Words matter. The words we use reflect and reinforce the kind of culture we live in. I, for one, would like to live in a culture in which men, women, and non-binary people are all seen as equals in terms of agency, and i think the “ess” words and “trix” words were our culture’s way of saying women were not equal to men in terms of agency. And, while there may be “more pressing issues” as you say, we can deal with more than one issue at a time. :-)
In defense of ‘Actress’, sometimes a movie may have more substantial roles for men in which case it could be an apples to oranges comparison with men’s roles. That should not be the case with writing and directing which in theory all are working toward the same standard.
nope-never voted for a republican in my life-no surprise the Trib didn't endorse Bailey-way out there-I forgot about the gov. race-I always found the Trib too conservative. But theist few years the repubs have gone was far right
What do you say when you want to get a server's attention at a noisy restaurant and you have not remembered their name (even though it had been eagerly disclosed at the outset of the relationship)? I find myself resorting to "Excuse me, Miss?" or "Excuse me, Sir?" though it feels weird. Or I just suffer without my refill of Diet Coke or whatever. If we are to continue down this genderless title path, I think we need a a gender-neutral, anonymous form of address other than, "Hey .... you."
Yes, okay, but just an "excuse me" or "excuse me please" often doesn't work because the person doesn't realize they're being addressed specifically. At least, that's my experience, which is why people trying to get a stranger's attention routinely say things like "Excuse me, sir, sir, SIR! You dropped your wallet" or some such.
To me, the "miss/ma'am" is what's awkward and antiquated. I find that modern people resort to a power dynamic. So, people in a serving capacity are "miss," while customers are "ma'am." Maybe a button with a light, like on a plane? Anyway, Pulp Fiction taught me that this isn't right:
Just like we stopped using the term stewardess 50 years ago, it's time to catch up and call servers servers. LIke they're called in the restaurant industry. When was the last time you called someone a barmaid?
Don't call me ma'am. I don't care what you think, it makes me feel old, and has since the first time someone called me ma'am when I was 19 years old. I remember it vividly. It felt like a punch in the gut.
I have long had similar feelings about being called “sir”, but always remained conscious that it was proper and polite, and was infinitely preferable to alternatives like “hey”, “uh”, “um”, and “you”. Plus at 52, I can’t say that I’m young, nor do I find anything stigmatic about getting old.
“Comedian” and “comedienne” sound so similar that it’s kind of moot, but since you ask, comedienne does sound better; that little flourish in the last syllable gives it a more soothing resonance. Authoress would be an improvement, too.
The logic behind the desire to rub out gender specific nouns, as I understand it, is that they are objectionable because they are segregationistic or something, but I’d bet that there is even less support for this idea among the general public than there is among Hispanics for transitioning to “Latinx” (and I’ve noticed that the press are gradually pulling back from their attempts to cram that insipid term down our throats, no doubt because they noticed how much it was despised by Latinos and Latinas). But even more than the lack of any real clamoring for any of these changes, I would argue that most feminine specific nouns, whether written in print, or enunciated in speech, have an aesthetic quality and poetic grace that gives them value and makes them worth preserving (and using). “Actress” is more elegant than “actor”; “directress” is more elegant than “director”; “benefactress” is way more elegant than “benefactor”; even “murderess” sounds better than “murderer”. At least, that’s my take. To paraphrase Louis Armstrong when trying to explain jazz to someone who wasn’t a fan: some folks, if they don’t get it, you just can’t tell ‘em.
I’m sure I’m not persuading anyone that is dead set against word preservation, but just so I’m clear, which of the following should also be rubbed out: duchess, heiress, hostess, seamstress, temptress, dominatrix, countess, songstress, mistress, and princess. All of them? Some of them? If not, why not?
It’s not a matter of “rubbing out” words. It’s a matter of using more inclusive language that recognizes that women have agency equal to that of men. Who sounds more competent and important, a “tailor” or a “seamstress”? The “ess” and “trix” words reflect the rampant sexism and misogyny that has been part of the culture of English speaking peoples going back to the days when women were property of men. We don’t have royalty on this side of the Atlantic, so I don’t have much occasion to use “duke” or “duchess,” “count” or “countess,” or “prince” or “princess.” “Heir” is currently used for both males and females; I don’t know any lawyers who use the archaic term “heiress.” “Tailor” works as well as “seamstress” for women tailors, and I’ve never heard women “singers” referred to as “songstresses,” and I sing in two different choruses. Host works as well for women sponsoring a get together at their house as men. As to “mistress,” “dominatrix,” and “temptress,” all those words all have sexual connotations, and I suppose our homophobic society may not be ready to drop them yet. Would you feel as comfortable saying, “My dominator was spanking me” as “my dominatrix was spanking me”? Words are important you see, because they do make a difference in how we feel and how we see things.
I'm still laughing about the favor Steven bestows on "murderess."
"Mistress," meanwhile, is more like "girlfriend" or "wife"-- gendered terms that seem unlikely to give way to the neutral "partner" "lover" or "spouse" any time soon in part because the gender IS critical to the relationship/identity.
Actually, it is all about “rubbing out the word”(debts to William S. Burroughs for that expression). Demanding that one should refrain from speaking or writing any word, for whatever reason, is a call for it’s erasure. Isn’t that your goal? Your insistence that “ess” and “trix” words are rife with rampant sexism and misogyny carries more than a slight whiff of paranoia, as does your assertion that we live in a “homophobic society “. Just because you can find a few relics of hardcore bigotry if you look hard enough does not mean that it amounts to the cultural norm, any more than you could say that we live in a “communist society” just because there are still a few card carrying members here and there. You seem to have the (very common) misunderstanding that words are inherently good or evil, and that context means nothing. Even if the “ess” and “trixes” had abominable origins, they’re certainly not being deployed with the goal of subjugation of women when used today. Check out George Carlin’s “They’re only words” riff on YouTube for a fuller understanding.
I know this point isn’t getting across, but I’ll say it again: most of the feminine tensed words are more poetic and sublime. Your claim that they deny women “agency”, and assign superior status to men is, I think, pure rubbish. If anything, they grant superior status to women vis a vis their patina of elegance, whilst relegating men to the ranks of the boringly banal. Or rather, they would do that if that were the purpose to which they were being used, which of course, they never are. Again, context is everything.
All of this is important to me because, unlike most people, I actually value the English language’s rich panoply of eloquent words, and cherish the ability to sample and use them. The constant dumbing down of our culture, it’s language and dialects is something that I detest, and will forever resist. Culling the English language’s rich vocabulary in the name of providing balm for the persecution complices of a microscopically small but very loud group of people is a form of cultural devolution that we should all resist.
You write that, even if if the ‘ess’ and ‘trix’ words had sexist origins, they’re “certainly not being employed” in a sexist way today. Why do you use them then? Why would you insist on calling a woman tailor a “seamstress.” The connotation is that she is the pretty little woman who sews seams. Use of the “ess” and “trix” words are belittling, sexist micro-aggressions. You would say, “She is not a ‘singer’; she’s a special category of singer with a ‘patina of elegance’ that must be called a ‘songstress.’ She can’t mix it up with the rough and rowdy and ‘boringly banal’ men singers.” Your entire comment fairly reeks of “benevolent sexism.”
“Benevolently sexist attitudes suggest that women are purer and nicer than men [your words were “patina of elegance” or “poetic and sublime”] but also mentally weaker and less capable [for example, in the “boringly banal” world of commerce where non-poetic decisions are made]. Behaviors that illustrate benevolent sexism include overhelping women (implying they cannot do something themselves), using diminutive names (e.g., “sweetie”) toward female strangers, or “talking down” to women (e.g., implying they cannot understand something technical).”
And, again, Steven K., I’m not trying to stop you from using any word. I am suggesting that, if you want to be respectful toward women, you might want to make a personal decision to drop those words. But hey, if you want to keep using diminutives and esses and trixes when referring to women, then that’s what you are going to do. But don’t suggest to me that I have a persecution complex. As an out transgender woman lawyer, I have to put up with micro-aggressions daily. I shrug them off, figuring the person who used micro-aggressions is just a jerk.
You claim to not have a persecution complex, but then you repeatedly trot out the ridiculous notion that any use of any feminine tensed noun is a “micro-aggressive” act intended to diminish and belittle women, when they are obviously not. Then when it is pointed out that many of these words, by way of their aesethic superiority might actually elevate women, you dismiss that notion as “benevolent sexism “, another “micro-aggression”. This is the language of the pathologically hypersensitive, very common among today’s young, particularly college students. These people have been taught to believe that they have an ironclad entitlement of special protection against ever having to hear a word or an idea that upsets or challenges them in ANY way, and they think that it grants them license to engage in mob behavior, including kidnapping and physical violence in order to ensure their sense of “safety”, and cultural purity. It also, as Bill Maher pointed out on his show the other night, paves the road to Maoist fanaticism. Do you consider that to be a good thing?
I don’t want to make this personal Joanie, but if your ideas here are so profound and righteous, then why is it so hard to find any women (or men) that find these ideas and demands to be anything but utterly inane? Perhaps you exist in a kind of bubble that is populated mostly with your standard issue, ivory tower ensconced, latte sipping, NPR wallowing, New Yorker perusing, chardonannay swilling, New York Times devouring rogue’s gallery of faux sophisticates, and they might be on board with this tripe, but trust me, no one else is.
Recall the profundity of George Carlin’s wisdom: They’re just words; there are no good words, and no bad words. In the end, words are all we’ve got. We have thoughts and ideas, but those are fluid; they come and go. Our words remain. Let’s keep them, nurture them and treasure them. They are all we have.
I'm a comedian. At a recent meeting of women in comedy in the U.S., we voted on the issue and I'm authorized to announce that we don't want to be called comediennes. Also, the next man who introduces any of us a Vagina American (which happens!) is going to be hoisted on his own petard.
I’ve never heard “Vagina American” and don’t get it. Is there a male corollary like “Penis American” that I also have never encountered? It sounds like just a brazen stab at being as rude and crude as possible.
Okay, I guess I'll defend best actor/actress. A standard movie has one director, one costume designer, one cinematographer, one writer or group of writers (who all share the award if they win), one producer or group of producers (ditto), etc. But a standard movie (or play, or musical, or book, or opera, or ballet, or story of any sort for that matter) tends to have both a male lead role and a female lead role. Not always, of course, but still quite often. (Think of your favorite movie, whatever it is, right now. Chances are there was a lead actor and a lead actress.) The same cannot be said for the other distinctions raised, like age, race, or ethnicity. For that reason, "best actress" doesn't suggest to me something bizarre like "best Asian actress," but the natural result of listing all the important jobs in a typical film and making each of them eligible for special recognition.
And I don't exactly recoil at the gender parity inherent in the set-up. Enforcing gender parity in various realms can, in the language of the kids, powerfully disrupt patriarchy. This idea is expressed in multiple venues today, especially in Europe. German political parties are often co-led by a man and a woman. Gender quotas are increasingly common in Europe for boards of directors.
But, you may say, what about our non-binary friends? Well, I have very mixed feelings about that category. I fear that it's an outgrowth of a backward conflation of sex and stereotypical gender characteristics, such that "woman" in the minds of the kids now necessarily means or connotes "feminine." But why isn't that itself an ugly, misogynistic attitude? It certainly strikes me that way.
Now did I vote for the monkey tweet because it was funny, or because you spelled it "musuem"?
I can't fix typos in polls without resetting them, so that has to stand! I will simply claim it is the Teutonic spelling of the word.
4 of the 5 visual Tweets this week were great. Kudos!
Regarding gender neutral titles..."waiter" "actor"....much ado about nothing. C'mon people, aren't there slightly more pressing issues to worry about?
One would think.
Words matter. The words we use reflect and reinforce the kind of culture we live in. I, for one, would like to live in a culture in which men, women, and non-binary people are all seen as equals in terms of agency, and i think the “ess” words and “trix” words were our culture’s way of saying women were not equal to men in terms of agency. And, while there may be “more pressing issues” as you say, we can deal with more than one issue at a time. :-)
These snowplow names are fabulous!
In defense of ‘Actress’, sometimes a movie may have more substantial roles for men in which case it could be an apples to oranges comparison with men’s roles. That should not be the case with writing and directing which in theory all are working toward the same standard.
Well, and sometimes vice versa. Why not separate the awards by age? Or ethnicity? Because that would make no sense, right? So there you are.
Didn’t they have age for children? Did Shirley Temple win one?
I think they also have, or had categories for foreign language, animated feature and documentary. Don’t know if they still do.
‘Parade reported Friday’? That’s the first I’ve heard of Parsde since they stopped printing.
If only there were but a single "opposite"--and the Trib's hoped-for runoff between Vallas and Lightfoot would be Rock vs. Hard Place.
We like newspaper editorials supporting one candidate over others. Then we know to vote the opposite-esp. with the Trib. They rarely disappoint.
Voted for Darren Bailey, didja?
nope-never voted for a republican in my life-no surprise the Trib didn't endorse Bailey-way out there-I forgot about the gov. race-I always found the Trib too conservative. But theist few years the repubs have gone was far right
Just for the record, the Trib endorsed all Democrats for statewide office in the November election.
What do you say when you want to get a server's attention at a noisy restaurant and you have not remembered their name (even though it had been eagerly disclosed at the outset of the relationship)? I find myself resorting to "Excuse me, Miss?" or "Excuse me, Sir?" though it feels weird. Or I just suffer without my refill of Diet Coke or whatever. If we are to continue down this genderless title path, I think we need a a gender-neutral, anonymous form of address other than, "Hey .... you."
How about, “Excuse me please”?
Yes, okay, but just an "excuse me" or "excuse me please" often doesn't work because the person doesn't realize they're being addressed specifically. At least, that's my experience, which is why people trying to get a stranger's attention routinely say things like "Excuse me, sir, sir, SIR! You dropped your wallet" or some such.
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/bf79508d-d25b-41aa-9582-2b7ab1fa326f
To me, the "miss/ma'am" is what's awkward and antiquated. I find that modern people resort to a power dynamic. So, people in a serving capacity are "miss," while customers are "ma'am." Maybe a button with a light, like on a plane? Anyway, Pulp Fiction taught me that this isn't right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbWux4Rk-aI
“Excuse me, please” also sounds kind of pushy and less polite. So much for the supposedly humanistic goals of the Great Word Erasure.
I guess the waitress er, I mean server in Pulp Fiction must have had a self-loathing complex.
Just like we stopped using the term stewardess 50 years ago, it's time to catch up and call servers servers. LIke they're called in the restaurant industry. When was the last time you called someone a barmaid?
Don't call me ma'am. I don't care what you think, it makes me feel old, and has since the first time someone called me ma'am when I was 19 years old. I remember it vividly. It felt like a punch in the gut.
I have long had similar feelings about being called “sir”, but always remained conscious that it was proper and polite, and was infinitely preferable to alternatives like “hey”, “uh”, “um”, and “you”. Plus at 52, I can’t say that I’m young, nor do I find anything stigmatic about getting old.
The Shartlesville image is a mystery to me. How does it relate to Taco Bell? It is either a wild stretch or too subtle for me.
Google “shartle slang” and “shart slang.”
Thank you Ms. Winner, although I am not sure I feel that adding that word to my vocabulary elevates my learning.
Language evolves. More knowledge is never a bad thing!
Eric -- you're OK with Brandon Johnson being owned by the CTU? How do you think it'll work out with them running the city?
What that I wrote are you referring to?
Sorry -- in the Zmail section, your response/comments related to Paul Vallas.
I didn't write a word about Brandon Johnson.
Gillian - l
LOL
“Comedian” and “comedienne” sound so similar that it’s kind of moot, but since you ask, comedienne does sound better; that little flourish in the last syllable gives it a more soothing resonance. Authoress would be an improvement, too.
The logic behind the desire to rub out gender specific nouns, as I understand it, is that they are objectionable because they are segregationistic or something, but I’d bet that there is even less support for this idea among the general public than there is among Hispanics for transitioning to “Latinx” (and I’ve noticed that the press are gradually pulling back from their attempts to cram that insipid term down our throats, no doubt because they noticed how much it was despised by Latinos and Latinas). But even more than the lack of any real clamoring for any of these changes, I would argue that most feminine specific nouns, whether written in print, or enunciated in speech, have an aesthetic quality and poetic grace that gives them value and makes them worth preserving (and using). “Actress” is more elegant than “actor”; “directress” is more elegant than “director”; “benefactress” is way more elegant than “benefactor”; even “murderess” sounds better than “murderer”. At least, that’s my take. To paraphrase Louis Armstrong when trying to explain jazz to someone who wasn’t a fan: some folks, if they don’t get it, you just can’t tell ‘em.
I’m sure I’m not persuading anyone that is dead set against word preservation, but just so I’m clear, which of the following should also be rubbed out: duchess, heiress, hostess, seamstress, temptress, dominatrix, countess, songstress, mistress, and princess. All of them? Some of them? If not, why not?
It’s not a matter of “rubbing out” words. It’s a matter of using more inclusive language that recognizes that women have agency equal to that of men. Who sounds more competent and important, a “tailor” or a “seamstress”? The “ess” and “trix” words reflect the rampant sexism and misogyny that has been part of the culture of English speaking peoples going back to the days when women were property of men. We don’t have royalty on this side of the Atlantic, so I don’t have much occasion to use “duke” or “duchess,” “count” or “countess,” or “prince” or “princess.” “Heir” is currently used for both males and females; I don’t know any lawyers who use the archaic term “heiress.” “Tailor” works as well as “seamstress” for women tailors, and I’ve never heard women “singers” referred to as “songstresses,” and I sing in two different choruses. Host works as well for women sponsoring a get together at their house as men. As to “mistress,” “dominatrix,” and “temptress,” all those words all have sexual connotations, and I suppose our homophobic society may not be ready to drop them yet. Would you feel as comfortable saying, “My dominator was spanking me” as “my dominatrix was spanking me”? Words are important you see, because they do make a difference in how we feel and how we see things.
I'm still laughing about the favor Steven bestows on "murderess."
"Mistress," meanwhile, is more like "girlfriend" or "wife"-- gendered terms that seem unlikely to give way to the neutral "partner" "lover" or "spouse" any time soon in part because the gender IS critical to the relationship/identity.
Actually, it is all about “rubbing out the word”(debts to William S. Burroughs for that expression). Demanding that one should refrain from speaking or writing any word, for whatever reason, is a call for it’s erasure. Isn’t that your goal? Your insistence that “ess” and “trix” words are rife with rampant sexism and misogyny carries more than a slight whiff of paranoia, as does your assertion that we live in a “homophobic society “. Just because you can find a few relics of hardcore bigotry if you look hard enough does not mean that it amounts to the cultural norm, any more than you could say that we live in a “communist society” just because there are still a few card carrying members here and there. You seem to have the (very common) misunderstanding that words are inherently good or evil, and that context means nothing. Even if the “ess” and “trixes” had abominable origins, they’re certainly not being deployed with the goal of subjugation of women when used today. Check out George Carlin’s “They’re only words” riff on YouTube for a fuller understanding.
I know this point isn’t getting across, but I’ll say it again: most of the feminine tensed words are more poetic and sublime. Your claim that they deny women “agency”, and assign superior status to men is, I think, pure rubbish. If anything, they grant superior status to women vis a vis their patina of elegance, whilst relegating men to the ranks of the boringly banal. Or rather, they would do that if that were the purpose to which they were being used, which of course, they never are. Again, context is everything.
All of this is important to me because, unlike most people, I actually value the English language’s rich panoply of eloquent words, and cherish the ability to sample and use them. The constant dumbing down of our culture, it’s language and dialects is something that I detest, and will forever resist. Culling the English language’s rich vocabulary in the name of providing balm for the persecution complices of a microscopically small but very loud group of people is a form of cultural devolution that we should all resist.
You write that, even if if the ‘ess’ and ‘trix’ words had sexist origins, they’re “certainly not being employed” in a sexist way today. Why do you use them then? Why would you insist on calling a woman tailor a “seamstress.” The connotation is that she is the pretty little woman who sews seams. Use of the “ess” and “trix” words are belittling, sexist micro-aggressions. You would say, “She is not a ‘singer’; she’s a special category of singer with a ‘patina of elegance’ that must be called a ‘songstress.’ She can’t mix it up with the rough and rowdy and ‘boringly banal’ men singers.” Your entire comment fairly reeks of “benevolent sexism.”
“Benevolently sexist attitudes suggest that women are purer and nicer than men [your words were “patina of elegance” or “poetic and sublime”] but also mentally weaker and less capable [for example, in the “boringly banal” world of commerce where non-poetic decisions are made]. Behaviors that illustrate benevolent sexism include overhelping women (implying they cannot do something themselves), using diminutive names (e.g., “sweetie”) toward female strangers, or “talking down” to women (e.g., implying they cannot understand something technical).”
https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/prejudice/benevolent-sexism/
And, again, Steven K., I’m not trying to stop you from using any word. I am suggesting that, if you want to be respectful toward women, you might want to make a personal decision to drop those words. But hey, if you want to keep using diminutives and esses and trixes when referring to women, then that’s what you are going to do. But don’t suggest to me that I have a persecution complex. As an out transgender woman lawyer, I have to put up with micro-aggressions daily. I shrug them off, figuring the person who used micro-aggressions is just a jerk.
You claim to not have a persecution complex, but then you repeatedly trot out the ridiculous notion that any use of any feminine tensed noun is a “micro-aggressive” act intended to diminish and belittle women, when they are obviously not. Then when it is pointed out that many of these words, by way of their aesethic superiority might actually elevate women, you dismiss that notion as “benevolent sexism “, another “micro-aggression”. This is the language of the pathologically hypersensitive, very common among today’s young, particularly college students. These people have been taught to believe that they have an ironclad entitlement of special protection against ever having to hear a word or an idea that upsets or challenges them in ANY way, and they think that it grants them license to engage in mob behavior, including kidnapping and physical violence in order to ensure their sense of “safety”, and cultural purity. It also, as Bill Maher pointed out on his show the other night, paves the road to Maoist fanaticism. Do you consider that to be a good thing?
I don’t want to make this personal Joanie, but if your ideas here are so profound and righteous, then why is it so hard to find any women (or men) that find these ideas and demands to be anything but utterly inane? Perhaps you exist in a kind of bubble that is populated mostly with your standard issue, ivory tower ensconced, latte sipping, NPR wallowing, New Yorker perusing, chardonannay swilling, New York Times devouring rogue’s gallery of faux sophisticates, and they might be on board with this tripe, but trust me, no one else is.
Recall the profundity of George Carlin’s wisdom: They’re just words; there are no good words, and no bad words. In the end, words are all we’ve got. We have thoughts and ideas, but those are fluid; they come and go. Our words remain. Let’s keep them, nurture them and treasure them. They are all we have.
You have some really weird viewpoints and ideas, Steven K. I’ll take a hard pass.
Thanks Joanie, I knew I’d get a compliment out of you sooner or later.
I'm a comedian. At a recent meeting of women in comedy in the U.S., we voted on the issue and I'm authorized to announce that we don't want to be called comediennes. Also, the next man who introduces any of us a Vagina American (which happens!) is going to be hoisted on his own petard.
I’ve never heard “Vagina American” and don’t get it. Is there a male corollary like “Penis American” that I also have never encountered? It sounds like just a brazen stab at being as rude and crude as possible.
Okay, I guess I'll defend best actor/actress. A standard movie has one director, one costume designer, one cinematographer, one writer or group of writers (who all share the award if they win), one producer or group of producers (ditto), etc. But a standard movie (or play, or musical, or book, or opera, or ballet, or story of any sort for that matter) tends to have both a male lead role and a female lead role. Not always, of course, but still quite often. (Think of your favorite movie, whatever it is, right now. Chances are there was a lead actor and a lead actress.) The same cannot be said for the other distinctions raised, like age, race, or ethnicity. For that reason, "best actress" doesn't suggest to me something bizarre like "best Asian actress," but the natural result of listing all the important jobs in a typical film and making each of them eligible for special recognition.
And I don't exactly recoil at the gender parity inherent in the set-up. Enforcing gender parity in various realms can, in the language of the kids, powerfully disrupt patriarchy. This idea is expressed in multiple venues today, especially in Europe. German political parties are often co-led by a man and a woman. Gender quotas are increasingly common in Europe for boards of directors.
https://www.politico.eu/article/leadership-duos-draft-power-sharing-gender-equality-european-parliament/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_on_corporate_boards_of_directors#:~:text=Public%20companies%20will%20require%2020,suspended%20remuneration%20of%20board%20members.
I found this experiment in radical feminism among Kurds in Syria, where it's required that women share leadership positions, downright inspiring:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/43dmgm/the-most-feminist-revolution-the-world-has-ever-witnessed
But, you may say, what about our non-binary friends? Well, I have very mixed feelings about that category. I fear that it's an outgrowth of a backward conflation of sex and stereotypical gender characteristics, such that "woman" in the minds of the kids now necessarily means or connotes "feminine." But why isn't that itself an ugly, misogynistic attitude? It certainly strikes me that way.