Diva: when (if ever) to use the word?

[eplovejoy]

In an exchange on the American Copy Editors Society (ACES) board, Epinions member pambo objects to the Associated Press' calling Martha Stewart the "diva of domesticity". Her contention is that the usage is sexist because no male executive would ever be called a diva.

Originally "diva" applied only to a select group of the best female opera singers. Then it was expanded to apply to women who had distinguished themselves in any musical field. Perhaps its original suggestion that the woman described is sometimes difficult to deal with has been lost now that VH1 has called everyone from Gloria Estefan to Elton John "divas". Or perhaps not.

So, in what uses do you think "diva" is appropriate?

[sleeper54]

'Diva' to me carries the idea of 'best'.

And usually in the feminine sense...
...so of course 'no male executive' would be called a 'diva'.

That seems like the male's loss...not a slam at the female.


'Prima donna' on the other hand...is another discussion...:-)


``tom``

[satan]

Originally posted by eplovejoy
So, in what uses do you think "diva" is appropriate?

i find it quite appropriate in the example you've given here. Though it seems that the word choice was dictated by the requirements of alliteration . . . in which case i think doyenne or doxy would've sufficed . . . :p

And i completely fail to see why the term couldn't be applied to any male executive who deserved it. As far as i can see, only someone who pays attention to the Thou shalt and Thou shalt nots of the language mavens would have misgivings on that front . . .

Originally posted by eplovejoy
. . . objects to the Associated Press' calling Martha Stewart . . .

. . . and here's a perfect example: the language mavens pontificate that Thou shalt not put three asses before thee for some asinine reason about the dissonant sibilant hiss this produces at the end of sentences. Yet, when someone pronounces Associated Press', they'll say "Associated Press-ehs" . . .

[rich2003dm]

I'm a middle-aged guy who was raised in a different era. And because of that, I guess I lacked sensitivity. I've been trying like hell to rid myself of all of my old neanderthal ways.

I agree completely with Pambo.

I would never call some chick a diva.

Rich

[Prepoia[$]]

First of all, I want to compliment Rich on letting his "sensitivity" show

I always picture "diva" as an a person with arrogance and most of all superiority in some area. Though most of the time I think the word is associated with the feminine gender, so what? (my pc and sensitivity are showing too). The language allows and has imbedded feminine and masculine connotations, live with it. Men and women are different. They have different sex organs and many, not all, wear different clothing.

I also think that if you used the term i.e. The president of GM is a diva among presidents of car companies, everyone would get a correct image of the person being spoken about (and as president of GM it could be a he or she.)

My two cents.

Sandy
Who thinks most genders and nationalilties take themselves far too seriously and should lighten up.

[brian_igo]

With all respect to a fellow Epinionater who gets paid to think about these things, pambo is a lot of bricks short of a load on this one.

Her interpretation is an example of political correctness in language running amuk. Since when did a title that applies primarily to one gender become the standard for being a sexist slur? By her standard is midwife sexist? What about seamstress?

Of course she is not talking about the definition of diva that has evolved over centuries. I'm sure she isn't offended when someone refers to Beverly Sills and Marion Anderson as divas. It is the definition of the word that has risen from the occasional VH1 series of the same name, the use of "diva" to describe a woman who is controlling, demanding and egocentric.

Is that use sexist? Perhaps. You wouldn't call a man with those qualities a diva, but I don't see being called an asshole as any great advantage.

The problem is, and this is the big problem I have always had with this movement, is redefining our rules of language to affect and temper the fashion of the moment. Because, like, calling a bitchy woman a diva is going to be so totally ten minutes ago in a few years, for sure. Can you dig it?

The rules of language are our heritage. They are what keeps us grounded so these fits of fashion can come and go. When you make the rules of language subject to the same rules of fashion, you say everything that was solid and lasting and good from before was only fashion, too. It terribly cheapens this gift that lets us speak across the centuries, and it guarantees that what we say will not be heard by those to come.


Brian

[sleeper54]

Originally posted by brian_igo

--snip--

It terribly cheapens this gift that lets us speak across the centuries, and it guarantees that what we say will not be heard by those to come.

Brian

Well, it may be heard, but will it be understood ??


``tom``

[Prepoia[$]]

My daughter took a Women's Study Class in college that stated the male dominance in society in part due to our language. They were pointing out to the younger generation that female connotative words are innoculated and endorsed by society for the purpose of keeping women from becoming powerful or important in the "good old boy" cliques that run the country. I wish I could remember some of the examples of language they gave. I think she has a few somewhere around and if I find them I'll list some of them. (Amazing that I can't even remember one!)

Sandy

[MrsNormanMaine[$]]

It's always appropriate when referring to yours truly...

MNM !queen

[Redlass]

Quoting Brian:
By her standard is midwife sexist? What about seamstress?

Bit of trivia. I would point out that midwife is an inclusive term. "wife" does not refer to the person assisting, but the person giving birth (who is always a woman). Mid means with. SO it is a term that means "with wife." Granted, not all mothers are wives. (Another bit of trivia: Did you know that the U.S., Canada, and South Africa are the only industrialized nations in which midwives are not supported by law and the medical community? Or at least, as of the late 90s that was true.)

Seamstress, on the other hand, I would avoid. There are many other good words that good be used: Tailor, sewer, mender, stitcher, clothier, dressmaker, garment worker, needleworker (depending on the specific type of occupation you were referring to).

I wouldn't say that using seamstress (or diva to stay on topic) is a sexist slur. I would, though, question using it and try to make a better choice when given options. Every time we write, we make choices. We choose one word and "censor" all the rest. Speech would get boring if we used every single synonym every time we spoke.

So why not make choices that are more inclusive? Especially if we can be more specific while doing so. Why should I say fireman when firefighter would do? (Especially since a fireman is really someone who works on a steam engine, not someone who puts out fires.) Why say police man when police officer would do?

It isn't a matter of saying the old words are evil, it's a matter of making choices and choosing words that communicate better, more accurately, and to a wider, more diverse audience.

[Redlass]

Originally posted by brian_igo


The rules of language are our heritage. They are what keeps us grounded so these fits of fashion can come and go. When you make the rules of language subject to the same rules of fashion, you say everything that was solid and lasting and good from before was only fashion, too. It terribly cheapens this gift that lets us speak across the centuries, and it guarantees that what we say will not be heard by those to come.

But language changes all the time. Ask any linguist.

People fear Shakespeare because they don't understand the language. Indeed, even those words we recognize were used differently then.

There is language from literature a scant 70 years ago that now seems stilted and difficult to understand.

This isn't a bad thing, it is part of a living language. There will always be those who will take the time to translate old wisdom into modern language--do we not still read Beowulf even though most English-speakers cannot understand it in its original form?