Analysis of ‘All Male Fox Panel Laments Female Breadwinners’

This clip of an all-male panel discussing the changing role of women in society seems to take a very patriarchal stance. Rather than bringing this controversial debate to the forefront, the video presents one side of the argument, asserting opinion as fact. I will find my focus upon the initial interaction between those on the male panel, who refer to American women gaining employment equality, and becoming the ‘breadwinner’ of a family, as ‘terribly wrong’ and as a ‘scandal.’ This highlights significant differences in attitudes relating to gender roles in society, and, perhaps, the polarisation of these views.  

Having grown up in a family with both mother and father providing financially, the description of this as ‘concerning and troubling’ or resulting in ‘a negative impact on the generations to come,’ I find it difficult to relate to this view point. These highly conservative values, seem to contradict my every ideal. However, it is important to consider changing attitudes concerning equality of power across the genders, and also how these attitudes have affected our use of language. Within this encounter, those involved use extremely emotive language, for example with the utterance ‘hurting our children.’ We can also notice the semantic field that much of this language comes from, as we are able to group lexis like ‘disintegration,’ ‘torn,’ ‘dissolve’ and ‘hurt.’ This semantic field is one of destruction, suggesting to its audience that if women were to be of equal power in society, the society would breakdown or suffer as a result.  

‘The now and the new: a look at recent neologisms’ by Margaret Coupe: Summary

Within this article, Margaret Coupe takes 5 examples of recent neologisms and explores their creation. These neologisms are the initialism ‘BRF’, standing for ‘bitchy resting face,’ ‘click farm,’ (referring to employment facilities in less developed countries) ‘phubbing,’ (snubbing out conversation by looking at your phone) ‘selfie’ (taking pictures of yourself) and ‘zero hours’ (a type of contract that does not guarantee any work).

Perhaps most interestingly, in my opinion, is the controversy surrounding the neologism ‘selfie.’ Coupe reflects that ‘the element of self-promotion in producing a selfie has led one tabloid journalist to dub it ‘the showoffagram.’ This seems to suggest that the ideology behind a ‘selfie’ may encourage a positive view of narcissism. The exploration into this noun that has entered the lexicon uses examples like taking ‘a selfie at Auschwitz,’ to, perhaps, embed a sense of social commentary throughout the article on what is deemed socially appropriate. By linking neologisms, like ‘selfie,’ to their position within sociolect, Coupe is able to look at, and comment upon, attitudes to language or even the negative connotations of lexis that has recently entered the lexicon.

In the concluding lines of the essay, Coupe writes ‘new words arise out of a need and are usually formed from the existing word bank. The word spreads through a small group at first and then becomes more widely diffused in a kind of ripple effect. The word may drop out of use or enter the common register and may be ultimately codified in a dictionary. I hope my survey of a few words is an indicator of how inventively language can be used, how words enter the language and how much neologisms tell us about the way we live now.’ This, to me, shows how language change is not only a study of words, but a study of how language is used in reference to changing social attitudes and a society’s need for neologisms to enter the lexicon.