Like champagne
After time foolishly squandered arguing with people who unflaggingly and contentedly defend sexist epithets and insist that they are entirely different from racist epithets and repeat with immovable obstinacy that of course they would not call a black person a stupid nigger but calling a woman a stupid bitch is just fine – after that it is refreshing to read less stupid more clear-sighted remarks. Remarks that are two years old, to be sure, but one gets one’s refreshment where one can.
…in the last week, I had a really retro and disheartening conversation about sexist language—a really retro and disheartening conversation about sexist language that I’ve had dozens of times before.
You and me both.
It began in the comments section of another blog, when I objected to a contributor denouncing a male public figure he didn’t like as an “all-around cunt.” Naturally, I was mocked for pointing out that demeaning and marginalizing sexist language has the capacity to make women feel demeaned and marginalized.
Check, check, check.
I emailed another contributor whom I know better to inquire if using the n-word as an insult is considered appropriate at the blog, and if it would have been acceptable for the public figure to be deemed an “all-around faggot.” I was told that anything was allowable “within reasonable limits.” Racial slurs would not be tolerated or defended, but the use of sexist language was acceptable. Which, by my calculations, means that if you’re lambasting a black male public figure, calling him a stupid n—-r is out of bounds, but calling him a stupid cunt is totally cool.
Siiiiigh. Exactly. A Steve at Daylight Atheism said the same thing (swapping ‘cunt’ for ‘bitch’) over and over and over again. This makes me want to bang my head against the wall – and I can’t seem to tear myself away.
“nigger” has obvious racist intent behind it in the context you describe. “bitch” on the other hand does not carry the sexist message in the way “nigger” carries the racist one.
See? Predictable as a clock – but much more infuriating. ‘Yes I do too so get to call you a stupid bitch, you stupid bitch!’
Back to refreshing Feminism 101:
There are ways to use words and there are ways to use words—and knowing the difference, rooting out the subversive context from that which simply perpetuates oppression, is not remotely difficult. And no matter how often women use it in a reclamative fashion, it doesn’t give anyone (of either sex) permission to use it as an insult.
Ah, that’s better. Like a nice tall glass of ginger ale on a hot afternoon.
(I hope this post doesn’t summon ‘wice’ from the vasty deep. Go talk to that Steve, wice; you’ll get along beautifully.
I concur wholeheartedly with your sentiments, Ophelia.
I, and others of my ilk, are attempting to combat this demeaning scourge at every feasible opportunity.
It ain’t that easy, here in Australia, where swearing/cursing etc are a badge of honour and a rite of passage amongst juvenile males. (12 yrs to 110 yrs)
At each opportunity when this form of vocal rape/abuse** occurs, I gently remind them of just how stupid it is to associate a part of the female anaotmy that they consider to be heaven itself, with something completely excreable.
It is a minor part of my personal feminist ‘consciousness-raising’ campaign, (from the inside, as it were), and it seems to have had a considerable effect on some of them, given the reports from their partners.
Small Steps.
___________
** Yes, I mean that. Because that is how the average yobbo associates it.
Please, don’t summon anything more unpleasant than Cthulhu from the vasty deep. Being eaten by a soul-devouring elder god, I can handle. Sitting through another series of post on how sexist language isn’t *really* sexist because someone with a penis says it isn’t – and the further meta-argument that because he’s making his (tiresome, oft-repeated and oft-refuted) argument in carefully neutral language, anyone who disagrees with him is being emotional and irrational and otherwise not logical (just like a woman!) – *that* I cannot face. I barely started reading the thread on that daylightatheism link before I threw up in my mouth a little.
While I agree that the thoughtless use of language should be avoided I would ask, if you consider it sexist to refer to someone as a c**t, then what if they where to referred to as a cock or a dick? I am not sure where I sit on this discussion but surely it must be one rule for all. personally i think degenerating to such forms of address shows a remarkable lack of imagination?
Ok, I have decided to come out of anonymity due to some previous comments about non-accountability. I used to call myself Parrhesia, due to a lack of self-confidence, but what the hey: if you can all do it, why not me?
Kit, do you think there is something telling about the way you have used asterisks for “cunt” but not “cock” or “dick”? Or was that just out of respect for the host’s preferences?
I do think Ophelia is right when she says that “cunt” etc seems to pack more of a punch than “cock” etc. Personally, I find most of that language ugly, especially when written.
I don’t see the inherent difference between labeling someone a prick or a cunt. The words themselves are simply placemarks for ‘very bad person’ and, like all curses, are designed to be somewhat jarring to the listener. As Emily says, it IS ugly when written (or rather as we interpret it in terms of conventional societies usage of language) but that is entirely the point.
I don’t tend to use these terms myself but it would be useful to hear some alternatives offered.
For instance if Ann Coulter appears on TV with Sean Hannity who then proceed to tell lies about history, science and politics and suggest it might be a good idea to send all those who disagree with them to a prison camp, what words of description should spring to mind?
@Signmund: what about an old-fashioned “idiot” or “moron”? Why bring their genitals into the conversation at all?
@Kit: nobody here has been advocating that it is OK to insult men by referring to their genitals either, so I’m not completely sure why you would ask.
@Ophelia: I’m sorry, but it seems we’re going to have to go through some of the motions again… At least you’ll have some strong support here *hat tip to G Felis and Michael Kingsford Gray*.
Deen, I don’t think it is a necessity to bring genitals into the conversation. I simply think there are different levels of insult used in language and if we are talking about raising consciousness of the appropriateness of specific terms then it is useful to suggest alternatives of a similar ‘level’.
I don’t think ‘idiot’ or ‘moron’ fit into that category (for a start I don’t think Coulter is an idiot – she has found a niche or parroting reactionary cliches and has occupied it to skillfully play up to the prejudices of her customers.)
As an example of alternative insults that are worse than ‘idiot’ how about the appropriateness of, say, ‘shithead’ or fuckwit?
Sigmund, they are not placeholders for “very bad person.” “Dick” is a placeholder for “nasty person.” “Cunt” is a placeholder for “nasty, womanly person.”
And here I thought “Dick” was a diminutive form of “Richard”.
Regarding “cunt” it’s important to take account of national differences in usage (especially on the internet). In British or Australian usage it really is a placeholder for “nasty person”; there’s no hint of of “womanly” at all. I think it’s more or less just functioning like “you stupid fuck”; the literal meaning is completely lost and you are just calling someone the most taboo word. Of course, the fact that “cunt” is the most taboo word tells it’s own story about sexism.
FWIW, in my mind “dick” does have a connotation of specifically masculine, swaggering unpleasantness.
Kit, I don’t use ‘dick’ or ‘prick’ as epithets and I don’t defend them.
I don’t understand the virtuous motives of the pejorative-defenders. I like swearing because it’s a fun thing to do, not because I pretend I can defend it or that it’s desirable to do so. And if I do defend it, it’s because I quite clearly want to alienate a person. If it weren’t alienating in some contexts then it wouldn’t be fun in the other ones.
On the other hand, I have had experiences that are sort of like those that people like wice seem to think they’re having. For instance, I once was told that I should not use the word “lady” to talk about ladies (esp. without a definite or indefinite article), because that’s what Jerry Lewis did. I think that’s a hilarious opinion and don’t view myself in the wrong for ignoring the delicate sensibilities of people who would respond to me giving a curt remark like “Look, lady, that’s just not how it is”. Or, as I said to a particularly annoying and politicized news reporter who kept ignoring an MPP’s statements, “Damnit, lady, he answered you three times already.” I get no small amount of amusement from this, but it’s not because I self-identify as a dick, as much as I think at some point you owe it to your fellow humans to be hard-hearted about the literal.
Heh…that’s funny. I use ‘lady’ too, at least in my head – especially when driving. (‘Wake up, lady!’) But it niggles at me – it does express mild contempt that’s not expressible for the other sex. (‘Wake up gentleman?’ I think not.) But I wouldn’t make an issue of it (except with myself, and with myself I always end up at a stalemate).
I think maybe some people have only just figured out that social conventions can be arbitrary, and are excited about it, and confuse ‘social’ and ‘arbitrary’ with ‘safe to ignore.’ The traffic light problem.
Not to single you out, Kit, but this is exactly the sort of reasoning that is so clearly bullshit that it gives me a headache. If there were one history and one shared ongoing experience of oppression for all categories of people, then there could – in that ideal, counterfactual world – be one universal rule about using an invective that insults people by referring to their genitalia or some other unchosen fact about their body. But the history and ongoing oppression of women is not the same as the life experience of men, and ditto for people of color not having the same life experience as whites: Thus, “dick” and “prick” simply DO NOT have the same ugly, culturally loaded, entire-category-of-persons-denigrating meaning and emotional impact that terms such as “bitch” and “pussy” and “cunt” have. That loaded cultural meaning is why the latter terms are considered particularly insulting when aimed at a male; they are not only insults, they are feminizing insults, and being treated like a woman or being called womanly is considered insulting in and of itself. Similarly, “cracker” and “honky” and… – I can’t even think of another insult aimed at the invented racial category of whiteness as such, which oughta say something in itself – simply DO NOT have the same ugly, culturally loaded, entire-category-of-persons-denigrating meaning and emotional impact that terms such as “nigger” and “darkie” and “abo” and “kafir” and “paki” and “towelhead” and “slant-eye” and “gook” and “spic” and “wetback” and…
I could make the same point about homophobic insults, but I’ve had enough belaboring what should be obvious for today.
Oph, true, but I think that “sir” would be the equivalent to “lady”, owing to expressions like
Excellent choice of image to illustrate your point, Benjamin!
I agree – great point Ben, and great picture! That got me to remember my preferred terminology and delivery when I have the (rare) need to rebuke someone in person or over the phone. Such situations include abusive customer phone callers, or adversaries in a professional context who get out of bounds. Again, very rare.
I tend to get icily formal if someone is screaming at me over the phone. While I ordinarily use “sir” and “ma’am” in most cases, just out of a sense of manners, getting even more formal is a great way to show extreme displeasure or indignation.
Viz – For a caller who screams obscenities – “I beg your pardon, madam!”
or
“Excuse me, sir – I *must* not have heard you correctly!”
Using “madam” in and of itself is enough to convey shock or disapproval. I’ve found it tends to stun the caller into silence, and sometimes regret. With “sir”, it takes a certain emphasis and inflection, since the term is in common use, and has no formal equivalent to “madam” as compared to “ma’am.”
Aha so I can say ‘wake up sir!’ – all right then – problem solved!
I could call both sexes ‘sir’ and get that Peppermint Patty thing going.
This is going to be fun…
The question of using “lady” interested me because I recall that my mother was briefly surprised by being addressed as “lady” by Latin men in Miami in the sixties. She figured out quickly that this was not an affront, but a mistranslation of “Senora.”
I have used “sir” and “madame” in traffic,but if really agitated, I go with “pal.”
I do apologize for getting you involved in all of this, Ophelia. However, it’s instructive to see just how similar the tactics are when ostensibly liberal white men are accused of saying things that are racist or sexist. It’s like they’re all reading from the same script. That in itself is probably worth pointing out to people who engage in this kind of self-justification…
Thank you for that great smackdown of the “one rule” argument, G.
Josh and Ben: I like the use of “sir” and “madam” as well, but somehow I don’t think I could carry off actually saying it to people I’m angry at. You need a properly dignified voice and cadence for that, I think!
For some reason I never instinctively say or think “lady” in that angry disapproving way. I say/think “woman” instead, which is possibly more offensive…but then I also say “man” (e.g. “MOVE, man!”), so at least it’s egalitarian? Sort of?
Ah, but Jen, you can hardly expect a man named Willy Wonka to have a dignified bearing.
Yet he carries it off with panache I think. Cadence, certainly.
Ophelia writes:
Oh, yes, you could. I hadn’t thought of the Peppermint Patty thing, but you’re right! Very clever indeed, O.
You would be missing out, however, on the pleasure of exclaiming, “Madam! I dare not. .thus-and-such. . .”
doffing my cap. . .
“You would be missing out, however, on the pleasure of exclaiming”. . .
and also:
“Sir! Are you mad? Whatever in hell possesssed you to act that way?”
(falls straight away onto yonder horse-hair couch, no hope of revivification save for ammonia smelling salts)
@ Emily
I asterixed out where i did because i consider that worsd to be more offensive, perhaps that is shortsighted of me.
@ Deen
You seemed to have missed the point of the question, I have read a lot about how people find some words unacceptable. I was just trying to gauge if these words would ellicit the same reaction. I was fairly sure how OB would feel about them, i was kind of wondering about everyone else.
@ g fellis
not sure how to respond to this. I can see your point, i agree with it earlier in this comment, I had not considered why I feel that some words are ‘worse’ than others. but i still feel that there is nothing wrong with aiming for ‘one rule’ we should rememeber and learn from our history but not be ruled by it, otherwise we spend all out time looking back at previous injustices rather than forward to where we want to be. Sorry about the cod philosophy but i am don’t know how else to say whay i am thinking.
There are clearly differences in the usage of these swear words in different parts of the world. As Matt Heath pointed out “cunt”, whatever about its origins, is not used as a female specific insult in the UK (compared to, say, “bitch”). Indeed its not even the worst swear word in all contexts. It is quite acceptable in the UK to call a male friend a “silly cunt” if they do something wrong – intended not as an insult but as a form of affection. Calling them a “silly prick”, on the other hand, is regarded as much more insulting.
I do think the explanations that people are using here are rather simplistic. Taboo body parts are frequently used as swear words that have nothing specific to do with reinforcing gender stereotypes. For instance, if I hear someone called an “asshole” I know they are being insulted and labeled a bad person. When I hear someone being called a “prick” I think the same thing. Conventionally only men are pricks although anyone can be an asshole.
While I can perfectly understand the point that, for instance, calling a man a “bitch” or a “pussy” is sexist – since it is equating specifically female or effeminate characteristics as being insult worthy – I think it is incorrect to assume some of the swear words we are talking about are either derived from or intended as gender denigrating words. For example calling a man a “cunt”, as an insult has a very different meaning to calling a man a “pussy”. The word “cunt” in this context could be replaced by “asshole”, “prick”, fuckwit or shithead and still carry the same meaning. Calling a man a pussy, however, carries a clear implication of prejudice.
I’m not sure I have the restraint to watch a Hannity and Coulter segment and simply call them “sir” and “lady”, even in my head.
@kit: Sorry for that. It’s just that so many trolls use similarly worded questions in an attempt to show the hypocrisy of feminists, or something. So I apologize for being too hasty.
As to my opinion on the differences: The difference is not in the words themselves – they are all slang for genitals. The difference is in the context. How are they being used in practice? How have they been used in the past? You can’t really separate their use from the power dynamic within a male-dominated society.
With respect to “lady”, “sir” and “madam”, I think Benjamin may have been a little too quick to dismiss the criticism of using “lady” as “hilarious”.
The examples that Benjamin and Josh gave where these words are useful, like “Excuse me, madam?” or “Good day sir!”, are of course fine. They are all of the type where they were used to highlight someone’s bad behavior by emphasizing your own formality. But it requires getting the intonation just right, so it probably won’t work well in written text.
However, the first examples that Benjamin mentioned may not be entirely benign. They were of the “look, lady…” or “listen, lady…” type. They may seem harmless, but I don’t think they necessarily always are – although I’m definitely not going to argue that they’re of the same order of magnitude as calling someone a “bitch” or worse.
Why do I think that? First, they start with a command, then they remind the person she’s a woman. Coming from a man, and in the wrong tone (condescending, aggressive, etc), the impression that the man is asserting his dominance, and that the woman should consider herself inferior to the man, can be quite strong.
Usually, you can actually leave “lady” out completely (“Look, that’s just plain wrong!”), and have almost the same effect of more forcefully stating your point or showing your exasperation. This way, you’d avoid all the possible bad implications and associations of bringing someone’s gender into it.
For me, that’s enough reason to shy away from using it this way – especially in writing, where you can’t really control the tone of your comment.
The prudish affront on display in this thread is just laughable.
Not sure what it proves, but while in my circle of friends (ie where people know me and know where I’m coming from) I might say ‘cunt’ (comically – maybe you don’t get what’s funny, in which case sorry), and certainly ‘bitch’ (though probably more for men than women), I absolutely cannot imagine saying ‘lady’, except as a preposterous joke. I cannot imagine referring to a woman as a lady; and it makes me cringe when other people do.
Am I weird?
That would be where I would demand hard-heartedness about the literal. Cunt, pussy, bitch, asshole, prick, etc., are all cases of metonyms in addition to being pejoratives. “Lady” or “sir” are neither. If I have something to say, and my words are offered cooperatively (i.e., my sentences aren’t misrepresentations and have the force that is appropriate to the situation), then I’ll say it and specifically defend having said it. And if I apologize, it will probably be a coerced apology.
Whether or not we happen to draw the line here, people have to draw the line for themselves somewhere or other. Otherwise we lose an intuitive sense of what it means to have freedom of speech for contentful dialogue. I prefer to have an idea of discourse that retains some punch to it, because I’m tired of rational people coming across as Al Gore or John Kerry.
‘punkscience,’ it’s got nothing to do with prudishness. Your incomprehension is laughable.
Kit, being conscious of the harm done by past injustices isn’t being “ruled” by them–it’s just facing reality. The “one rule” idea implies that the harm is the same to both groups. And it’s not. So I’m opposed to rules that I see as based on fairy tales.
Benjamin, “Lady” isn’t really equivalent to “sir,” is it? I think Deen has a point. “Madam” or “ma’am” is the female equivalent of sir, not “lady.” I do think “lady” is a bit of a gendered affront, in a way that ma’am isn’t, simply because there’s no equivalent that we use for men.
And thanks for providing the Willy Wonka clip! I like that. I wish it was still common in the US to say “Good day.” It can be so nicely dismissive.
Jenavir, I think you are mistaken p
on the “one rule” question. It doesnt mean that both insults are equally bad – one could certainly be worse than the other. Its similar to the example of Karen Hunter on CNN dismissing the idea that atheists could face discrimination for the simple reason that the discrimination historically faced by African-Americans has been much worse.
It’s a gendered term, and it does affront. But the reason it affronts is because its formality distances the speaker from the target without making it clear to a reasonable interpreter that the speaker intends to alienate them (i.e., by flouting the rules of cooperation).
However, some people are not reasonable interpreters. i.e., they feel (or act as though they feel) that they ought to have a right to be close and familiar to you, and so they would get offended at mere distancing language. But as Ophelia has stressed time and again (in slightly different contexts), people have no such right. Moreover, it’s really very aggravating when people presume to have enough of a familiarity with you as a person, or enough authority over you in context, that they think they can dictate your manners based on nothing but feelings. (As opposed to, say, the case of “cunt”, where there are plenty of weighty reasons to reject it among strangers — it’s not just “I feel bad when you say that”, but rather it’s “I feel bad because you are asserting something that given the current social system tacitly perpetuates shitty consequences for half the population, and by the way is not even in keeping with any humane sense of egalitarianism”.)
People who emphasise an ethics of care might be unimpressed with the point. But I need to be free to demand the autonomy to say what I mean, and to arrange my interactions in such a way that they are most comfortable to me. And (more importantly) the costs on the target need be no more onerous than a demand that they develop a sense of emotional independence and autonomy for themselves (which is quite a good thing, obviously!).
Ophelia is 100% correct and for everyone who tries to justify their own use of the term please think about this:
– It’s OK to be naughty sometimes, you don’t need anyone else’s permission to swear…but
– The two terms being discussed are highly gendered. Anyone who has any knowledge of the oppression of women, discrimination, the history of women’s subjugation etc. would have to accept that (however you like to jokingly refer to your mates) these two words have been systematically used in the past to suggest something vulgar/sinister about women, especially in regards to their sexuality. It’s not up to us blokes to ‘reclaim’ these words like other terms (gay, ni**er have been reclaimed by certain groups. Let women choose to do that if they want to and let Ophelia dissuade them).
Finally, on a lighter note, has anyone noted the hilarious use of the word ‘cuss’ (meaning to swear or a swear word) as a substitute for any swear word you can think of in Fantastic Mr. Fox. Hearing George Clooney describe a stuff up as an absolute “cluster-cuss” was a highlight of my week.
@ Jenavir: Interestingly, ‘Lady’ and ‘Sir’ (note the capital letters) are equivalent adresses in at least some traditional instances – when a man becomes a Knight he becomes a ‘Sir’ and his wife becomes a ‘Lady’.
And of course a ‘Sir’ was also a gentleman, hence ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’.
An upper class woman who was not a ‘Lady’ would be politely addressed as ‘Madam’. Of course you wouldn’t call a Lady ‘lady’, the polite address would be ‘My Lady’, while tugging forelock deferentially….
Sorry to go off on tangent, it just struck me as interesting.
Very, very late to this discussion, but…am now dying to know if OB said anything to RD about his use of the b-word a while back? I don’t follow the RD forums–but heard about that instance thru a Pharyngulite…
No, I didn’t, but it came up in the discussion there, after he made that first long comment (other people raised it) – and he took it back. He said (what I and others suspected) that he’d simply echoed the usage of someone else, and he re-phrased it.
The fanboys who thought he was like totally on their side on this are shown to be dead wrong. Nyah.
Thank you, Ophelia, for taking the time to straighten me out on this. I had been disillusioned when I read of the incident…I must go to his forum and get the whole story, but you have certainly saved me not only considerable time but from continuing to be misinformed.
Whew. Oh, & definitely nyah, fanboys.
The fanboys are back at it now – on the thread on Maia Caron’s interview of me. There is no escaping them!
I must be hopelessly incompetent. I have not been able to find such a thread at Caron’s site, RD.net, here, or Pharyngula…What I get, I suppose, for stumbling into an unfamiliar blog-community…should probably go back to lurking…
Heh. It can be like following a trail of crumbs through a maze on a dark and foggy night. There are links in this post
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=3051
which is a few below the one we’re talking on – ‘Epithets’ is the title. There’s a link to the article
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4868
and a couple more. I think the one where Richard rephrased that comment comes on a later page so you might have to hit ‘Next’ at the bottom of the page of the last link – which is this one –
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,4868,Prejudiced-Danes-provoke-fanaticism,Nancy-Graham-Holm—guardiancouk,page6#447908
Here we go – it is on the next page – page 7. Comment 305.
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,4868,UPDATE-07-Jan-commentary-by-Russell-Blackford-Prejudiced-Danes-provoke-fanaticism,Nancy-Graham-Holm—guardiancouk,page7#447921
Interesting little side note. Comment 319 is ‘root2squared’ sucking up to Dawkins and saying ‘all I meant about “bitch” was blah blah’ and concluding ‘Nothing more from me on this!’
But there was a ton more from him yesterday ‘on this’ – comment after comment after comment of it, on the thread on Maia’s interview with me. Yet more ‘bitch isn’t sexist and it’s all about ME’ crap.
Honestly. It’s enough to make a cat sick.
[…] Like champagne […]