http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/556/556_04_RealHeroes.shtml

Oh dear. Is that monstrosity in the headline really a word in use in America?

Please forgive me, but I'm gonna go in a corner now and hurl. That ranks (both in smell and rating) right up there with <her>story and <his>tory and other related crappola. No, Bob; I don't think it will ever be in common use. But it is garbage like this that makes those of us who labor in the fields of sexual equality have to work that much harder not to be associated with ignorant idiotic buffoons like the author and the publication in question.

Common or not there are 64800 ghits for "sheroes". All the ones on the front page are using it in this way. Searching for "shero" in the singular is distorted by a lot of people who have this as a name.

Quote: there are 64800 ghits for "sheroes"

An abomination of a so-called word; a gross, deformed creature. Those ghits are from gits.

Oddly, though, I only get 7,720 ghits (with my preferences set to English-only; moderate filtering). And when I change to "any language," my ghits actually drop, precipitously, to only 586.

P.S. Odder yet: The first google search comes up saying "about 7,690 English pages for sheros". But if you then try to list them it gives only 416, saying, "We have omitted some entries very similar to 416 already listed." Even if you have it show those it had omitted, the list only expands to 978 ghits.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Hic et ubique,

quote:

sheroes

I can happily say that I've never heard it before this post. I agree with you completely, Jo.

Allow me to add a dissenting opinion that undoubtedly will rub most liguaphiles the wrong way: The term "sheroes" does not cause me to feel as though I'm about to swoon at yet another abuse of our beloved Mother Tongue. In my opinion it does, in fact, serve a purpose.

Try this. Picture in your mind a hero, any hero, doing anything heroic. Chances are you thought of a fireman or a policeman or the like. When we think of heros, we tend not to think of women outside of the limited areas involving the protection of their own children. Words like "sheros" (which, I completely admit, have a definte nails-on-the-chalboard quality to them) serve to remind us that heroism is not gender based.

Imagine a scene at a fire with a child on a third story ledge. Two people speak:

1st person: Somebody do something to save that child!

2nd person: I'll save him!

Now, which person is male and which is female? Obviously you can't tell BUT which one sounds male or female when filtered through our gender bias?

My point is that abominations like "sheros" wouldn't exist if no one saw a need for them. I'm not positive (Kalleh, your feedback here would be appreciated) but it's my understanding that the term "male nurses" was recently declared un-PC for similar, although gender-reversed, reasons. Just as heros can come in both genders, so can nurses. As I see it, the goal should not be an attack on words of this sort but rather an increase in the awareness of the rightness of full equality so that, as a result, these words become obsolete.


(Totally unrelated sidenote: This is the first time I have ever seen the word "ghits". My first thought was that it was a simple typo but I now see it is shorthand for "google hits". Makes perfect sense, as ugly as it is, and provides yet another example of the expansive nature of our language. I might point out that there is a 50% chance that the person who originally coined this term is a shero in her own right.)

quote:

Originally posted by Chris J. Strolin:
Allow me to add a dissenting opinion that undoubtedly will rub most liguaphiles the wrong way: The term "sheroes" does not cause me to feel as though I'm about to swoon at yet another abuse of our beloved Mother Tongue. In my opinion it does, in fact, serve a purpose.

And the problem with "heroine" would be...?

This brings up an interesting question, for want of a Language Academy, who judges what's a word (neologism, archaism, inkhorn term, nonce word) and who gets to coin them. It's not like language is government regulated, like sin-taxed items or coin of the realm, and I say: hurrah for that. In the end, the people get to talk with their mouths: if something catches on, people use it, and if not, people don't. The sole problem with shero versus heroine is what? (Ideological or politcal differences between coiners and rejecters?) Just because words exist, doesn't seem to stop a language from replacing terms, as old coins and currencies wear out, new ones replace them. Sometimes larger denominations are needed when the buying power of some have shrunk. I, personally, don't see shero catching on, but if it does, I can always use the older word, or coin a newer one which may or may not fail in the market place. I have personally used herstory in casual conversation, but admittedly for comic effect. I find it a cute coinage similar in its pleasing qualities as a good joke or a folk etymology.

quote:

who judges what's a word (neologism, archaism, inkhorn term, nonce word) and who gets to coin them.

This has been an ongoing discussion here since the beginning of Wordcraft.

I forgot about "heroine;" you are so right, Bob! This should be a no-brainer: "heroine" it is.

quote:

Picture in your mind a hero, any hero, doing anything heroic. Chances are you thought of a fireman or a policeman or the like. When we think of heros, we tend not to think of women outside of the limited areas involving the protection of their own children.

Interesting, I don't tend to think of heroes as being mostly male. During Hurricane Katrina, in fact, I wrote an article about the real heroes being the nurses (92% of nurses are female)...in those 8 hospitals that were stranded. There were some amazing, tear-jerking stories that came out of those hospitals. The nurses sacrificed their own lives and families for the sake of their patients.

As for your comment on men in nursing, I suppose some men don't like "male nurses," though it's too late; until there are more men in nursing, that's what everyone calls them. I do wish we had more men in nursing. I think my profession suffers from lack of the influence of men. It is hard to articulate, and this probably sounds sexist, but men are able to forget past indiscretions much more than women are. We can't unite in nursing (and with 2.3 million nurses, if we were to unite, we could change the face of health care) because some group remembers that another group called them some name 25 years ago. It is disgusting to me.