2. Of those, are there equivalent headings that in LCSH?
3. Why does the equivalent heading either not exist, or isn’t in the hierarchy?
Cosmetics for men Cosmetics
Grooming for men Beauty, Personal
Latin lovers None
Male prostitutes Prostitutes
Men in black (UFO phenomenon) N/A
Strong men N/A
Uncircumcised men N/A
Antique collecting for men
Sisterhoods is right there in LCSH, here is the comparison:
Brotherhoods (May Subd Geog)
BT Church societies
NT Monasticism and religious orders
Sisterhoods (May Subd Geog)
[BX4200-4556 (Catholic Church)]
[BX5185 (Church of England)]
Women in charitable work
RT Monasticism and religious orders for women
They’re fairly similar although map to different parts of the classification scheme. Both are church-adjacent, and both incorporate ‘Monasticism and religious orders’.
Note that there’s an error in Brotherhood: according to H 370
Link a new heading only to the next broader heading in the logical hierarchy by means of a BT. [emph. mine]
Brotherhood has BTs of Secret societies and Church societies. Those are both NTs of Societies. That means that Brotherhood should not also have Societies as a BT.
Recommendation: Add Women as a BT of Sisterhoods, remove the Societies as a BT from Brotherhoods.
Cosmetics for men
First remember as I said in the previous post, terms with the prepositional phrase “X for [Class of person]” always get a BT of that class of person. This is an example of the occasional reversal from the marked other. Cosmetics is seen as a “woman’s domain” and so the LCSH Cosmetics stood in for all resources about make-up for women. Here are some resources that could’ve triggered the creation of such a heading:
- Easy makeup styles for the modern woman : helpful makeup tips for women
- The 5-minute face : the quick and easy makeup guide for every woman
- The makeup looks book : an ultimate make-up guide for women with busy social lives
But of course the unmarked heading Cosmetics would cover these as it is assumed that that implies a connection with women.
The above two terms, I’d marked as N/A because I don’t think that there really are female equivalents to be applied. Let me know if I’m wrong.
Grooming for men
As above with Cosmetics for men, this is an automatic BT to Men, and the reciprocal potential heading Grooming for women is a UF pointing to Beauty, Personal.
Beauty, Personal (May Subd Geog)
[GT499 (Manners and customs)]
Here are entered works on personal grooming and appearance. Works on the attractiveness of women as a philosophic or artistic concept are entered under Feminine beauty (Aesthetics).
Grooming for women
As you can see from the scope note, Beauty, Personal is explicitly linked to women, as the note doesn’t point to Masculine beauty (Aesthetics), even though it could.
This is kind of a shitty heading. There’s lots of literary warrant for it, but there are no other headings for specific stereotypes of classes of persons/ethnic groups. There are no headings for ‘Greedy Jews’ or ‘Lazy Mexicans’ despite there being literary warrant for those as well.
I’m not suggesting someone create a heading ‘Fiery Latinas’ or ‘Voracious Dark Haired Beauties’ because those would be shitty as well.
Recommendation: Delete this heading, use –Sexual behavior subdivision under classes of person instead when appropriate.
As I said in a post a week ago, Prostitutes used to be an NT of Women. I understand why they moved it, but that’s just putting a bandaid over it. Perhaps they were worried about the optics of when users might scroll to see what LCSH thinks Women are. But let’s look at the term:
Prostitutes (May Subd Geog)
Here are entered works on prostitutes in general as well as works specifically on women prostitutes.
UF Call girls
Sex workers (Prostitutes)
The scope note and two of the UFs specifically call out women as the domain of Prostitutes. They’ve removed the term from the hierarchy of Women, but the association still remains enshrined, they’ve just hidden it somewhat.
I’m not issuing any kind of recommendation until the issue of the term itself can be resolved, see the post on sex work I just linked to for more on that.
Men in black (UFO phenomenon)
These three terms, as above with Dandies and Eunuchs, do not call out to me as requiring female equivalents. Although we know women can be “Men in black” [just ask Agent L!] that’s the name of the term. Frankly, I don’t know enough about the phenomenon or sub-culture to really say anything intelligent here.
Strong men does not refer to simply men of strength, but more of the circus-ey, side-show type of strong man. I’m not sure there’s a history of such for women in that venue, and would probably be sufficiently covered by Women bodybuilders for more modern works.
Uncircumcised men could of course have corresponding Uncircumcised women because not all people with penises are men — but although I searched, I could not find any extant resources on circumcision amongst trans women or genderqueer people.
Next time we’ll start in on the unmatched Women NTs, and see what we see