First, Camille Paglia: An inch of perspective gained vs. the mile of perspective lacked:
Meanwhile, conservative talk radio, which I have been following with interest for almost 20 years, has become a tornado alley of hallucinatory holograms of Obama. He’s a Marxist! A radical leftist! A hater of America! He’s “not that bright”; he can’t talk without a teleprompter. He knows nothing and has done less. His wife is a raging mass of anti-white racism. It’s gotten to the point that I can hardly listen to my favorite shows, which were once both informative and entertaining. The hackneyed repetition is numbing and tedious, and the overt character assassination is ethically indefensible. Talk radio will lose its broad audience if it continues on this nakedly partisan path.
And I know quoting Townhall columnists is just too easy, but this is amazing even for Townhall:
An Obama presidency would signal the final salvo by the Left in the culture wars. Obama’s advance troops have already taken over our college campuses, have bound and gagged our conservative professors, have ravished our virgins, have pillaged our stores of wisdom, and have ensconced themselves in the thrones of power in deans’, presidents’ and department heads’ offices.
Via G Spot and Shakesville.
You know, I’d never actually read a Paglia column before.
I read all three pages of that. Holy crap, what a windbag. Between comparing a young Brazillian pop-star to American culture idols like Sarah Jessica Parker and and Madonna (note the tremendous age gap there), and her constant use of hyper-flowery language to say simple things….
egads, I want my five minutes back.
Ravished our virgins????
Oh, right, Southern womanhood, check.
(Language-geek aside: why is it socially acceptable to say “you look ravishing” — well, not in the workplace, but elsewhere — but not “you look good enough to rape”?)
@Lu
You didn’t put aside your language geekery. Most people don’t make the connection in their heads that saying “you look ravishing” means “you look rape-able”.
It’s not?
Shoot. No wonder I can never get a second date.
Glad you could catch up with us, Camille. Try to keep pace, okay?
I meant aside as in a stage direction, with language-geek as an adjective modifying it, short for “I’m making this remark as an aside because I’m a language geek.”
I’m well aware that to most people ravish doesn’t sound like rape, still less in its adjective form; I doubt if most people know the original meaning. It’s therefore understandable that someone would try to sneak in a reference to ravished virgins, hoping to sound less, or non-, inflammatory, while all the connotations slither in under the radar.
Yes, “ravish” arises around 1300 from the Old French prefix raviss-, meaning to seize by violence and carry away. It is arguably the root of rape, as well as rapacious, rapt, rapture, rapturous, rapid, rapier, etc.
Recall that the term “rape” originally referred to seizing and taking anything off swiftly by force, such as pirates attacking a city. While the Latin term rapere was occasionally used to mean “sexual violation,” it was less common than the term stuprum (“disgrace”).
However, starting around 1330 people began speaking of their “souls being ravished,” meaning being abruptly transported aloft (presumably with connotations of heaven) beyond their control. Terms such as “rapt” and “rapture,” used to referred to the sensation of being “carried away” in an ecstatic trance, date to about 1400. In contrast, the use of the word “ravish” to mean “commit rape upon” does not arise until 1436. The first recorded use of the English noun “rape” having a specifically sexual connotation doesn’t appear until 1481.
Thus I’d guess that the sentence “You’re absolutely ravishing” originally meant that you cause the viewer to feel uplifted. After all, it is the person being observed who is DOING the ravishing; it is the observer who is being ravished – that is, presumably, being overcome by some uplifting sensation beyond the viewer’s control.
That said, I subscribe to the idea that the “true” meaning of a word is the idea it evokes in the audience, regardless of etymology or intent. I try to avoid saying “niggardly,” “picnic,” “rule of thumb,” “pedagogical,” etc., because the terms provoke unwanted associations in some people’s minds, for whatever reasons. I hadn’t yet added “ravishing” to that list – but honestly I can’t recall the last time I used it (other than when I was doing a Billy Crystal impersonation).
These days, I’m much more likely to say, “Dah-ling, you look ravenous!”
Sad thing #1: they’re obviously trying to be humorous when they say “ravished our virgins”, but such sentiments are so often otherwise expressed in shocking earnest, that the first time you read it you think they’re being serious.
Sad thing #2: I’ve never even thought about that particular misinterpretation of “pedagogical” before. Sigh… it’s just as well. It’s gotten to the point that the mere phrase “young boy” evokes pedophilia. I’ve also told women they look “ravishing” before, mainly because “beautiful” sounds dull and “hot” sounds painfully immature. Never thought about it in that etymological context, hmm.
Wouldn’t ravenous, in that context, mean the exact opposite of ravishing? (i.e. you look good enough to rape vs. you look sexually hungry enough to violate someone.) Unless you’re purposely trying to flip the script.
“Ravenous” in that context would mean, “You look like you haven’t eaten in three days in order to fit into that dress/pants/bikini/all of the above.”
“rule of thumb”?
Nobody is quite correct in pointing out that saying someone looks ravixshing is not to say that they look “ravishable”, much less ” rapable”. The term is also used to described artistic expressions of a transportive sort, such as ravishing music, ravishing verse, etc.
However, I would point out that refusing to use a word because it might be misunderstood, if elevated to a general principle, can quickly devolve into a form of pandering. The assumption seeming to be that one should defer to ignorance as though the person who hears a particular word is incapable of comprehending its actual meaning. Worse, it suggests a conviction that people are incapable of discarding mistaken notions when presented with contrary information. In essence, a belief that the person/persons to whom one is speaking are too stupid to learn.
Despite sharing a common root, condescension and consideration are not synonyms.
The assumption seeming to be that one should defer to ignorance as though the person who hears a particular word is incapable of comprehending its actual meaning. Worse, it suggests a conviction that people are incapable of discarding mistaken notions when presented with contrary information. In essence, a belief that the person/persons to whom one is speaking are too stupid to learn.
When language is mistaken for reality, the stupidest and craziest people get to control reality.
Well, perhaps not. But I think we’re all getting closer to the truth.
It was widely reported – including in government documents – that the phrase “rule of thumb” arose from an alleged principle that a man may legally beat his wife with a stick provided the stick is no thicker than his thumb. Yet evidence suggests that the phrase arose from entirely different contexts. Furthermore, there is doubt about whether the legal principle alleged ever applied.
(So we enter a Rathergate world: People who feel passionately about the cause of domestic violence – an important, well-documented problem – can get side-tracked and discredited by discussing its relationship to the “rule of thumb” – a tangential, doubtfully-documented matter.)
Regardless, the phrase now evokes a visceral reaction in people. Just as I often say “the n-word” rather than “nigger” even in contexts where no offensive intent could be inferred, I now generally steer clear of the phrase “rule of thumb.”
So don’t confuse language with reality. If you regard language merely as a tool for coping with reality then you can often avoid pointless fights over language simply by substituting different language.
Admittedly, I take some satisfaction in the purity of my language – at least for purposes of talking to myself. (Which I don’t mean flippantly: I try to be conscious of the way I talk to myself because I believe my language influences my thoughts, not just the other way around.) But assuming my audience is someone beyond myself, I can’t imagine ignoring that person’s perspective when picking my words, no matter how well-chosen a word might seem to me.
For example, when confronted by a mugger, should I plead, “Mercy!”? Perhaps – if I’m in an English-speaking country. Perhaps not – if I’m in France, where the word merci means “thank you.” Now, I guess some people might stand their ground, proudly proclaiming “Mercy!” in English, smug in the knowledge that if the French mugger doesn’t understand, well, that just shows your superiority over him.
Let me know how that works out for you.
I like sharing ideas. But the world is thick with ideas. It’s hard enough to get people’s attention; once I have it, I don’t want to lose it because they got distracted by some meaningless side-message. That’s why I wear a suit to work: not to send any message, but to AVOID sending a message. If I speak to people in the office while wearing a suit, there’s a chance people will listen to what I’m saying. If I speak to people in the office without wearing a suit, people will get distracted. “Where’s the suit? What significance should I attach to this guy’s attire? Is this some kind of statement?”
Now, if for some reason I WANTED people to be thinking that – discussing nonconformity or unstated assumptions or something – then I might ditch the suit. Thus, a suit is not the RIGHT or the WRONG thing to wear. Rather, I choose my attire just as I choose my language – strategically, to promote (or at least to avoid distracting from) communication. I’m not wedded to the suit, just as I’m not wedded to any particular language. I’m wedded to ideas, and everything else is subordinate.
Do I look down on people who are too stupid or crazy – or too busy to wade through a lot of stray messages – to see the point of what I’m saying? Sure, sometimes. And so much more’s the pity for me. Because language is not reality. Stupid, crazy, busy people are.
The point about not mistaking language for reality is well taken. But if language isn’t at least a discription of reality then it is meaningless noise. The distinction between reality and language mandates clarity , accuracy and discipline in the use of the latter, a striving toward shared meaning rather than the fuzzing of distinctions and nuance.
As said previously, there is a difference between consideration and condescension. Just as there is a distinction between communication and manipulation. The goal of the former is a shared comprehension. The latter is focused entirely on achieving a desired result. In such an instance comprehension on the part of the listener might be considered entirely undesirable.
Certainly one seeking to communicate must give consideration to their audience, whether one or many, as in the case of the French mugger. However, as anyone who has been mugged could tell you, the experience is a transaction rather than a conversation and often the wisest course is to say nothing at all and simply comply with the demand .
As for the point about business attire, I think it an excellent illustration of the dangers of fuzzing distinctions. Words may be symbols but all symbols are not words. Likewise, language may be a form of communication but all forms of communication are not language. Wearing a suit is an attempt to communicate a message to be sure but it is by no means a prelude to an exchange, anymore than the commercials on a TV set are an invitation to a conversation. The goal in both instances is an appeal to custom and/or unspoken prejudice. One doesn’t wear a business suit in order elicit an interogative as to the suit’s meaning or the wearer’s intent. To the contrary, The purpose of the suit is to forestall any such inquiry.
Manipulation may require a form of communication but they are not synonymous.
I am actually amused that someone would call him inarticulate considering the mumbling of Bush we have had to listen to for the last 8 years. To me this is about jealousy and fear.