So adding women to the capitalist machine didn't make them happier. The same capitalist machine that is essentially structured to be anti-female. Quelle surprise.

No shit, right? "Despite the invention of time-saving domestic appliances and the implementation of legislation making it nominally illegal to openly sabotage women's participation in the workforce, women are still unhappy in a world that quickly adjusts to ensure that men benefit most from every new development intended for women's advancement."

I haven't read the article, but it doesn't look like she's cited Ruth Schwartz Cowan's More Work for Mother, which points out that 'time-saving domestic appliances' actually saved time for every member of the family EXCEPT the female head of household, who is now expected to devote more time to domestic chores.


I really wish writers would stop it with the semantic inflation: where what used to be horrible is now "horrific," where a coincidence is now an "irony," and where an irony is now a "paradox."

A paradox is a logical impossibility: "This sentence is false." Not what is described here.

OK, OK, language evolves. One of the things that make English such a powerful language is its creativity, its openness, its flexibility. But when you take a word that describes something very specific - not just a coincidence, not just a coincidence involving inconsistency (irony), but a coincidence that generates a logical impossibility - and use that word to describe something far more general, you lose the ability to describe the very specific thing.

It's linguistic creativity, to be sure, but of the kind that impoverishes, rather than enriches, the language.

We at Ovarit are more aware of this sort of thing than are most people.

Yes! The sort of language misuse you describe drives me crazy! I can't figure out whether it's down to people not knowing what the word means but thinking it sounds good, or to the need nowadays for everything to be hypersensationalised if it is to draw any attention.

On a related note, I wish people would stop using the phase "beyond n----". When a celebrity is quoted as saying, "I was beyond thankful" or "We were beyond horrified", I want to ask, "Really? What state of being is there over on the far side of thankful?" Everything has to be exaggerated, but all this exaggeration dulls the impact instead of enhancing it.

what used to be horrible is now "horrific,"

Logged in just to say that this has been one of my biggest pet-peeves for a while. I remember seeing someone, in all seriousness, describe Bean Dad's behaviour as 'horrific child abuse'. Words mean things!

What does "horrific" mean? I thought it was a synonym for "horrible"; what's the difference?

[–] hmimperialtortie cats plz 2 points

It’s a matter of degree.

Horrible and horrific are both related to horror but the words have different connotations. While horrible can be used to refer to something that is not liked or is disagreeable, horrific is a somewhat stronger adjective used to describe things which upset and frighten by their sheer mention. For example – "A horrible meal" and "A horrific war".


[–] BlackCirce [OP] 🔮🐖🐖🐖 0 points

Can you elaborate more on why multiple usages of paradox impede each other? Why does the formation “French paradox” make it more difficult to say “logical paradox”?

"French paradox" is just such an example. That the French supposedly eat & drink less healthfully (NOT "healthily") than many other people but are still fit and thin ... is not a "paradox." It's an irony, an inconsistency, a mystery, a conundrum - we have so many words to describe this phenomenon, why use one so wildly off the mark?

And "logical paradox" is redundant.

I do not mean to come off as ranting against you, fellow Ovaritan; I appreciate the fact you read my post and responded.

I am simply a person who loves language, values the rich and robust vocabulary of English, and hates to "lose" a word whose meaning is unique.

I also hate to state the obvious, but the problem is similar identical to observing the word "woman" routinely used to mean man or woman ...

[–] BlackCirce [OP] 🔮🐖🐖🐖 1 points Edited

I love language too and most words have multiple usages. If you only like words with single usages that’s an extremely limited language. For example do you similarly dislike that the word blue is used for a color and an emotion? Because the multiple usages of paradox are less divergent than that. How do these multiple usages impede each other? Are you unable to describe an entertainment venue where people go to view wild animals (zoo) because sometimes people use that word to describe a rowdy bar or classroom? Is using zoo in this way like using man to mean woman because the bears can look through the windows and watch the civilized animals?

ETA: Paradox took on its current meaning in the 16th century. The word comes from paradoxon meaning contrary to accepted opinion or against expectations. So French paradox fits. So does declining happiness in the environment of more freedom. Most people (not me necessarily) would expect those with more freedom to report more happiness.

A paradox is generally a puzzling conclusion we seem to be driven towards by our reasoning, but which is highly counterintuitive, nevertheless.

A statement which appears self-contradictory or contrary to expectations, also known as an antinomy.

By “paradox” one usually means a statement claiming something which goes beyond (or even against) ‘common opinion’ (what is usually believed or held).

I was reading through this but became frustrated. I'm not satisfied with any analysis that leaves out the impact of porn on women for the last 60 years. This is directly impacting how the average man views, interacts with, and treats the average woman. Of course women will be unhappy while the public at large enjoys viewing their filmed rapes.