male chauvinist pig
howard richler
credited with coining it?
Martin Ambuhl
> Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether anyone is
> credited with coining it?
No one knows. As early as 1967 we had lively discussions about the
appropriateness of using "chauvinist" in phrases such as "male
chauvinist." I heard "male chauvinist bastard" much more than "male
chauvinist pig" before 1970 (when Playboy published "Up Against the
Wall, Male Chauvinist Bastard). The shorthand "MCB" was understood in
casual speech in Cambridge, MA, during the 60s.
Martin Ambuhl
> Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether anyone is
> credited with coining it?
No one knows. As early as 1967 we had lively discussions about the
appropriateness of using "chauvinist" in phrases such as "male
chauvinist." I heard "male chauvinist bastard" much more than "male
chauvinist pig" before 1970 (when Playboy published "Up Against the
Wall, Male Chauvinist Pig"). The shorthand "MCB" was understood in
Dena Jo
> The shorthand "MCB" was understood in
> casual speech in Cambridge, MA, during the 60s.
The AHD had MCP listed as an abbreviation for male chauvinist pig but,
alas, no information about the history of the phrase.
--
Dena Jo
(Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2)
Skitt
> Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether anyone is
> credited with coining it?
From http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~dabell/nora.html:
The truth about Chauvin's origin makes the term "male chauvinist pig" more
appropriate than Germaine Greer could have guessed when she coined it in
1970.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Skitt
> Martin Ambuhl posted thus:
>> The shorthand "MCB" was understood in
>> casual speech in Cambridge, MA, during the 60s.
>
> The AHD had MCP listed as an abbreviation for male chauvinist pig but,
> alas, no information about the history of the phrase.
Same with MWCD10.
Rtnda
>whether anyone is
>credited with coining it?
Don't you mean blamed for coining it?
GH
masakim
"howard richler" wrote:
>
> Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether
> anyone is credited with coining it?
>
Male chauvinist pig. A man who believes in and actively proclaims the
supposed superiority of men over women. The phrase, frequently abbreviated
to MCP, arose in the American women's liberation movement of 1970s.
'Pig' has been established as a derogatory term for a male member of some
unpopular group and the police were already known as 'pigs' in the early
19th century.
From _Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase & Fable_ (2000).
----------
White Chauvinism: the private Communist expression for racial prejudice
against the Negroes. The Communists have other uses, misuses, of the word
chauvinism; a man who tends to regulate women to a secondary role is a "male
chauvinist." (H.A. Philbrick, _I Led 3 Lives_, 1952)
European women have accepted their lot much more readily than their American
counterparts. Recently, however, growing numbers . have launched their
attack on male chauvinism. (_Time_, Aug 17, 1970)
Hello, you male-chauvinist racist pig. (_New Yorker_, Sept 5, 1970)
On rare the women replied in bitter kind: "Male Chauvinists Better Start
Shakin' - Today's Pig is Tomorrow's Bacon." (_Time_, Sept 7, 1970)
MCPs, you should know by now, are Male Chauvinist Pigs, an epithet that has
grown so common it is now abbreviated. (_Publishers' Weekly_, Nov 1, 1971)
I know, I know; me male chauvinist pig, you Jane. But the exercise has
finally woken me up to ask-why should there be separate magazines for men
and women at all? (_Punch_, March 1, 1972)
Regards,
masakim
masakim
"howard richler" wrote:
>
> Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether
> anyone is credited with coining it?
>
Male chauvinist pig. A man who believes in and actively proclaims the
Oliver Cromm
> Male chauvinist pig. A man who believes in and actively proclaims
> the supposed superiority of men over women. The phrase, frequently
> abbreviated to MCP, arose in the American women's liberation
> movement of 1970s.
>
> 'Pig' has been established as a derogatory term for a male member
> of some unpopular group and the police were already known as
> 'pigs' in the early 19th century.
As equal rights are advancing, do we already have female-chauvinist
pigs?
--
Oliver Cromm
Oliver in the sunny Okanagan Valley. Oliver is located 13 miles
north of the U.S. border in south central British Columbia
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "howard richler" wrote:
>
> >
> > Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether
> > anyone is credited with coining it?
> >
>
> Male chauvinist pig. A man who believes in and actively proclaims the
> supposed superiority of men over women. The phrase, frequently abbreviated
> to MCP, arose in the American women's liberation movement of 1970s.
> 'Pig' has been established as a derogatory term for a male member of some
> unpopular group and the police were already known as 'pigs' in the early
> 19th century.
> From _Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase & Fable_ (2000).
I like Poul Anderson's definition from "Withit's Collegiate
Dictionary", in _There Will be Time_ (1972):
_Chauvinism_: Belief of any Western _White_ man that there is
anything to be said for his country, civilization, race, sex, or
self. _Chauvinist_: Any such man; hence, by extension, a
_fascist_ of any nationality, race, or sex.
"Pig" doesn't get linked in, being defined as
_Pig_: getting (1) An animal known for its value, intelligence,
courage, self-reliance, kindly disposition, loyalty, and (if
allowed to follow its natural bent) cleanliness. (2) A
policeman. Cf. _activist_.
> White Chauvinism: the private Communist expression for racial
> prejudice against the Negroes. The Communists have other uses,
> misuses, of the word chauvinism; a man who tends to regulate women
> to a secondary role is a "male chauvinist." (H.A. Philbrick, _I Led
> 3 Lives_, 1952)
Interesting. That's a fair bit older than anybody else seems to have
pegged it.
> European women have accepted their lot much more readily than their American
> counterparts. Recently, however, growing numbers . have launched their
> attack on male chauvinism. (_Time_, Aug 17, 1970)
>
> Hello, you male-chauvinist racist pig. (_New Yorker_, Sept 5, 1970)
The OED's first citations of that sense of both "chauvinism" and
"chauvinist" are from 1968:
1968 _Voice of Women's Lib. Movement_ June 8 The chauvinism..they
met came from individuals and was not built into the
institution itself.
1968 _Ramparts May_ 12/3 Paternalism, male ego and all the rest of
the chauvinist bag are out of place today.
The earliest quotes they have that contain "male chauvinism" and "male
chauvinist" are the 1970 _Time_ and _New Yorker_ quotes given above.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Sometimes I think the surest sign
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that intelligent life exists
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |elsewhere in the universe is that
|none of it has tried to contact us.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(650)857-7572
Peter T. Daniels
>
> howard richler wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether anyone is
> > credited with coining it?
>
> From http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~dabell/nora.html:
>
> The truth about Chauvin's origin makes the term "male chauvinist pig" more
> appropriate than Germaine Greer could have guessed when she coined it in
> 1970.
Why wouldn't she have known about it when, if, she did?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Skitt
Huh?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Skitt wrote:
> >> howard richler wrote:
>
> >>> Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether anyone is
> >>> credited with coining it?
> >>
> >> From http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~dabell/nora.html:
> >>
> >> The truth about Chauvin's origin makes the term "male chauvinist
> >> pig" more appropriate than Germaine Greer could have guessed when
> >> she coined it in 1970.
> >
> > Why wouldn't she have known about it when, if, she did?
>
> Huh?
You imply that she did not know "the truth about Chauvin's origin."
Why wouldn't she have known about Chauvin's origin when she coined the
term -- if, indeed, she did coin the term (which the evidence provided
in this thread makes rather doubtful)?
Skitt
Ah, now that you have written something understandable, you have to
understand that Chauvin didn't coin the phrase "male chauvinist pig" -- you
know -- the phrase of the original question (it *is* in the subject and it
is repeated in the quote I provided).
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>>> howard richler wrote:
>>>>>> Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether anyone
>>>>>> is credited with coining it?
>>>>> From http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~dabell/nora.html:
>>>>> The truth about Chauvin's origin makes the term "male chauvinist
>>>>> pig" more appropriate than Germaine Greer could have guessed when
>>>>> she coined it in 1970.
>>>> Why wouldn't she have known about it when, if, she did?
>>> Huh?
>> You imply that she did not know "the truth about Chauvin's origin."
>> Why wouldn't she have known about Chauvin's origin when she coined the
>> term -- if, indeed, she did coin the term (which the evidence provided
>> in this thread makes rather doubtful)?
>Ah, now that you have written something understandable, you have to
>understand that Chauvin didn't coin the phrase "male chauvinist pig" -- you
>know -- the phrase of the original question (it *is* in the subject and it
>is repeated in the quote I provided).
You're not reading careful. Very likely we all know that Chauvin
didn't coin the phrase. Certainly Peter does: he says explicitly
that *she* coined the term -- i.e., the term 'male chauvinist
pig'. Your quotation implies that when she did so, she was
unaware of the truth about Chauvin's origin. Peter is asking why
the source of the quotation thinks that she was unaware of this?
I also find this puzzling. Has something significant about
Chauvin been discovered since 1970?
Brian
Mike Oliver
> You [Skitt]'re not reading careful. Very likely we all know that Chauvin
> didn't coin the phrase. Certainly Peter does: he says explicitly
> that *she* [Germaine Greer] coined the term -- i.e., the term 'male
> chauvinist pig'. Your quotation implies that when she did so, she was
> unaware of the truth about Chauvin's origin. Peter is asking why
> the source of the quotation thinks that she was unaware of this?
> I also find this puzzling. Has something significant about
> Chauvin been discovered since 1970?
Maybe the idea is that Greer wouldn't have been likely to know
any obscure historical facts about him. You know, being a
chick and all.
Martin Ambuhl
> howard richler wrote:
>
>
>>Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether anyone is
>>credited with coining it?
>
>
> From http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~dabell/nora.html:
>
> The truth about Chauvin's origin makes the term "male chauvinist pig" more
> appropriate than Germaine Greer could have guessed when she coined it in
> 1970.
She could not have coined it in 1970, since the term was in use before
that. I have plenty of references from New Left Notes before 1970.
Charles Riggs
history, by writing:
>
>"howard richler" wrote:
>
>>
>> Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether
>> anyone is credited with coining it?
>>
>
>Male chauvinist pig. A man who believes in and actively proclaims the
>supposed superiority of men over women.
Sound, but why the "pig" part? Sorry, Jacqui, Isabella, Sarah, and
Maria, and even Laura; I wasn't referring to you-all.
--
Charles Riggs
For email, take the air out of aircom and
replace it with eir
benlizross
Great. Send a selection of them to oe...@oup.co.uk. OED's citations begin
in 1970 -- from Time and New Yorker -- but if it was being used casually
by pubs like those it must have been already well known before then.
Ross Clark
Peter T. Daniels
No, I said explicitly that I doubt that she coined the term, but that
Skitt seemed to think that she did.
I'd have imagined that everyone knew that Chauvin didn't coin either the
phrase "male chauvinist pig" or the word "chauvinist," since it's a
rather derogatory term deriving from his name because of some behavior
of his.
Brian M. Scott
>Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> >>>>> From http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~dabell/nora.html:
>> >>> Huh?
>> You're not reading careful[ly]. Very likely we all know that Chauvin
>> didn't coin the phrase. Certainly Peter does: he says explicitly
>> that *she* coined the term -- i.e., the term 'male chauvinist
>> pig'. Your quotation implies that when she did so, she was
>> unaware of the truth about Chauvin's origin. Peter is asking why
>> the source of the quotation thinks that she was unaware of this?
>> I also find this puzzling. Has something significant about
>> Chauvin been discovered since 1970?
>No, I said explicitly that I doubt that she coined the term, but that
>Skitt seemed to think that she did.
The point is that you used the phrase 'when she coined the term',
not 'when he coined the term'. That was the part that Skitt had
obviously missed. I wasn't interested in the rest of it.
>I'd have imagined that everyone knew that Chauvin didn't coin either the
>phrase "male chauvinist pig" or the word "chauvinist," since it's a
>rather derogatory term deriving from his name because of some behavior
>of his.
So would I.
Brian
Skitt
See below.
> I'd have imagined that everyone knew that Chauvin didn't coin either
> the phrase "male chauvinist pig" or the word "chauvinist," since it's
> a rather derogatory term deriving from his name because of some behavior
> of his.
Did you fail to notice that I was merely presenting a quote without any
comment of my own? Argue with the source, not me. Before you do so, it
might help to read the words around the short sentence I quoted, as I
presented it only to show the "... Germaine Greer ... when she coined it in
1970" part. I implied nothing, but your response attributing the statement
to my thoughts caused all sorts of confusion. It was hard to figure out
what you meant. I do understand some of your confusion, as I did not
investigate what "the truth about Chauvin's origin" meant. I didn't care
about that, because it has no bearing on the subject at hand.
I'm sorry to have befuddled you.
Skitt
What he said!
Skitt
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
I didn't think anything of the sort. I merely presented a quote that
support the subject phrase's coining in 1970. I did so without comment.
Then the confusion started with PTD's post, as it often happens.
>> I'd have imagined that everyone knew that Chauvin didn't coin either
>> the phrase "male chauvinist pig" or the word "chauvinist," since
>> it's a rather derogatory term deriving from his name because of some
>> behavior of his.
>
> So would I.
That has nothing to do with the subject at hand, therefore I didn't comment
on it. We were trying to discuss the coining of "male chauvinist pig", not
Chauvin's origins -- a weird tangent.
benlizross
Um, yes, I was agreeing with him. I realize this is a rare
argumentational tactic on sci.lang, but it does happen. To be precise, I
was suggesting that the nature of the OED's earliest citations strongly
indicated that the term must have been around for some time before 1970,
a conclusion apparently confirmed by actual occurrence in New Left
Notes. I was quite sincere in suggesting that Martin send a quote or two
to OED.
Ross Clark
Tom Breton
> Quoth masakim:
>
> > Male chauvinist pig. A man who believes in and actively proclaims
> > the supposed superiority of men over women. The phrase, frequently
> > abbreviated to MCP, arose in the American women's liberation
> > movement of 1970s.
> >
> > 'Pig' has been established as a derogatory term for a male member
> > of some unpopular group and the police were already known as
> > 'pigs' in the early 19th century.
>
> As equal rights are advancing, do we already have female-chauvinist
> pigs?
Without a doubt. While the usual form is "male chauvinist" and one
hardly ever hears "female chauvinist", the real-world referent has the
reverse proportions. Women proclaiming their superiority can be found
by simply turning the TV on, say to Oprah. But as for male
chauvinism, it's rare to hear a man even defend men as a class, let
alone proclaim their superiority.
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> benlizross wrote:
>>> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>>> howard richler wrote:
>>>>>> Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether anyone
>>>>>> is credited with coining it?
>>>>>
>>>>> From http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~dabell/nora.html:
>>>>>
>>>>> The truth about Chauvin's origin makes the term "male chauvinist
>>>>> pig" more appropriate than Germaine Greer could have guessed when
>>>>> she coined it in 1970.
>>>>
>>>> She could not have coined it in 1970, since the term was in use
>>>> before that. I have plenty of references from New Left Notes
>>>> before 1970.
>>>
>>> Great. Send a selection of them to oe...@oup.co.uk. OED's citations
>>> begin in 1970 -- from Time and New Yorker -- but if it was being
>>> used casually by pubs like those it must have been already well
>>> known before then.
>>
>> What he said!
>
> Um, yes, I was agreeing with him. I realize this is a rare
> argumentational tactic on sci.lang, but it does happen. To be
> precise, I was suggesting that the nature of the OED's earliest
> citations strongly indicated that the term must have been around for
> some time before 1970, a conclusion apparently confirmed by actual
> occurrence in New Left Notes. I was quite sincere in suggesting that
> Martin send a quote or two to OED.
Oh, you people talk funny there in sci.lang. I took your post as
disagreement with Martin's thoughts. You see, there's no reason to think
that the term wasn't a current coining when the two publications printed it.
You clearly told Martin to forward his material to OED, as they must not be
aware of it (something not very likely).
In other words, I saw sarcasm (or is it irony?) where there was none. Those
British have messed up my mind.
benlizross
But there is. Or rather, there's no indication that it was brand new at
that point. No use of scare quotes, no paraphrase or parenthetical
definition, no comments that this is a novel expression, certainly no
reference to Germaine Greer. They write as if they expected their
readers to be familiar with the expression.
> You clearly told Martin to forward his material to OED, as they must not be
> aware of it (something not very likely).
You might be surprised. OED still gets quite a lot of information from
readers who send in citations, particularly from specialized literature
of various kinds. It's quite possible that nobody has been going through
New Left Notes and other such political publications looking for new
usages.
My own favourite example from my personal experience as a contributor is
"missionary position", for which their earliest published citation was
from 1969. I knew from personal recollection that it was older than
that, and was able to track it to its actual origins 20 years earlier.
> In other words, I saw sarcasm (or is it irony?) where there was none. Those
> British have messed up my mind.
Well, there is a lot of sarcasm around, too.
Ross Clark
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
You're still confused: this is not responsive to anything that I
said.
[...]
Skitt
What you are talking about is not the subject of this thread, and I have no
wish to discuss it.
Harvey V
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
-snip-
>>> I'd have imagined that everyone knew that Chauvin didn't coin
>>> either the phrase "male chauvinist pig" or the word
>>> "chauvinist," since it's a rather derogatory term deriving from
>>> his name because of some behavior of his.
>>
>> So would I.
>
> That has nothing to do with the subject at hand, therefore I
> didn't comment on it. We were trying to discuss the coining of
> "male chauvinist pig", not Chauvin's origins -- a weird tangent.
That may well be true, Skitt, but you unquestionably posted the
following statement:
The truth about Chauvin's origin makes the term "male
chauvinist pig" more appropriate than Germaine Greer could
have guessed when she coined it in 1970.
Simply turning the construction of that sentence around, I get:
Germaine Greer could not have guessed how appropriate the
term was, given the truth about Chauvin's origin.
It's a fair question to ask: why couldn't she have guessed that?
Indeed, wouldn't one expect that a well-read person in 1970 would most
certainly have know the truth about Chauvin's origin?
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
>>>> I'd have imagined that everyone knew that Chauvin didn't coin
>>>> either the phrase "male chauvinist pig" or the word
>>>> "chauvinist," since it's a rather derogatory term deriving from
>>>> his name because of some behavior of his.
>>>
>>> So would I.
>>
>> That has nothing to do with the subject at hand, therefore I
>> didn't comment on it. We were trying to discuss the coining of
>> "male chauvinist pig", not Chauvin's origins -- a weird tangent.
>
>
> That may well be true, Skitt, but you unquestionably posted the
> following statement:
>
> The truth about Chauvin's origin makes the term "male
> chauvinist pig" more appropriate than Germaine Greer could
> have guessed when she coined it in 1970.
Yes, but those words were not mine. That statement was a quote, as I
clearly indicated, and it was there to highlight the "she coined it in 1970"
part, that's all. I though that I was being clear enough for the average
reader, but I didn't consider the the sci.lang crowd. My fault.
What I posted was:
From http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~dabell/nora.html:
The truth about Chauvin's origin makes the term "male chauvinist
pig" more appropriate than Germaine Greer could have guessed when
she coined it in 1970.
No more, no less (well, there was my signature, of course). Check back
before you jump in and look a bit silly.
> Simply turning the construction of that sentence around, I get:
>
> Germaine Greer could not have guessed how appropriate the
> term was, given the truth about Chauvin's origin.
>
>
> It's a fair question to ask: why couldn't she have guessed that?
>
> Indeed, wouldn't one expect that a well-read person in 1970 would most
> certainly have know the truth about Chauvin's origin?
I have no idea what she could or could not have known, nor do I care. That
is not the subject of this thread. How many times must I repeat this before
*everybody* understands, or is that an impossible goal?
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Skitt wrote:
> > benlizross wrote:
> > > Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> > >> She could not have coined it in 1970, since the term was in use
> > >> before that. I have plenty of references from New Left Notes
> > >> before 1970.
> > >
> > > Great. Send a selection of them to oe...@oup.co.uk. OED's
> > > citations begin in 1970 -- from Time and New Yorker -- but if it
> > > was being used casually by pubs like those it must have been
> > > already well known before then.
>
> > What he said!
>
> Um, yes, I was agreeing with him. I realize this is a rare
> argumentational tactic on sci.lang, but it does happen. To be
> precise, I was suggesting that the nature of the OED's earliest
> citations strongly indicated that the term must have been around for
> some time before 1970, a conclusion apparently confirmed by actual
> occurrence in New Left Notes. I was quite sincere in suggesting that
> Martin send a quote or two to OED.
But you're supposed to do it by going through
http://www.oed.com/public/readers/submitform.dtl
I've done it a few times.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If we have to re-invent the wheel,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can we at least make it round this
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time?
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Dena Jo
> As equal rights are advancing, do we already have female-chauvinist
> pigs?
That would be a female chauvinist sow.
--
Dena Jo
Lifelong FCS
(Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2)
Maria Conlon
> masakim" made history, by writing:
>> "howard richler" wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether
>>> anyone is credited with coining it?
>>
>> Male chauvinist pig. A man who believes in and actively proclaims
>> the supposed superiority of men over women.
>
> Sound, but why the "pig" part? Sorry, Jacqui, Isabella, Sarah, and
> Maria, and even Laura; I wasn't referring to you-all.
There is absolutely no way I would ever think that the "pig" part
referred to a woman. It refers to the chauvinist himself, doesn't it?
Someone may have already said this, but the initialism "MCP" was the
phrase I heard most often once it was known what the letters stood for.
IIRC, MCP came not too long after "DOM" (Dirty Old Man) was popular.
You guys (here meaning men only) sure get your share of insults. We
women do, too, though. But I think men are more serious with their
insults than women are. Or maybe women are more sensitive to what is
said.
Maria Conlon
Peter T. Daniels
> My own favourite example from my personal experience as a contributor is
> "missionary position", for which their earliest published citation was
> from 1969. I knew from personal recollection that it was older than
> that, and was able to track it to its actual origins 20 years earlier.
Do tell! You could be the Allan Walker Read of your generation!
(Is *New Left Notes* from somewhere other than Britain? OED hasn't been
particularly interested in American cites, and it may neglect the
farther flung members of the Commonwealth as well.)
Peter T. Daniels
So the question now becomes either, Why did you knowingly post a quote
containing a falsehood (GG coined the phrase)? or, Why do you think GG
coined the phrase?
Skitt
Good grief! Can't you read? Or ...
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> Do tell! You could be the Allan Walker Read of your generation!
^
Allen.
R.I.P.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
M A L E D I C T A
P.O. Box 14123
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/graffiti.html <----------------
benlizross
>
> benlizross wrote:
>
> > My own favourite example from my personal experience as a contributor is
> > "missionary position", for which their earliest published citation was
> > from 1969. I knew from personal recollection that it was older than
> > that, and was able to track it to its actual origins 20 years earlier.
>
> Do tell! You could be the Allan Walker Read of your generation!
Would that be a good thing to be??
The thing that made "missionary position" deeply satisfying was that I'm
pretty sure I found the precise locus of its origin -- in Alfred
Kinsey's slightly inaccurate recounting of Bronislaw Malinowski's
description of the sexual life of the Trobriand Islanders.
Ross Clark
Martin Ambuhl
> (Is *New Left Notes* from somewhere other than Britain? OED hasn't been
> particularly interested in American cites, and it may neglect the
> farther flung members of the Commonwealth as well.)
New Left Notes was the publication of the US-based SDS. I doubt many
OED editors have spent much time checking it.
Charles Riggs
<mcon...@sprynet.com> made history, by writing:
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>> masakim" made history, by writing:
>>> "howard richler" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether
>>>> anyone is credited with coining it?
>>>
>>> Male chauvinist pig. A man who believes in and actively proclaims
>>> the supposed superiority of men over women.
>>
>> Sound, but why the "pig" part? Sorry, Jacqui, Isabella, Sarah, and
>> Maria, and even Laura; I wasn't referring to you-all.
>
>There is absolutely no way I would ever think that the "pig" part
>referred to a woman. It refers to the chauvinist himself, doesn't it?
Of course. My phrasing wasn't perfect, I admit.
>You guys (here meaning men only) sure get your share of insults. We
>women do, too, though. But I think men are more serious with their
>insults than women are.
Not at all. Most of us love women. Secondly, men being more sure of
themselves, in general, than women, we can lightheartedly make fun of
them, but not because we feel they are a threat to us. We seldom
really mean it when we insult them as a sub-species of Man, although
we may well mean it when we insult them as individuals, in the rare
cases when one of us must.
>Or maybe women are more sensitive to what is
>said.
Or maybe you are more hurt by what is said. Sensitivity in men and
women is another topic, the way I define sensitivity, an oft-missused
word.
Harvey V
Guilty as charged; the lack of any indent for the quoted part caught
me out.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > benlizross wrote:
> >
> > > My own favourite example from my personal experience as a contributor is
> > > "missionary position", for which their earliest published citation was
> > > from 1969. I knew from personal recollection that it was older than
> > > that, and was able to track it to its actual origins 20 years earlier.
> >
> > Do tell! You could be the Allan Walker Read of your generation!
>
> Would that be a good thing to be??
Yes.
> The thing that made "missionary position" deeply satisfying was that I'm
> pretty sure I found the precise locus of its origin -- in Alfred
> Kinsey's slightly inaccurate recounting of Bronislaw Malinowski's
> description of the sexual life of the Trobriand Islanders.
Oh. That's disappointing.
Rex F. May
wrote on 3/20/03 7:28 PM:
> On 19 Mar 2003, Oliver Cromm posted thus:
>
>> As equal rights are advancing, do we already have female-chauvinist
>> pigs?
>
> That would be a female chauvinist sow.
I've often wondered if the State chapers are called
"State Organization for Women"
Mike Cleven
> howard richler wrote:
>
>
>>Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether anyone is
>>credited with coining it?
>
>
>
> The truth about Chauvin's origin makes the term "male chauvinist pig" more
> appropriate than Germaine Greer could have guessed when she coined it in
> 1970.
I believe that while the combination was formalized by Greer the phrase
"men are pigs" (in reference to their sexual behaviour) was already
around; then it was compounded with the new ideological/intelligentsia
catch-phrase. Men using the term "pig" in a sexual context in those
times were referring to women who "would screw anything and didn't
care", i.e. an easy lay as well as experienced/eager. So in a way, the
MCP combination was a turning-of-the-tables of this noxious colloquial
usage.
--
Mike Cleven
http://www.cayoosh.net/music/
http://www.cayoosh.net (Bridge River Lillooet history)
http://www.cayoosh.net/hiyu/ (Chinook Jargon phrasebook/history)
http://www.cayoosh.net/poetry/
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>Skitt wrote:
>> howard richler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Does anyone know when this term was first used and whether anyone is
>>>credited with coining it?
>>
>>
>> From http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~dabell/nora.html:
>>
>> The truth about Chauvin's origin makes the term "male chauvinist pig" more
>> appropriate than Germaine Greer could have guessed when she coined it in
>> 1970.
>
>I believe that while the combination was formalized by Greer the phrase
>"men are pigs" (in reference to their sexual behaviour) was already
>around; then it was compounded with the new ideological/intelligentsia
>catch-phrase. Men using the term "pig" in a sexual context in those
>times were referring to women who "would screw anything and didn't
>care", i.e. an easy lay as well as experienced/eager. So in a way, the
>MCP combination was a turning-of-the-tables of this noxious colloquial
>usage.
I'd have to find my copy of "Generation of Vipers" by Phillip Wylie to
provide the exact quote, but he said something to the effect of: If
so many men screw, some women must.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots, Tittles, and Oy!s
Rex F. May
tony_co...@yahoo.com wrote on 3/21/03 7:34 PM:
Gad, hadn't thought of that book in years. Really influenced me as a kid.
rm
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon made history, by writing:
[...]
>> You guys (here meaning men only) sure get your share of insults. We
>> women do, too, though. But I think men are more serious with their
>> insults than women are.
>
> Not at all. Most of us love women. Secondly, men being more sure of
> themselves, in general, than women, we can lightheartedly make fun of
But some men *do* feel threatened.
>.......We seldom
> really mean it when we insult them as a sub-species of Man,
"Sub-species of Man." Interesting term. Says a lot.
>...although
> we may well mean it when we insult them as individuals, in the rare
> cases when one of us must.
Care to say when "one must"?
>
>> Or maybe women are more sensitive to what is
>> said.
>
> Or maybe you are more hurt by what is said. Sensitivity in men and
> women is another topic, the way I define sensitivity, an oft-missused
> word.
Well, you really ought to define it, then. <smirk>
FYI: "misused."
Maria Conlon
Charles Riggs
<mcon...@sprynet.com> made history, by writing:
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>> Maria Conlon made history, by writing:
>[...]
>>> You guys (here meaning men only) sure get your share of insults. We
>>> women do, too, though. But I think men are more serious with their
>>> insults than women are.
>>
>> Not at all. Most of us love women. Secondly, men being more sure of
>> themselves, in general, than women, we can lightheartedly make fun of
>> them, but not because we feel they are a threat to us. ...
>
>But some men *do* feel threatened.
>
>>.......We seldom
>> really mean it when we insult them as a sub-species of Man,
>
>"Sub-species of Man." Interesting term. Says a lot.
To a person with no sense of humour, it requires an explanation. I'm
sure that doesn't include you yourself.
>>...although
>> we may well mean it when we insult them as individuals, in the rare
>> cases when one of us must.
>
>Care to say when "one must"?
See my comment, above.
>>> Or maybe women are more sensitive to what is
>>> said.
>>
>> Or maybe you are more hurt by what is said. Sensitivity in men and
>> women is another topic, the way I define sensitivity, an oft-missused
>> word.
>
>Well, you really ought to define it, then. <smirk>
Sensitivity is having empathy for other people's feelings. Don't
worry; the word has my sister confused, as well. It may be a woman
thing.
>FYI: "misused."
Danku.
Maria Conlon
> To a person with no sense of humour, it requires an explanation. I'm
> sure that doesn't include you yourself.
It doesn't. But I really need to insert more smilies, I guess.
Maria Conlon
Evan Kirshenbaum
There's one quote from it in the OED, under "woman", specifically for
"women's liberation":
1967 _New Left Notes_ 10 July 4/1 The SDS National Convention
adopts the following statement and program as written by the
Women's Liberation Workshop.
It's not the first quote. _New Left Review_ beat it by some eight
months. _New Left Review_ has over a hundred quotes, but that does,
in fact, appear to be a British publication.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |All tax revenue is the result of
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |holding a gun to somebody's head.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Not paying taxes is against the law.
|If you don't pay your taxes, you'll
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |be fined. If you don't pay the fine,
(650)857-7572 |you'll be jailed. If you try to
|escape from jail, you'll be shot.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | P.J. O'Rourke
benlizross
Depends what you were expecting, I suppose.
Certainly the real origin is less fun than the tales which were
concocted to go with the popular etymology -- about "South Sea
islanders" being all polymorphous until the missionaries told them that
God only approved of one position.
Ross Clark
Martin Ambuhl
> _New Left Review_ has over a hundred quotes, but that does,
> in fact, appear to be a British publication.
It is.
Peter T. Daniels
> > I'd have to find my copy of "Generation of Vipers" by Phillip Wylie to
> > provide the exact quote, but he said something to the effect of: If
> > so many men screw, some women must.
>
> Gad, hadn't thought of that book in years. Really influenced me as a kid.
Considering the two people who approve it, its politics must be pretty
noxious.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Martin Ambuhl <mam...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > > (Is *New Left Notes* from somewhere other than Britain? OED hasn't
> > > been particularly interested in American cites, and it may neglect
> > > the farther flung members of the Commonwealth as well.)
> >
> > New Left Notes was the publication of the US-based SDS. I doubt many
> > OED editors have spent much time checking it.
>
> There's one quote from it in the OED, under "woman", specifically for
> "women's liberation":
>
> 1967 _New Left Notes_ 10 July 4/1 The SDS National Convention
> adopts the following statement and program as written by the
> Women's Liberation Workshop.
That it could be used as the title of a workshop shows rather clearly
that it wasn't a recent phrase.
> It's not the first quote. _New Left Review_ beat it by some eight
> months. _New Left Review_ has over a hundred quotes, but that does,
> in fact, appear to be a British publication.
So the OED claims that "women's liberation" was coined in Britain, not
the US? Does that seem likely?
Frances Kemmish
I don't think that OED makes any claims about coinage.
Fran
Peter T. Daniels
Even if its earliest citation is from a British rather than an American
source?
BTW what's it got for "women's lib"?
Ben Zimmer
And in any case, the source of the coinage may actually be Vietnam.
Some time between 1960 and 1965 the National Liberation Front (aka Viet
Cong) launched a mass organization with a name that was translated as
"The Women's Liberation Association".
Frances Kemmish
That means that the earliest citation it has is from a British rather an
American source. It says nothing about who coined it.
> BTW what's it got for "women's lib"?
No idea.
Dena Jo
Wait. Stop.
The discussion was NOT about the phrase "women's liberation."
The discussion was about the phrase "male chauvinist pig," which
someone, somewhere, credits to Germaine Greer. The following exchange
is between Skitt and Martin, I believe:
> > From http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~dabell/nora.html:
> >
> > The truth about Chauvin's origin makes the term "male chauvinist
pig" more
> > appropriate than Germaine Greer could have guessed when she coined
it in
> > 1970.
>
> She could not have coined it in 1970, since the term was in use
before
> that. I have plenty of references from New Left Notes before 1970.
--
Dena Jo
(Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2)
Laura F Spira
I'm not sure that Germaine did originate the phrase.
NOW was founded in 1966 and they had a Male Chauvinist Pig of the year
award but I don't know when that started and a search of NOW's website
throws up no references.
"Male chauvinist" appears in NSOED under "male" as:
a man who is prejudiced against or inconsiderate of women (freq. in
male chauvinist pig)
- but no citations are provided. Someone with access to the OED might be
able to give more information.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Ron Hardin
> "Male chauvinist" appears in NSOED under "male" as:
> a man who is prejudiced against or inconsiderate of women (freq. in
> male chauvinist pig)
That's an awful definition. I think it has to be defined as a feminist term
or it will take in too many men. Feminist in turn has to be defined in terms
of bitching about things needing to be changed whether they can be or not.
Being inconsiderate of women conflicts with being prejudiced against women.
For example, not holding the door for women conflicts with thinking they
shouldn't do it themselves.
That the male finds himself in that situation is the point of the exercise
in the first place. He gets his way only half the time, if it works out right.
Male chauvinist _pig_ means a male who doesn't care and does what he wants around
women. Feminism doesn't work on him. But a mere male chauvinist is the intended
target, and feminism works fine there. He is not a complete _animal_ (shudder)
who doesn't care about _us_.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Peter T. Daniels
Nonetheless, the OED appears to be making an untenable claim about
"women's liberation."
Or is "thread creep" a phenomenon not found at a.u.e.?
> The discussion was about the phrase "male chauvinist pig," which
> someone, somewhere, credits to Germaine Greer. The following exchange
> is between Skitt and Martin, I believe:
>
> > > From http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~dabell/nora.html:
> > >
> > > The truth about Chauvin's origin makes the term "male chauvinist pig" more
> > > appropriate than Germaine Greer could have guessed when she coined it in
> > > 1970.
> >
> > She could not have coined it in 1970, since the term was in use before
> > that. I have plenty of references from New Left Notes before 1970.
And my point was that she most probably did _not_ coin it (in 1970 or
any other time).
Dena Jo
> Nonetheless, the OED appears to be making an untenable claim about
> "women's liberation."
>
> Or is "thread creep" a phenomenon not found at a.u.e.?
My apologies. To me, the thread read more like a misunderstanding than
a change in direction. In any case, was a snotty retort really
necessary?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On 22 Mar 2003, Peter T. Daniels posted thus:
>
> > Nonetheless, the OED appears to be making an untenable claim about
> > "women's liberation."
> >
> > Or is "thread creep" a phenomenon not found at a.u.e.?
>
> My apologies. To me, the thread read more like a misunderstanding than
> a change in direction. In any case, was a snotty retort really
> necessary?
Just trying to stay in the spirit of a.u.e. ...
Skitt
> NOW was founded in 1966 and they had a Male Chauvinist Pig of the year
> award but I don't know when that started and a search of NOW's website
> throws up no references.
The earliest mention of that award I can find is for the year 1973.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Martin Ambuhl
[...]
> The discussion was NOT about the phrase "women's liberation."
>
> The discussion was about the phrase "male chauvinist pig," which
> someone, somewhere, credits to Germaine Greer. The following exchange
> is between Skitt and Martin, I believe:
'tis OK. I'm used to thread-drift and we may have beaten this one
almost to death.
[My earlier note was]
>>She could not have coined it in 1970, since the term was in use
>> before
>>that. I have plenty of references from New Left Notes before 1970.
I have just dredged up several instances from the SDS convention of
1968, and frequent use in flyers from the Bread and Roses Collective in
March, 1969. After I scan some of these I will pass the PDFs onto OED.
Dena Jo
> I have just dredged up several instances from the SDS convention of
> 1968
You were at the SDS convention of '68? Wow. What kind of materials do
you still have from it? I probably haven't thought about SDS since --
I don't know -- the mid-seventies maybe. I occasionally think about
the Weather Underground. Why that occasionally enters my mind, I'll
never know. Those were crazy, wonderful days.
Martin Ambuhl
> On 22 Mar 2003, Martin Ambuhl posted thus:
>
>
>>I have just dredged up several instances from the SDS convention of
>>1968
>
>
> You were at the SDS convention of '68? Wow. What kind of materials do
> you still have from it? I probably haven't thought about SDS since --
> I don't know -- the mid-seventies maybe. I occasionally think about
> the Weather Underground. Why that occasionally enters my mind, I'll
> never know. Those were crazy, wonderful days.
>
I have many boxes of SDS, Black Panther, Bread & Roses, NCAR, and PL
stuff. The SDS stuff is mainly WSA-oriented, but I do have originals of
Michael Klonsky's RYM & RYM II papers. If I were at home, I couldn't
find these. My mother stored this for me in her attic in Texas, so I
have access to it (since I'm caring for her at the moment), even though
my normal reference material is in New York City.
BTW, I also have a lot of Bircher literature from the same period.
Belmont, MA, was close by then.
John Dean
I can take a hint. Cometh the Hour, cometh the Research Assistant.
1970 Time 17 Aug. 23 European women have accepted their lot much more
readily than their American counterparts. Recently, however, growing
numbers+have launched their attack on male chauvinism. 1973 O. Lancaster
Littlehampton Bequest 84 Their marriage has always been a completely
unselfish relationship, both taking an active part in the struggle against
Imperialism, Neo-Colonialism and Male Chauvinism.
1970 New Yorker 5 Sept. 27/1 Hello, you male-chauvinist racist pig.
Ibid., Repent Male Chauvinists. 1972 Southerly XXXII. 75 The male
chauvinist aspects of mateship have come in for considerable discussion
since the spread of women's liberation critiques. 1972 Punch 1 Mar. 289/1,
I know, I know; me male chauvinist pig, you Jane. But the exercise has
finally woken me up to ask-why should there be separate magazines for men
and women at all? 1974 J. Heller Something Happened 333, I enjoy fucking my
wife. She lets me do it any way I want. No Women's Liberation for her. Lots
of male chauvinist pig.
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Ben Zimmer
>
> Laura F Spira wrote:
> >
> > "Male chauvinist" appears in NSOED under "male" as:
> > a man who is prejudiced against or inconsiderate of women (freq. in
> > male chauvinist pig)
> >
> > - but no citations are provided. Someone with access to the OED might
> > be able to give more information.
>
> I can take a hint. Cometh the Hour, cometh the Research Assistant.
>
> 1970 Time 17 Aug. 23 European women have accepted their lot much more
> readily than their American counterparts. Recently, however, growing
> numbers+have launched their attack on male chauvinism.
> 1970 New Yorker 5 Sept. 27/1 Hello, you male-chauvinist racist pig.
> Ibid., Repent Male Chauvinists.
As Evan wrote upthread (<r892j0...@hpl.hp.com>), OED's first
citations for "chauvinist" and "chauvinism" in the feminist sense are
from 1968 (_Voice of Women's Liberation Movement_ and _Ramparts_), while
the earliest cites for the collocations "male chauvinist" and "male
chauvinism" are from the 1970 quotes above. Further upthread
(<b5ari3$1t2k$1...@nwall2.odn.ne.jp>) masakim gave a much earlier citation
listed in _Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase & Fable_ (2000):
> White Chauvinism: the private Communist expression for racial
> prejudice against the Negroes. The Communists have other uses,
> misuses, of the word chauvinism; a man who tends to regulate
> women to a secondary role is a "male chauvinist."
> (H.A. Philbrick, _I Led 3 Lives_, 1952)
Philbrick was an FBI counteragent who infiltrated the US Communist
Party-- his sensationalistic expose was made into a TV series (1953-56).
Marxist literature would be the obvious place to trace the evolving
usage of "chauvinism". Lenin wrote of "social chauvinism" and "dominant
nation chauvinism". This was extended in the US to "white chauvinism",
as used in the 1928 and 1930 Communist International Resolutions on the
Negro Question in the United States:
http://www.marx2mao.org/Other/CR75.html
The term "women's liberation" may also have Marxist origins-- as I
mentioned elsewhere, the National Liberation Front in Vietnam set up a
"Women's Liberation Association" in the early '60s.
benlizross
>
>
> As Evan wrote upthread (<r892j0...@hpl.hp.com>), OED's first
> citations for "chauvinist" and "chauvinism" in the feminist sense are
> from 1968 (_Voice of Women's Liberation Movement_ and _Ramparts_), while
> the earliest cites for the collocations "male chauvinist" and "male
> chauvinism" are from the 1970 quotes above. Further upthread
> (<b5ari3$1t2k$1...@nwall2.odn.ne.jp>) masakim gave a much earlier citation
> listed in _Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase & Fable_ (2000):
>
> > White Chauvinism: the private Communist expression for racial
> > prejudice against the Negroes. The Communists have other uses,
> > misuses, of the word chauvinism; a man who tends to regulate
> > women to a secondary role is a "male chauvinist."
> > (H.A. Philbrick, _I Led 3 Lives_, 1952)
Very interesting. Ebenezer Cobham Brewer died in 1897. I have a cheap
reprint (Omega Books, 1986) of the _Dictionary of Phrase and Fable_
whose Preface asserts that the book "continued to be updated and
reprinted constantly" after his death, but gives no information about
who the subsequent editors were, or of the actual date of the version
therein reprinted. From internal evidence it has to be at least 1920s,
but perhaps not much later. The entry for "Chauvinism" does not contain
the above passage. Does the word "Modern" in the title of the 2000 book
mean that it's a completely different book, or just updated? If so it
must be getting vast -- the one I've got is 1158 pages.
Ross Clark
benlizross
> Marxist literature would be the obvious place to trace the evolving
> usage of "chauvinism". Lenin wrote of "social chauvinism" and "dominant
> nation chauvinism". This was extended in the US to "white chauvinism",
> as used in the 1928 and 1930 Communist International Resolutions on the
> Negro Question in the United States:
> http://www.marx2mao.org/Other/CR75.html
>
> The term "women's liberation" may also have Marxist origins-- as I
> mentioned elsewhere, the National Liberation Front in Vietnam set up a
> "Women's Liberation Association" in the early '60s.
Research in this area would also be essential to clear up the history of
the phrase "politically correct".
Ross Clark
Ben Zimmer
>
> The term "women's liberation" may also have Marxist origins-- as I
> mentioned elsewhere, the National Liberation Front in Vietnam set up a
> "Women's Liberation Association" in the early '60s.
Now I see that the association was already in existence in 1931:
http://www.cpv.org.vn/cpv/history/parttwo_1.htm
This was apparently based on an association in China founded in the
1920s with a similarly translated name. As early as 1922, the 2nd
Congress of the Chinese Communist Party issued a statement on "women's
liberation" (the Chinese term is "funü jiefang"):
http://wwwsshe.murdoch.edu.au/intersections/back_issues/harriet.html
It's unclear when "funü jiefang" started to be translated as "women's
liberation", however. A search on the Proquest newspaper database (NY
Times, Wash. Post, Wall St Journal) turns up nothing earlier than 1965,
with reference to the Vietnamese association.
Ben Zimmer
It's (almost) a completely different book. Adrian Room is the editor of
the expanded 16th edition of _Brewer's_ (1298 pp) as well as _Brewer's
Modern_ (800 pp). According to a Booklist review on Amazon, "there is
some duplication between [the two volumes]; however, the overlap is not
significant enough to be of concern."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0304353817
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006019653X
Tony Cooper
<mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>BTW, I also have a lot of Bircher literature from the same period.
>Belmont, MA, was close by then.
Bircher? The John Birch Society? If you have both SDS and Birch
stuff, the collection is quite eclectic.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots, Tittles, and Oy!s
Tony Cooper
He's a bit deep for you, Peter,
Dena Jo
> I have many boxes of SDS, Black Panther, Bread & Roses, NCAR, and
> PL stuff. The SDS stuff is mainly WSA-oriented, but I do have
> originals of Michael Klonsky's RYM & RYM II papers.
What made you save this stuff? There must be a library that would be
interested in having it.
benlizross
OED Online:
1969 Time, 21 Nov. 15: 'My twelve-year-old son has been hearing a lot
about Women's Lib lately,' says Ruth.
Ross Clark
Martin Ambuhl
> On 22 Mar 2003, Martin Ambuhl posted thus:
>
>
>>I have many boxes of SDS, Black Panther, Bread & Roses, NCAR, and
>>PL stuff. The SDS stuff is mainly WSA-oriented, but I do have
>>originals of Michael Klonsky's RYM & RYM II papers.
>
>
> What made you save this stuff? There must be a library that would be
> interested in having it.
>
I abandoned it. My parents decided to hold on to it.
Martin Ambuhl
> OED Online:
>
> 1969 Time, 21 Nov. 15: 'My twelve-year-old son has been hearing a lot
> about Women's Lib lately,' says Ruth.
This is an example of why the OED citations are not a good source for
this sort of term. Ruth's twelve-year-old son had heard "a lot" about
Women's Lib before the citation from Time.
Peter T. Daniels
All the more reason to donate it somewhere. (Not to mention the irony of
getting a big tax deduction for all that radical stuff.)
You said Texas? UT Austin has one of the greatest ms. collections in the
world (I'm not sure how that happened), and with the additional presence
of the LBJ Library, it would seem a natural for the era. (The Nixon
Library, which might have a slightly better chronological fit, would
perhaps not be quite so welcoming.)
Peter T. Daniels
>
> 1974 J. Heller Something Happened 333, I enjoy fucking my
> wife. She lets me do it any way I want. No Women's Liberation for her. Lots
> of male chauvinist pig.
This one's particularly telling -- when that novel was published (his
first since *Catch-22* twelve years earlier), all the critics went on
about how old-fashioned and out-of-touch he had become and what a pity
it was that his writerly potential hadn't been realized.
Peter T. Daniels
I asked because the OED's "earliest" "women's liberation" was 1967, so
this is just barely consistent with that.
benlizross
?? Why does this mean they are "not a good source"? Compared to what?
Ross Clark
Tony Cooper
"Catch-22" is one of my favorite books. "Good As Gold" (1979) was
practically unreadable. Certainly dull at best. Heller should have
followed Salinger's route.
Peter T. Daniels
Take a young mistress who decades later would blab?
Martin Ambuhl
My parents were right. As a political scientist, I should have known
better than to ever let source material go. I think they were more
influenced by the amount of it that I had written in the first place.
masakim
"benlizross" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3E7D05...@ihug.co.nz...
The entry for "Chauvinism" does not contain the above [Phibrick's] passage?
My last posting (which disappeared into thin air) consisted of two parts:
1. "Male chauvinist pig" entrey from _Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase &
Fable_ (2000) compiled by Adrian Room.
2. Some citations from other sources:
"male chauvinist" (H.A. Philbrick, _I Led 3 Lives_, 1952)
"male chauvinism" (_Time_, Aug 17, 1970)
"male-chauvinist racist pig" (_New Yorker_, Sept 5, 1970)
"Male Chauvinists" (_Time_, Sept 7, 1970)
"Male Chauvinist Pigs" (_Publishers' Weekly_, Nov 1, 1971)
"male chauvinist pig" (_Punch_, March 1, 1972)
Regards,
masakim
Rex F. May
tony_co...@yahoo.com wrote on 3/22/03 9:29 PM:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:35:35 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Rex F. May wrote:
>>>
>>> in article qrin7vs5h5l0t2gnr...@4ax.com, Tony Cooper at
>>
>>>> I'd have to find my copy of "Generation of Vipers" by Phillip Wylie to
>>>> provide the exact quote, but he said something to the effect of: If
>>>> so many men screw, some women must.
>>>
>>> Gad, hadn't thought of that book in years. Really influenced me as a kid.
>>
>> Considering the two people who approve it, its politics must be pretty
>> noxious.
>
> He's a bit deep for you, Peter,
Ah, Peter who doesn't know what a parody is. Now he doesn't know who Wylie
was. Peter, you ought to get out more.
Seriously, and never mind Peter's hissy-fits, Wylie was probably the first
in-your-face iconoclast I'd ever encountered. And he was a quite good
writer as well, fiction and non-fiction. I loved the Worlds Collide books.
Probably I read those and they led me to Generation. It's funny that you
almost never hear him mentioned these days, even in SF circles. Did you
know about _Gladiator_?
http://www.abebooks.com/home/GROVBOOK/GA8.htm
And note the Superman connection.
rm
Tony Cooper
wrote:
I found my copy of "Generation of Vipers". It's the kind of book one
can dip into and read a few pages at random. The man had searing
comments on *everything*.
Ben Zimmer
>
> My last posting (which disappeared into thin air) consisted of two parts:
>
> 1. "Male chauvinist pig" entrey from _Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase &
> Fable_ (2000) compiled by Adrian Room.
>
> 2. Some citations from other sources:
> "male chauvinist" (H.A. Philbrick, _I Led 3 Lives_, 1952)
> "male chauvinism" (_Time_, Aug 17, 1970)
> "male-chauvinist racist pig" (_New Yorker_, Sept 5, 1970)
> "Male Chauvinists" (_Time_, Sept 7, 1970)
> "Male Chauvinist Pigs" (_Publishers' Weekly_, Nov 1, 1971)
> "male chauvinist pig" (_Punch_, March 1, 1972)
My apologies-- I misread your post. Since you only mentioned one source
(_Brewer's Modern_) I assumed all of the citations were from that. So
where does the Philbrick citation come from?
--Ben
benlizross
Yes, in the book I own, which, as I pointed out, is a cheap reprint of a
version whose editorial date is almost certainly pre-1950.
>
> My last posting (which disappeared into thin air) consisted of two parts:
>
> 1. "Male chauvinist pig" entrey from _Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase &
> Fable_ (2000) compiled by Adrian Room.
>
> 2. Some citations from other sources:
> "male chauvinist" (H.A. Philbrick, _I Led 3 Lives_, 1952)
> "male chauvinism" (_Time_, Aug 17, 1970)
> "male-chauvinist racist pig" (_New Yorker_, Sept 5, 1970)
> "Male Chauvinists" (_Time_, Sept 7, 1970)
> "Male Chauvinist Pigs" (_Publishers' Weekly_, Nov 1, 1971)
> "male chauvinist pig" (_Punch_, March 1, 1972)
>
> Regards,
> masakim
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. The Philbrick is
certainly an interesting and significant pre-date. The others all
cluster around 1970, when clearly the phrase broke out from leftist and
feminist circles to the mass media.
Ross Clark
Jacqui
> Ben Zimmer wrote:
>> a much earlier citation listed in _Brewer's Dictionary of Modern
>> Phrase & Fable_ (2000):
> Does the word "Modern" in the title of the 2000 book mean that
> it's a completely different book, or just updated? If so it must
> be getting vast -- the one I've got is 1158 pages.
The Millennium edition (printed 1999...) has 1298 pages in paperback.
From the foreword (by Terry Pratchett): "...some of the duller nymphs
and more obscure Classical items have been dropped to make way for such
additions to the language as 'hit the ground running' and 'all dressed
up and nowhere to go'".
Jac
Peter T. Daniels
>
> in article nfdq7voimu8bjle4q...@4ax.com, Tony Cooper at
> tony_co...@yahoo.com wrote on 3/22/03 9:29 PM:
>
> > On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:35:35 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Rex F. May wrote:
> >>>
> >>> in article qrin7vs5h5l0t2gnr...@4ax.com, Tony Cooper at
> >>
> >>>> I'd have to find my copy of "Generation of Vipers" by Phillip Wylie to
> >>>> provide the exact quote, but he said something to the effect of: If
> >>>> so many men screw, some women must.
> >>>
> >>> Gad, hadn't thought of that book in years. Really influenced me as a kid.
> >>
> >> Considering the two people who approve it, its politics must be pretty
> >> noxious.
> >
> > He's a bit deep for you, Peter,
>
> Ah, Peter who doesn't know what a parody is. Now he doesn't know who Wylie
> was. Peter, you ought to get out more.
>
> Seriously, and never mind Peter's hissy-fits, Wylie was probably the first
> in-your-face iconoclast I'd ever encountered. And he was a quite good
> writer as well, fiction and non-fiction. I loved the Worlds Collide books.
> Probably I read those and they led me to Generation. It's funny that you
> almost never hear him mentioned these days, even in SF circles. Did you
> know about _Gladiator_?
> http://www.abebooks.com/home/GROVBOOK/GA8.htm
> And note the Superman connection.
Is that *When Worlds Collide* and *After Worlds Collide*? They were a
single giant volume that I read when I was 8 or so. Happily they don't
seem to have turned me into a raving anti-woman weirdo. (When Robert A.
Heinlein tried to do the same, I simply stopped reading him.)
masakim
"Ben Zimmer" wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> My apologies-- I misread your post. Since you only mentioned
> one source (_Brewer's Modern_) I assumed all of the citations
> were from that. So where does the Philbrick citation come from?
>
> --Ben
It comes from my pre-PC hand-written citation cards.
The Philbrick citation is followed by
Herbert A. Philbrick,
_I Led 3 Lives: Citizen "Communist" Counterspy_
(N.Y.: McGrow-Hill Book Company, 1952)
and some citations from Japanese newspapers and magazines.
Regards,
masakim
Linz
"Martin Ambuhl" <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E7D9D00...@earthlink.net...
There is a difference between /hearing/ about something and something being
seen in print.
Mike Lyle
Quite so. And, with all its faults, OED would become even more
unreliable if it didn't generally restrict itself to published
sources: only published sources can be examined and if necessary
contested. OED never claimed to be more than a good attempt, and
nothing better is possible.
Mike.