"opening the kimono" (1979?, 1984)

[Jonathan Lighter]

Wilson is right, but I'd go further.

"Sexist" and, yes, "racist,"  are words that cover such broad domains that simply designating someone or something as "racist" or "sexist" unhelpfully lumps together very different extremes that a careful thinker needs to keep separate.

Singling out women to be burned as witches is "sexist"; so is the phrase "open the kimono."
Actions like enslaving Africans, exterminating Jews, and urging the killing of Americans "wherever you may find them" are "racist"; so are minor cultural artifacts like "Amos 'n' Andy," stereotypes of "Jewish mothers," and the phrase "camel jockey."

It was useful forty years ago to identify unremarked examples of racism and sexism, when it was not widely recognized just how pervasive such attitudes are. It remains obligatory in blatant cases where ignorant or supremacist attitudes cause enduring harm to real people.  But ferreting out trivial examples of "racism" or "sexism" in conventional linguistic idioms seems patronizing to me, and as often as not can be a cheap way of saying, "I'm so much more sensitive than you are."

One may argue, of course, that there are no "trivial" examples of racism and sexism. Yet it seems to me that bad taste and stupidity will be with us always, and that our energies are better directed toward improving the big picture rather than attempting to micromanage the nation's store of sophomoric humor.

Finally, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, I'm not saying "Tough noogies!" to people who are truly offended by verbal examples I consider "trivial." What I am saying is that "racism" and "sexism" are powerful and valuable English words which shouldn't themselves be trivialized through gratuitous use.

JL

Wilson Gray <wilson.gray at RCN.COM> wrote:
---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: Wilson Gray
Subject: Re: "opening the kimono" (1979?, 1984)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jun 18, 2005, at 1:32 AM, Benjamin Zimmer wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender: American Dialect Society
> Poster: Benjamin Zimmer
> Subject: Re: "opening the kimono" (1979?, 1984)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 22:53:05 -0400, Wilson Gray
> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 17, 2005, at 3:50 PM, Benjamin Zimmer wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a definition from "The Microsoft Lexicon" (see also Susie
>>> Dent's
>>> _The Language Report_ and Wordspy.com):
>>>
>>> -----
>>> http://www.cinepad.com/mslex_2.htm
>>> Open The Kimono: A marvelous phrase of non-Microsoft origin, probably
>>> stemming from the rash of Japanese acquisitions of American
>>> enterprises in the '80s, that has been adopted into the Microspeak
>>> marketing lexicon. Basically a somewhat sexist synonym for "open the
>>> books," it means to reveal the inner workings of a project or company
>>> to a prospective new partner.
>>
>> Isn't calling this phrase "sexist" a bit overly PC? Both men and women
>> wear kimonos and there's no obvious reason to assume that the kimono
>> being metaphorically opened is one worn by a woman.
>
> I'd say that in the American consciousness, the opening of kimonos
> would
> be overwhelmingly associated with geishas and other iconic depictions
> of
> Japanese women conforming to a coy, submissive stereotype. Or at least
> this was probably true c. 1980 when the term was popularized. (I
> believe
> the popular _Shogun_ miniseries of the time had a kimono-opening
> scene.)
>
> Remember also that the expression was coined in a male-dominated
> business
> world where one might expect a fair amount of sexist language. The
> "Buzzkiller" contributor who recalled the phrase from the late '60s
> said
> that it was "a more colorful alternative to 'lifting the skirt' - the
> obvious reference to tantalizing a prospect with a peek at the wares."
>
> But yeah, in theory, kimono-opening is non-gender-specific, as in this
> JSTOR cite from 1959 (U. A. Casal, "The Goblin Fox and Badger and Other
> Witch Animals of Japan," _Folklore Studies_ 18:84):
>
> -----
> Apparently it was believed of old that the wolf was shameful of sexual
> things, having no strong sexual instincts. He would never disclose his
> organ, but hide it behind his hanging tail. Should a person perchance
> see
> his sexual act, he or she would have to open the kimono and disclose
> his
> or her own organ, so as not to shame the wolf.
> -----
>
>
> --Ben Zimmer
>

If a person knows the full background of a term, there may be some
reason for that person to give that term a label like "sexist." But
suppose a person has no idea of a term's history and uses the term
simply because other people use it. Would such a person be sexist?

There are terms from black slang used by white kids, which terms are
too stunningly obscene to us black senior citizens to be used by girls
and women. "Boody"/"Booty" and "funk" are but two examples. Hearing
someone say out loud on the street, "Oh, those shoes so funky!" or "I
think I have a nice booty" grosses me out. When I was a teenager, girls
weren't even supposed to know those words, let alone use them in
public. Even for a guy to use such words out loud in public was
disrespectful and evidence of a total lack of "background." But to the
white teenaged girls using them nowadays, they're merely words like
other words. Should such girls be condemned as foul-mouthed slatterns
for what they don't know?

That's why I feel that condemning the "kimono" bit as sexist is
somewhat extreme. If your sole reason for using the term is that you
know its sexist history, yes, I'd call that sexist. But if you're using
the term in all innocence, there shouldn't be a problem.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com