The New York Times obit writer describes Geraldine Ferraro as "spirited and saucy"?? http://www.nytimes.com/...
Pleeeeze. I immediately go check the byline. Will somebody please tap this guy on the shoulder and clue him in?
I was glad to see one other Times reader comment that this choice of words "inflamed" her. I find them ridiculous, old-fashionedly sexist -- and irritating.
Especially given the context. Whatever her faults, Ferraro's nomination was an electrifying political moment, for me and I daresay most of my generation of women.
We learned to hear in the 70's how certain words say more about the writer than about the subject. Particular words that mark how white people speak about "others," the rich about the poor, and men about women.
For women there's an interesting list, perfectly good words that are however rarely applied to men. They usually telegraph a certain condescension. Have you ever heard a man described as "feisty"? "pert"? Or "strident" while you're at it?
And the NYT! Argghh. Just one more thing. Does anyone there remember Feminism 101? How long did it take them to start using Ms.? Was it 20 years? After the recent Texas gang rape story, and still barely any women editorial writers, I can barely stomach it.
Women, men, young n old, black n white -- help me out here will you and tell me what you think. Sure, it's small on the scale of things, but do you notice these things too? Got any favorite examples?
I feel like I'm constantly stubbing my toe on little old language things these days, stuff I thought we'd dealt with long ago.