Certain topics never die. Since bloggers are pretty much by definition wordsmiths you know that language and word choice and the impact of specific words is going to come up again and again.
During my holiday reading I came across a sudden increase in posts examining the power of a single word.
Take word #1: MommyBlogging
Tracey from Sweetney.com has started a conversation that just won't quit about the term. For every woman who finds it belittling or sees derision buried in the use of the term, another woman pipes up to reclaim it and empower it and celebrate it.
If we decide to eschew the word, are we giving credence to whoever those people are who use the term to marginalize? Are we giving jerks too much power?
On the other hand, is it going too far to talk about "reclaiming" the word, as though it were as offensive an epithet as similar "reclaimed" terms used by members of the African American community or gay community, for example? I mean I called my mother "Mommy" until way too old...I have trouble thinking of it as a hurtful term!
And let's not ignore the fact that businesses and advertisers are sitting up and taking notice of the MommyBlogging phenomenon in a big way...sponsoring podcasts and blogs and trying to reach out to the whole crowd. You've certainly got their attention, no doubt about that.
When we sent out the post-BlogHer survey we had a section to self-categorize your blogs. We used the category "Family" to be, I suppose, sensitive to this issue. A not-insignifcant number of you said, "Hey...how could you forget the MommyBloggers?" And you categorized yourself as "Other"!!
So, can't we simply say "to each their own", or is this a line that must be drawn? I'm not a Mommy. I have no answers. I'm just fascinated by the conversation.
And there's more...
Example #2: Say the words "chick flick" or "chick lit" and what do you think?
I might just think, "cool...that rhymes, heh heh" like Beavis or Butthead, but there are plenty of people who see them as terms to marginalize and dismiss women's stories and to signal to men that they won't care. Spot On blogger Deborah Klosky takes a look at those terms (and manages to throw in "MommyBlogging" while she's at it.)
More than that there are people who think that there are no such things as "women's stories"...these are people's stories.
Finally, example #3: and one I can personally relate to: a theatre blogger, SpearBearer, who says, quite emphatically in a lengthy post:
"My philosophy is simple: SINCE THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH ACTING, AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING FEMALE, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE WORD "ACTRESS."
I was a starving artist in NYC 15-20 years ago, and I can tell SpearBearer that we were already calling ourselves "actors" not "actresses" back then (SpearBearer is assuming this is a much more recent phenomenon.)
What I really wonder is why SpearBearer (and no, I'm not positive which gender this anonymous blogger actually is, although commenters seem to assume male) feels the need to write such a long post defending a word.
I mean, really, who exactly is hurt or impacted when someone wants to call themselves an actor? Oh, SpearBearer will answer that now papers are calling actresses "actors" in their reviews, and this lends the shift credence, and subtly "impugns" those who have called and continue to call themselves actresses.
Do you buy this? I suppose the same could apply to waiter vs. waitress and other examples. Is it wrong to want one equal word to describe what both I and my male colleague do?
Human beings seem wiling to expend a lot of energy arguing over words. We're not a very "live and let live" species, when it comes to language. Then again, I'm not sure we're "live and let live" in any regard!
So:
MommyBlogger
Chick Lit
Chick Flick
Actor or Actress
Do you use 'em?
Do you care?
Great post, Elisa.
Everybody get on over to Sweetney's for the discussion. It's a winner.
Posted by: Lisa Stone | December 29, 2005 at 11:20 AM