Re: Smileys as extensions to the alphabet?

From: Greg Lee (greg_at_ling.lll.hawaii.edu)
Date: 02/03/05 

Date: 3 Feb 2005 16:13:47 GMT

Douglas G. Kilday <fufluns@chorus.net> wrote:

> "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...

> > Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
> > >
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
> > >
> > > > Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jacques was explaining the distinction between two technical
> terms. His
> > > > > > explanation seems to have eluded you. For example: what would an
> icon of
> > > > > > metonymy look like? I've never seen one of those.
> > > > >
> > > > > A man's hand groping a woman's bottom? That could represent "piece
> of ass",
> > > > > a well-known metonymy, and could stand for the whole idea of
> metonymy.
> > > >
> > > > Why the sexist role assignment? Surely a neutral hand and a neutral
> > > > bottom are easier drawn and easier read.
> > >
> > > That might be interpreted as an individual groping himself or herself.
> Is
> > > it possible to get a piece of one's own ass (in real life, apart from
> the
> > > graphic rejoinders of *** Cheney)?
> >
> > Only if you show a particular rather contorted elbow view in your
> > cartoon.
> >
> > Why the sexist role assignment?

> Sexist role assignments are quite common in modern iconography. The "farm
> crossing" sign portrays a _male_ farmer on a tractor. The "deer crossing"
> sign portrays an antlered buck, hence it is both sexist and ageist, since
> the majority of the population consists of antlerless deer. The "duck
> crossing" sign portrays a _mother_ leading her brood, perpetuating the
> stereotype of the deadbeat drake. And of course restroom signs portray only
> the two most popular gender roles. There are no signs for "women trapped in
> men's bodies" or vice versa, although this would be easy to represent
> iconically.

> Sexism cannot be eliminated or avoided.

Cannot even be avoided? Here, you go too far. We need better road signs
to bring does and drakes back into the picture. We need additional restroom
types, appropriately iconized. It can be done!

> A good example is the distinction
> between "meritorious" and "meretricious", which is due to a
> masculine/feminine morphological distinction. At some point, liberals must
> recognize the bankruptcy of the PC enterprise, and realize that there are
> more important matters.

Such as preserving that wonderful word "meretricious" despite its offensive
etymology? This is so silly that one might almost suspect you of being
an etymologist. 

-- 
A Liberal <greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Quantcast