Dictionaries are typically viewed as being value-neutral. But they are just as steeped in culture and prejudice as the rest of the world and they have the power to shape what we see as "normal"
In late Jan, one of the authors of this piece- anthropologist Michael Oman Reagan wanted to use the word rabid in a tweet about US politics. Looking up the word in his dictionary, he noticed that the example given for the definition was the phrase "a rabid feminist." Oman Reagan posted a tweet to Oxford Dictionaries, which provides the content for MacBook dictionaries: "Hey @OxfordWords, why is 'rabid feminist' ... in your dictionary" Oxford's social media response was mocking "If only there were a word to describe how strongly you felt about feminism. Implying I presume, that he too was a "rabid feminist".
While most of the media stories were supportive of a feminist perspective, a large number of commenters on Twitter and various blogs were hostile to it. The debate was not just about a few words. It was about much deeper issues of sexism in language and linguistic authority-- about how dictionaries are perceived. Is the description of a woman's shrill voice sexist, or simply accurate? Are dictionaries objective, natural reflection of language usage, or do they help reinforce sexism?
Comments