New LCSH!

As always — check out the full approved list


The following are newly approved headings which I proposed [or canceled LCSH in favor of NARs]

  • Anti-vaccination movement
  • Charity–Religious aspects–Buddhism [Christianity, etc.]
  • Death of God in literature
  • Farhud, Baghdad, Iraq, 1941
  • Intersectionality (Sociology)
  • HM488.5 [class number for Intersectionality]
  • Card games [LCGFT term]
  • Green Arrow (Fictitious character) [Canceled in favor of NAR]
  • Lane, Lois (Fictitious character) [Canceled in favor of NAR]
  • Luthor, Lex (Fictitious character) [Canceled in favor of NAR]
  • Strange, Adam (Fictitious character) [Canceled in favor of NAR]

Onto the headings!


Avarice in motion pictures

still from "Fight Club" depicting the 'Greed' crime scene
No, “Greed in motion pictures” isn’t a UF

 

Cello and electric guitar music

Still of 'Heiven' a Finnish metal band that has a cellist
For some reason only the string players hold their instruments, but I assure you there’s a guitar too

 

Cooking (Poppies)

Still from 'Wizard of Oz' when they're in the poppy field
Arguably, the Wicked Witch was cooking up a plan with those poppies? Kinda?

 

Couples on television

still from Once Upon a Time that shows Regina and Emma almost kissing
SWEN 4 LIFE

 

Earthquakes–Australia

Sydney Opera House on crest of giant wave
they always come for our landmarks first

 

Flipped classrooms

upside down classroom
Even I think this is silly

 

Governors–Farewell addresses

Still from Rick Perry's farewell address
Not every farewell address rises to “One Last Time” level

 

Hockey on television

Still from Simpsons on Ice episode of Simpsons
All I know of hockey I learned from this episode and Mighty Ducks

 

Hydrocodone

House in a bathtub fulla vicodin
I don’t have a pain management problem, I have a pain problem

 

Lamas in art

painting of a llama blowing a bubble
I wanna see that spiritual leader blow a bubble as dope as this

 

Man-faced bulls

Man wearing a bull mask
Close enough

 

Polar bear–Counting

Picture of three polars bears
THREE!

 

RagaMuffin cat

Two ragamuffin cats
The official policy of this blog is rescue cats, never buy from breeders

 

Siberian cat

Siberian cat
Doesn’t mean I’m NOT gonna post pictures of all cats tho

 

Sorcerer’s apprentice (Tale)

Cosplayer of Sorcerer's Apprentice
Admit it, you can hear the music right now

 

Space ships in motion pictures

Star Trek Discovery
What’s the deal with this? We need a new streaming whatever? Excited to see Yeoh in the chair

 

Tea bowls

Tea bowl with ceramic teeth on it
I would not like to drink from this

 

Virtual reality headsets

80s woman wearing VR headset
I look forward to trying VR one day and being half this cool

 

Women superheroes in motion pictures

Wonder Woman 'No Man's Land' scene
I cried

 

Women superheroes on television

Still of Vixen from Arrow
Please do not fight over animated vs live action Vixen, we have BOTH

 

LCGFT

Hanukkah music

Sheet music for a Hanukkah song
What, you don’t have string quartets at your Hanukkah parties?

 

Paranormal drama

Promo still for Supernatural
It has a UF of Supernatural drama, so it counts

 

Rock operas

Savatage's Wake of Magellan
Savatage actually has a lotta great rock operas

 

Visual albums

Beyonce's Lemonade
Obviously.

New LCSH!

As always — check out the full approved list


The following are newly approved headings which I proposed [or canceled LCSH in favor of NARs]

  • Sex workers
  • Lap dancers [added BT to Sex workers]
  • Strip teasers [added BT to Sex workers]
  • Prostitutes [added BT to Sex workers]
  • Sex surrogates [added BT to Sex workers] 
  • Board games [LCGFT term]
  • Kings and rulers [added RT to Queens]
  • Cthulhu (Fictitious character)
  • Jennings (Fictitious character)

Here’s the post I wrote a post about Sex workers before I proposed the term.

Onto the headings!


Baseball in dance

Dancers dressed as baseball players
I hope he takes the glove off before trying a lift

 

Baseball in motion pictures

Still from "League of their own"
Name a better baseball movie than LoTO. I’ll wait

 

Camelidae in art

Joe Camel smoking a cigarette
Smoking is COOL, kids!

 

Debt in popular culture

                         This thread is very good.

Extraterrestrial beings on television

Rigel from Farscape
I’m never *not* gonna rep Farscape

 

Framing (Cinematography)

Still from Mad Men
For more amazing cinematog with Moss, see Handmaid’s Tale

 

Holocaust deniers

a dumpster on fire

Human-alien encounters on television

Gillian Anderson as Scully meeting some fans dressed as aliens
Pretty sure I don’t remember this episode

 

Iron in human nutrition

Magneto pulling iron from guy's blood in X2
Remember, too much iron is bad for you

 

Mothers of rock musicians

Image of Geddy Lee and his mother
Geddy’s mom is actually in the book that justified the creation of this heading

 

United States–Foreign relations–2017-

Dumpster fire

United States–Politics and government–2017-

Dumpster fire

Video game designers

Picture of Tracy Fullerton
Tracy Fullerton is working on a game about Walden that sounds p cool

 

LCGFT terms

 

Animal fiction

Comic book cover with Animal from The Muppets
Nailed it

 

Campus fiction

Cover of "Campus Tramp"
Lawrence Block is really tossing us catalogers a bone

 

Mumblecore films

Still from "The Overnight"
Don’t let Adam Scott’s terrible facial hair trick you: The Overnight is v funny

 

Novelizations

Novelization of The Nightmare Before Christmas
A novelization doesn’t seem like it’ll quite capture what makes this movie good

 

Opera adaptations

Still from The Fly, the opera
I hope there’s an aria: “Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid”

 

Rock lyrics

Neil Peart lyric sheet for "Closer to the Heart"
If you already think Neil Peart’s lyrics are pretentious [unsubscribe plz] wait’ll you see the way he wrote ’em

Guess the movie!

Previously in this ‘series’

*i’m changing the rule from last time and just pretending all the things that aren’t in LCSH or the NAF, are, sorryNotSorry


 

651 _ 0 LV-426 (Satellite)

650 _ 0 Xenomorph $x Eggs $x Incubation.

650 _ 0 Xenomorph $x Growth.

650 _ 0 Xenomorph $x Life cycle.

650 _ 0 Xenomorph $x Chemical defenses.

650 _ 0 Xenomorph $x Embryos $x Transplantation.

650 _ 0 Xenomorph $x Effect of altitude on.

650 _ 0 Xenomorph $x Effect of fires on.

650 _ 0 Male pregnancy.

650 _ 0 Miners $x Death.

650 _ 0 Human-alien encounters.

600 1 0 Ripley, Ellen, $d 2092-2179 $x Adversaries.

600 1 0 Ripley, Ellen, $d 2092-2179 $x Career in courage.

600 1 0 Kane, Gilbert, $d 2083-2122 $x Relations with extraterrestrial beings.

600 0 0 Ash $c (Android) $x Knowledge $x Special order 937.

600 0 0 Jonesy $c (Cat)

610 2 0 Nostromo (Ship)

650 _ 0 Ships $x Abandoning of.

 

New LCSH!

As always — check out the full approved list


All the _____, Mogul headings have been changed to ______, Mogul Empire

The following are my headings [or canceled headings in favor of name authority records]

  • Atom (Fictitious character)
  • Bachelors in rabbinical literature [BM496.9.B34]
  • Vigilante (Fictitious character : DC Comics, Inc.)

Another heading I proposed, Nakba, Palestine, 1948 — was not approved. I wrote up my thoughts about that non-approval.

Onto the headings!


Big Blowup, 1910

St_Maries_1910_Fire_Memorial_1_-_St_Maries_Idaho.jpg
Memorial to the firefighters who died

Cooking in mass media

2014-04-10-NUP_151507_0827.jpg
She always said she was salty on twitter.

Christian Science Plaza (Boston, Mass.)

Chrisitan-Science-Vanderwarker-4782_Edited.JPG
I wouldn’t trust them to recommend a doctor, but that’s a dope plaza.

Civil rights of corporations

imgres.jpg
No.

Dicycles

1880-1883-BSA-Otto-Dicycle-01.jpg
What about Victorian helmet safety?

Guerillas in motion pictures

dawn-of-planet-of-apes-181.jpg
See, because this movie has both.

Guy Fawkes masks

539w.jpg
I bet Guy Fawkes would be real confused if he came back today

Hides and skins — Symbolic aspects

712g9otjfmlsl1500clippedrev1_600.jpeg
Most iterations do not have the cutlass tho

Lunch counters

oayX2Ax.jpg
Not pictured: racism

Marijuana in literature

130814224201-31-marijuana-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg
Nailed it

Patient rooms

celebration-patient room.jpg
okay, well all the rooms i’ve stayed in were not this nice

Water buffalo meat

4709761-wild-water-buffalo.jpg
Good luck.

Women video gamers

images.jpg
I saw her speak once, pretty good stuff!

The Breadth of Women and Men, Pt. 3

Bolded words refer to extant LCSH terms


Links to previous parts: Part 1, Part 2.

Having matched [as best I could] the NT terms of Men and Women in Part 1 — I then looked at the NTs of Men which did not have a match to the NTs of Women but which had a counterpart in LCSH that for some reason or other was not in the hierarchy of Women. I’m now turning to the NTs of Women and going to perform the same analysis.


The following terms are NTs of Women which do not have an equivalent term in the NTs of Women. For each I’ll provide either one of three options for potential equivalents:

  1. None: This indicates that there isn’t a term in LCSH that I think could be an equivalent candidate as an NT of Women.
  2. N/A: This indicates that I don’t think an equivalent term could exist. That is, the concept is limited, not just in LCSH.
  3. [Specific term which exists in LCSH]: In some cases I’ve found a specific term which matches, but is not currently an NT of Women.

Advertising and women                                       None
Architecture and women                                     None
Assyrian women                                                     None
Beauty contestants                                                None
Buddhist women                                                    None
Computers and women                                        None
Crones                                                                       N/A
Dalit women                                                           None
Dance for women                                                  None
Daughters-in-law                                                   Sons-in-law
Discounts for women                                           None
Exercise for women                                            Exercise for men
Fascism and women                                           None
Gentile women                                                     None
Hindu women                                                      None
Internet and women                                          None
Jaina women                                                        None
Jewish religious education of women         None
Large-breasted women                                    N/A
Libraries and women                                       None
Mass media and women                                  None
Matriarchy                                                          Patriarchy
Medically uninsured women                         None
Mentally ill women                                          None
Minority women                                               None
Museums and women                                      None
National socialism and women                     None
Physical education for women                    None
Pregnant women                                              Male pregnancy
Puerto Rican women                                       None
Queens                                                                 Kings and rulers
Racially mixed women                                   None
Radio and women                                            None
Retired women                                                 None
Runaway women                                             None
Samaritan women                                           None
Scolds                                                                  N/A
Sedentary women                                            None
Self-defense for women                                 None
Self-employed women                                    None
Separated women                                           None
Sexual ethics for women                              None
Sikh women                                                      None
Syriac women                                                   None
Taoist women                                                   None
Technology and women                                None
Television and women                                  None
United States. Navy—Women                     None
Video games for women                               None
Women’s mass media                                    Men’s mass media
Yezidi women                                                  None
Zoroastrian women                                       None

 

Notice that there are significantly more NTs of Women — and the vast majority are unmatchable as it stands. Remember too that a rule of BT creation is that for any […] and […] heading, a BT is made for the second term. What that means is that for all the […] and women headings, the BT connection to Women is obligatory. But what that doesn’t mean is that these are the only headings that are coinjoining women and a concept — for example:

  • Women and anarchism
  • Women and animals
  • Women and city planning

None of these have Women as a BT because the first term is women and the BT is made to the second term.

I highlight these examples to show that LCSH isn’t saying “These are all the concepts which are inherently included in the concept of a woman, enumerated and collated for your convenience.” LCSH’s structure and rules make it so that gleaning total semantic meaning from the hierarchies is impossible.


There are many unmatched racial/ethnic/religious/class/status qualified terms. There is little doubt in my mind that when a book is published about a specific group of people, unless that book says in the title that it’s about the men of that group even if it only has the men as examples or case studies or discussion points — the subject heading [….] men will not be created. The men are neutral, and the women are a marked difference.

 

Nakba, Palestine, 1948

Over the course of the war of Israel’s statehood — over 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes.

Amongst Palestinians this loss of home and land is known as the Nakba [al-Nakbah, Arabic for catastrophe]


I was cataloging a resource, Palestinians in Syria: Nakba memories of shattered communities by Anaheed Al-Hardan and was trying to determine some good subject headings.

Reading the table of contents, the back of the book and the preface — it was clear that this was a resource partially about the shared memories/feelings/affect that the Nakba had on the Palestinian people.

A cursory search of LCSH revealed that there was no heading for this particular expulsion [which I could then propose a subdivision of — Influence under]

Thus I created a proposal for the term — this is that proposal:

010 $a sp2017000197

040 $a MWalB $b eng $c DLC

150 $a Nakba, Palestine, 1948

450 $a Catastrophe, Palestine, 1948

450 $a Nakbah, Palestine, 1948

550 $w g $a Israel­-Arab War, 1948-­1949

550 $w g $a Population transfers $x Palestinian Arabs

670 $a Work cat: 945105294: Palestinians in Syria: Nakba memories of shattered communities, 2016: $b Preface (…the Nakba, or catastrophe, that resulted from the establishment of the state of Israel on Palestine in May 1948. This catastrophe saw the dispossession of more than half of historic Palestine’s population, some 800,000 people.)

670 $a 854503654: Auron, Yair. ha­Shoʼah, ha­-teḳumah ṿeha-­Nakbah, 2013: $b (English title: The Holocaust, the rebirth and the Nakba)

670 $a 820884307: Masalha, Nur. The Palestine Nakba, 2012: $b Introduction (1948 was the year of the Palestine Nakba (Catastrophe), the uprooting of the Palestinians and the dismemberment and de-Arabisation of historic Palestine.)

As you can see, I added two additional sources demonstrating the preferred form of the name and to generate UF references.

Yesterday the PSD evaluated my proposal and rejected it for the following reason:

Nabka refers to the 1948 expulsion of Palestinian Arabs from British Mandate Palestine (today’s Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Jordan). The existing heading Population transfers—Palestinian Arabs is synonymous, or nearly synonymous, in meaning to the heading being proposed; it should be assigned to the work being cataloged. The proposal was not approved.

While I’m unsure why the PSD defined the term for me, when I’d clearly understood it myself in the proposal, the second half is completely wrong.

I then sent Libby Dechman [the policy specialist responsible for the list] the following email [and a big thank-you to Anna-Sophia for reading it and providing me with feedback!]



Dear Libby,

Having seen the PSDs decision to not approve the above heading, I was hoping to have an opportunity to explain why I think it is a necessary heading.

In the explanation given you write:

“The existing heading Population transfers—Palestinian Arabs is synonymous, or nearly synonymous, in meaning to the heading being proposed”

The crux of my objection is that it is not at all synonymous with Population transfers–Palestinian Arabs, because it is only an instance of that. My proposal specifically included Population transfers–Palestinian Arabs as a BT term, because there are other instances where this happened.

1. From 1949-1956 thousands of Palestinians continued to be removed after the Nakba.

2. In 1967, 280,000 to 325,000 Palestinians were removed after the Six Day War.

3. In 1991 some 200,000 Palestinians were driven out of Kuwait aftter the Gulf war.

4. In 1999  roughly 1000 Palestinians were expelled from South Mt. Hebron

etc.

In the event that the problem lay in my construction of the proposal, a named event in accordance with H1592, I had considered two other constructions:

1. Palestinian Arabs–Palestine–History–Expulsion, 1948 (c.f. Acadians—Nova Scotia—History—Expulsion, 1755; Jews—England—History—Expulsion, 1290)

2. Palestinian Arabs–Relocation, 1948 (c.f. Japanese—Canada—Evacuation and relocation, 1942-1945)

I had also considered the BT Forced migration–Palestine

My point is that this occurrence, the Nakba, is but one among many, an instance among the general–a perfect example of a BT/NT relationship. Some resources are written about the general and various forced movements of the Palestinians, and other resources are written about the specific instance of the Nakba.

I hope I’ve justified why I think this heading deserves a second look and why it is not synonymous with Population transfers–Palestinian Arabs.

I appreciate any guidance you can give me on a better or more fit construction if you deem that necessary.

Thank you so much for your time,


 

I’ll update this post when/if I hear back.

If you change one, you must change them all

*bolded terms refer to an authorized LCSH term*

If you read my last post about Transgenderism then you know that LCSH uses the term as an umbrella for a wide variety of gender non-conformant identities and behaviors. As I said last time, that term at one point was indeed used to indicate a broader set of identities and behaviors, but now is mostly used [by anti-trans activists] to refer specifically to people whose gender identity does not match that which they were assigned at birth — a much more narrow definition.

 

These conflations in LCSH however, have trickled down to another heading: Transgender people. The narrower terms assigned are:

 

Christian transgender people
Female impersonators
Jewish transgender people
Libraries and transgender people
Male impersonators
Social work with transgender people
Transgender children
Transsexuals
Transvestites

 

[Emphasis mine] the highlighted terms above leap out to me as terribly incorrectly placed. [I’ll acknowledge here that the specific relationship between Transsexuals and Transgender people may be improperly constructed as well]

 

The ‘impersonator’ headings have variant terms of ‘Drag queens’ and ‘Drag kings’ respectively and have parallel scope notes of:

Here are entered works on men who impersonate women, generally for purposes of entertainment or comic effect. Works on women who impersonate men, generally for purposes of entertainment or comic effect, are entered under Male impersonators. Works on persons, especially males, who assume the dress and manner of the opposite sex for psychological gratification are entered under Transvestites.

[the sexes are swapped in the scope note for Male impersonators]

Here’s the problem:

Female/male impersonators cover a wide range of things from theatrical cross-sex performance to drag performers but neither type of performer is inherently a trans person. Certainly some trans people have performed drag professionally, but it is an emphatic error to place drag performers as NT under Transgender people.

 

Transvestites doesn’t belong here either. As the scope note indicates above, LCSH understands that it’s primarily a practice among straight men, for reasons other than entertainment or public performance. As with the impersonator headings, a variant term, ‘cross dressers’ is actually preferred by practitioners.

 

LCSH continuing to collapse varied forms of gender performance and expression under Transgender people does harm to trans people, especially trans women, and plays right into the hands of the politicians, their malicious laws, and anti-trans activists.

 

Recommendation:  Delete the BT connecting Male impersonators and Female impersonators to Transgender people. Delete the BT connecting Transvestites to Transgender people and change the preferred term to Cross dressers. Future consideration is to make separate headings for Drag kings/queens as NTs of Male/Female impersonators.

Transgenderism

*bolded terms refer to an authorized LCSH term*

 It is no secret that LCSH is a mess when it comes to gender and sexuality. Today, I want to focus specifically on a single term in the hierarchies of trans identities. [With an eye towards continuing this look at other terms]
First: Transgenderism, whose scope note reads:
Here are entered works on the various manifestations of cross-gender orientation, such as transvestism, transsexualism, male or female impersonation, intersexuality, etc., treated collectively.
From this well springs forth a great deal of trouble, because what even is this term? A google search [March 18, 2017] reveals the following from page 1: [CN: ANTI-TRANS RHETORIC]
  • Wikipedia [Transgender]
  • Focus on the Family [Understanding “Transgenderism”]
  • Focus on the Family [Transgenderism – Our Position]
  • Oxford English Dictionary [transgenderism]
  • Federalist [Psychiatry Professor: ‘Transgenderism’ Is Mass Hysteria Similar To 1980s-Era Junk Science]
  • Daily Wire [Report: Transgenderism Not Supported By Science]
  • Daily Caller [Journal: Transgenderism ‘Not Supported By Scientific Evidence’]
  • Huffington Post portal [Three articles all affirming trans people’s humanity]
  • Pacific Standard [Five Studies: What You Need to Know About Transgenderism, According to the Research]
  • New Yorker [WHAT IS A WOMAN? The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism.]
  • Public Discourse [The Absurdity of Transgenderism: A Stern but Necessary Critique]
  • National Review [Making Sense of Transgenderism]
So from my count that’s 8 anti-trans hits, 2 reference sources [one of which doesn’t even use the term in the header], 2 mostly positive hits
The term in LCSH’s use is meant to be a broad umbrella to cover the concept gender non-conformity. That is indeed a useful concept for which to have a term, albeit a broad one. Unfortunately the scope of the term in its modern usage [the heading was entered in 2007] has shifted to be much more narrow. All of the above sources are specifically referring to the concept that people’s gender identities don’t match their assignment at birth.
Let’s look at the heading’s usage in WorldCat [search of su:Transgenderism, limited to 2016, books, first 10 hits]

Of these 10 — only a single one [Transantiquity, 5] has been assigned Transgenderism to mean anything other than “the concept that some people’s gender identities don’t match their assignment at birth”. I contend that the vast majority of assignments will follow suit.

We need a term for that concept, and perhaps Transgenderism is that term, perhaps not [edit: see below, 2017-03-22]  But just as importantly we need a different term for the wider scope of “gender non-conformity”. If LCSH wants there to be an umbrella term which encompasses what the current scope note above [all the way at the top!] does, the concept that there are people who cross dress for sexual satisfaction, perform drag, are transsexual, are transgender, are intersex — it cannot be Transgenderism because that is simply not how the term is being used, neither in resources, nor in cataloger application.

Recommendation: Add new term to LCSH for the broad concept of gender non-conformity. Limit the scope of Transgenderism [or replace the term for one which people actually use] to the concept of being transgender specifically.


Edit: 2017-03-22

After consideration, and checking sources — I’ve come to the understanding that Transgenderism must be removed from LCSH, contrary to the above recommendation. From the sources:

“This is not a term commonly used by transgender people. This is a term used by anti-transgender activists to dehumanize transgender people and reduce who they are to “a condition.” — GLAAD

Much like those who still refer to gay people exclusively as “homosexuals,” the majority of the people who use the word “transgenderism” are either biased against the community, such as the discredited anti-trans “expert”Dr. Paul McHugh, or harbor hatred toward the trans community, like the right-wing organization classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Family Research Council. — Advocate

So one thing I want to ask: why do we need this term? That is, are there resources about “the concept that some people’s gender identities don’t match their assignment at birth” that would not be better met with the term Transgender people?  I’m not convinced. On the other hand there are many dual terms for “Concept” and then “concept as manifested in people”. Ex. PovertyPoorBisexualityBisexualsDisabilitiesPeople with disabilities. I bring this up because I don’t think that the PSD would be so amenable to removing the noun-concept word entirely.

Edited Recommendation: Add new term to LCSH for the broad concept of gender non-conformity [with the scope note of the current term Transgenderism.] Make the term Transgenderism a variant of Transgender people. [Or find a better term for the concept of trans-ness]

New LCSH!

As always — check out the full approved list


Amulets in literature

51C0QXFDM6L.jpg
I haven’t read it, but I’m betting the tentacle monster gets the amulet

Brigands and robbers in art

Brigand.jpg
YOUR BOOTS BETRAY YOU

Energy web

energiavioleta-41.jpg
Sounds like something Picard would get stuck in

Google Cardboard (Three-dimensional display system)

Build_Your_Own-e1465937154223.png
and I get to build it myself? Twice the fun!

Instruction librarians

Screen Shot 2017-03-06 at 7.35.42 PM.png
Nailed it.

Messianism in art

content_Tommy_Met-680.jpg
Listening to you, I get the music

Museums in social media

wiley.jpg
I bet their instagrams are terrific

Noir poetry

vlcsnap-2013-08-08-11h57m56s18.png
Walter Neff has got a plan                                                               Caught by Keyes’s little man

Polar bear populations

line-graph-down.jpg
Humans are terrible

The Breadth of Women and Men, Pt. 2

[Edit: 2017-03-05 — I removed all the recommendations for creation of additional gendered terms as per a colleague suggesting that exacerbating the problem is not the solution]

I ended the previous post with three questions:
1. Which headings appear on one list but not the other?
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?

Before I get to the specifics, I need to address the obvious elephant: The Marked Other.

I’ve written about this before but it’s so important, it’s worth saying twice [or more!]

Men have traditionally and still today of course, are seen as the neutral. The addition of women to a topic, is an aberration to be remarked upon. This is as enshrined into LCSH as it is in every other part of American society. Until 1973 a pattern of headings existed of “Women as […]” Ex. Women as accountants, Women as clergy, Women as judges, etc. in 1973 they removed this construction in favor of Women accountants, Women clergy, Women judges. It’s an acknowledgement that for a woman to be something other than a Mother, Sister, Daughter, or Wife wasn’t so strange that it needed to be billed “Women as judges?! How shocking”

That doesn’t mean that women are on equal status in LCSH however. The overwhelming majority of resources which purport to be about a topic, if they do not present themselves as involving women, will be cataloged ‘neutrally’. That is, if a book is about pilots, and all of the teachers mentioned are male, or there’s a mix of male pilots and female pilots — odds are that that those resources will be tagged Air pilots.

Unless a resource states in the title or somewhere else prominent Women pilots, lady pilots, female pilots galore! It is unlikely that that resource would get cataloged as Women air pilots.

This is going to be ‘answer’ to many of my three questions above: bias in cataloging, bias in publishing.

The list of remaining NTs of Men is shorter than the list for Women [after removing the equivalent terms], so we’ll start there. The following terms are NTs of Men which do not have an equivalent term in the NTs of Women. For each I’ll provide either one of three options for potential equivalents:

None: This indicates that there isn’t a term in LCSH that I think could be an equivalent candidate as an NT of Women.

N/A: This indicates that I don’t think an equivalent term could exist. That is, the concept is limited, not just in LCSH.

[Specific term which exists in LCSH]: In some cases I’ve found a specific term which matches, but is not currently an NT of Women.
Antique collecting for men                                 None
Brotherhoods                                                          Sisterhoods
Cosmetics for men                                                Cosmetics
Dandies                                                                     N/A
Eunuchs                                                                    N/A
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

Explanations follow:

Antique collecting for men

 There is no term for Antique collecting for women. The original term’s MARC record shows no work-being-cataloged citation which is a requirement for ever LCSH proposal. I assume that the work in question was:  Antique collecting for men / Louis Heilbroner Hertz. What’s interesting to me is that “Antiques — Collectors and collecting” and “Antique collecting” are both UF of Antiques. That is, apparently that LCSH term encompasses collecting.

Compare this with Women art collectors and Women book collectors neither of which have a men’s counterpart.

Brotherhoods

Sisterhoods is right there in LCSH, here is the comparison:

Brotherhoods (May Subd Geog)
[BV950-970]
UF Brotherhood
BT Church societies
Men
Secret societies
Societies
NT Monasticism and religious orders

Sisterhoods (May Subd Geog)
[BX4200-4556 (Catholic Church)]
[BX5185 (Church of England)]
BT Charities
Church history
Women in charitable work
RT Monasticism and religious orders for women
NT Deaconesses

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:

But of course the unmarked heading Cosmetics would cover these as it is assumed that that implies a connection with women.

Dandies
Eunuchs

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)]
[RA776.98-778.2 (Grooming)]
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).
UF Beauty
Complexion
Grooming, Personal
Grooming for women
Personal beauty
Personal grooming
Toilet (Grooming)

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.

Latin lovers

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.

Male prostitutes

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
Female prostitutes
Girls, Call
Harlots
Hookers (Prostitutes)
Hustlers (Prostitutes)
Sex workers (Prostitutes)
Street prostitutes
Streetwalkers
Strumpets
Tarts (Prostitutes)
Trollops (Prostitutes)
Whores (Prostitutes)
Women prostitutes

[Emph. mine]

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)
Strong men
Uncircumcised men

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