What am I doing with a blog?

Awww…heck. I dunno.

The Vajayjay Monologues November 4, 2007

Filed under: feminism,linguistics — himbly @ 12:30 pm

I’ve been reading a bit about the reaction to the new euphamism for vagina “vajayjay”. Specifically, lillithattack, Pandagon (this one, too), and the Pandagon refered Michael Smerconish and Stephanie Rosenbloom.

Now, I’m not one of those types of linguistics that decide on a favourite vowel, brake for portmanteau morphemes and hover over all sorts of dictionaries, but I am a linguist and a feminist so I have had an interest in this discussion.

(eek…this was meant to be a fairly short post, but upon rereading those articles, I found many more things to address. Anyway…here goes.)

On the use of the euphamism Vajayjay. My short answer: why not? My long answer: I understand why not, but including a few factors, I still say ‘why not’?

Via the NY Times:

It began on Feb. 12, 2006, when viewers of the ABC series “Grey’s Anatomy” heard the character Miranda Bailey, a pregnant doctor who had gone into labor, admonish a male intern, “Stop looking at my vajayjay.”

The line sprang from an executive producer’s need to mollify standards and practices executives who wanted the script to include fewer mentions of the word vagina.

That’s the problem. Right there. It stemmed from the network not allowing a character from a popular medical drama use the medical term: vagina. Wtf?

Since, it caught on like wildfire. Oprah, apparently, loves the word and uses it on her show. More NY Times:

Vajayjay found its way into electronic dictionaries like Urban Dictionary, Word Spy and Merriam-Webster’s Open Dictionary. It was uttered on the television series “30 Rock.” It was used on the Web site of “The Tyra Banks Show.” Jimmy Kimmel said it in a monologue. It has appeared in the Web publications Salon and the Huffington Post and on the blog Wonkette.

And feminists, I think correctly, got nervous.

Feminists are not nervous, unlike Michael Smerconish seems to think, because they feel as though the vagina should be seen as a no-fun-zone for men.

Michael Smerconish:
No matter what you call it, many feminists don’t want guys attracted to it. If it were up to them, there’d be an image at www.dictionary.com with a sign next to “vagina” reading “No men allowed.”

Quite the opposite! Good lord…very very much the opposite. In fact, many feminists, quite rightly, riducule those men who don’t ‘go down’. And this is the problem…that our bodies are somehow seen as either too ‘temple-like’ (because of our scacred womb) or ‘disgusting’ (because or our periods) to refer to without discomfort.

Pandagon:
There’s been taboo studies that show that tampons are more taboo than toilet paper—read: menstrual blood bothers people more than shit. … Hell, think of the constant use of the word “purity” to refer to virginal women. That word choice speaks volumes.

This is what causes the push for using vagina/vulva/clitoris when refering to these parts of a woman’s body. Because those are the names and we need, precisely the opposite of what Smerconish claims, everyone to be comfortable with them. These words are not dirty, disgusting, nor awkward, neither inherently nor because of what they describe. This is why feminists encourage the use of them.

This is also why I use the word ‘cunt’. I do not enjoy that the one big taboo word in our North American culture, the one that you really really have to be prepared to use, happens to refer to the vagina…or labia. Actually, I guess the whole kit-n’-kaboodle. I would prefer that everyone gets over their squeemishness use it as they would cock, dick, or pecker.

Having said all that….

NY Times:
In a voice-mail message left for a reporter, Gloria Steinem said she hopes the women using vajayjay are doing so because they think it is more descriptive than vagina, not because they are squeamish.

I’m not sure what else Steinem has said about vajayjay, but if this is at the heart of it, I agree. I hope the same thing. I am perfectly fine with the euphamism vajayjay…if that’s what it is about.

When I’m with my good friends and I want to refer to sexual intercourse, I’ll say “A and B fucked”. I may, if I want to seem baser and more teenaged, say “they pumped” or “they humped”. When I’m with my mother or father (and this conversation does not come up often with them, believe me), I will say “they slept together”. There’s no sleeping involved in fucking. I know that, my mom and dad know that, but we use that euphamism anyway. Vajayjay serves the same function. Now, personally, if I were addressing my mom or dad, I would probably use the word ‘vagina’..but I may find myself in a situation where a reference to one’s vagina needs to be made with minimum fuss. A children’s party, perhaps. Kidding…I do think that kids need to know what their body parts are properly named.

My point is that, as much as sometimes we don’t care to admit it, there is a cause for us to adjust our language due to social situations. I think that it is sometimes seen as phony, but it most certainly is a part of being a social animal. Recognising the social situation you are in and responding appropriately. We, as humans, just happen to have language to concern ourselves with.

I think vajayjay can help our cause. Men have all sorts of euphamisms for penis that range from acceptable (“little fella”) to unacceptable (I dunno..probably something to do with a snake) depending on the situation and euphamisms for vagina have been sorely lacking. Twat. Cunt. Snatch. Pussy. None of these are particularly friendly. Vajayjay might be the one that can’t be hurled at us by drunken frat boys to make us feel less than we are.

Though, thanks to Dan Savage for encouraging the use of pussy to mean something strong.

NY Times:
There have been at least 1,200 terms for the vagina in the history of the English language, according to Steven Pinker, a psychology professor at Harvard and the author of “The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature” (Viking, 2007).

There is? Who knew? Stephen Pinker, I guess…with his ‘rock star good looks’.

This is because sexual subjects are always “emotionally fraught,” he said, and each new euphemism eventually “gets contaminated” and prompts “the search for yet another euphemism.”

HE calls it “the euphemism treadmill.” Such words arise, he said, “because people want to make it perfectly clear to their listeners that they are not bringing up the topic for prurient reasons.”

Okay…sure. I agree. But lets be more to the point. I can’t remember the last time that the penis went through this ‘treadmill’. Female sexual subjects seem to be more ’emotionally fraught’ than male…but whatever. I understand what Pinker is saying.

So, I think I covered all I meant to say here. Essentially, I don’t think we need to be afraid of the dawning of another euphamism. Euphamisms do happen, and frankly, I agree with Nunberg in that there may have been a need for a new euphamism that was more female friendly:

NY Times:
“There was a need for a pet name,” said Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist at the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley, and the chairman of the usage panel for the American Heritage Dictionary, “a name that women can use in a familiar way among themselves.”

But, as feminist writers caution us, this cannot be a replacement for vagina. And, as long as we remember that, I think we will be okay.

One thing, though….he most disturbing thing about Smerconish’s article:

Years ago (when I was much younger than I am today), I had lunch in a men’s club (of course), where I made the acquaintance of an older, distinguished gent. We were randomly seated next to one another. I’d bet two generations separated me from my dining companion.

As the hour progressed and we warmed to one another, I asked him what he did for a living. With a sagelike glint in his eye, he said to me: “Son, I spend my daytime doing what you’ll spend your lifetime trying to accomplish.”

You probably figured out that he was an OB/GYN. Some things don’t get lost in translation.

If this is how male OB/GYNs are talking to other men about their job…I think this is a problem. And fucking creepy.

 

bad linguist July 18, 2007

Filed under: linguistics — himbly @ 10:53 pm

If you know me…or if you’ve been reading this blog…you will know that I’m taking intro courses to spanish right now.

What I’m about to say makes me a bad linguist.

I effing don’t care about Spanish. I don’t care I don’t care I don’t care.

I really don’t.

I have no plans to go to a Spanish country anytime soon (though I would love to go)…I have no real need for Spanish other than a language requirement and therefore I do. not. care. if I learn it.

There. I said it. Whew.

If I needed it or felt as though I could use it, I would try harder…but I just don’t have those feelings. Dear Spanish. It’s not you, it’s me.

I wish I could spend all my time doing my own research…but it never works like that, anyway. Ugh.

 

search term: binding in minimalism July 17, 2007

Filed under: linguistics — himbly @ 7:15 am

Dear person who got my blog by searching the term “binding in minimalism”

Good luck. I’m no syntactician, but I think it’s fair to say that it’s difficult to find info on or to make sense of what is out there on the topic. Reuland and Hornstein were the only two I could find who try to tackle it.

 

Shallow as I wanna be June 28, 2007

Filed under: dorky,linguistics,misc — himbly @ 8:18 pm

Okay…okay…okay…

I resisted but I do have a small weakness for celeb gossip. I wish I didn’t, but there it is.

Now, I certainly did not want to support this whole ruckus about Paris Hilton’s first interview out of jail. Fascinating (well…maybe less fascinating than rubbing the frail ‘feel good spot’ inside us all) as her persona is, I do think enough is enough and that woman needs to be set free from our minds and our attention.

I didn’t watch the Larry King interview. Not even on purpose…just didn’t occur to me. However….I did take a peek at the Anderson Cooper ‘reflections’ or whatever on youtube. Actually, only partly because a/ my connection sucks and b/ it actually is getting to me that we’re now deciding that a panel of experts discussing Paris Hilton constitutes air time, if not news. There is nothing to read into. Even I have to wonder who effing cares…and I’m the queen of the trivial.

But…here I am. I’m about to comment on Paris. I’m about to comment on something that I’ve noticed in young women and is starting to drive me nuts. I’m talking, of course, about voice quality.

Ha! Just when you thought I’d zig, I zagged, mofos.

And…I didn’t notice it on my own, it was pointed out once in a phonetics class I was auditing…so I’ll start there.

There is a cool little tool you can download for free called Praat. I won’t bother linking it right now ’cause no one will care, but it’s a phonetic tool where you can see the patterns of sound waves in speech (through .wav files). I used it when I was building my stimuli. Praat (and other tools like it) are used to isolate certain characteristics in speech…like you can see each vowel, consonant…blah blah blah. You need to develop an eye, but it’s pretty cool.

As Teh Octogenarians say around here: Anyhow…..

Dr. D was playing us a sentence as spoken by a young woman in her 20s. He intended to show us a certain feature of the sentence but then stopped himself and imitated the ending of her sentence…which I can’t remember…but he turned himself into a “cute girl” as he imitated her…not by miming brushing her hair, putting on makeup, carrying a small dog or shopping but by the voice quality.

Creaky voice.

We all can do it. You constrict your vocal folds to a point where what you’re saying comes out creaky. Like when you imitate a creaky door…do ‘creaky door’ but talk at the same time. There you go. In some languages of the world it distinguishes words from each other, but in English it doesn’t. And chicks super dig it.

Young women in North America use creaky voice and I don’t know why, it seems cool or something, but they do and until Dr. D mentioned it I had no idea. I do it too, occassionally (probably to seem younger and cooler than I am and offsetting my love for computer games and Led Zeppelin), but next time you see a hip, pretty young woman and talk to her…check out her voice quality. Lots of times she won’t speak clearly…she will employ the use of creaky voice for something or other.

And now I can’t NOT notice it.

I was not surprised to hear Paris use it. I’ve actually, while writing this post, have been trying to find a good example of creaky voice to show y’all, but I think I might just do it this way…let Paris actually do it herself. No idea if she does it throughout the entire interview, this is all I saw. At around 2:26 she reads from her journals *snort*.

You thought ‘upspeak‘ was driving you nuts. Wait until you notice this all the time.

 

speechless April 12, 2007

Filed under: linguistics,misc — himbly @ 4:37 pm

As of now I stand 75% done the first year of my MA. I sat in my last syntax class today unable to focus on anything other than outside the window, the state of my nails and what I was going to do when I got home. I’ve started doing it already:

strongbow.jpg

Anyway…probably a little quiet around here while I shift my gears from syntax (Binding in Minimalist Theory) to first language acquisition of phonology (The acquisition of phonotactic gaps in infant perception)….haha..by the titles you can tell which one I’m more ‘into’.

I’m going to take a few hours to take a nap, finish my strongbow, play some World of Warcraft and goof off…but fear not as I plan to finish off the evening by reading up on infant sensitivity to phonotactics and prosodic stuff.

 

Seriously… April 11, 2007

Filed under: linguistics — himbly @ 6:41 pm

After today, I don’t want to hear the word “Reflexive” ever again.

UPDATE: FINISHED…finished finished finished finished.

Now for the other paper so I can say “finished” more.

 

down for the count

Filed under: linguistics — himbly @ 8:03 am

One more day until Paper #1: Syntax is due. I am tired.

However, it’s looking up. I’ve managed to wrestle most of it into some sort of submission and it’s all there on the page, albeit in pretty funky sentences and with some ‘notes’ at the end when I got too tired last night to write. It’s about 4 pages over the limit but that’s been cut down from 6 and I”m certain I’ve done 4 pages worth of repeating myself and blah blah blahing. I may just pull this effer off.

But…after tomorrow, there’s no time to dally because I’ve got another one due on the 20th for my course in the acquisition of first language phonology. This, however, is my thang so I’m not too worried. Where syntax papers make me want to pace and mutter to myself…not to mention that the suspension of disbelief really can be exhausting sometimes…L1 phonology is interesting and fun to read about (for the most part). My only worry is that I’ve got to fit it all into an OT tableau and it’s probably going to take me about a week just to figure that effer out.

Oh…hey! There it is. Writing that made tension rise from my stomach to my chest. Ah…that familiar anxiety is starting to be like mother’s milk to me.

And I have the very beginnings of a cold…I expect to be full blown sick by the eve of the 19th. Yay me.