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]
Drag performers are not inherently trans people. There’s a wide wide world of difference between them. 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:  Move Male impersonators and Female impersonators as NTs of Performance artists, and NTs of Gay culture [and while we’re at it, change the preferred term to ‘Drag kings’ and ‘Drag queens’ respectively]. Move Transvestites as an NT under Heterosexual men — Social life and customs, [and change preferred term to ‘Cross dressers’]

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

The Breadth of Women and Men, Pt. 1

Earlier this week on twitter:
Now I was mostly idly musing as is my wont [though I did get two offers from dear colleagues!], but I started adding things to a spreadsheet anyway, to see what I could see.
There may be more posts in the future emanating from this poking around, but here’s the first.
 You know, and I know, that neither gender nor sex are binaries. LCSH isn’t quite there yet, so for the purposes of these analyses — I will be treating men and women as though they were opposite sides of a binary.
As I gathered more and more terms that are gender divided, I realized that the best place to start might be analyzing and comparing the narrower terms of two fairly high terms — Women and Men.
Before I do that, a word about broader terms [BT] and narrower terms [NT]. Let’s turn to H 370 in our Subject Heading Manual:
There are three main relationships for which a BT is assigned
Genus/species (or class/class member):
Apes
BT Primates
Buildings, Prefabricated
BT Buildings
Women executives
BT Executives
Cinematography
BT Photography
Dental anthropology
BT Physical anthropology
Whole/part:
Toes
BT Foot
Ethnology
BT Anthropology
Instance (or generic topic/proper-named example):
Whitewater Lake (Wis.)
BT Lakes–Wisconsin
Belleau Wood, Battle of, France, 1918
BT World War, 1914-1918–Campaigns–France
You may’ve noticed that all the examples link a term to a BT and none link a term to an NT. That’s because in MARC records, there are no NTs. In proposing and maintaining LCSH records — only BT relationships are recorded. The system automatically generates the corresponding NT. That isn’t going to come up or anything, I just think it’s interesting to know.

Two other pertinent points from the memo:
[ . . . ] and [ . . . ] headings:
Make a BT from the heading (or its equivalent) that follows the word and (cf. H 310).
Prepositional phrases:
Make a BT from the heading that corresponds to the term(s) following the preposition.
Examples:
Sex instruction for [group of people]
BT [group of people]
Church work with [group of people]
BT [group of people]
The […] and […] headings will be particularly important later. Remember the rule that a BT is made only for the term which follows the ‘and’.
Now that we’ve covered some of the rules of forming BT relationships — let’s see what terms LCSH has deemed Men and Women to be BTs of.

[You don’t have to read all these now!! This is just so you can consult the full list if you want, later, I’m going to break it down in a bit]

Women (May Subd Geog)
[GT2520-2540 (Customs)]
[HQ1101-2030.9 (Sociology)]
Here are entered works on the human female. Works on female organisms in general are entered under Females.
UF Human females
Wimmin
Woman [Former heading]
Womon
Womyn
BT Females
Human beings
RT Femininity
SA subdivision Women under individual wars, e.g. World War, 1939-1945—Women; also subdivision Relations with women under names of individual persons; and headings beginning with the word Women
NT Abused women
Abusive women
Advertising and women
Architecture and women
Assyrian women
Aunts
Bahai women
Beauty contestants
Bisexual women
Buddhist women
Christian women
Church group work with women
Church work with women
Computers and women
Crones
Dalit women
Dance for women
Daughters
Daughters-in-law
Discounts for women
Exercise for women
Fascism and women
Femmes fatales
Gentile women
Gifted women
Heterosexual women
Hindu women
HIV-positive women
Homeless women
Housewives
Indian women
Indigenous women
Internet and women
Jaina women
Jewish religious education of women
Jewish women
Large-breasted women
Lesbians
Libraries and women
Married women
Mass media and women
Matriarchy
Medically uninsured women
Mentally ill women
Middle-aged women
Middle class women
Minority women
Mothers
Motion pictures and women
Motion pictures for women
Museums and women
Muslim women
National socialism and women
Nieces
Older women
Overweight women
Ovum donors
Photography of women
Physical education for women
Poor women
Preaching to women
Pregnant women
Puerto Rican women
Queens
Racially mixed women
Radio and women
Retired women
Runaway women
Rural women
Samaritan women
Scolds
Sedentary women
Self-defense for women
Self-employed women
Separated women
Sex instruction for women
Sexual ethics for women
Sexual harassment of women
Sexual minority women
Sikh women
Single women
Sisters
Social work with women
Syriac women
Tall women
Taoist women
Technology and women
Television and women
United States. Navy—Women
Upper class women
Urban women
Video games for women
Violence in women
Widows
Wild women
Wives
Women’s mass media
Working class women
Yezidi women
Young women
Zoroastrian women
Men (May Subd Geog)
Here are entered works on the human male. Works on male organisms in general are entered under Males.
UF Human males
BT Human beings
Males
RT Effeminacy
Masculinity
SA headings beginning with the word Male, e.g. Male nurses
NT Abused men
Abusive men
Antique collecting for men
Bahai men
Bisexual men
Brotherhoods
Brothers
Christian men
Church group work with men
Church work with men
Cosmetics for men
Dandies
Eunuchs
Fathers
Gay men
Gifted men
Grooming for men
Heterosexual men
HIV-positive men
Homeless men
Househusbands
Husbands
Indian men
Indigenous men
Jewish men
Latin lovers
Male prostitutes
Married men
Men in black (UFO phenomenon)
Middle-aged men
Middle class men
Motion pictures and men
Motion pictures for men
Muslim men
Nephews
Older men
Overweight men
Photography of men
Poor men
Preaching to men
Rural men
Sex instruction for men
Sexual harassment of men
Sexual minority men
Short men
Single men
Social work with men
Sons
Sperm donors
Strong men
Uncircumcised men
Uncles
Upper class men
Urban men
Violence in men
Widowers
Wild men
Womanizers
Working class men
Young men

That’s a lot of terms and I don’t expect you to read ’em all, but I wanted to make sure you had them for your own analysis [knowing not everyone has access to ClassWeb, the most up-to-date place for LCSH].
Next, I wanted to whittle down these lists to make them a little more manageable. I matched identical terms and equivalent familial relationships. I also mapped Short men to Tall women as being kin, though I am willing to entertain that there should be headings for Tall men and Short women [neither exist at press time]. Femme fatales being matched to Womanizers is admittedly, not the best match, but they’re close enough to me that I still felt justified.
The following are the matched headings.
Men
Abused men
Abusive men
Uncles
Bahai men
Bisexual men
Christian men
Church grp work w/ men
Church work with men
Sons
Womanizers
Gifted men
Heterosexual men
HIV-positive men
Homeless men
Househusbands
Husbands
Indian men
Indigenous men
Jewish men
Gay men
Married men
Middle-aged men
Middle class men
Fathers
Motion pictures and men
Motion pictures for men
Muslim men
Nephews
Older men
Overweight men
Sperm donors
Photography of men
Poor men
Preaching to men
Rural men
Sex instruction for men
Sexual harassment of men
Sexual minority men
Single men
Brothers
Social work with men
Short men
Upper class men
Urban men
Violence in men
Widowers
Wild men
Working class men
Young men
Women
Abused women
Abusive women
Aunts
Bahai women
Bisexual women
Christian women
Church grp work w/ women
Church work with women
Daughters
Femme fatales
Gifted women
Heterosexual women
HIV-positive women
Homeless women
Housewives
Wives
Indian women
Indigenous women
Jewish women
Lesbians
Married women
Middle-aged women
Middle class women
Mothers
Motion pictures and women
Motion pictures for women
Muslim women
Nieces
Older women
Overweight women
Ovum donors
Photography of women
Poor women
Preaching to women
Rural women
Sex instruction for women
Sexual harassment of women
Sexual minority women
Single women
Sisters
Social work with women
Tall women
Upper class women
Urban women
Violence in women
Widows
Wild women
Working class women
Young women
Check back in the next post where — I want to address 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?

Finding Sex Work in LCSH

I read Beacher Wiggins’ response to Sanford Berman, [courtesy of Tina Gross, and I suggest you give it a read too!]. Now obviously the first thing I note is that he checks this very blog [thought not by name], but AFTER that fannish-squeeing, I absorb the rest.

There’s a tremendous in there to unpack, and I can’t do it all right now. One pull-out that I do want to highlight is the term ‘Sex workers’.

Wiggins:

Sex workers. This phrase was added as a “see” reference to the heading Prostitutes in 2008.

Berman:

I’m well aware that SEX WORKERS is presently a see-reference to PROSTITUTES. The trouble with that is that “sex workers” is a much broader term, encompassing not only prostitutes, but also exotic or pole dancers, stripteasers, phone sex operators, and erotic film actors, among others.

Side note: that this isn’t the first time criticism has been made of this entry, Hope Olson, the latest and MUCH DESERVED! recipient of the Margaret Mann Citation, notes in her work: “Confirming this perspective, the general heading ‘Prostitutes is a narrower term under the heading ‘Women'” [The Power to Name: Representation in Library Catalogs. Hope A. Olson. Signs, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Spring, 2001), pp 639-668. The University of Chicago Press]

I don’t know when this was changed — as it stands, Prostitutes is not an NT of Women but despite searching the PCC site, I couldn’t turn up the editorial meeting when this was changed. As I’ve lamented before, LCSH is frustratingly bad at version history.

But back to the business at hand.


First, terminology: let’s go to the sources — this is to indicate the scope of the term ‘Sex worker’ covers a variety of services and to also demonstrate its preferred usage.

What is Sex Work?

Sex work is any type of labor where the explicit goal is to produce a sexual or erotic response in the client. Sex work includes prostitution, but it also includes a bunch of other things like erotic dancing, pro-dom/pro-sub work, webcam work, sensual massage, adult film, phone sex, being a sugar baby, etc.

http://www.new.swopusa.org/learn-about-sex-work/

International Union of Sex Workers

We’re a group of people who work in the sex industry and adult entertainment, together with allies who support our aims.

We believe that everyone in the industry, whether they are there through choice, circumstance or coercion, deserves the same human, civil and labour rights as other citizens.

We’re a grassroots organisation, founded by a migrant who worked in a range of jobs in the sex industry. The organisation brings together people from all sectors – people who sell sexual contact or BDSM services, people who work for or run agencies, websites or brothels, strippers, erotic dancers and glamour models, porn actors and film makers, phone sex workers and web cam models; men, women and transgender people; straight, gay and bisexual.

http://www.iusw.org/iusw-who-we-are/

Sex Workers’ Rights are Human Rights

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/08/sex-workers-rights-are-human-rights/

Sex workers were the first to use the terms sex work and sex worker. The terms have been adopted by numerous international health, labor and human rights organizations, including the United Nations and its affiliated agencies.

The term sex worker is neutral, descriptive and informative without being judgmental. It recognizes sex work as a reality, whatever the speaker’s opinion about the work itself. It does not distinguish by gender, race, ethnicity or creed. It allows the possibility of the worker’s dignity and ability to make decisions. Most of all, it affirms the humanity of the person.

http://sexworkersproject.org/media-toolkit/downloads/03-WhatsInAName.pdf

When discussing sex work using existing LCSH, there are a substantial number of terms collocated on the business side of things:

Sex-oriented businesses which has NTs of Adult movie theatersBrothelsGay BathhousesMassage parlorsPornographyProstitution, and Sex tourism.

Following the chain of NTs, we pick up additionally: All-male adult movie theaters, Internet pornography, Male prostitution, Pornographic films, and Telephone sex. [I’m picking only the ones that I think fall into the ‘business-ey’ side of things]

I pause to note that Escort services is an NT of Service industries and has no connection this hierarchy, despite being a pretty well-known euphemism for same.

But there is no overarching BT term for the providers of sexual services. I have identified the following terms which could be usefully placed as NTs.

Lap dancers, Prostitutes, Sex surrogatesStripteasers

Some terms that we don’t have in LCSH but probably should, there’s plenty of literary warrant:

‘Dominatrices’

Interestingly, all the memoirs I found written by dominatrices [I have not determined if the plural ‘dominatrices’ is actually a better choice for the preferred term] used Sexual dominance and submission in some capacity rather than following the standard practice for biographies of:

600 [Person’s name]

650 [Class of person] — Biography

which I suppose would’ve necessitated proposing the term. Here’s some good literary warrant:
‘Webcam models’
[note that many of these works are assigned the heading Computer sex which is also not in the hierarchy of Sex-oriented businesses perhaps because it is intended to cover freely exchanged cybersex?]
‘Telephone sex operators’
[As above, Telephone sex  is not in the hierarchy of Sex-oriented businesses]
This is not an exhaustive list, and many other terms as seen enumerated by the organizations are possible — but I think it’s very unlikely LCSH would ever authorize “Pornographic film actor” or anything like that because they don’t have any terms for other genres of actor.

A note: there is a problem in creating an LCSH BT of ‘Sex worker’. And that’s what to do with the term Prostitute itself. In reading for this blog post, it seems that many sex workers would prefer that were the term to be used. But how then to differentiate the category from the specific?
Berman is correct in that we need a BT term ‘Sex workers’. Perhaps I’ll put together a proposal.

New LCSH!

As always — check out the full approved list

New LCSH!


Aesthetes

picture of aesthete
Oh this hat is so edifying!

Children’s literature on postage stamps

set of 4 forever stamps of Ezra Keats Snow Day
Forever until the USPS is dismantled and replaced with something horrible

Crab cakes

a birthday cake in the shape of a crab
Happy birthday Megan! I hope you weren’t wanting the other kind of crab cake…

Equality in mass media

scene from The Incredibles "when everyone's super, no one will be"
not too many children’s movies espouse such a Randian “some people are just better than others” message, so that’s fun

Erotophobia

sheet music from Erotamania, by Dream Theater
all my Dream Theater friends will get it

Free rider problem (Economics)

still from The Simpsons, Mr. Burns riding on the back of Smither's bike and not pedaling
The rich are the problem

Jazz–Auditions

still from "Whiplash'
Sure he’s good, but AT WHAT COST

Las Vegas Strip (Nev.)

still from "Honey I Blew Up the Kids"
I went to Vegas this summer, very disappointed at the lack of Giant Toddler

Metal sculpture, Canadian

Sculpture of star-man, the Rush mascot
I can’t confirm this is actually metal…

Mills and mill-work [edit 2017-02-09, this is not a NEW LCSH, rather, it’s an updated LCSH, thanks to sanspach for bringing to my attention]

Still from Arkham City
Remember that batarang challenge in the steel mill? Ughhhhhhh

Politics on television

Still from Supergirl
I’m pretty sure President Lynda Carter is an alien on Supergirl. But they really haven’t followed up on that.

 

Surprise parties

still from "District 9"
The real surprise comes when you turn into an alien prawn

Tall buildings–Shading

tweet decrying a new building "Morphosis"
wow people hate the Morphosis

Vampires in popular culture

Collage of pop culture vampires
I will not be wading into the “I Am Legend: vampires or zombies” debate

Women bass guitarists

still of lead singer/bassist of Triosphere
TRIOSPHERE
*head bangs*

Women guitarists

still of The Great Kat
THE GREAT KAT
*continues headbanging*