| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > |
Feminists attack Oxford Dictionary of English for 'reinforcing sexist stereotypes'
|
|---|
| |
neilmac
Spain
Local time: 01:59
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Seek and ye shall find | Jan 26, 2016 |
Gabriele Demuth wrote:
Yes, I think the best response from Oxford would have been to review their dictionary with this in mind. It does give the impression that the dictionary is being reviewed by old men who do not see the problem and/or the wider implications.
Old men? Isn't that a sexist and ageist assumption too?
| | | |
Vera Schoen 
Sweden
Local time: 01:59
Member (2008)
German to Swedish
+ ...
neilmac wrote:
Having said that, it might be interesting to see what the sanitised /bowdlerised versions of the examples given would look like, particularly the entries for "psyche" and "shrill" (I spent quite some time last night trying to think of a better example to define the latter).
.
Merriam-Webster's "sanitised /bowdlerised version":
the shrill sound of a policeman's whistle
[Edited at 2016-01-26 10:44 GMT]
| | | |
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:59
Hebrew to English
Michael Wetzel wrote:
Just for clarification: Is that kowtowing or acting like normal, civilized human beings by apologizing for a clearly flippant response and stating that they would review the use of a clearly questionable example sentence?
I'm not entirely sure an apology was necessary, it is clearly stated by Oxford that:
All the examples sentences throughout the site are real examples of usage. They are taken from a huge variety of different sources, from all parts of the world where English is used, and they reflect a wide spectrum of views and levels of language. Opinions and views expressed in the usage examples are the views of the individuals concerned and are not endorsed by Oxford University Press.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/example-sentences-help
Given this disclaimer, is it really Oxford's job to start censoring language usage? (No matter how unpalatable). I thought it was their job to show us how language is being used, not how we wished it would be used in an ideal utopia.
...and as others have noted, there are other (less self-aggrandizing) channels through which this could have been challenged.
Even if I accept that an apology for the flippancy might be the polite thing to do (still debatable imo), I wouldn't advise doing it after being issued with an ultimatum (apologize or resign) by a Twitter SJW mob.
| | | |
|
|
|
|
| Interesting! | Jan 26, 2016 |
neilmac wrote:
Old men? Isn't that a sexist and ageist assumption too?
You don't like it either!
| | | |
neilmac
Spain
Local time: 01:59
Spanish to English
+ ...
Gabriele Demuth wrote: neilmac wrote:
Old men? Isn't that a sexist and ageist assumption too? You don't like it either!
Correction, you ASSUME I don't like it either, which is what I object to. The fact that I happen to "identify" as an old codger is neither here nor there
| | | |
neilmac
Spain
Local time: 01:59
Spanish to English
+ ...
| The age of steam... | Jan 26, 2016 |
Vera Schoen wrote: neilmac wrote:
Having said that, it might be interesting to see what the sanitised /bowdlerised versions of the examples given would look like, particularly the entries for "psyche" and "shrill" (I spent quite some time last night trying to think of a better example to define the latter).
.
Merriam-Webster's "sanitised /bowdlerised version": the shrill sound of a policeman's whistle [Edited at 2016-01-26 10:44 GMT]
Do rozzers really still have whistles nowadays? Perhaps "referee" might be a better option...
| | | |
| Not updated for some time | Jan 26, 2016 |
Do rozzers really still have whistles nowadays? Perhaps "referee" might be a better option...
It seems to me that dictionary definitions don't get updated regularly, because all this would have raised nobody's eyebrow in the 1960s?
| | |
|
|
|
| Very interesting | Jan 26, 2016 |
Here's an article on the subject by Michael Oman-Reagan. I think he makes some very valid points, and it's worrying that anyone would dismiss this issue as a waste of time. People can confront sexism without being "rabid feminists". Who wouldn't want to make a fairer world for our daughters?
... See more Here's an article on the subject by Michael Oman-Reagan. I think he makes some very valid points, and it's worrying that anyone would dismiss this issue as a waste of time. People can confront sexism without being "rabid feminists". Who wouldn't want to make a fairer world for our daughters?
https://medium.com/space-anthropology/sexism-in-the-oxford-dictionary-of-english-6d335c6a77b5#.jkz9my77b ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Natalie Soper
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:59
French to English
+ ...
Gabriele Demuth wrote:
Do rozzers really still have whistles nowadays? Perhaps "referee" might be a better option...
It seems to me that dictionary definitions don't get updated regularly, because all this would have raised nobody's eyebrow in the 1960s?
This is a good point. How often would you change a dictionary's example sentences, unless someone specifically highlighted them as inappropriate, like now?
By the way, Michael - thanks for coming to the rescue of us women. What would we do without you?! 
| | | |
| example sentences for "shrill", "hysterical" and "dimwit" | Jan 26, 2016 |
What about:
The sub-editors of the Telegraph have once again provided their hysterical readership with a shrill headline bearing little resemblance to the material presented in the article that follows it.
In the process, these same dimwits have also managed to insert an image of a Merriam-Webster's dictionary ("rabid editorials", "a rabid supporter", "shrill gaeity", "shrill light", "shrill anger", "shrill criticism", "the nation's consumer psyche — D. J. Kevles", "research a pro... See more What about:
The sub-editors of the Telegraph have once again provided their hysterical readership with a shrill headline bearing little resemblance to the material presented in the article that follows it.
In the process, these same dimwits have also managed to insert an image of a Merriam-Webster's dictionary ("rabid editorials", "a rabid supporter", "shrill gaeity", "shrill light", "shrill anger", "shrill criticism", "the nation's consumer psyche — D. J. Kevles", "research a problem", "research a book").
If only the ProZ forums were fed into the Oxford Corpus ... ▲ Collapse
| | | |
From Oxford dictionary:
Rude: he is a rude and arrogant bully
Aggressive: he’s very uncooperative and aggressive
Obnoxious: he found her son somewhat obnoxious
Lascivious: he gave her a lascivious wink
Dirty: he told a stream of dirty jokes
According to Oxford dictionary men are rude, arrogant, aggressive, obnoxious, lascivious and make dirty jokes.
| | |
|
|
|
| Just not acceptable anymore | Jan 26, 2016 |
@Alvaro
It didn't take you long to find these examples, so I assume there are many more that stereotype men and women - its just not appropriate anymore.
[Edited at 2016-01-26 14:08 GMT]
| | | |
| I accept Alvaro's very valid general point ... | Jan 26, 2016 |
... but I don't think it changes the fact that specifically selecting "a rabid feminist" (only the phrase is used, without any accompanying sentence) among all the available usage examples for "rabid" in the Oxford Corpus is not a sound decision.
Frankly, I don't see how that is PC. It's just avoiding being shrilly anti-PC.
| | | |
| Coming soon to a dictionary near you | Jan 26, 2016 |
Gender-neutral definitions of penis and vagina?
| | | |
| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
