wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes

[Carol]

Carol:
> >  How about the connotation of a man who beats his wife, the
literal meaning of the word? Doesn't it imply a false standard of
masculinity (male domination and violence)? That, not the ethnic
origin or "trailer trash"/"redneck" connotation, is what troubles me.
> SNIP Anyway, thanks for your perspective, Ali. It's probably similar
to my clients. Please forgive me, but I get the idea that your
generation just hasn't given the word any thought.
> 
> Ali:
> I'm going to try to not sound snide (because I'm not being snide),
but what does the connotation have to do with it?  A wifebeater, the
object, is a shirt.  A wife beater, the person, can (and, in this day
and age, many times does) wear suits and other very respectable
clothing.  <snip>

Carol responds:
You don't sound snide at all, and I appreciate your perspective. But
the connotation has everything to do with it. I doubt that most people
who use the term "wifebeater/wife beater" in either sense are thinking
about the spelling, and I'm seriously concerned that such a term can
be casually thrown around without a thought given to the literal
meaning. Why not, as Lee's friend suggests, call it by its proper name
("A-shirt")? Why use a term that seems to condone wifebeating, or, at
least, to take it for granted?

Ali:
  And while I think you're right in that most people haven't given the
term thought, I think people of my generation who have given it
thought have also decided that it isn't worth it to worry about the
connotation of the name of a tee when the name is such a part of the
vernacular - also, I don't know how common my experience is but the
term has offended no one I've come in contact with before (meaning
people my age and their parents).

Carol:
It seems to me that Lee's friend, who is your own age and h *has*
given the term thought, has reached the opposite conclusion. The words
we use for ordinary objects and occurrences reflect changing values.
(I was once criticized by a twenty-something for saying that an animal
was put to sleep; the "correct" term--IOW, the new term used by her
generation--is "put down." No understanding whatever of the concept of
linguistic change, not to mention respect for her elders, but, oh,
well!) My point is that, yes, terms change, and, yes, the generations
see things differently, but we should still listen to the literal
meanings of our slang terms and see if they suggest something
undesirable, as "wifebeater" certainly does.

Ali:
> I mean, Lee's friend is right.  The term is a slang term, one that
is extremely common. ,snip>

Carol:
And he has chosen *not* to use that very common slang term because of
its connotations, and to use the correct term, "A-shirt," instead. (At
least we agree that he's right!)

Just because a term is in common use doesn't make it legitimate.
Racial epithets used to be common. Calling women "broads" used to be
common (perhaps it still is, in some circles). We need to think about
the words they use. And if the term "wifebeater" doesn't offend
people, or, at least, those who are so used to it that they don't
think about its meaning, perhaps it should.

Ali: 
> I think that Magpie's suggestion of taking out the colour altogether
is best (but then, that's probably because, if I were the author, I
would vehemently argue for the authenticity of keeping the term
wifebeater).

Carol:
I'm not sure that you understand the role of a copyeditor. I do
correct errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and word
choice when the chosen word is an actual error ("conscious" for
"conscience," for example, though that might count as spelling). I
also delete wordy phrases and change passive voice to active voice,
etc. But in a case like this, I query (question) the word choice,
calling it to the attention of the author and asking her if she wants
to change it, giving her my reasons and some alternative choices. But
the decision to accept or reject my suggestions is entirely hers. And
if she chooses "authenticity" over "connotations," that's her
decision. As I always tell my clients in the cover letter that
accompanies the edited manuscript, it's their manuscript.

Ali: 
> My two cents.  (Sorry if I sounded mean/snide/whatever since I
honestly was trying not to be - can't guess how that came across,
though, so I'm just making apologies now.)

Carol:
No need for apologies. I think you've kept your disagreement with me
quite civil and I appreciate your honesty. No doubt I sound like a
mean old codger who just doesn't "get" young people. But I'm genuinely
concerned with language and with the terms we use (I won't go into
other linguistic trends that annoy or trouble me).

Carol, who likes honest, unemotional discussion and is glad that we
can all express our views here, even if we only agree to disagree