Rags Rocks!

By now, everyone who's not living in a cave knows that Rags to Riches won the Belmont Stakes on Saturday, June 9th, 2007--102 years since the last filly won the Belmont.

As a writer in this sport, a woman and one who's acutely aware of language and the subtle nuances--well, I'm out-of-my-mind thrilled that a filly took the Belmont. But I'm aware that language can build a prison--so I'm living for the day when horses like Rags aren't subject to adjectives like, "female." ("The great female Thoroughbred, Rags to Riches...")

Why can't we just say or write, "The great Thoroughbred..."?

Think of it this way: doesn't it drive you nuts when you hear a reporter--who happens to be a female--referred to as, "cute," "blonde," etc.?

Would anyone refer to Tom Brokaw as "The ruggedly-handsome anchor..." or "The brunette Tom Brokaw..."??

The answer is no, of course. Women subjects are always described for their physical attributes; men are not.

So I think--from a writer's perspective--that it diminishes Rags' accomplishments when anyone describes her as a "female Thoroughbred." NOT that I abhor being a female, or that I'm not thrilled that she's a filly! But if they wouldn't describe Curlin as a "male Thoroughbred" in common conversation--then they shouldn't do it when referring to Rags.

It's one thing to describe a horse as a "filly," "mare," or "colt." It's another, entirely, to use their gender as an adjective: "The female Thoroughbred, Rags to Riches, won the Belmont Stakes yesterday..." They'd never have written, "The male Thoroughbred, Secretariat."

It may not sound like much, but...from my seat as a writer...and knowing the power of language...believe me. It'll help perpetuate the myths about fillies and mares. One little word can fell a nation, or hold back an entire gender.

I'd like your feedback on language and this sport...any takers??