WordWacky

Yesterday I wrote an e-mail to William Safire, the conservative writer and linguist who has contributed to a column in The New York Times Magazine, “On Language,” since forever. Reading up on him in Wikipedia, I am informed that he graduated from the same high school from which I dropped out. This strikes me as symbolic, though I don’t want to belabor that point too much.

I also found this piece of information:

After voting for Bill Clinton in 1992, Safire became one of the leading critics of Clinton’s administration. Hillary Clinton in particular was often the target of his ire. He caused a mild tempest when he called her a “congenital liar”; Hillary responded that she didn’t feel offended for herself, but for her mother’s sake. According to the president’s press secretary at the time, Mike McCurry, “the president, if he were not the president, would have delivered a more forceful response to that on the bridge of Mr. Safire’s nose.”

My letter was in response to the latter half of this Sunday’s “On Language,” subtitled “Misogynist.” In response to Hillary Clinton’s assertion that she had been subject to misogyny during her campaign, “It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists,” Safire wrote:

The word misogyny has since its earliest recording in 1656 meant “hate or contempt for women.” The etymology of misogyny is straightforward: In Greek, miso means “hatred,” and gune means “woman.” A misogynist is a woman-hater. I thought Clinton’s choice of the word was in error, and that the word she meant was sexist, meaning “one who discriminates based on sex” - that she had been treated unfairly because she was a woman. When I looked up the word she chose in the Oxford English Dictionary online, however, I noted that the meaning of misogynist had changed slightly but significantly. In 1989, the definition was “hatred of women”; in the 2002 revision, the definition was broadened to “hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women.”

Safire does not argue that there has not been “incredible vitriol,” yet he describes his immediate reaction to the word misogyny as incorrect, and only justifies her usage of the word as a synonym for prejudice. Thus, my letter, subject line: vitriol/misogyny.

Mr. Safire:

Relevant definitions of vitriol:

OED Online:
5. Virulence or acrimony of feeling or utterance.

Dictionary.com:
3. something highly caustic or severe in effect, as criticism.

American Heritage:
2. Bitterly abusive feeling or expression.

Worldnet:
2. abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will

What about “incredible vitriol” does not imply hatred to you? Bitterly abusive? Venomous?

I heard many such press and non-press attacks. Dismiss me as one of Hillary’s feminists if you will, but your column is misguided in implying that vitriol does not suggest hatred, merely prejudice. I understand that you eventually accept the usage, but you imply that it’s politicized.

Perhaps it is your article that is using words to politick.

Having now read the Wikipedia entry on Safire, I would only alter my letter to remove the word “perhaps.”

Update: Here is my response from William Safire, dated June 22, 2008:

Dear Lexicographic Irregular,

You were good to respond to my invitation for comments and suggestions. A great many other readers have pitched in, too. Although I can’t answer mail individually, I read every letter and am most grateful for yours.

Sincerely,

William Safire

The boldface is his.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 6:07 am and is filed under political words, words. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.