flirt, philanderer, phalnder; cake-eater, tea hound, lounge lizard. To my surprise, "gigolo" appears under "Libertine," a different category entirely, which gives separate lists of male and female "deviant sexuality." All of these from my venerable _Roget's International Thesaurus_, NY: Thoman Y. Crowell Company, copywright 1946 (!). My "new edition" was printed in 1961. -- cmcl2!panix!mara Mara Chibnik mara@dorsai.com Life is too important to be taken seriously.
mjm@ahimsa.intel.com (Marjorie Panditji) (05/25/91)
In response to my article complaining about gold digger (and other questionable synonyms for woman) that someone else found listed in a thesaurus, Mara writes: > Ah, yes. But a thesaurus is a tool for finding a word. Under > "virtue," for example ... > > [list of words deleted] > > Certainly I wouldn't assume that I could use these words > interchangeably. I was a little confused by Mara's article on thesaurus entries. It was interesting to read the entries listed, and I agree with many of her comments. But, in the end, I couldn't tell Mara's opinion on gold digger as a synonym for woman (perhaps she wasn't trying to state an opinion on it, but I'm still curious). I realize that a thesaurus is for finding words and that words do not have to be interchangeable in order to be listed as synonyms. I did not intend to convey that message. For example, listing wife or mother under woman makes sense to me, even though these words are clearly not interchangeable. But it does not make sense to me to list a word just because it has a possible connection with women, or to list a word which represents a group which is made up mostly of women. That's why I used the example words rapist and vegetarian. Vegetarians in the U.S. are mostly female (from an article in Vegetarian Times, I realize that this statistic could be out of date by now). Rapists are male in most cases (all cases in some states due to their definition of rape). Yet, I still don't believe that it makes sense for a thesaurus to list rapist for man or vegetarian for woman. I might expect to find gold digger under a heading such as girlfriend or lover (I wouldn't insist that it also be listed under boyfriend, since the I think that the term is used, correctly or incorrectly, mostly to refer to women). But to list gold digger under the generic category of woman? Sorry, it just doesn't make sense to me. I'm certainly glad that all thesauruses (or thesauri, if you prefer) are not created equal. The thesaurus which comes with Word Perfect (it just happened to be handy) provides more reasonable lists for man and woman, in my humble opinion. I'll have to check my "hard copy" :-) thesaurus at home. -- Marjorie Panditji mjm@ahimsa.intel.com -or- uunet!intelhf!ahimsa!mjm
mlm@cs.brown.edu (Moises Lejter) (05/25/91)
I looked up "gold-digger" in "Partridge's Concise Dictionary of Slang
and Unconventional English", edited by Paul Beale. This is the entry
(with abbreviations expanded):
gold-digger. A female attaching herself to a man for (her) self
and pelf: US (circa 1925); anglicised by 1930. Derived from
the literal Standard English sense. -- 2. Also
"gold-digging", the corresponding (not too) abstract noun.
It does not appear in my edition of the OED.
Moises
P.S> The "...Dictionary of Slang..." is published by Macmillan, 1989
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet/CSnet: mlm@cs.brown.edu BITNET: mlm@browncs.BITNET
UUCP: ...!uunet!cs.brown.edu!mlm Phone: (401)863-7664
USmail: Moises Lejter, Box 1910 Brown University, Providence RI 02912mara@cmcl2.nyu.EDU (Mara Chibnik) (05/29/91)
In article <1991May24.220315.10248@aero.org> mjm@ahimsa.intel.com (Marjorie Panditji) comments: >I was a little confused by Mara's article on thesaurus entries. It was >interesting to read the entries listed, and I agree with many of her >comments. But, in the end, I couldn't tell Mara's opinion on gold digger >as a synonym for woman (perhaps she wasn't trying to state an opinion >on it, but I'm still curious). Well, my opinion is that "gold digger" is *not* a "synonym" for "woman," but also that what a thesaurus lists is not exactly "synonyms" anyhow. I would like to know what else is in the list of terms for "woman" before I could comment on whether or not "gold digger" belongs there, and also what is on the list of terms for "man." That's why I cited the lists in my thesaurus as exhaustively as I did-- so that the peculiarities would show up. If the only entries for "woman" are wife, mother and gold digger, then the thesaurus is deficient, even if the only entries for "man" are huband, father and fortune hunter. But I wouldn't consider the deficiency to come from gender bias. Is that clearer? As to "vegetarian," even though more women than men may be vegetarians, I don't believe that most people use the word with any idea of connoting the sex of the person in question; it's the dietary choice that is significant. Whereas with "gold digger," although the behavior exists in men as well as in women, the term applies to women exclusively; men are variously "fortune hunters" or "gigolos" if they behave in that way. PS-- I thought it was pretty obvious from the thesaurus that I was quoting that there *is* gender bias operating. Even though that's an old book I doubt things have changed a whole lot since, but I guess I should at least thumb through a more recent edition to see for myself. -- cmcl2!panix!mara Mara Chibnik mara@dorsai.com Life is too important to be taken seriously.
pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU (Eric Pepke) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May25.125043.23449@panix.uucp> panix!mara@cmcl2.nyu.EDU (Mara Chibnik) writes: >I would like to know what else is in the list of terms for "woman" >before I could comment on whether or not "gold digger" belongs >there, and also what is on the list of terms for "man." That's why >I cited the lists in my thesaurus as exhaustively as I did-- so that >the peculiarities would show up. If the only entries for "woman" >are wife, mother and gold digger, then the thesaurus is deficient, >even if the only entries for "man" are huband, father and fortune >hunter. But I wouldn't consider the deficiency to come from gender >bias. No. My thesaurus (Webster's collegiate) doesn't have "gold digger" under "women," but it lists under the "man" definition, "cuss," "galoot," and "buck." These are claimed as synonyms, or at least that's what I assume the abbreviation "syn." means. I doubt that anybody would assert that this is an example of gender bias. Once again, that good old selective perception leaps in to save the day. -EMP
mara@cmcl2.nyu.EDU (Mara Chibnik) (06/01/91)
I'm finding this thread extremely tedious, but I take umbrage at the implicit charge of selective perception. I previously wrote: >>I would like to know what else is in the list of terms for "woman" >>before I could comment on whether or not "gold digger" belongs >>there, and also what is on the list of terms for "man." That's why >>I cited the lists in my thesaurus as exhaustively as I did-- so that >>the peculiarities would show up. If the only entries for "woman" >>are wife, mother and gold digger, then the thesaurus is deficient, >>even if the only entries for "man" are huband, father and fortune >>hunter. But I wouldn't consider the deficiency to come from gender >>bias. Note that this was after I offered complete lists of the entries under "good person" in my thesaurus. Quoting only this paragraph, in article <3084@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU (Eric Pepke) writes: >No. > >My thesaurus (Webster's collegiate) doesn't have "gold digger" under >"women," but it lists under the "man" definition, "cuss," "galoot," >and "buck." These are claimed as synonyms, or at least that's what I >assume the abbreviation "syn." means. > >I doubt that anybody would assert that this is an example of gender >bias. > >Once again, that good old selective perception leaps in to save the >day. What on earth is he talking about? It is rather difficult to make comparative studies across the differences in our respective reference books. I maintain, however, that to determine whether a list of words under "man" in a thesaurus is, in fact, gender biased, I must also see the list of words under "woman." Are the lists balanced? Does one list contain many more negatively connoted words than the other? If either list contains "inclusive" or "gender neutral" terms, does the other list also include them? For the record, "galoot" doesn't show in the index of my thesaurus. Of the examples Eric offers, "cuss" shows up as noun and as verb, but in the section on blasphemy, not as a synonym for "man." The entries under "buck" are more interesting: buck n. trestle caper male animal Negro Indian cleanser money fop I looked at the sections. "Negro" is under "black" and "Indian" under "red." Most of the "synonyms" in the section including "Negro" are derogatory, and so marked. Those in the category that includes "Indian" (and that also includes red stones, flora and fauna (!)) are not so marked. My point to Eric is exactly the same as my point to the original poster, who complained about finding "gold digger" in her thesaurus under "woman." I can't make a comparison when I'm given only half (less than half) the data. I don't understand Eric's complaint. -- cmcl2!panix!mara Mara Chibnik mara@dorsai.com Life is too important to be taken seriously.
mjm@ahimsa.intel.COM (Marjorie Panditji) (06/01/91)
One final article on thesauruses and gender bias, and then I'll stop.
(Honest!) :-)
mara> Well, my opinion is that "gold digger" is *not* a "synonym" for
mara> "woman," but also that what a thesaurus lists is not exactly
mara> "synonyms" anyhow.
I agree with this statement. Here is what I said in my previous article
(perhaps it was overlooked):
me> I realize that a thesaurus is for finding words and that words do not
me> have to be interchangeable in order to be listed as synonyms. I did not
me> intend to convey that message.
mara> As to "vegetarian," even though more women than men may be
mara> vegetarians, I don't believe that most people use the word with any
mara> idea of connoting the sex of the person in question; it's the
mara> dietary choice that is significant.
I completely agree, and that is precisely why I used vegetarian as an
example of a word which should *not* be listed under the category
woman. I also used rapist as a word that should *not* be listed under
the category of man.
mara> Whereas with "gold digger,"
mara> although the behavior exists in men as well as in women, the term
mara> applies to women exclusively; men are variously "fortune hunters" or
mara> "gigolos" if they behave in that way.
I believe that this is where we start to disagree.
I agree with your statement that gold digger is a term used for women,
and that different terms are used for men. Similarly, rapist is
almost exclusively used for men, even though women can exhibit similar
behavior.
However, just because a term applys mostly or solely to women, it
still doesn't make sense, in my opinion, to list it under the generic
category of woman. As I said before, I might expect to find gold
digger under girlfriend or lover (and similarly with gigolo and
fortune hunter, under boyfriend or lover). I wouldn't expect any of
these terms to be found under man or woman. They just are not broad
enough, in my opinion, to be under such broad categories. They should
be listed under categories that have more to do with the behavior.
I guess there are two issues for me. One is gender bias (why did the
person writing the thesaurus think of gold digger for woman and not
gigolo for man?), and the other is what the categories of man and
woman mean (why would anyone think of gold digger or gigolo when
listing entries for woman and man? Why wouldn't those be listed under
lover or something like that?).
mara> PS-- I thought it was pretty obvious from the thesaurus that I was
mara> quoting that there *is* gender bias operating. Even though that's an
mara> old book I doubt things have changed a whole lot since, but I guess
mara> I should at least thumb through a more recent edition to see for myself.
Yes, that part of your article was obvious, and I completely agree.
But I guess we have differences in what categories mean, and how
strong the connection of a word should be before it is listed under a
broad category such as man or woman.
Just as another example, here are the entries listed for man and woman
in the WordPerfect 5.1 thesaurus. Note that it doesn't list nearly as
many entries as most thesauruses, but there does not seem to be any
obvious gender bias, which is nice! (If there is one, I missed it.)
Man: male, gentleman, chap, fellow, guy, consort, husband, mate, spouse,
employee, worker, attendant, human being, humanity, person, individual,
mankind, people
Woman: female, lady, matron, dame, consort, spouse, wife, employee, worker,
attendant, human being, person, individual, people, womankind
Perhaps you would find this thesaurus deficient because it does not
list "gold digger" for woman or "gigolo" for man. I do not. I expect
to find both those words in different categories. And I especially do
not expect to find only one listed and not the other, whether the one
listed is gold digger or gigolo (this is to respond to Eric's comment
that gender bias is only noticed or disapproved of when it applies to
women).
--
Marjorie Panditji
mjm@ahimsa.intel.com -or- uunet!intelhf!ahimsa!mjmpepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU (Eric Pepke) (06/04/91)
In article <1991May30.205755.6765@panix.uucp> panix!mara@cmcl2.nyu.EDU (Mara Chibnik) writes: >I don't understand Eric's complaint. My apologies for being unclear. It is fairly common in English to indicate agreement with a negative statement with a negative response. This is not true in some other languages. So, when you said > But I wouldn't consider the deficiency to come from gender > >>bias. I agreed, and said, "No," as in "No, I wouldn't either," or "No, it doesn't." This is as opposed to "Yes, it does." I admit this was a bit on the laconic side; however, I thought that what I said afterward made it clear. (Obviously I was wrong; it seems that you decided upon one interpretation of the response "no" and proceeded to be confused by the explanation rather than using the explanation to clarify the response. I obviously failed miserably in getting my point across.) I then proceeded to extract a piece of information from my thesaurus, in the style of the original poster, and show how that, using the same process of taking the information out of context and concentrating on it alone, one could come to the conclusion that a thesaurus was biased against men. This technique is related to the logical argument "reductio ad absurdum," where the logic of an argument is applied in a different way to result in an unacceptable conclusion. The unacceptability of the conclusion is used as evidence that there is something wrong in the logic that underlies it. The informal form of this technique is known by many names, but I kind of like "consciousness balancing." The role reversal experiments that used to be popular are good examples of this, as is the popular wisdom expressed in, "before passing judgment, walk a mile in another's shoes." The process which, I think, results in people's making such conclusions involves something which I call "selective perception." One starts with an a priori assumption. One sees or experiences or reads something, armed with this assumption. The assumption selects what one percieves, hence the name. One derives conclusions based on these perceptions, and, not surprisingly, they agree quite nicely with the assumptions. Whereas, in fact, the conclusions need not have anything at all to do with reality-- they are, at least in part, a product of selecting the perceptions. Frequently, when one steps back and examines the problem in a more complete and objective manner, one finds that the original conclusions were illusory. (This is one reason why scientific methods are so important, but that's another newsgroup.) In this case, I think, the selective perception involved choosing the parts of the thesaurus to look at and choosing the standards by which the entries would be judged. I think that the conclusion that thesaurases are gender biased against women is unsupported by an objective examination of the evidence. I further assert that the original conclusion was probably based on selective perception, and I give a consciousness-balancing exercise to show the process by which this works. Again, I apologize for having been terse. I am aware of a tendency in myself toward logorrhea for which I frequently overcompensate. I can expand at greater length and in greater detail should it be neccesary. -EMP
mara@cmcl2.nyu.EDU (Mara Chibnik) (06/05/91)
I'll skip over all the detail stuff to get to the nitty gritty. In article <m0jjECF-0000OLC@intelhf.hf.intel.com> mjm@ahimsa.intel.COM (Marjorie Panditji) writes: >Just as another example, here are the entries listed for man and woman >in the WordPerfect 5.1 thesaurus. Note that it doesn't list nearly as >many entries as most thesauruses, but there does not seem to be any >obvious gender bias, which is nice! (If there is one, I missed it.) >Man: male, gentleman, chap, fellow, guy, consort, husband, mate, spouse, > employee, worker, attendant, human being, humanity, person, individual, > mankind, people > >Woman: female, lady, matron, dame, consort, spouse, wife, employee, worker, > attendant, human being, person, individual, people, womankind Well, let's look at the differences: Man: chap, fellow, guy, mate, humanity, mankind, Woman: matron, dame, womankind It's not the number of words (although I daresay I could come up with enough possibilities to balance things out, but the fact that the word is included under "man." In a list that is otherwise so balanced, I would expect to find a separate listing for those terms that apply to humans as a species. I'm also surprised that "mate" occurs only under "man," and I don't see any male analog to "dame," in either of the ways that word is commonly used. -- cmcl2!panix!mara Mara Chibnik mara@dorsai.com Life is too important to be taken seriously.