(Update) ‘Fanboy’ Gets Legitimized, No Luck For ‘Fangirl’

Got this one via Newsarama: Merriam-Webster has added 100 new words to their dictionary this year, and one of them is…fanboy.
The definition is already up on the Merriam-Webster website:
Main Entry: fan·boy
Pronunciation: \ˈfan-ˌbȯi\
Function: noun
Date: 1919
: a boy who is an enthusiastic devotee (as of comics or movies)
Now of course, being the sort of person that I am (i.e. female), I couldn’t help but wonder if fangirl had been added too. I couldn’t find a full list of the newly-added words, so I just did a search on the website, figuring that if fanboy was new and up, fangirl would be new and up if it was there. But alas, all I got were suggestions for different words (fragile, flinger, pharyngeal– “relating to the pharynx,” if you’re curious).
So, at risk of sounding like an angry feminist-type, I went on over to the contact page for the ol’ M-W and blasted off a “comment and suggestion” that “fangirl” is an increasingly common word and poo-poo on them for not adding it, too!
EDIT: Wow, I already heard back. Is that record timing? Here’s what I was told:
Thanks for your e-mail. As you may know, we enter words in our dictionaries based on their use in current printed and edited sources. A word is only entered in our dictionaries when it meets three criteria: widespread usage in well-read publications; established usage over a certain period of time; and an easily discernable definition. For “fangirl” to be entered, then, it will need to appear in a number of well-read print sources for a good number of years.
I did a quick check of our citational database, which house upwards of 17 million citations of words in context, and we only have a handful of citations for “fangirl.” I’m afraid that without more citational backing (and a longer usage history), it’s currently not eligible for entry.
For more information on how a word is entered into our dictionaries, visit http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htm, and if you have any further questions or comments, please contact us again.
Sincerely,
Kory Stamper, Associate Editor
Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Alright, fanwomens– let’s get citing!
Tags: random

July 7th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Overreacting and complaining… the true sign of a fangirl! ;-)
July 7th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Both words appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, within the larger entry for ‘fan’. ‘Fanboy’ is pinned as slang, with the earliest discovered quotation a surprisingly early reference to a 1919 newspaper article about baseball. ‘Fangirl’ also appears, althoug the earliest quotation is a 1990 reference to rec.arts.comics - definitely a word of the internet age.
Another victory for descriptive dictionaries over prescriptive ones, then.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:44 am
@Scott: Yeah…because…fanBOYS never, ever do that?…O_o;;
July 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
@gia I don’t mean it to be sexist. I guess it’s just the attitude of fandom in general.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
@Scott: People overreact all over the world to all sorts of things, regardless of gender and fan-ness. ;)
That said, I don’t think I’m espcially overreacting. I’m not even being especially serious. I don’t think M-W is being sexist, and their response explains perfectly why “fangirl” wasn’t added since it seems to be based on numbers (of citations, of uses, etc).
But I do think that the women of fandom get overlooked a lot, considering that we’re a very significant portion of the fanbase these days. (Certainly we’re at least half for anime, and probably for most US movies/TV shows as well– I don’t know about gaming, though.)
July 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
in before fanperson
July 7th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
C’mon, aren’t we really all just fanhumans?
July 7th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Gia, I think you’re right. I think we’re an underrepresented group, even though our numbers seem pretty commensurate. (Anybody got any numbers on con attendees by sex?) I think we’re especially underrepresented in the upper levels of the geek industries where the print references are “trusted”. (If we were equally represented, maybe I could get some decent guy figures…)
I also don’t think you’re overreacting, based on simple logic. If there is a female equivalent to a term, even if it’s not well-represented in print, it still deserves to be included.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Oh, all you sapiens-centric critters, for shame! I’ve seen more than one pet react positively to such diverse “fan-products” as Bleach, Dragon Ball and Tramps Like Us. Let’s hear it for Fanbeings! :mrgreen:
July 7th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
@Kitsune: I’ve never heard specific numbers, but I remember hearing several different convention staffers note that attendance at anime cons was pretty even between men and women.
Now, I’d be more interested in getting a demographic breakdown of San Diego Comic Con, which is a much more broadly focused convention (probably the closest thing we have in the US to simply just a “fan con”).
July 7th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
@Kitsune: Following up– I couldn’t find any breakdown of comic-con attendees, but I did find this: http://www.quantcast.com/comic-con.org
According to that, slightly more men visit the Comic-Con website than women (106 men to every 93 women, or 1.13:1). I don’t know how close that pans out to attendance, but it’s probably as close as we can get.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I’ve heard fangirl used a lot! Just hang out online in various geeky forums and there you go. Extensive usage.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
couldn’t it be
“a PERSON who is an enthusiastic devotee (as of comics or movies)”
?
July 7th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
It could also be that, in their perspective, fangirl may necessarily have a derogatory connotation, and they would like to avoid a offending the feminist movement.
Besides, no one cares about offending loser males ;)
July 8th, 2008 at 12:11 am
fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl badger fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl fangirl
July 8th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Having “only have a handful of citations” for fangirl doesn’t mean fangirls don’t exist.
We’re not a word waiting to be legitimized, we exist. We’re here today, we’ll be here in 2017 or whenever there are enough citations.
It’s like saying the word “she” should not make it into the dictionary in 1808 because not enough text citations use it.
Put us in now and more people will become conscious of the fact that not only boys are fans of movies, television and comic books.
Don’t put us in now and it becomes the same old cycle of having to fight to get texts and everything else in the world to stop saying “he” as a pronoun for human, male or female.
Just my two cents.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Sexist dic-tionary people. But seriously Gia, would Saki even care? Maybe Madarame would care more than her given her nature.:wink:
July 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
@ed: I’m enough of a nerd that I thought about that before posting. I decided that while Saki would destroy anyone who tried to call her a fangirl in any way shape or form, she would probably think it was seriously lame that fangirls don’t get recognized like fanboys do.
She hates otaku, but I bet she’d figure “if there have to be otaku, the female ones should get at least as much respect as the male ones! (…Not that I respect them…)”
That’s my justification and I’m sticking with it! ;)
July 14th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Nope, sounds like pretty good justification for me. You should take this up with the gals from Sequential Tart.