5.0696 Man-hater v. Misandrist (2/60)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Tue, 18 Feb 1992 20:53:01 EST

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 5, No. 0696. Tuesday, 18 Feb 1992.

(1) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 09:36:01 CST (46 lines)
From: (Dennis Baron) <baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: manhater

(2) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 08:03:19 EST (14 lines)
From: Anne Erlebach <AERLEBAC@MTUS5.cts.mtu.edu>
Subject: Misandrist

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 09:36:01 CST
From: (Dennis Baron) <baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: manhater

It seems that more times than not, when we are challenged to come up with
a new word (neologism) we resort to Latin and Greek. What else could
you expect a bunch of humanists (florilegium) to do? Scientists, esp.
in this century, have occasionally broken away from the classical yoke,
to coin quarks and barns, but even they are drawn to nano- for small
things and mega- for big. From time to time since the 16th century
English has experienced periods of isolationism, during which times
it has been suggested that all words of "foreign" origin be purged
and old, native words be revived, or new words coined on native
models. Of course, other languages have had purification drives
as well. I have called such movements in the history of
English "Saxonism." They have resulted in such oddities as
cellar-thane for butler, push-wainling for pram (perambulator),
and upgangflow for escalator. But they have also resulted
in more permanent revivals/coinages, for example handbook (manual)
and foreword (preface). Most of the Saxonists have been a bit
eccentric (nutty) but almost every handbook (enchiridion)
of English style in this century has advised writers to choose
native over borrowed, and short over long, words. The influence is there.

So, my question is this: are there no "native" candidates for the new
word you seek, or must male-haters be clothed in the etymologically
opaque fabric of the word players? The term _man-hater_
has been around for some time. The OED traces it to 1579-80 (s.v.),
and though its earliest uses are generic (=misanthrope, which it
occasionally translates [or should I say traduces?]), its late
19th century sense is clearly male-hater and it is applied to women.
I think it is this sense that prevails today when it is used,
and it is still used, although OED2 does not have any later cites.
Misandry, by the way, is listed as current (dating from mid 1940s!)
in the Random House Webster's College Dictionary.

Of course English doesn't just borrow from its saxon and its classical
past, as honcho, kosher, and pajama attest. Any thoughts from the
less-well-tapped tongues?

Dennis Baron debaron@uiuc.edu
Dept. of English office: 217-244-0568
University of Illinois messages: 217-333-2392
608 S. Wright St fax: 217-333-4321
Urbana IL 61801
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------21----
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 08:03:19 EST
From: Anne Erlebach <AERLEBAC@MTUS5.cts.mtu.edu>
Subject: Misandrist

Does it occur to anybody that English has a perfectly good term for a
man-hater: i.e., "man-hater"? This discussion is but another exam-
ple of academics' need to complicate things. When in doubt, simplify,
and stick with your English roots.

Anne Erlebach
Department of Humanities
Michigan Technological University
1400 Townsend Drive
Houghton,MI 49931-1295