# matadero de mujeres



## loladamore

How can I translate the title of Poniatowska's article into English? 

*Ciudad Juárez: matadero de mujeres*​I know _matadero_ is 'slaughterhouse', but I'm having a terrible time trying to find a way of getting the sense of 'Ciudad Juarez is a place where women are slaughtered' in a way that sounds like a title.

heeeeeeelp!​


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Ciudad Juárez: matadero de mujeres

It _is _hard!

Ciudad Juárez: The Slaughter of Its Women

Ciudad Juárez: Female Slaughter

Ciudad Juárez: A Massacre of Women

or maybe

The Slaughter of the Women of Ciudad Juárez


I can't say that I like any of these particularly either, but maybe they'll inspire you or another forero to come up with something better!


----------



## Soy Yo

Ciudad Juarez: Women's Slaughterhouse?

Ciudad Juarez: Slaughterhouse for Women?

I agree...this is not an easy one.


----------



## natasha2000

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Ciudad Juarez: Women's Slaughterhouse?
> 
> Ciudad Juarez: Slaughterhouse for Women?
> 
> I agree...this is not an easy one.


 
I was wondering, why is it so hard, for you two, as two native English speakers? It doesn't sound well? Why? I am really interested since I see it perfect. Both of your suggestions. Well, the first one, perfect, the other one a little bit less, but still ok. Sometimes I find it odd when I come accross of something I see as a very easy one, and a native speaker sees it "hard", and I would like to know why.
Thank you.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

That's a really good question, Natasha.

I can't speak for Soy Yo, but my problem is with the contradiction of ideas.

A slaughterhouse is a facility for butchering animals.  To pair the idea up with large numbers of murdered women, when the women are not being murdered systematically or rounded up and massacred, is extremely difficult.  

Sometimes this juxtaposition of ideas works very well for its shock value, and sometimes it just creates difficulties.  In this case, the ideas are a little too far apart to mesh into an effective title, so that we have to think outside the box a little.


----------



## natasha2000

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> That's a really good question, Natasha.
> 
> I can't speak for Soy Yo, but my problem is with the contradiction of ideas.
> 
> A slaughterhouse is a facility for butchering animals. To pair the idea up with large numbers of murdered women, when the women are not being murdered systematically or rounded up and massacred, is extremely difficult.
> 
> Sometimes this juxtaposition of ideas works very well for its shock value, and sometimes it just creates difficulties. In this case, the ideas are a little too far apart to mesh into an effective title, so that we have to think outside the box a little.


 
Hmm...

I am not sure, but I heard that in some part of Mexico, hudreds of women are kidnapped, violated and murdered, and it goes on for many years, and the gouvernment still did not do anything about it. Maybe this title is referring to this event, so, I find it VERY appropriate... Otherwise, you are completely right.
On the other hand, even if someone doesn't know this story, it is also difficult to join these two words in Spanish, too. Matadero IS a slaughterhouse, Matadero is a place where animals are killed to be conveted into food. So, if Spanish original uses this combination, of two words that normally don't go together, I don't see why they shouldn't be used in English translation.


----------



## natasha2000

I was right. There are some 400 women murdered and violated in the city of Juárez, in Maxico, although it seems that the murderers are captured.
Look here.

Considering the facts, I really wouldn't have any problem to call the city a slaughterhouse for women, or matadero de mujeres, since this horror cannot be called in any other way.


----------



## Bilma

Unfurtanetly, we do have this problem in Ciudad Juarez, women have been murdered with no reason. I would like to say that  it is ONLY in Ciudad Juarez that this happens not in all Mexico. Therefore, the word you are suggesting, a slaughterhouse, fits to this context. 

Very sad.....


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

The trouble is that a slaughterhouse is very methodical and controlled and deliberate - not what's happening in this instance.

Other words that come to mind to modify C.J.:

bloodbath
massacre
killing field
killing ground
death sentence 
deadly 
fatal

Given the number of women who arrive there to work, only to die, I could also see "Fatal Attraction" if the term hasn't been copywrited.


----------



## natasha2000

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> The trouble is that a slaughterhouse is very methodical and controlled and deliberate - not what's happening in this instance.
> 
> Other words that come to mind to modify C.J.:
> 
> bloodbath
> massacre
> killing field
> killing ground
> death sentence
> deadly
> fatal
> 
> Given the number of women who arrive there to work, only to die, I could also see "Fatal Attraction" if the term hasn't been copywrited.


 
But Chaska, why avoid calling the things by their own name? If original uses the word matadero, which is exactly the same thing - methodical and controlled killing, why then we cannot use the same word, meaning the same in English? The point is in horror of killing, not in order and control. And furthermore, I would dare to say that those who were killing these women had their own "methodical and controlled way" of killing, beginning from chosing the victim, than planning and execution of the killing...


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> But Chaska, why avoid calling the things by their own name? If original uses the word matadero, which is exactly the same thing - methodical and controlled killing, why then we cannot use the same word, meaning the same in English? The point is in horror of killing, not in order and control. And furthermore, I would dare to say that those who were killing these women had their own "methodical and controlled way" of killing, beginning from chosing the victim, than planning and execution of the killing...



That is true.


----------



## loladamore

Interesting…

Yes, *slaughter* is appropriate under the circumstances, as are most of the nouns given, from the various literal (*slaughterhouse*) and figurative (*bloodbath*) renderings of *matadero* you have all suggested.

My problem is creating a title in as few words as possible, and *de mujeres* is the difficult bit. Sounds good in Spanish, but women*’s* implies possession (a slaughterhouse OWNED by women) or, like *for*, suggests gender division and/or intended purpose (ie, not for MEN) and a place to go *to*. Maybe I am making it too complicated, but the subject matter is not ‘women’s football’ or ‘a hospital for women’. This is serious stuff.

My latest attempt is:

*Ciudad Juarez**: Where women are slaughtered*​ 
which sounds rather like an anti tourism slogan… 

Thanks for all the discussion!


----------



## Corcega

How about 

   “Ciudad Juarez: women’s slaughtercity”

   Playing around with the word slaughterhouse and the city of murder

   or 

   “Ciudad Juarez: city of murdered women”

   “Ciudad Juarez: city of slaughtered women”


----------



## Soy Yo

loladamore said:
			
		

> Interesting…
> 
> Yes, *slaughter* is appropriate under the circumstances, as are most of the nouns given, from the various literal (*slaughterhouse*) and figurative (*bloodbath*) renderings of *matadero* you have all suggested.
> 
> My problem is creating a title in as few words as possible, and *de mujeres* is the difficult bit. Sounds good in Spanish, but women*’s* implies possession (a slaughterhouse OWNED by women) or, like *for*, suggests gender division and/or intended purpose (ie, not for MEN) and a place to go *to*. Maybe I am making it too complicated, but the subject matter is not ‘women’s football’ or ‘a hospital for women’. This is serious stuff.
> My latest attempt is:
> 
> *Ciudad Juarez**: Where women are slaughtered*​
> which sounds rather like an anti tourism slogan…
> 
> Thanks for all the discussion!


 
Natasha, esto explica muy bien por qué es difícil..especialmente si vamos a usar la palabra "slaughterhouse". "For" indica que es un sitio a donde las mujeres querrán ir, que les va a dar algún beneficio. "Women's" también lo presenta como si fuera algo que posean o controlan las mujeres...y quizás que las mujeres son las que matan.

Si lo puedes ver con ironía "Slaughterhouse for Women" contrapuesto con "Spa for Women," "School for Women"... entonces quizas funcione...pero a primera vista no.

Lola ha ofrecido una buena solución. Puesto que normalmente decimos Juarez en vez de Ciudad Juarez en EE.UU., les propongo esta adaptación: *Juarez: City Where Women are Slaughtered* (or *Juarez: Where Women are Slaughtered)*


----------



## natasha2000

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Natasha, esto explica muy bien por qué es difícil..especialmente si vamos a usar la palabra "slaughterhouse". "For" indica que es un sitio a donde las mujeres querrán ir, que les va a dar algún beneficio. "Women's" también lo presenta como si fuera algo que posean o controlan las mujeres...y quizás que las mujeres son las que matan.
> 
> Si lo puedes ver con ironía "Slaughterhouse for Women" contrapuesto con "Spa for Women," "School for Women"... entonces quizas funcione...pero a primera vista no.
> 
> Lola ha ofrecido una buena solución. Puesto que normalmente decimos Juarez en vez de Ciudad Juarez en EE.UU., les propongo esta adaptación: *Juarez: City Where Women are Slaughtered* (or *Juarez: Where Women are Slaughtered)*


´

Hmm.. Sí, ahora veo el problema... Pero... ¿De verdad se ve así? Así que, Dentist for Children or Children's dentist would be a dentist where children go voluntarily? I don't think so. Name me one child who gladly goes to dentist... Yes, my example is far more "light" than what happened in Juárez, but the basics is the same... Maybe, just maybe, this is only as Spanish people say : rizar el rizo.

Since the title is asked for, I'm sorry but I have to tell you that I don't like your proposition. It is clear, yes, but it is not a "title type".... As Loladamore said, she needs something short yet still effective and shocking. And supposing that people who will read that text (well, meybe I am supposing too much ), knows what happened in Juárez, I doubt there will be any confusion if the title says: Slaughterhouse for Women.

And what about Women slaughterhouse? Without putting women in saxon genitive? How does this sound?


----------



## Soy Yo

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> ´
> 
> Hmm.. Sí, ahora veo el problema... Pero... De verdad se ve así? Así que, Dentist for Children or Children's dentist would be a dentist where children go voluntarily? I don't think so. Name me one child who gladly goes to dentist... Yes, my example is far more "light" than what happened in Juárez, but the basics is the same... Maybe, just maybe, this is only as Spanish people say : rizar el rizo.
> 
> Since the title is asked for, I'm sorry but I have to tell you that I don't like your proposition. It is clear, yes, but it is not a "title type".... As Loladamore said, she needs something short yet still effective and shocking. And supposing that people who will read that text (well, meybe I am supposing too much ), knows what happened in Juárez, I doubt there will be any confusion if the title says: Slaughterhouse for Women.
> 
> And what about Women slaughterhouse? Without putting women in saxon genitive? How does this sound?


 
Dentist for Children or Children's dentist would be a dentist where children go voluntarily? I don't think so.

No digo que van voluntariamente...pero es para beneficiar a los niños. Y Children's Dentist / Dentist for Children sí da esa idea de beneficio. Está bien conmigo si ponen Women's Slaughterhouse o Slaughterhouse for Women...esas son las opciones que propuse desde un principio...pero las otras personas no las veían con muy buenos ojos...y luego propuse otra cosa que era más a su gusto. La persona que traduce tendrá que decidir...que no yo.


----------



## Cereth

women masacre in ciudad Juarez....
mmm it is tuff to translate due to many things i know the correct one seems to be "women slaughterhouse in ciudad juarez" but i prefer "masacre" i live in Cd. Juarez and i think it fits a little bit more


----------



## Soy Yo

Pero en inglés un "massacre" es como en un evento, un asalto matan a montones de mujeres.... Creo que en este matadero...las matanzas ocurren dia tras dia, unas pocas cada dia.


----------



## natasha2000

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Dentist for Children or Children's dentist would be a dentist where children go voluntarily? I don't think so.
> 
> No digo que van voluntariamente...pero es para beneficiar a los niños. Y Children's Dentist / Dentist for Children sí da esa idea de beneficio. Está bien conmigo si ponen Women's Slaughterhouse o Slaughterhouse for Women...esas son las opciones que propuse desde un principio...pero las otras personas no las veían con muy buenos ojos...y luego propuse otra cosa que era más a su gusto. La persona que traduce tendrá que decidir...que no yo.


 
OK. Esto es lo que quería saber. Si a ti, como un nativo, te suena bien Women's Slaughterhouse o Slaughterhouse for Women, y tú lo dirías asi, entonces quedo contenta. Claro, la palabra final tiene la persona que lo va a traducir...


----------



## Soy Yo

Fijate que hay otros nativos que han sugerido otras cosas


----------



## natasha2000

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Pero en inglés un "massacre" es como en un evento, un asalto matan a montones de mujeres.... Creo que en este matadero...las matanzas ocurren dia tras dia, unas pocas cada dia.


 
Exactamente. Además, como ya he dicho, hay que traducirlo, no interpretarlo. Una cosa es elegir la palabra mas adecuada para la traducción, y otra es dar tu propia visión de los hechos... Para uno que ha vivido ese horror, igual no le satisface la palabra matadero, y cree que a lo que ha pasado le más conviene la palabra masacre (o cualqwuier otra), pero el que escribió ese texto (o sólo esta frase) usó la palabra matadero y hay que quedarse con el original, ya que se puede traducir sin ningún problema.
Además, no era la palabra matadero el tema de la duda, sino el orden de las palabras.


----------



## natasha2000

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Fijate que hay otros nativos que han sugerido otras cosas


 
Sí, claro, pero lo han sugerido porque no sabían (o no se les ha ocurrido) de que se trata...
De hecho, Chaska era la única que propuso otras palabras, y al final me dio la razón cuando expliqué mi punto de vista...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *natasha2000*
> _But Chaska, why avoid calling the things by their own name? If original uses the word matadero, which is exactly the same thing - methodical and controlled killing, why then we cannot use the same word, meaning the same in English? The point is in horror of killing, not in order and control. And furthermore, I would dare to say that those who were killing these women had their own "methodical and controlled way" of killing, beginning from chosing the victim, than planning and execution of the killing..._
> 
> 
> That is true.


 
Mirad, me gustan las propuestas de Córcega:



> “Ciudad Juarez: women’s slaughtercity”
> 
> “Ciudad Juarez: city of murdered women”
> 
> “Ciudad Juarez: city of slaughtered women”


 
Maybe instead of Ciudad Juárez to put City of Juárez, or only Juárez....


----------



## abrahamisc

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Ciudad Juarez: Slaughterhouse for Women


Hola.
Desde mi punto de vista esta es la mejor traduccion posible.

Ciudad Juárez: Matadero de mujeres, no esta diciendo que en ciudad Juárez mataron mujeres, sino la ciudad completa se ha convertido en un matadero, donde las mujeres han sido reducidas a ganado, ahi estan y no saben si van a llegar al dia siguiente o esta es su ultima noche. Es una fuerte crítica al gobierno en todos los niveles, municipal, estatal y federal. Porque mujeres son asesinadas y ninguno de los gobierno hace nada para impedirlo, como si fuera algo con lo que tienen que lidiar las mujeres en ciudad Juárez.
En español matadero de mujeres tambien puede interpretarse como que les pertenece el matadero a las mujeres, pero no creo que nadie se confunda y tampoco creo que en inglés pase.
Espero haber explicado mi punto.

Saludos.


----------



## Cereth

Me parece bien como expones tu punto abraham!
es bueno que expliques por que lo consideras así y no como otros forer@s que incluso han sonado groseros cuando dan su punto de vista (no solo en este hilo en particular)..o quizás seas por que su español no es muy bueno... bueno eso ya es otro tema...

elevemos una oración por esas mujeres.


----------



## frangs

abrahamisc said:
			
		

> Hola.
> Desde mi punto de vista esta es la mejor traduccion posible.
> 
> Ciudad Juárez: Matadero de mujeres, no esta diciendo que en ciudad Juárez mataron mujeres, sino la ciudad completa se ha convertido en un matadero, donde las mujeres han sido reducidas a ganado, ahi estan y no saben si van a llegar al dia siguiente o esta es su ultima noche. Es una fuerte crítica al gobierno en todos los niveles, municipal, estatal y federal. Porque mujeres son asesinadas y ninguno de los gobierno hace nada para impedirlo, como si fuera algo con lo que tienen que lidiar las mujeres en ciudad Juárez.
> En español matadero de mujeres tambien puede interpretarse como que les pertenece el matadero a las mujeres, pero no creo que nadie se confunda y tampoco creo que en íngles pase.
> Espero haber explicado mi punto.
> 
> Saludos.


 
Totalmente de acuerdo, creo que "matadero de mujeres" tiene el mismo nivel de ambigüedad en español que podría tener "Slaughterhouse for Women" en inglés, por lo tanto estás siendo fiel al sentido del original.


----------



## Soy Yo

Cereth said:
			
		

> Me parece bien como expones tu punto abraham!
> es bueno que expliques por que lo consideras así *y no como otros forer@s que incluso han sonado groseros cuando dan su punto de vista (no solo en este hilo en particular)*..*o quizás seas por que su español no es muy bueno...* bueno eso ya es otro tema...
> 
> elevemos una oración por esas mujeres.


 
Disculpen, por favor, si me han encontrado grosero.  Y confieso que mi español no llega al nivel de nativo...así que les pido perdón donde haya habido malentendidos.


----------



## Lagartija

frangs said:
			
		

> Totalmente de acuerdo, creo que "matadero de mujeres" tiene el mismo nivel de ambigüedad en español que podría tener "Slaughterhouse for Women" en inglés, por lo tanto estás siendo fiel al sentido del original.



I don't think that anyone would be confused by "Juarez: Slaughterhouse for Women".  No one or no thing goes to a slaughterhouse willingly.  
But you could also use "Juarez: a Killing Field for Women" since most English speakers would be familiar with the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia and would make the same connection here.


----------



## natasha2000

Lagartija said:
			
		

> I don't think that anyone would be confused by "Juarez: Slaughterhouse for Women". No one or no thing goes to a slaughterhouse willingly.
> But you could also use "Juarez: a Killing Field for Women" since most English speakers would be familiar with the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia and would make the same connection here.


 
That would be OK, but that would not be a TRANSLATION, but personal INTEPREATATION of a translator in question.
I vote for exact translation, whenever possible. And in this case, I think it is.

SoyYo, yo no he notado que eras grosero en ningún momento...Igual yo he sido grosera, considerando que el español no es mi lengua materna, pero todavía no estoy conciente de ello.  
Creo que en este hilo nadie ha faltado respeto a las victimas de Juárez. Pero se ve que otros no piensan así...


----------



## loladamore

abrahamisc said:
			
		

> Hola.
> Desde mi punto de vista esta es la mejor traduccion posible.
> 
> Ciudad Juárez: Matadero de mujeres, no esta diciendo que en ciudad Juárez mataron mujeres, sino la ciudad completa se ha convertido en un matadero, donde las mujeres han sido reducidas a ganado, ahi estan y no saben si van a llegar al dia siguiente o esta es su ultima noche. Es una fuerte crítica al gobierno en todos los niveles, municipal, estatal y federal. Porque mujeres son asesinadas y ninguno de los gobierno hace nada para impedirlo, como si fuera algo con lo que tienen que lidiar las mujeres en ciudad Juárez.
> En español matadero de mujeres tambien puede interpretarse como que les pertenece el matadero a las mujeres, pero no creo que nadie se confunda y tampoco creo que en íngles pase.
> Espero haber explicado mi punto.
> 
> Saludos.


 

Efectivamente por ahí va el asunto, y creo que me acabas de convencer de que lo primerito que se me ocurrió e inmediatamente rechacé es, a fin de cuentas, probablemente la mejor opción. Y lo dijo *Soy yo* desde hace horas también. 

Creo que _Slaughterhouse for Women_ tiene la desventaja de poderse interpretar como matadero *de* mujeres y también como matadero *para* mujeres, pero como bien señalas, no creo que nadie se confunda, y ahora que lo pienso no sé si hay alguna diferencia. Es más ya no sé nada.
 
Me gusta también la propuesta de *Lagartija *con la referencia a _Killing Fields;_ sin embargo, creo que eso sí es agregar conotaciones innecesarias.

Nunca pensé que este hilo fuera a despertar tanta discusión


----------



## loladamore

Por si despertando alguien le quiere seguir… Ya me des-convencí de usar FOR, y ya entiendo la razón.
 
En español, *matadero de + sustantivo *puede usarse para *a)* lugar físico (*slaughterhouse*) y *b)* sentido más abstracto, matanza (*slaughter*), donde la estructura gramatical permite agregar objetos, sean en el sentido concreto o abstracto (mujeres, focas, moscas, árboles frutales, ideas o pasiones). 
En inglés, no hay problema con b) donde usaríamos la preposición *of*, i.e. *the slaughter of + noun*, como en español. El asunto está en la calificación de *slaughterhouse*. Que yo sepa, no hay precedente para la calificación de *slaughterhouse* en el sentido de qué se mata allí. Intenté cambiar ‘mujeres’ por nombres de animales y de todos modos no sé como ponerle: suena muy extraño (¿extranjero?) decir *slaughterhouse for pigs* or *sheep slaughterhouse*. Y la única preposición que asociamos con *slaughter* es *of*, no *for*.
 
Switching back to English, I have been toying with various conjugations of the verb *to cull*, in the hope I could find another structure that was both concrete and abstract, but I keep thinking of Culling Fields – such a bad pun! – and I still can’t work out where to put ‘women’ which is the most important aspect of the whole thing. And the bodies have been found in the desert sand, not a field... but I digress.
 
Un millón de gracias a todos. Seguiré pensando en alternativas durante las próximas horas. Tendré que entregar el texto hoy, pero tengo otro mes en él que puedo modificar el título, por si de repente a alguien se le ocurre algo chido.


----------



## natasha2000

loladamore said:
			
		

> Por si despertando alguien le quiere seguir… Ya me des-convencí de usar FOR, y ya entiendo la razón.
> 
> En español, *matadero de + sustantivo *puede usarse para *a)* lugar físico (*slaughterhouse*) y *b)* sentido más abstracto, matanza (*slaughter*), donde la estructura gramatical permite agregar objetos, sean en el sentido concreto o abstracto (mujeres, focas, moscas, árboles frutales, ideas o pasiones).
> En inglés, no hay problema con b) donde usaríamos la preposición *of*, i.e. *the slaughter of + noun*, como en español. El asunto está en la calificación de *slaughterhouse*. Que yo sepa, no hay precedente para la calificación de *slaughterhouse* en el sentido de qué se mata allí. Intenté cambiar ‘mujeres’ por nombres de animales y de todos modos no sé como ponerle: suena muy extraño (¿extranjero?) decir *slaughterhouse for pigs* or *sheep slaughterhouse*. Y la única preposición que asociamos con *slaughter* es *of*, no *for*.
> 
> Switching back to English, I have been toying with various conjugations of the verb *to cull*, in the hope I could find another structure that was both concrete and abstract, but I keep thinking of Culling Fields – such a bad pun! – and I still can’t work out where to put ‘women’ which is the most important aspect of the whole thing. And the bodies have been found in the desert sand, not a field... but I digress.
> 
> Un millón de gracias a todos. Seguiré pensando en alternativas durante las próximas horas. Tendré que entregar el texto hoy, pero tengo otro mes en él que puedo modificar el título, por si de repente a alguien se le ocurre algo chido.


 
Creo que te equivocas. *Matadero* es *slaughterhouse*, o sea el sitio donde se matan los animales. *slaughter *sería *Matanza* , el mismo acto de matar. O sea, existen dos palabras para dos cosas diferentes, igual que en el inglés. Así que creo que se puede decir tranquilamente Slaughterhouse for women, como ya hemos concluido. Y si quieres usar la palabra slaughter, entonces Slaughter of women.

Y eso de CULL??? I thought it was KILLING FIELDS, not CULLING FIELDS.. 
Look the meaning of the word cull


----------



## Txiri

Having just read the entire thread, rather than for, I would opt for of, Slaughterhouse of Women.

The slaughterhouse where women are slaughtered.  Not the slaughterhouse intended for women ....


----------



## loladamore

Txiri said:
			
		

> Having just read the entire thread, rather than for, I would opt for of, Slaughterhouse of Women.
> 
> The slaughterhouse where women are slaughtered. Not the slaughterhouse intended for women ....


 
Yes YES YES!
thank you Txiri. Simple, yet effective, successfully avoiding practically all the unwanted nuances, sounds appropriately literal and figurative, is very close to the original and yet, sounds like something a native speaker would say.
I can't believe I didn't think of it before...

gracias!


----------



## Soy Yo

Lola, I believe you should settle on "slaughterhouse for women"... hice una búsqueda y aunque encontré sólo un "slaughterhouse for women"... hay muchísimos "slaughterhouse for" y especialmente "slaughterhouse for Jews".... Por ejemplo...

Paul and Linda McCartney wrote, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegetarian.” Author Charles Patterson agrees because through those walls, he says, we would gaze horrified into a place that looks much like a Nazi death chamber. In his shattering book “Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust,” Patterson draws an astonishing analogy between a *slaughterhouse for Jews* and a *slaughterhouse for animals*. In both we find the annihilation of “life unworthy of life,” the wholesale depersonalized day-after-day butchery and the lying prattle of “humane killing.” 

Tienes razón que es "slaughter of women" pero esta no es una accion sino una "cosa" (una "casa")... con "house for women" no hay problema.

Oops, I posted this before seeing Txiri's last


----------



## loladamore

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Lola, I believe you should settle on "slaughterhouse for women"... hice una búsqueda y aunque encontré sólo un "slaughterhouse for women"... hay muchísimos "slaughterhouse for" y especialmente "slaughterhouse for Jews".... Por ejemplo...
> 
> Paul and Linda McCartney wrote, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegetarian.” Author Charles Patterson agrees because through those walls, he says, we would gaze horrified into a place that looks much like a Nazi death chamber. In his shattering book “Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust,” Patterson draws an astonishing analogy between a *slaughterhouse for Jews* and a *slaughterhouse for animals*. In both we find the annihilation of “life unworthy of life,” the wholesale depersonalized day-after-day butchery and the lying prattle of “humane killing.”
> 
> Tienes razón que es "slaughter of women" pero esta no es una accion sino una "cosa" (una "casa")... con "house for women" no hay problema.
> 
> Oops, I posted this before seeing Txiri's last


 

wow - there are precedents, then... hmmm... I have sent off the text already, but as I said, I can change the title later if I wish. I have a month to change my mind and back again, approximately 25 times I should think!

sigo pensando que 'matadero' aqui de todos modos no es estrictamente un espacio físico sino un concepto - en parte por eso tanta indecisión. Sin embargo *slaughterhouse for jews* sí se refiere a un edificio con propósito específico. Ah, pero ya vi - 'Auschwitz became first and foremost a *slaughterhouse for Jews'*, es más amplio, verdad, y con *FOR*. Back to square one? And 'Auschwitz was a vast *factory of death*, the site of the greatest mass murder in recorded history'. Interesante..

muchas gracias por la aportación; seguiré delirando


----------



## abrahamisc

Hola.
I think that "Slaughterhouse of Women" focus on the slaughter and put aside that the women has been treat like animals. Because in C.J. apparently is not a crime to kill a woman. 

Saludos.


----------



## Txiri

I believe both "for" and "of" would work just fine.

Thought I would take a step backward, and sort of objectify the phrase.  

Googling, "slaughterhouse of animals" gets 26 hits, and "slaughterhouse of cattle",  4  hits.  Changing the preposition to "for", animals gets  21  hits, and cattle, 128.

Just to experiment, "s. for pigs" gets 46 hits, and "s. of pigs", 2.  Same experiment with "chickens", "s. for chickens", 41;  "s. of chickens", no hits.

To move metaphorically, or at least, out of the meat-packing industry, into the context of Jews, "for" has 37 hits, and "of", 3.  " s. for people", 6;  " s. of people", 1.  On the other hand, "slaughter of people" gets 14,700.  (Which would lead me to conclude that using "slaughterhouse" to describe the matanza of people is a valid transposition, but not one used everyday.)

I went a bit further on a metaphorical trail and found "s. of ideals", 1 time;  "s. of rights", twice;  "s. of expectations", "s. of English", "s. of English", did not turn up any hits, either.  (I was thinking along the lines of how we might use "butchering" in English ...)  The other fairly common expression of butchering at least, in relation to badly done illegal backstreet abortions ... but while women´s bodies may be butchered, they are not passing through slaughterhouses.

"s. of women":  0 hits;  "s. for women":  1 hit.

Our understanding of "slaughterhouse" is that it is a facility precisely intended to mass produce the death of animals, but animals intended to be processed into meat products for human or other consumption.  Not to kill for the sake of killing.  

When we take this concept, and apply it to a physical place where the mass killing of human beings has taken place, we know that the sense of the phrase is not that these human beings will be processed into packaged meat products for human or other consumption, but rather (in my mind), the metaphorical equivalence is rather to draw horror to the mass quality of it:  as if the complex of circumstances which surround these unsolved deaths-- and we don´t know what all is involved here-- is there a gang of predators?  one or several persons acting together or copy cat killers?  a single bloodthirsty psychopath?  are the women victimized as they leave for work at night?  return home from work at night?  are they victimized by people they know? -- in the complex of circumstances, Ciudad Juarez has been turned into a slaughterhouse.

In short, there seems to be a predilection toward using "for" with the expression.  I think that would be a good argument for this choice.  However, I personally still prefer *of.  *("for" suggests it could have been  "para mujeres" in Spanish", and I think that connotation makes other ideas resonate, like "para hombres", etc.)  But I don´t really have a good reason, I just prefer "of".


----------



## loladamore

Well, Txiri, your last post really covers it. Funny, I did some of the same googling, but got considerably less hits - I must check my preferences.
Thanks for taking the time to do the research. 

What I find the most interesting is that you conclude that in spite of the higher frequency of the use of 'for' in analagous structures, you personally prefer 'of'. I don't have a good reason either, but I prefer it, too. I actually scribbled it on a piece of paper when I woke up in the middle of the night 2 nights ago, just a few hours before you suggested it on this forum, but I completely forgot about it until I found the scrap of paper this morning! So my subconscious agrees with us but unfortunately my memory needs help. 

So, for no good reason whatsoever, apart from it sounding/feeling better in some vague way, I think I will stick with *OF*. Unless I change my mind again...


----------



## abrahamisc

Hola.
Siendo Txiri angloparlante de los EE.UU. y Loladamore angloparlante del Reino Unido y habiendo coincidido en su preferencia por el *of*, pues ni como decirles nada. No hay manera de oponerse a ese sentimiento de _suena mejor de esta manera_ que tienen los nativos.

Saludos.


----------

