Part 1: Pussy In the Media

This small article is from the same Mx newspaper as my previous post.
The headline is relatively complex, the author has incorporated several interesting concepts which appealed to me. At it's most basic level, the utilisation of the lexeme "Pussy" is a sensationalist element woven into the title which functions to capture the reader's attention. It definitely succeeded in catching my eye, and I can assume that it would have a similar effect on others who, like me, are not accustomed to encountering such a word outside of a social media or other highly informal context.

At this point I think it is worth speculating upon exactly why this particular lexeme functions in this way. Amongst younger generations (mine, for example); sex and sexuality are not the taboo subjects they once were. Though there is still a notable and distasteful discrepancy between what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable for two individuals of the same age, but differing genders. There seem to be innumerable double standards littering the society's moral conscience of in every aspect of human existence; from our choice of occupation to our sexual activity

The way in which we regard a woman's sexuality, including her genitalia, can only be assimilated to a giant melting pot. Ingredients contributing to the formation of our opinions include; the stubborn, lingering remnants of the Victorian era, current Western culture, ancient mythology and Christianity. Have you ever thought about the fact that the word which is considered to be the most offensive of all vulgarisms (hint: it starts with C) and according to Germaine Greer, "is one of the few remaining words in the English Language with a genuine power to shock" is a colloquialism for the female genitalia? It can be found in the Maquarie dictionary; where its definition reads "the female genitalia" as well as "a contemptible person". The first definition is etymologically sound; it is believed that the C word originated within Cuneciform; the most ancient form of writing. The word 'kunta' meant "female genitalia". It also meant "woman" in various African languages. So then how did the C word come to earn such dismal connotations? They can be largely contributed to history, as previously insinuated. In the time of ancient Egyptian and Japanese civilisations; the female genitalia was in fact worshipped within the respective mythologies. At that early point in history, the male's role in conception was not understood by the the people. Therefore our anatomy was idolised as a symbol of fertility and amongst some cultures was even thought to ward of evil and encourage crops to prosper. Within the 11th century, sculptures were carved, depicting women with large vulvae and exaggerated breasts. During the Victorian Era, the innate concepts of femininity were considered to have been born from a woman's sexuality. 

"Women were so exclusively identified by their sexual functions that nineteenth-century society came to regard them as "the Sex" - Susan Kent

Christian theologian Tertullian wrote that "Woman is the gate to hell and her gaping genitals the yawning mouth of hell". And as for those 11th century sculptures, many of them were declared obscene and subsequently smashed to smithereens.

However, the woman of today are strong. One does not have to look far to find examples that substantiate this (Julia Gillard, Michelle Obama, Hilary Clinton, Ellen Degeneres). However, notions of male supremacy are heavily indoctrinated into our minds every day. From the blatant misogyny and sexism rampant in our own government (I'm looking at you, Mr. Abbot) to the more inadvertent and subliminal mediums such as our daily vernacular, which I will be discussing.

Think about individuals in society who hold esteemed, and often authoritative positions in the workforce. People with their fair share of clout. What do we call them? PoliceMEN, FireMEN, ChairMAN, SpokesMAN, CleryMAN, BusinessMAN. We often don't think twice about this recurring suffix because we see it, speak it and write it constantly, and have been since we learnt to do so. Interesting, in Old English the suffix 'man' was in fact gender neutral, meaning "person". However, in Modern English, the connotations attached to this suffix have evolved significantly to convey a sense of masculinity and manliness. Consequently, people learn to associate the powerful roles in society with individuals who identify as members of the male gender. Over time this results in a discrepancy of approximately grand-canyon proportions that rears its ugly head in the faces of smart and ambitious women. For those of you who disagree; verified statistics show that women hold less than one third of the 'power-jobs' in today's society.

To present an unbiased viewpoint, it is worth mentioning job titles which work in reverse; that is, in favour of women. Occupations such as 'midwife', express their gender preference rather explicitly. Other typically 'feminine' occupations are altered morphologically with respect to the original, or masculine form of the term, generally with the suffix "ess" or "ette". Therefore when attempting to be gender inclusive, one must revert back to the 'original' (which is actually the masculine) so as to not omit males. Danger also lies within the connotations we have evolved to associate to various occupations. What twisted idealogical standard substantiates the assumption that a male flight attendant or a female soldier must be harbouring homosexual tendencies to their respective genders?

In a hypersexualised, misogynistic society, discussing the subliminal indoctrination of male supremacy in the English Language could render me as educated as a deluded conspiracy theorist. But why should I be embarrassed asking questions about the my gender's oppression ? Everyone makes pivotal decisions to adopt and cultivate certain opinions which then act like puppeteers in dictating our outward behaviours towards others and ourselves. And if we aren't concious of these decisions, if instead they are subliminally drip-fed, inadvertently ingrained or blatantly pounded into our skulls by our culture, community, religion (shout out to any religion who include the Old Testament in their repertoire of sacred texts. Women are established as eternally subordinate to men from the get-go (literally, it's in Genesis) when God decides to create her FROM the man Adam) or society to develop these expectations then my point of is only further substantiated.

How can we as a society wean ourselves from these out dated gender specific roles and clear as mud expectations when we continue to permit sexist ideology to permeate our culture and influence our actions and attitudes?

The title is so unconsciously striking to us because of the seemingly inherent ability to associate a derogatory term that is also colloquial and vulgar (depending on your opinion) variant of the female genitalia with taboo. Often, this initial sense of taboo is translated to tangible intrigue, especially when looking at a media source, whether it be inherently sensationalist or not.

Kaitlyn Krahe

Aria Kidding? - Why I love Mx

This snippet was taken from the Mx newspaper dated Friday November 30th 2012.

For those who are unfamiliar with this particular publication; Mx is a free newspaper targeting commuters in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, particularly those who utilise the various public transport mediums these cities offer its civilians. You can get your hands on the most recent copy of Mx by locating an Mx volunteer handing out copies amongst the bustle of one of Melbourne's City Loop train stations like Flinders Street or Melbourne Central. Although Mx usually isn't readily available from every station or stop, if you're planning on travelling via train, you can often expect to find an Mx or 7 littered throughout the carriages, graciously left behind from previous commuters. A certain degree of mateship is exhibited here in this unwritten, mutual understanding of Mx protocol; leaving your copy behind for another unknown, yet fellow commuter looking to entertain themselves. 

While it looks like a typical newspaper, its publication regime seems to bypass a lot of the criteria which render other Australian newspapers as blandly informative. The great thing about Mx is that it caters for everyone with its relatively unprecedented (at least in my experience) and enjoyable combination of world and local news, sport, celebrity gossip, brainteasers and -my personal favourite- the 'Mx talk' section. It is a relatively small publication in physical size, therefore you can count on the articles as being information dense and concise, yet interesting and often rather witty. While I definitely wouldn't describe Mx as distastefully sensationalist, there certainly are tabloid-like characteristics within its pages that make it stand apart from other newspapers in circulation.All in all, it's a brilliant concept. 

As a regular user of Melbourne's public transport system, I enjoy reading Mx as much as the next commuter. But as an English Language student, I find aspects of publication highly thought provoking and useful for consolidating vague ideas I have obtained in class. In the example above; these two words enable me to explore a surprisingly wide range of metalanguage and concepts. 

This edition of Mx was published the day after the esteemed ARIA Awards of 2012. The ARIA Awards are an acronym for 'The Australian Recording Industry Association Music Awards'. They have been held annually since 1987 and have become a hugely anticipated and enjoyed event amongst the Australian Music Industry and music lovers of Australia. Artists who are nominated for or even win an ARIA can expect a great deal of media attention and often a significant increase in sales. 

There is often a great deal of confusion when it comes to distinguishing between acronyms and initialisms. 'ARIA' is considered to be an acronym rather than an initialism because the 4 letter abbreviation derived from taking the first letter of each word (Australian Recording Industry Association Music Awards) is pronounceable. Therefore, the distinction between initialisms and acronyms lies within whether or not they can be pronounced without sounding awkward. However, the problem with this definition lies within the fact that there is not a 'be all and end all' definition for what everyone unanimously agrees to be 'pronounceable' as opposed to 'unpronounceable' and thus whether something is an acronym or initialism can potentially be subject to debate.

One may also wish to consider that the letter 'M', as well an extra 'A' has been omitted in the the 'acronym' ARIA. One may argue that ARIA is therefore not a 'true' acronym because technically, it doesn't represent the phrase as an entirety. However it is uncharacteristic of Australians, especially those of the younger generations to regard the English Language with such a prescriptivist eye. Unlike French and ideographic languages like Japanese and English doesn't have a central defining authority for correctness which seeks to maintain the so-called 'purity' of our language. As older notions of correctness and prescriptivism are replaced with contemporary ideas of context relevant appropriateness, people will continue to do different things with their spoken and written language.

Regardless, the decision to eliminate these letters was presumably due several reasons of which I can only speculate upon. Firstly the two extra letters needed to form ARIAMA means an increase in expenses from whoever's responsibility it is to create merchandise and advertise as well design trophies, signs and banners, simply because there is more that needs to be fitted into an allocated space. 

However, from an English Language student's perspective; I can only assume that these letters were omitted due to phonological purposes. The assonance created by beginning and ending ARIA with vowel A creates a phonologically pleasing sensation of “rolling off the tongue” and thus renders the acronym memorable one.

My favourite part of this snippet is the fantastic play on words that the author has created in the title. I found that personally, I didn't really 'get it' until I read the title aloud to myself (and by aloud I mean using my inner monologue so as to not appear as though I was speaking to myself on the train).

The author has cleverly recognised the uncanny correlation between the pronunciation of the acronym ARIA and the way in which some Australians (especially those with a tendency to utilise a more broad variation of the Australian accent) pronounce 'are you'.

The typical broad Australian accent is characterised by a strong nasal resonance, or vibration of the voice. Through restricted jaw movement, vowels are flattened and consonants are often not rounded or carefully pronounced. Sounds are assimilated or blended, and often the final consonants of words are omitted or not sounded to provide fluency and efficiency of communication.

When one utilises a broad Australian accent, intentionally or not, some believe there is a great risk of purporting oneself as uneducated and of significantly less social class and prestige. However to many, this notion is ridiculous. It perpetuates an unfair stereotype borne from ignorance and simplistic ideas. It poses the threat of rendering very intellectually capable people as uneducated and unscholarly, simply because of the particular linguistic and phonological features which comprise their individual accent.

Whether inadvertently or not, the authorial decision to include this play on words functions to lessen our 'cultural cringe'; an unfortunate phenomenon where Australians are distance themselves from things they consider to be quintessentially Australian and therefore embarrassing as a result of these ancient notions of British supremacy which have been indoctrinated into the minds of each subsequent generation since colonisation

.

This title is like one great 'personal joke' designed soley for Australian English-speakers to enjoy and have a good-hearted, appreciative laugh at; and not to be embarrassed by. There is an enormous different between having a giggle at yourself and being so ashamed of your accent that you distance yourself from this Australian national identity. Simultaneously, in respect to our nation's ever growing multiculturalism, this quasi-idiom / personal joke does not exclude foreigners or tourists or people who otherwise do share the English vernacular.

This idea ties in very satisfyingly when we remember that this title is referencing the ARIAs, the The Australian Recording Industry Association Music Awards. An event which is in itself a quintessentially Australian and encourages a nation to take pride in the artistic feats, talents, endeavours and achievements of the children of our nation.

The smaller caption underneath the title is effective for several reasons. At a basic level, I know if I was coming home from a 9 to 5 work day at the office, something as deliciously fickle and simplistic as the overt superficiality of the “goss, fashion and boobs” at the ARIAs would seem very interesting indeed. Indulging oneself in the apparent materialism of the celebrity world to scoff at outrageous dresses (Nicki Minaj, I'm looking at you) and envy physiques can be very pleasing when in search for a mindless, luxurious read.

It could be my immaturity, but I was amused by the author's inclusion of the word 'boob'. In the 21^st century, 'boob' is far from a taboo word, depending on who you happen to ask. I consider it to be a colloquial lexeme, one that I would use within a discourse amongst friends but certainly not if I was in a Health class a school (unless I was looking to earn a few cheap giggles and a reprimanding from the teacher). Pigs would fly before you saw the word 'boob' in the Herald Sun or The Age and it is for this exact reason that I appreciate Mx. They tip-toe the narrow line between humour and distaste by throwing a slang word nonchalantly into the title of their front page but also exhibit appropriateness and connectedness to the reader by choosing to utilise the more common synonym for a woman's breasts instead of a more vulgar substitute (use your imagination) or, at the other end of the spectrum, a piece of medical jargon.

Lastly, the page reference beneath the title and the caption embody an idea that becomes common knowledge and almost second nature to newspaper and magazine readers alike. The fact that we are able to derive meaning between the title / caption presented to us and the corresponding page numbers listed below and consequently locate the particular article is rather interesting when truly considered. The ellipsis of something along the lines of “find this article on pages ...” is necessary to make more space on the page available, and after all this time of having publications format their papers in such a manner, would probably make us readers feel a tad patronised.

Kaitlyn Krahe