Invitation to a dialogue
Yes, an invitation. Get your party clothes ready, because here it is.
I’m inviting some lucky guy to do a dialogue with me, which I will publish as an article here at B&W in the articles section. The dialogue will be on sexist epithets. Are they a bad thing, or are they a good thing? How bad are they, are some worse than others, if they are bad then in what way are they bad, does it really matter, is it reasonable to think they are a bad thing, if so why?
We’ve been told lately that “we’ve been getting totally unnuanced discussions of insults like ‘twat'” and that “not everything is the same, and it’s possible to tease out the distinctions analytically and dispassionately.” We’ve been told that
the idea it isn’t possible to look at why everything isn’t the same, the idea it isn’t possible to take a different view about how a word such as “twat” functions, without being immediately dismissed as a misogynist by a mob is ridiculous (and the antithesis of anything that could be considered free enquiry).
So ok, let’s try it. Let’s have that nuanced discussion. Let’s tease out the distinctions analytically and dispassionately. I’ll take my side, and the invitation is for someone to take the other side.
The idea is to do a back and forth, say about 300 words each. It won’t go on until the end of time, but I think I won’t declare a limit now.
There are some conditions. You’ll have noticed I said a guy. I want a guy, for the same reason I would want a white if the discussion were about racist epithets as opposed to sexist ones.
It has to be under a real name.
It has to be somebody with something at stake – reputation, friends, standing as a liberal; that kind of thing. That narrows the field a lot, but it can’t be helped. It means I don’t really want someone who is already known as a proud reactionary or anti-feminist. I might settle for that if no one else takes up the offer, but I would much prefer people who don’t fit that description, because they’re the people who have been surprising those of us on the “what, are you kidding, of course sexist epithets aren’t ok” side of this disagreement. We want to understand what they’re thinking, and this will be the way to find out.
Another condition: I have editorial control. However I won’t do anything the other party disagrees with. If there’s something we can’t agree on and we can’t start over or move to a new entry, I’ll just end the exchange at that point. (I also don’t plan to edit the other party’s entries. I plan not to. I just want to make it clear that I have that option but also that I won’t abuse it; either we agree on an edit or the discussion shifts or ends.)
So there you are. Sound like fun? Email me if you have my address, use the contact form if you don’t.
I should say I doubt that anyone will take up the offer. I think the conditions will make the offer too unattractive. And that, frankly, is part of my point.
So go ahead, prove me wrong!
Update: here is that discussion.
What exactly is that reason? I can’t fathom why 2 black people couldn’t take opposite view points on it.
Almost makes me wish I could defend sexist epithets…
I’m applying a remarkably simple method myself on that sort of thing, which is also easy to remember: I never use an insult that I couldn’t be on the receiving end of. That makes sexist and racist attacks impossible. As Tim Minchin says, only a ginger can call a ginger ginger.
wiz, no, 2 black people could take opposite view points (though that would be pretty rare, I think); that’s not the reason.
It’s – what to call it – the application differential. The cost differential. The naming differential. The fact that the epithets in question don’t apply to them, so it takes an extra level of temerity (to put it politely) to defend them, or to insist that they get to say what they mean.
What Bertrand said. That’s a better version of what I just said.
Not sure if it’s the conditions that will put potential interlocutors off, instead of the way the debate is being presented. To ask whether sexist epithets are “a good thing or a bad think” could perhaps be a false dichotomy. I don’t see anyone picking up the challenge of defending them as a good thing, but perhaps someone would be willing to defend the proposition that some epithets have been (or can be, under certain circumstances) stripped of their sexist connotations. Or, more subtly, that some are closer to generic, rather than sexist, abuse than others. So, not to defend that any of these are okay, but to say that there’s a spectrum of offensiveness, with various epithets falling at various points, depending on history, context, whatever.
I wish I disagreed with you in the way you described simply because I love to have this type of conversation, but I’m afraid I am too empathetic to your side of the argument to be truly persuasive in defending the opposing viewpoint. I also don’t feel that I wouldn’t have much at stake, but if you can’t find anyone else I would do my best to fill the role you are seeking simply to provide a counterpoint for argument. I take no issue with your conditions and would readily accept them. If your main requirements are analytical and dispassionate discourse, then I believe I fit the bill rather nicely. Please consider this an open offer in the event that you can’t find a more suitable participant.
Well it’s sounding like you don’t want a discussion, but rather to make an example of someone.
Jacques – well, maybe, but if so that again is part of my point. There are people who are all-but-saying sexist epithets are a good thing, by, for instance, heaping praise on Abbie Smith’s take on The Late Unpleasantness despite (for instance) her remark about smelly skepchick snatch.
If one is willing to discuss the subject with me, I can ask about that. If not…well why not?
Thanks Jon. If I don’t remember and if no one suitable accepts, remind me!
I really can’t think of what to say.
Um… No ad homs, non sequitors or personal attacks. Keep it concise and to the point. And-uh-may the best argument win!
wiz – but it’s up to the someone to make his case. If he can make his case, I won’t succeed in making an example of him, will I.
The 300 word limit will make concision unavoidable. That’s what it’s for! No windbaggery, thanks.
Mind you, I suppose it will be negotiable. If the other party needs more words to make a real point…sure, I’ll be flexible.
You would have to do something that promises to be this interesting right before I’m due to be off the intertoobz for a week! Sigh. Shall have to keep popcorn unpopped until next week. I hope you find someone who rises to the challenge.
A very cynical part me believes that’s the motivation behind most debates which is why they’ve become more about rhetorical devices than proving or disproving a point.
Dang, sorry, Dana! Have fun with whatever it is anyway.
I hope so too.
I nominate Russell Blackford.
It’s a great idea–should be interesting!
Julian, a teensy cynical part of me agrees with you, and not without cause, I think, as we see that tactic pretty regularly in creationist v. evolutionist debates, for example. Mostly, though, that’s because the creationists set it up and then don’t play by their own rules. 300 words is pretty strict–certainly not enough room for a Gish Gallop, at any rate, so I’m hopeful that this and Ophelia’s other conditions will allow for the development of a real, focused discussion.
julian – ah yes – hence “editorial control.” This won’t be a debate of that kind, or about rhetorical devices.
Sure – obviously I’m doing this from my point of view. But the other party gets to make his case, so…
Well no, but you’ve given yourself the sympathy and underdog advantage right off the bat.
2 black people discussing the use of racial epithets would start fair and would actually be an interesting discussion.
Martin – that would be ideal, but RB is very angry at me, as his Facebook friends may know.
wiz, that’s an interesting point. If there is any underdog advantage…then that makes my case for me, doesn’t it.
I smell a regress.
I’m not taking up this offer, but it could be conceivable that some words may vary in their offensiveness in different English-speaking societies. But I don’t know enough to even try to make that case. All I can think of is that I believe the word “cunt” may be less offensive (or offensive in a different way) in Scotland as opposed to the States. But having read Trainspotting doesn’t make me an expert by any means.
Jeez, and I just got the drywall back up.
I think what you’re trying to minimize would already be minimized by an on line debate. Face to face racial tensions and the like are not only more visible, they get a stronger reaction from sympathizers in the audience. On-line it would, for the most part, just be text on a screen. So long as the two participants made few or no allusions to their respective genders, the audience (reader) won’t constantly have to dwell on it and be freer to concentrate on the arguments.
Besides, what would make 2 black people arguing about the appropriateness of racial epithets would be seeing a black person defend them. Or maybe that’s just the cynical me talking again.
Like Jon, I’m potentially interested despite mostly being on your side. I’m commenting via my phone now so I can’t elaborate much, but my real opinion on this may be JUST different enough from yours to make it work.
I,
I tweaked the question. I went for simplicity the first time, but I oversimplified. So it goes.
True, but people are going to know since it was built into the rules. I still don’t see why it should be a requirement at all.
Jon Moles, James Sweet; two possibles if a more opposed candidate doesn’t appear.
wiz, what do you mean you don’t see? I said. That is a reason. Maybe you think it’s a crappy reason, but that doesn’t make it invisible.
I would do it, on the condition that I could precede the 300 word comment with “Here is an interesting argument that I don’t believe in.”
You never said sincerity was required, after all.
No. This is an intellectual conceit, typically raised by the kind of people who serve as the inspiration for “Derailing for Dummies.”
Sexist epithets are designed to wound (and Blackford appears to grasp this), and to do so in a deeply personal way. Even if we concede (which I do not) that RW “did wrong,” this is no defense for those who went gleefully into the gutter.
To call for a “nuanced discussion” on when it’s appropriate to publicly call people ugly names in response to (at best) minor transgressions strikes me as bizarre. Even Blackford can’t manage this. Consider his comment here ( http://mirandaceleste.net/2011/07/28/i-love-you-barmaid/#comment-864 ):
vs. his comment linked at the top:
I don’t know if Abbie invented “Twatson,” but she’s hasn’t been shy about using it to bait people. You’d think he’d grasp the contradiction, but apparently he’s decided he’s above it all.
At any rate, I think it’s time to drop attempts to reason with or reach people like this. People determined to mock will find something about it to mock; and people determined to be oblivious will fail to see any of the points.
If we’re going to use body-part insults, I prefer “asshole.” Since everyone has one, it can’t be taken as sexist.
although, Christina Rad’s “We must find a compromise between being a dick and being a pussy” at TAM9 was pretty funny and without the sexist words it couldn’t have been said as concisely and poignantly.
@ Elly
I think Twatson was someone else but Rebitchika was her addition to it. Not sure though.
From http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/07/dawkins_coup_de_grace_in_vegas.php (#82):
Re: TwatsonIts a trip-wire, alerting me to the presence of stupid people. See, Ive found that all you have to do is lay down a funny alliteration, and stupid people fall over themselves on that point, ignoring everything else. They literally lose the ability to read and write, not to mention make cognizant points. Its not an effective teaching tool, its just funny. I do it to Creationists. I do it to HIV Deniers. I do it to anti-vaxers. And I did it here. You fell for it. *enthusiastic-clapping*
Posted by: ERV | July 19, 2011 10:17 AM
If that’s not “baiting” – I’d be curious to know how Blackford defines the term.
She doesn’t have to be the one who invented it, but this seems to make her one of the people that he thinks “have lost their minds” over the incident.
I second martin m.it has to be russell. Did you try asking him?
Well done, madam! If all of the twenty people reading your blog refuse to engage in a vague debate over offensive epithets, with you reserving the right to edit their comments, and under their real name, such that they have “something at stake” like “reputation,” then you are correct about something or other.
Pat yourself on the back, because you must be correct about something or other! You’ve done it again!
Can someone point me to a comment by Russell Blackford where he supports gender based slurs? I’ve read him for years (and I’ve followed this kerfuffle fairly closely also) and I don’t recall him ever supporting gender slurs. His main problem seemed to be how SM was treated by RW. I don’t understand why people are nominating him to defend sexist epithets. Perhaps he said something on FaceBook that I was not privy to. It seems that there would be better candidates for this, or are those all banned?
@mordacious1 im not sure exactly where but he wrote a post on this site defending the usage of the word twat. I’m pretty sure it was him anyway.
Ben, I’ll add you to the possibles. You’re right that I didn’t say it, but it is what I want, if I can get it.
“Twatson” was Justicar’s, and Smith adopted it (as did others). Rebitchca was Smith’s.
Deepak, no, I didn’t try asking RB, but I did try asking him where and how I “misrepresented” him, as he said I did (he said it in a Facebook post). He told me to fuck off. I figure it would be futile to ask him, and anyway I want it to be an open (albeit conditional) invitation.
David no it wasn’t here, it was at Miranda Hale’s (and then again later in a Facebook post about me, American puritanism, etc). He said he thinks it’s come to mean just “fool.”
Anyway let’s stop discussing RB. It’s gasoline on a blaze.
I don’t think I’m qualified to take the other side in the real thing, if only because I generally agree with you and am not even close to concise, but I can think of some examples that might bring out some of the nuances.
Consider the odd genders-specific use of “bastard” and “bitch” in the U.S. To many people, they mostly mean the same thing. They’re referring to people as obnoxious and/or ruthless and tending to do or say what they want with little concern for others interests, or reasonable differences of opinion or values.
It’s common to call such a person a bastard if and only if he’s male, and a bitch if and only if she’s female.
That’s how I absorbed them as a white suburban kid in the US, decades ago, anyhow. They’re usually “his and hers” words for basically the same thing. Their application is gender-specific, but other than that they seem mostly interchangeable, to many people who use and hear them that way.
The word “bastard” is interesting, because it actually has almost entirely lost its original resonance in contempt for a certain class of people—people whose parents weren’t married. Almost nobody calls actual bastards “bastards” anymore, at least not to insult them. (People almost always say “illegitimate” if they actually literally mean bastard, and even if they talk about somebody having bastard children, the complaint is usually about allegedly irresponsible parents; almost nobody thinks the offspring should actually be vilified for being bastards, even if they think bastardy is a social problem.)
I can certainly understand people using “bastard” and “bitch” that way, as gendered words like “his” and “hers” with no intent to vilify the gender in question. I used to do it myself, and sincerely think I didn’t mean anything especially sexist by it. (Which doesn’t mean it wasn’t sexist in a less obvious sense, which I now think it was.)
But “bitch” is more problematic, because there are several current usages of the term with ugly sexist resonances—especially since sexist slang from hip-hop culture has become fairly mainstream—and because of the underlying imbalance of power between men and women.
Think about the verb to bitch. I think that word often seems particularly apt, or historically did, because it’s something that weak and/or inferior people do—they can’t solve their problems, so they bitch about them. I think that suggestion of power or quality differentials lingers on to some extent. Men act like “bastards,” because they can, and women “bitch about” it, because they can’t or shouldn’t act like men. “Bastard” is subtly empowering, and “bitch” is subtly disempowering.
That’s also true in the somewhat different but related use of the noun form. To act like a bitch, as opposed to a bastard–and as opposed to just bitching—has a stronger ring of uppitiness to it. To bitch (complain) about things is prototypically feminine because it’s weak. To stop mere bitching and act, like a bitch is to fail to accept one’s proper status as disempowered, and illegitimately (so to speak) assert power.
Both “bastard” and “bitch” have similar connotations of asserting oneself illegitimately. To some extent—varying from speaker to speaker and listener to listener—they both just mean someone who is presumptous or inconsiderate and unduly self-interested or self-regarding. It’s basically about being too assertive.
They resonate with different gender-specific schemas of assertiveness, though. People consciously or unconsciously tend to think that a higher level of assertiveness is appropriate for men than for woman.
To call a man a bastard is to mainly say that he’s too assertive or inconsiderate, as an individual. Men are supposed to be fairly assertive, and not supposed to be especially considerate, and to call a man a bastard is to say he’s gone further that that. It says that in some sense he doesn’t “know his place,” but it’s a fairly privileged place to start with, and perhaps just the nonsexist “place” for a person.
To call a woman a bitch may mean more or less the same thing to many speakers and listeners—a person who simply doesn’t know her place as a person—but IMO has a stronger suggestion that she’s being criticized for not knowing her place as a woman. She may or may not be uppity for a person, but she’s definitely uppity for a woman, because that’s the easier standard of uppitiness to meet, or the same. It’s not higher.
It’s like referring to serious haggling as “Jewing” the price down. It appeals to a stereotype of Jews as particularly sharp traders—usually too sharp—and reinforces that often negative stereotype—there’s one standard of trading for people, and another for Jews.
Decades ago, I thought about all this stuff and thought that the difference in connotations between “bastard” and “bitch” was relatively small, and getting smaller—such that they were not much different, and increasingly used in equivalent if gendered ways. I thought it wasn’t worth fighting the gendered use of “bastard” vs. “bitch,” so I didn’t worry much about it, and kept using those words that way for longer than I should have.
Boy, was I wrong. In the last few decades, the word “bitch” has gotten a new lease on life with all the old sex stereotype differences reinforced, because of clearly sexist “ghetto” usage becoming hip slang.
It simultaneously became pretty common to casually call women “bitches” just because they’re women, and to say things like “you’re my bitch” to mean “I am dominating you,” or just to refer to people one is sneering at as “bitches,” clearly implying a dominance, if only a rhetorical one. (E.g. “Science. It works, bitches!” Ugh.)
Either of those usages alone might not be so bad, but in combination it’s just too obvious what’s going on. It’s appealing to a macho stereotype of men dominating women, and likening anybody that anyone dominates to a woman being dominated by a man.
If that’s not clear enough, watch a few rap videos in which women shake their titties and booties and get treated like mere sex objects and are called bitches. See how often women are used as props for the aggrandizement of preening rappers bragging about their bling, their cars, their houses, and their bitches. They’re just more resources controlled by men, in a flagrant display of conspicuous consumption, very often in overt competition with other men. I have more fans, money, fast cars, big houses, and voluptuous willing bitches than those other guys, so I win. I’m the alpha male. I dominate them, and I can dominate you, too, bitch.
Ew.
Given how common and clear those schemas are in popular culture now, and how clearly the “hip” usage of “bitch” and “my bitch” is referring to that subculture, you have to be pretty tone-deaf not to hear the sexism.
Its not like “bastard,” where it’s pretty clear to almost everybody that almost nobody means to actually insult people whose parents didn’t marry. It has nothing to do with being born-out-of-wedlock.
If we commonly heard songs and videos clearly treating people as inferior or contemptible just because their parents weren’t married, and calling them “bastards,” and sending clear signals that people whose parents were married are superior to them, we’d have very good reason to avoid the term “bastard” too. You wouldn’t want to be mistaken for those people, because you adopt their legitimist lingo, so hopefully you wouldn’t. I’d hope you wouldn’t try to sound like them, just because it’s cool to do so, or at least wouldn’t copy that specific bit of lingo.
You shouldn’t copy hip young kids who call things they don’t like “gay,” and you shouldn’t copy rappers who call women and (other) people they assert dominance over “bitches.”
You should say “bitch” or “my bitch” either. If you do, you should expect that people who are sick of the obviously misogynistic uses by obvious misogynists will wonder if you’re like that, or why you’re so stupid as to not realize you sound like that, or why you’re so unconcerned about it as to not care.
If you’re trying that hard to sound tuned-in and cool, it’s fucking tone-deaf and uncool. Stop it.
Arguably, you shouldn’t say “bastard,” either, especially not in the gender-specific way many Americans do. I think it’s a whole lot less problematic than “bitch,” but it does have a nasty negative gender-stereotyping aspect to it. Likewise “dick.”
I don’t think those things are as bad, because they play to empowered rather than disempowered stereotypes, but they’re certainly not good, either.
Jeez, I was going to talk about the difference beween “cunt” and “twat,” and nuances of UK and US usages, but I guess I’ve demonstrated my windbaggery well enough already.
Ok, I’ll do it then! It’s true even in the US that “twat” is (in the US only slightly) less harsh than “cunt.” It is however not true that it means just fool or similar in the US. Try calling a woman that in the US and I’m sure you’ll see what I mean! It is a very rude insult. Wally Smith didn’t call me a useless putrid twat just for giggles.
And Canberra Cath said here that she for instance does not agree that it’s almost entirely benign in Australia. Canberra, please note, is in Australia.
Ophelia
I searched Miranda’s site and didn’t find anything where Russell defends sexist epithets. Okay, I will drop it…I think the people nominating him for this should drop it too, unless they can point to a specific comment of his that supports sexists epithets.
I think Charles Sullivan has a potential point – the level of acceptance of many words varies by culture, such as “twat” being three times more acceptable in British culture than in American. I love watching Billy Connolly doing stand-up, but many people can’t handle the ubiquitous “fuckin’.”
But overall, I suspect you might be working against yourself here – then again, I purposefully avoided all the ridiculous exchanges of Elevatorgate, right from the very start, so maybe I’m too far out of touch…
Usually, the epithets start flowing when someone is viewed as being either spectacularly obtuse or purposefully avoiding the addressed point(s). I would think in such cases that the question you want to ask is not, “why is this useful/okay?”, but, “why are you so worked up?”
Others, naturally, just use nasty words because they’re too juvenile to have a legitimate conversation, so you’re wasting your time seeking those.
I’d be more than happy to have a discussion on feminism, on the basis of differing views, and most especially how difficult it is to express them in supposedly “skeptical” venues. But since I’m not into silly words and name-calling myself for the greater part, I’m not your target ;-)
Now, you might notice that I’m now defining the discussion in my terms, rather than yours. Nobody is in these discussions to defend their terminology or personality – they have their own points to make. Most likely, that’s the only incentive they’re likely to respond to.
Home court advantage – the commenters here are largely favorable to you, so any viewpoint here opposed to your own is likely to just be an invitation to a dogpile. While you might see this as a reasonable, open-minded discussion, you’re not speaking for everyone reading ;-)
I thought it was just going to be an argument between two people, Ophelia Benson and whoever accepts her challenge, with 3rd party interference off limits.
That’s true, there is the home court advantage. But I think with a real head to head that won’t come into play so much. I’ll issue instructions to that effect.
Ophelia, “cunt” is in no way benign in Melbourne, and I can’t say I’ve even heard it attempted to be used in the supposedly pally way that UK people use it, as though it were a friendly word. Basically in my neck of the woods, once you’ve exhausted bastard, shit, arsehole and fucking bitch, then cunt is seen as the next level of ratcheting up the invective. There was an infamous video made several years ago here called “Cunt – the Movie”, which involved teenage boys filming themselves engaged in anti-social misbehaviour, such as taunting homeless people, or vandalising property. The film also recorded a sexual assault and rape of a teenage girl with learning disabilities: charges were soon laid against the participants. I cannot begin to describe how offensive, obnoxious, and stupid it was; and why the title of the movie might be something of a clue.
Ah well what julian said is also a possibility – I could just close comments for that article.
Or I could see how it goes, and close them if there’s a home court advantage. I could give the other party the right to say “shut’em down” if he felt at a disadvantage.
Forgot to add.
I don’t think this is meant to be an argument about whether Rebeca Watson was right to feel about EG as she did or about whether she mistreated Stef McGraw. The argument on gendered epitaphs is supposed to answer-
“How bad are they, are some worse than others, if they are bad then in what way are they bad, does it really matter, is it reasonable to think they are a bad thing, if so why?”- Ophelia Benson
Melbourne also is in Australia (I’m not anywhere near Florida).
Heh, I knew that, Philip. (There’s a Melbourne in Florida? Huh.)
Yes; what julian said. I’m really not at all asking why people are so worked up; it’s all about epithets and how they work and why some people are defending them, and others are indirectly defending them (by heaping praise on Abbie Smith, for example).
Does anybody who opposes the use of “pussy” as a synonym for wimp also oppose the use of “dick” as a synonym for asshole in Phil Plait’s “Don’t be a Dick”?
See Elly’s comment @ 36 – it got held because of links, and it’s a good point.
@Skepgineer
I also like asshat. I picked it up from a radio show I listen too.
Or jerkface, but that’s less of a serious insult and more something I use in a jokey way when I’m annoyed at something a friend did or said.
I would be a poor choice for the job offered, as I am that rarest and most dangerous of irritations, a man with no reputation or tribal identity to risk. Out in the first elimination.
It matters not, though, for derogatory epithets bore me, except when they are unusually original and witty, which is rarely. “Sticks and stones” pretty much encompasses my reaction to such slurs, save the obvious observation that they focus more shame on the abuser than the abusee. “I’m rubber and you’re glue.” Schoolyard rhetoric covers the problem, no nuance needed.
Now, if a discourse (verbal intercourse?) on the tension between feminism and erotic expression were the proposition, I suddenly become very interested and myriad stimulating, paradoxical issues begin to effervesce in my mind. Can we be aroused by others without, at least to some degree, objectifying and sexualizing them? I’ve never accomplished that and wonder how it feels. To what extent do we deliberately choose to experience such leering arousal, or not? When and how might we ogle and flirt, if we may, without facing accusations of disrespecting as a person the object of our fascination? Can being spontaneously sexualized, even by a stranger, be flattering under some (or many) circumstances? Is using your own portion of sexual allure as an attention-getter, as sweetener to your arguments or sauce to your social standing, fundamentally cheap and degrading to all concerned, or is it just one fair sample of the native joys and variety of human communication? What manner of sexual arousal and expression is harmonious with feminist ethics, and is a strictly egalitarian gender etiquette wholly realistic given the things we know about our primate biology, male and female?
I have loads of conflicting intuitions and few firm convictions on these and related questions, am passionately interested in the various possible answers, and could relish a probing, subtle (and even, occasionally, gross) interlocution pertaining thereunto. Hubba, hubba.
Why not ask Abbie… you know, no censorship or editing of posts… Just the two of you? [rhetorical – Benson in a free-speech arena? As if!]
All right, now we have an ample demonstration of this very thing. You maintain that Ophelia is concentrating on the word rather than the message. However, that had nothing whatsoever to do with my comment, which is that the word can be an indication of someone’s frustration over their opponent not getting the point. In other words, worrying about the word is needless misdirection.
I know there have been plenty of times in the past when I got seriously snarky over someone who never bothered to actually read my comments, since they were so fired up about their own viewpoint that they were assigning their pet peeves to me. Whether this can be argued in this case or not remains to be seen – this is not an accusation, but the proposal of an alternate possibility.
Will I use bad words? Fuck yeah! What does it mean? It means I’m quite serious about what I’m saying. What else are you looking for? Asking some attacker why they used a machete instead of a club is not really going in an effective direction. Most people concern themselves with the motivation of the attack itself…
I will also add, reading some of these comments, that there seems to be no small confusion over who actually said what, and I would imagine this extends to who any particular epithet was addressed to, and why. I can, for instance, agree with someone’s overall viewpoint without approving in any way of the manner in which they express it. This is one of the finer examples of critical thinking, one we should be well aware of from the number of times we have had to correct others on “what Dawkins meant” or that Sam Harris does not advocate slaughtering people.
While I’m at it, I’ve also argued in the past against dichotomous thinking, and the whole stupid “If you’re not for us, you’re against us” bullshit. Unfortunately, that’s way too prevalent in discussions about feminism, with people who are normally pretty sharp about minor distinctions becoming completely polarized when the topic comes up. Which is exactly why I never bothered with Elevatorgate from day one, and I can see from the “it-can’t-be-killed!” life that it has on the blogoblob that this was indeed a wise decision. And I’m letting myself get pulled in with this discussion here, which ain’t happening, so have fun!
# 59 – I said I want a male. I also said I don’t really want someone who is already known as a proud reactionary or anti-feminist. I want someone reasonable (with a reputation to lose, remember). Furthermore this is an invitation to apply; I’m not sending out individual invitations myself. I want people to volunteer.
Other than that, your suggestion is very sensible.
I can’t nominate myself, except like Ben, and then why would you take my poorly thought out trip over Ben’s brilliance? You wouldn’t. At least Ben would give the other side a charitable run. I’d just come across as a misgynistic version of myself, that is, a typical yobbo. :)
Hmmph! http://www.panoramio.com/photo/829574
;-)
Al, it’s not about “bad words.” It’s about epithets. It’s not about fuck; it’s about cunt.
As for being polarized – maybe so, but I’m sorry, this really does matter to a lot of people who are subject to being called the very names that are at issue.
But there’s no point in replying to you, since you said you’re leaving, which seems a bit brusque.
Nice pic.
Shout at me all you like, but I still have your hummingbird photo in my kitchen!
@phil: Let it not be said that we are a classless society here.
I mentioned in one of the previous threads that there are indeed people who do use cunt in some “creative” ways, but it’s certainly not the case in, to be frank, educated middle to well off classes, necessarily. However, I work/recruit/roster staff in a very blue collar industry, and the usage is a lot more “free.” Numerous reasons this ain’t a good thing, a lack of education and ignorance plays a large role and there’s a lot of old boys sexism that doesn’t just manifest itself in the use of these words.
Paul W has hit on a lot of stuff I would have struggled to articulate though, with the use of a lot of words as part of trying to be cool, trying to be ironic and all manner of other things. For my own part, certainly growing up, there’s a really strong inclination to just be edgy/offensive/contrary for it’s own sake. There’s a reason stuff like Family Guy becomes popular, black/edgy/brutal comedy resonates.
It’s been interesting in the last couple of weeks watching The Thick of It and Misfits.
Two excellent, IMO, TV shows, for very different reasons, both of which really take epithets out for a thorough spin.
The last ep of The Thick of it had a couple of moments that were interesting. 1. The female minister in the second series had a line where she was half talking to herself trying to decide if “twat” and “prat” were interchangable. And 2. malcolm, one of the main characters, called a male underling a cunt.
I had heaps more to say about the use of these words in TV shows/film. Will have to remember to get back to this.
Could the use of certain words be more acceptable in different cultures because some cultures are more sexist than others, or at least reveal their sexism more strongly in that particular limited area of speech?
I understood your point fine. I was trying to point out that the discussion you want is entirely separate from the one this argument is supposed to cover.
Kinda like you are now?
This has nothing to do with the OP. You’re making the same mistake people keep making during this series of illuminating events (I’ve found them eye opening at least); that the issue is with swear words or with language that betrays contempt. The issue is language that betrays contempt towards a certain gender.
Likewise I am sure you can agree with the overall contempt towards Dick Cheney in the statement ‘Fucking kykebag, jewing the nation out of our money’ while also agreeing its usage of racial slurs is wrong, insulting and demeaning towards Jews.
Deuces.
TV is definitely one answer to this enigma. In the US “bitch” has become totally normalized while “nigger” has (to put it mildly) not. This is not, not, not a good thing.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a couple of male clients, who are published fitness authors. They had been approached by a female trainer – a friend of one of the clients – who wanted to publish her own women’s workout book and wanted their assistance. She thought she had a killer title: “Fit Bitch.” They asked me what I thought of it. My response was that they could do what they liked, but leave me out of it – I don’t consider myself a “bitch” and would – under no circumstances, buy such a book, let alone help produce it. Interestingly enough, the other (non-friend) client said he ran the title past his wife, and said she thought it was an awesome title.
So much for sisterhood, lol.
She’s not alone, though, as the success of the “Skinny Bitch” books attests. There are more than a few women out there who’ve embraced the term “bitch” as a sort of kicky fashion statement – it connotes a woman who’s sassy, hip and aggressive.
Can’t say that I care for it myself, though. I haven’t changed my mind about “bitch” – since it’s still a preferred word for misogynists and likely to remain so, despite its appropriation as a quasi-feminist marketing term.
As an aside: the shifting meaning of “bitch” is an example of a potential “nuanced” argument in favor of sexist epithets… that is, it’s feminists themselves that give these words their power… so that if we stopped making such a big deal over them, then they would lose their sting. I don’t agree with this line of reasoning – epithets seldom lose their sting until the social conditions they represent change (“bastard” is a good example of this, since illegitimacy is no longer a stigma). And beyond that, I prefer to be on the side promoting civil discourse vs. crass name-calling. But thought I’d throw it out there – if you’re gonna have a debate about these things, it helps to anticipate what (some of the) arguments might be.
I have hummingbirds like crazy on my deck today. They are big-time sexists, and exchange all sorts of unpleasantries, disparaging bird-specific epithets. But I enjoy their company anyway.
I’m also wondering what to do with my copy of “The Sensuous Dirty Old Man” by that humanist luminary isaac Asimov. I feel conflicted and strangely atavistic about it, for a progressive liberal fellow.
I often get kangaroos in the park out the front of my house. There’s a picture of them on my FB taken the other day. Kangaroos exhibit dymorphism. The males are about 6′ tall whilst the does only about 3′. I think there’s probably not a lot of epiphets happening there, just the odd grunt. I still enjoy their company. Sadly, no humming birds. I have parrots out the wazooo. Does that count?
David M, by no means are we classless, but I do get quite a few opportunities to hear views outside my own little milieu, and I still don’t hear epithets being used in clever, edgy ways; I do hear some people who have difficulty navigating their way through a sentence without invoking a fuck about every fourth or fifth word.
The swearing in <b>The Thick of It</b> (“Come the fuck in, or fuck the fuck off!”) is enjoyable in a sort of schizophrenic way: I can’t help but enjoy the enthusiastic shattering of the taboo while simultaneously being disgusted by the characters who are uttering it, which is a very unsettling feeling, and might in fact be part of the point. The fictional Malcolm Tucker might not be <i>consciously</i> sexist (he’s an equal opportunity vulgarian after all!) but you can’t really argue that his usage of cunt or twat is non-sexist simply because his target happens to be male.
Elly, yep. There’s that magazine – which looms so large on bookstore shelves. (The bookstores that are left.) And there was that blog “Bitch PhD.” I wouldn’t go near either of them.
There was that line from “Top Chef” a few years ago, that an abrasive guy said angrily to an abrasive woman – “I’m not your bitch, bitch.” Urgggggggh.
@ OB #69: Yeah, the normalisation is a problem. With that Thick of it ep, the use of cunt was clearly, even for a show that throws around insults a dime a dozen, aimed at being a focal point. It was used with full venom and at a pivotal point of the episode, and I know watching it, my girlfriend actually gasped and put her hand to her mouth reflexively and I wasn’t far behind.
I guess the further questions here would be, do we think the use of the word is condoned by the context of the TV show’s story? malcolm is certainly a memorable character, but he’s not sympathetic in any way. As far as the writer of the series goes, my gut feeling is that the use of cunt there is pretty much purely because it’s still the grandaddy of offensive swearwords. It’s top of the epithets charts.
But I guess this is where I’d say that all the “nuance” and the like is pertinent, it’s pertinent in discussions of media, and fiction, and satire and the like. In person to person communication, I think there’s a heck of a lot less room for “nuance” in relation to the use of these words.
BTW, I have been reading through the Australian Book of Atheism over the last few weeks, and just read Russell’s (excellent) essay/chapter on Atheism and free speech. Sadly, it sounds like the relationship between RB and OB is fairly well burned at the moment, as RB, for reasons other than his specific posts on EG fallout, would be a good option for this back and forth. (I do also think, given that OB has used quotes from RB, that he’d be the best candidate.)
@phil: yeah, I don’t think we actually disagree. See my last post.
Ophelia:
I think you’re mis-stating your own thesis here, if I understand it aright.
It’s not about epithets in general, it’s about epithets that associate people with specific groups as a means of denigrating them by pointing up their membership in those denigrated groups, or analogizing them to those groups or something “wrong with” those groups.
It’s not about asshole or shithead or dumbfuck, it’s about faggot and nigger and kike and bitch, and jewing and gypping and bitching.
It’s not even about metaphorical uses of puppy-kicker or pigfucker unless there’s some understood association with animal abuse, or some sincere concern that actual puppy kickers or pigfuckers might be offended.
It’s not even about Nazi, for a lot of common Godwinning uses of Nazi, unless you’re sincerely concerned about insulting actual Nazis.
It’s not about how negative the epithet is but how it’s negative and who it’s ultimately negative about—what it implies, suggests, or seems to affirm about what’s wrong with the person it’s aimed at, and especially what that implicitly affirms is wrong with the other people like them that it associates them with.
In hifalutin’ psychology terms, it’s about schema theory—what complexes of ideas are activated, and how they’re used to make sense of an insult, mostly unconsciously, by exploiting negative affective loadings of stereotypes, and often implicitly confirming both the stereotypes and the negative affective loadings in the process.
In PZ’s terms, it’s not about insults, but about aiming your insults.
It’s about cheap shots and especially collateral damage.
Option 3: close comments on that article and open a separate peanut gallery which is off limits to the participants, at least for the duration of the discussion.
It’s an attention-getting device, for sure, so I “get” why some female authors/publishers use it, even if I don’t agree.
As such, it’s a good example of why Blackford’s call for a “nuanced” discussion of such terms is ridiculous. That he doesn’t like them himself is commendable… what’s puzzling is that this doesn’t seem to give him any insight as to why they should be avoided. “Bitch,” “cunt,” “twat” etc. are loaded words for many, and no matter how analytical or dispassionate your “pro” arguments are, many reasonable people will still be offended by them – even if they’re not the primary targets.
This comes back to a point I made in another thread about professionalism, and taking one’s responsibilities as an blog author seriously: regardless of your comfort with certain epithets, why alienate a certain percentage of your readers unnecessarily? If your goal is to educate and promote science/skepticism/atheism, then it’s to your advantage to avoid giving needless offense.
For the record, I’m no stranger to “bad” words – use ’em all the time at home and among friends. But I rarely use them in my public writing (characterizing something that’s blatantly false as “bullshit” is about as far as I’ll go), and for good reason. In the public sphere, I’m among strangers, and my words are the only way for them to know me. So it behooves me to avoid stepping on obvious toes. There’s nada wrong with erring on the side of civility – I have a lot of words at my disposal, so it’s not exactly difficult to find other ways to express myself without sacrificing meaning. If someone’s going to get in my face, I’d prefer it to be for what I said, not how I said it.
Ophelia:
Just last night I saw an episode of the (original) UK version of Being Human in which the nice ghost girl told the nice werewolf boy he was talking like a twat. (Rhymes with bat in the UK, of course.) It seemed pretty clear that it was not much different than saying he was talking like a twit, just a teeny bit edgier and funnier because there’s a touch of toidy joke to it. That and other stuff I’ve seen on non-US TV seems to be consistent with what a lot of UK or UK-influenced people say about “twat” being a relatively harmless word.
I suspect that works partly because twat sounds silly (in either pronounciation); once you’re used to it being used casually that way, it literally sounds right and is easily thought of as mainly a silly-sounding word for being silly, with a touch of childishness about naughty bits making it lightheartedly funny. (That seems a bit like calling somebody a wiener or especially a weenie. It seems easier to take as lighthearted goofing because “weenie” just sounds funny and and childlike, so maybe meant mostly in jest.) It’s still a bit of a drag that a dismissive word is a word for female genitalia, maybe subtly appealing to and reinforcing the stereotype of women as dismissable lightweights.
(“Weenie” is interesting, because it analogizes a person to a penis in a disempowering way. Maybe that’s partly because it sounds like a child’s little weenie, or a cheap, rather small and insignificant sausage. It’s kinda nice as a counterbalance to “dick,” which is negative but relatively empowered, but annoying that it’s all about penises and thus maleness or lack of it as emblems of assertiveness or lack of same.)
Cunt is different. It’s a forceful sounding word. It doesn’t sound silly, or like you’re just calling someone silly. It sounds like you’re calling them something forceful, and likely harsh. It sounds right for forcefully expressing contempt, as opposed to dismissiveness. Bad in a different and worse way when you connect it up to negative stereotypes of women.
You are right that people are not accustomed to taking “twat” lightly in the US. I for one am really not used to hearing it at all. My first reaction when I do hear it is that’s weird, followed immediately by conscious wondering why somebody chooses to say something negative using a word for female genitalia. Given that the other salient uses of such terms as negatives in the US—cunt and pussy—are strongly negative and pretty clearly sexist, it seems very likely to be meant along those lines. But there’s that distracting just-funny-soundingness, too. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a lot of variance in Americans react, because it’s unfamiliar and funny-sounding, but that a lot of Americans do then conclude it’s probably meant pretty negatively and sexistly.
Right, and just in case the intended meaning and connotations of “twat” wasn’t clear enough—which it was for a US audience—he added “putrid.” You wouldn’t call somebody a putrid twit or a putrid fool. A useless twit or fool, sure, but a putrid one? No. That would just be odd and confusing. He was clearly talking about useless disgusting smelly snatch, and meaning it as negatively as he could make it sound.
Maybe he just wanted to disambiguate it for the non-US crowd. How thoughtful of him.
Noted.
As a bunch of people have opined, it seems to me that the seeming “harmlessness” of calling somebody a cunt is only partly a matter of it being fairly customary for many people in some places, and having lost some of its force, and is also partly a matter of intimacy—you can call your friends horrible names, if that’s what you and your friends do as a sort of joke, and it doesn’t count. You can also call your enemies horrible names, because they don’t count. It doesn’t mean they aren’t still fairly horrible names, just that there’s one form of verbal judo or another that changes the significance.
My impression from reading Trainspotting wasn’t that those guys just constantly called their friends and enemies cunts because cunt wasn’t still a relatively horrible name to call them. It was partly because those were guys who constantly call everyone relatively horrible names.
That does tend to deflate the currency of cursing, but it doesn’t necessarily change the relative values of the tokens, and it may mean that they use “cunt” precisely because the currency is deflated and it’s among the very worst things you can call somebody—there’s not much left with any significant swear value, so you escalate and use the strongest ones, and it comes out about right, post-inflation.
Those are outsider impressions, though. I haven’t spent a lot of time in the UK, and most of that not among people who swore a lot around me. (And now I have to wonder how my fairly frequent American-style swearing sounded to them. Uh oh.)
One can think that this annoyance about mere words is a tad overblown even if one would never use or defend the use of epithets oneself.
And belatedly replying to the previous post on the topic:
<i>“Pick your battles” – but this is our battles. This has always been our battles. Second wave feminism has always been about stereotypes and putdowns and language and mental habits. Always. We do pick our battles, and these are it. We have met the enemy and they are us.</i>
You will presumably protest that you personally do care about more material discrimination, and you do, as all the articles on this website show in their sum, but well, this paragraph does not show it. This paragraph sounds like a certain faction of feminists I knew when I was still politically active, who would spend 100% of their energy fighting for the feminization of language and 0% fighting for equal pay or career options, apparently under the PoMo-inspired assumption that if we get the first right, the second will follow.
I think it is exactly the other way round: Have women represented in all positions of power, all areas of research, all areas of business, have them show that they do just fine, and the stereotypes and mental habits will wither and die. Concentrating on wrangling with words and perceptions instead of material change is largely a waste of effort, and one that the privileged can always easily tolerate, as it does not cost them anything.
OK, try being a young woman academic or professional in a majority male workplace where “cunt” is routinely used as an insult, and see if you “do just fine”.
Since you noticed that Ophelia cares about “more material discrimination” too, I’m unclear about why you’re objecting to the quoted paragraph. Do you think she should be adding disclaimers to paras like that, so her objection to calling women “cunts” sounds more credible to you?
“One” might easily think that, particularly if “one” has never been the target of a weeks-long internet hate-fest. We wouldn’t be having this discussion of “mere words” if various members participating in the dogpile weren’t justifying their use.
I’m not feminist but…
To be clearer, since I have read absolutely nothing but some vague reviews of Elevatorgate, I’m not going to get involved in specifics, both from having no real knowledge of the details, and from having a huge aversion to it. I have no issues with discussing things in abstract, as it were. I admit this may not even be possible.
I’m not, really – I’m still cool with you, your site, and your goals. I reserve the right to disagree, and will be up front about it, but I’m pretty good about keeping aspects separated. Perhaps I need to be clearer at times, but some comments of mine are made “in general” and not aimed at anyone in particular, nor are they accusations or judgments. Right now, what I’m trying to throw out there is that may exist differences of perspective, and/or clouded views of certain things.
While I’m not going to say that the distinction is beyond me, I am going to admit that it’s trivial to me. I see it far more as someone who cannot distinguish between a decent argument and an ad hom – not really worth my time in chasing down.
One of my standpoints (that I almost made my own post about) is that words only have the power that you give them. I’ve been called a lot of names in my life, and now they only make me smile. To me, it’s a betrayal that someone is more emotionally than rationally involved, and hopes to drag me down to their level. If I fail to react, however, those words lose all potency.
As some of the examples related above seem to demonstrate, there are widely varied interpretations of how offensive a particular word may be, but it’s not exactly useful to assign our own “filth” factor to what someone else says. It helps much more to know what level they’ve assigned to it, but even more to ignore singular words in favor of the emotion behind it, or the method in which it is used. I can turn “boy” into either an epithet or a joke, effortlessly, though this may not carry very well when written.
If someone wants to protest that anyone using the word “cunt” knows exactly how it will be interpreted, no argument from me. Obviously, said user disagrees with and dislikes the person it was assigned to. But just as often, if not more so, they are using it as a weapon, hoping to get that reaction. If this is the case, then you won’t get any kind of decent answer from them – they have none. I myself can get very upset over trivial things, but you won’t be able to get a useful answer as to why without hours of therapy ;-). I don’t even know why.
As I said above, their reaction to a word is something that, really, only the individual is responsible for. In the big picture, such as the overuse of the word “bitch” in culture, there may be bigger issues at stake, admittedly – this is not a healthy trend. But even then, the use is at least partially because of the badass shock factor. One of my friends is very proud to be an “alpha bitch,” and I can call her a bitch in certain circumstances – just not when I’m mad ;-) Isn’t language fun?
What I was referring to, though, is how often any viewpoint not in total agreement is then considered completely opposite. I can imagine that several readers right now believe they know my standpoint on feminism, even though I have not offered any opinion on the subject whatsoever – I’ve only argued for open-minded appraisal of the details. If I say (with complete accuracy, too) that I find certain common aspects of feminism to be counter-productive, I can produce countless people hard on the offensive because that makes me anti-feminism. Yet it doesn’t, when it’s examined critically, and I’m not. The thing is, there’s no way such a discussion will lead anywhere at all until such gross characterization stuff is dropped. Kindly note that this is not an accusation of anyone involved in this discussion, only a warning that I’ve seen it too often to ignore, or to think that it won’t come up.
Paul W, most of what you’ve said has been really sensible. So I’m going to pick on this one bit :)
Yes, a bit of a drag, or a big huge one. And I think it’s beyond ‘maybe’ after all the raging that has gone on in the past weeks.
I would not have thought it was particularly ‘subtle’, either, but I’m forced to consider that due to the sheer number of people who really do not get the point we’ve been trying to make here. All the protests of how, for example, twat and cunt are used as a synonyms for ‘idiot’ in the UK, so they really don’t mean what they mean, or have the same profanity cache that they do in the US, don’t cut any ice with me. The literal meaning of these words is the same, and if they are used to denote stupidity or silliness or whatever, it unavoidably implies that literal cunts/twats are stupid, silly, inferior things.
One of the ‘twat’ defenders at ERV’s place said “butbutbut….what about ‘fanny’?” But in the UK ‘fanny’ means something different, literally, than it does in the US. As far as I can tell, there is no common root for this term, although I suppose it’s possible that at one point in our common language ‘fanny’ was a general term for ‘nether regions’ and the precise it part described just evolved independently in each culture. I think the ‘fanny’ divergence is far more like the one that exists for the word ‘pissed’, which means very different things in UK vs. US, than it is like ‘twat’, which means the same thing but is used differently.
Alex:
Yeah, I got variations of this at ERV’s place as well. No one here has ever said, to my knowledge, anything close to this. You admit that Ophelia ‘walks the walk’ in the sentences just preceding my excerpted bit. Why even erect such a strawman, then?
Just Al:
I think it’s entirely possible to not know the details of Elevatorgate and still engage in a substantive discussion of the relative harms to using gender-specific slurs. It doesn’t even take many words to lay this out, really. It doesn’t matter how the words are intended (jokingly vs. angrily, e.g.), it doesn’t matter if people within earshot are personally offended by their use. The whole point is that a shitload of people are using words that mean, literally, ‘female genitalia’ as insults. A whole shitload of people are defending their use on the grounds that the words mean only what the user chooses them to mean, or (like you) that they are all insults are equal and up to the insulted to disregard. The point being missed, is that regardless of intent or interpretation, using femaleness as an insult is denigrating to women.
Instead of having this strict debate, couldn’t you just stop censoring and banning people who have done nothing other than associate with ERV?
Just Al: This is why you’re not quite getting it. Certainly, this particular thread is concerned with epithets in an abstract sense, but the motivation for it is, in many respects, personal. “Elevator Gate” is ultimately about our community, and the blatant lack of respect shown for a fairly prominent member of it… a disrespect that has a) been expressed in offensive personal terms; and b) is vastly out of proportion to whatever offenses that various people insist that she has committed.
Since you don’t want to get involved in the details, that’s as far as I’ll take it.
Like you, I’ve taken my share of punches, and yes, I’ve laughed about it, too. And I take pride in giving as good (if not better) than I get. But I would be disappointed indeed, if the members of my community stood aside when I was attacked, and failed to offer me moral support. I would be doubly disappointed if some of them joined in the attack; or made light of it, by claiming that the words used to vilify me were just words that would lose their power if I decided not to take them seriously.
And it’s triply true when the attackers are employing words that have been used to exclude and diminish women. I am not so young that I cannot remember when sexual discrimination was explicitly and officially condoned, so I’m not inclined to tolerate their use – particularly by those who ought to know better.
Elly, given that a large part of the commentators at ERV have openly stated that they didn’t really care about what Watson said until she tried to take Stef McGraw down a notch…
If your “taken punches” analogy were amended to taking punches, and then bullying somebody other than your attacker over it, would you still expect that moral support from your community?
That is the issue a lot of us at ERV have. Watson was uncomfortable about Elevator Guy? Fine. That’s not a problem. But accusing Stef of purposefully misrepresenting statements, parroting misogynist comments, and being ignorant of Feminism 101, in addition to segueing to that crap directly from YouTube comments and emails which were all about rape (she has a damn communications degree; don’t even tell me that shit wasn’t on purpose), all over a simple difference of opinion? Not cool.
I would take part, but I don’t know if I have worn out my welcome, fit all the conditions, or if I’m sure Ophelia is even open to the possibility that insults can be defended. I like a challenge, though, so that last one is not an issue for me (Sysiphus is a hero of mine). If you think I qualify (I’m most certainly a feminist: grrrl power, am I right womyn?), I’d give it a whirl. Just don’t expect me to succeed in convincing anyone. I can only explain how I see things, which I hope is what you’re asking for.
Jen Phillips:
Okay, so let me ask you this: what, exactly, are you saying about a “whole shitload of people”? What is a “shitload”? I’m not asking for a number, I’m asking what differentiates this, and how, from merely a “load”?
When I say, “damn,” I’m not invoking any ability nor wish to send something to hell – I’m just using a word that reflects my negative feeling towards something. When I say someone is an asshole, I’m really not comparing them to any part of the body, I’m simply calling them a bigger jerk than a jerk. As someone else pointed out, Plait was objectifying men by using the term “dick,” which I find extremely offensive. Oh, wait, no I don’t – I’m bright enough to know that he meant “an unnecessarily abrasive and petty person,” and I don’t really care if this originally came from genitalia that I possess. I don’t care where “funky” came from and I don’t berate little kids dressed as witches with broomsticks. I know what they mean today.
When I hear someone say “bitch” or “cunt,” yes, I do believe they apply to females, just as I believe “dick” and “bastard” apply to males – but I don’t believe that the nature of the words apply to all females, or all males. I recognize that the key element is that it is a distasteful, hated, despised female/male, differentiated from others in this very way. That’s all it means. Even more, all it means is the user is just a Khoogra (bonus points for anyone that gets that reference.)
There are serious issues to be addressed with gender bias. This, as far as I’m concerned, isn’t one of them. The few times that “cunt” is used, ever, has no influence whatsoever on payscales, employment opportunities, or any other bias that women should be concerned about. To make the claim that it does, you’re going to have to put up a lot more evidence than some weak relation to female anatomy. Hell, the bible is ridiculously biased against women and I’m pretty sure “cunt” never appears in there.
Since we’re arguing from people we know, this does not bear out in my experience at all. Sexists love to hide behind strong women who ignore them. I can scarcely count the number of times I’ve heard the excuse, “my coworker/girlfriend/wife/mom/sis heard me say it and she doesn’t care”? Or how many times sexist men use women who are in power to claim that sexism is no longer a problem, or that feminism is no longer needed, and women should just stop dressing like men and playing hard to get; the real problems now are men not getting custody of kids and those all those poor falsely accused rapists.
I’m not saying women should quit their jobs and authority positions and campaign full-time exclusively about language, but this idea that minorities should just grin and bear it keep at it until the privileged realize their error all by their lonesome just doesn’t bear out. I think it has to be both. I think women need to pursue the things they want, and we have to talk about this stuff for it to work. It’s not one or the other; it’s everything.
Thanks again Paul for putting things well. Give or take, my comments above referring to people who use cunt etc in very casual manner is summed up pretty well by the above quote. That’s precisely, IMO, why people who use it casually use it. It’s part dare, part calculated check me out I don’t give a fuck, and usually goes along with some form of misogyny. The thing with the misogyny in amongst all that is that I don’t know that you can delineate the cause and effect or whether the misogyny isn’t just part of a general lack of care for thought, and others, or even Others, as in the Other, as in I have no empathy for people other than me.
Now, having said all that, the problem that those defending the use of the terms have, I think, is that even if we allow for all manner of discussion like this, trying to justify the use of the words in the context of an actual discussion between people still seems pretty freakin hard to do.
I can be easily talked into, in principle, allowing and advocating for very free speech, the problem is that, at the moment, those supposedly arguing for it in this debate are using that free speech to just call people cunt and twat. It’s a little like watching the News of the World editor trying to justify phone tapping by claiming that freedom of the press is important for keeping big business and government in line. That’s true, but you’ve just spent the last X amount of years using that freedom to find out who Premier league players have been shagging by tapping their phones, you’re in no position to get on a high horse.
As has been asked again and again of people with this attitude, would you say the same of racial epithets: ‘nigger,’ ‘kike,’ etc? Would you say,
“Well, I’m not offended by ‘honky,’ or ‘cracker’; they’re just amusing to me. When I say ‘quit being such a kike,’ what I really mean is to stop being cheap; it’s not really about demeaning all Jews. It’s just identifying a specific behavior and criticizing that. And if you’re offended, it’s because you’re not as bright as I am.”
If not, why not? And where is the difference?
Just Al
Maybe it’s just an American thing, but “bitch” is used quite often over here as a synonym for “woman”, not to differentiate one individual from another.
In its older form, it was used to denigrate women who were more assertive than women were supposed to be. Uppity women, in other words. So that while it was then used to single out the person so called from others, its use was a sort of warning–step out of line, and you’ll be fair game for disapprobation and abuse.
How do you feel about “nigger”?
C. Mason Taylor, I was still composing my note when yours posted and I missed it. Yeah, that question’s been asked again and again, hasn’t it?
Couple last things: you are not the arbiter of what epithets which do not name you ‘mean today,’ because you are simply incapable of experiencing them in the same way. Whites don’t tell blacks not to be offended by ‘nigger’ and get away with it, straight people don’t tell gay people ‘faggot’ and ‘dyke’ are unoffensive and get away with it. And one final note: why is the desire of some people to say ‘cunt’ and ‘twat’ so important that the feelings of the women who are hurt by them matter less?
How can you expect a discussion to be had if one side of an argument will not consent to enough civility to not refer to the other with discriminatory epithets?
Actually, quite a few posters, including Justacar, had a big problem with that.
The talk RW gave is available on the intertubes now, you know. We can all see it. It wasn’t the excoriation of SM you need it to be in order to justify the dogpile on RW.
It’s reasonable to criticize RW. It isn’t reasonable to demean her, much less to demean her for weeks and weeks, using sexist language to do so.
But that’s as may be. We’re not talking RW and SM per se now; we’re talking about a more general point: can the use of certain words can be justified, and if so, when.
The YouTube of RW’s talk is online. You may disagree with RW’s choice of time and place, but she did not “bully” McGraw in any sense that I’m familar with the term.
For a little perspective on what you’re defending, Hemant Mehta was quite direct in his objections to what RW did. Funny, though – he managed to make his objections known, and voice his support for McGraw in a perfectly civil manner. He did not feel the need to vilify RW or invent insulting names for her. He disagreed with what she did; said so, and was done with it.
See the difference? Enough is enough.
Indeed, Stacy. Ophelia and others keep asking it, but it doesn’t seem to ever get answered. t just can’t resist doing it again, because I have a tendency to over clarify, and deep down, I believe the two sides of this whole ERV community vs B&W community stuff are not as far apart as it has felt lately. I’ve certainly had to come to terms with a lot of raging misogyny over the past few weeks among lots and lots of atheists, and I think denying that problem is to the detriment of our cause, but the people I’m not actually, really seeing misogyny from are the spokespeople for the opposite side (even Abbie). I am seeing positively immense amounts of bad faith and hostility and mockery, and I am seeing doubling down and entrenchment, but nothing like the total gulf in world views that this has sometimes been portrayed as.
C. Mason Taylor:
I’m guessing Just Al is white and straight, as well as male. Also able-bodied, not unattractive, and comfortably middle class. If I’m wrong, Just Al, I will apologize to you with all my heart. But somehow I get the feeling you don’t really have to worry about casual epithets being thrown your way often, and that’s why it’s very easy for you to say that
I hope you’re right, C. Mason. We skeptics are not immune to that human tendency toward entrenchment, that’s for sure!
Elly:
I might buy b), but the rest of it remains to be seen. What makes you sure that it’s about yours, ours, or anyone’s “community”? I wasn’t aware that Rebecca Watson, or anyone else involved, represented the “community” any more than I represent the community of nature photographers or snarky unknown bloggers. Are you quite sure that these various nasty comments were not simply directed at the individuals named, and if so, how do you demonstrate this?
I would think you now have a way of defining your community. If someone insults me, I’m pretty sure they’re not on my side (as opposed to merely disagreeing, which I’m cool with.) But are you trying to tell me no one supported Rebecca et al when this occurred? Seriously?
Hmmmm. If I jumped to the defense of most males that I know, I’d be implying that they needed help and couldn’t handle it on their own – it’d be insulting, to be honest with you. So tell me, do you support gender equality or don’t you?
I don’t see where taking the same stance with name-calling that you were almost certainly urged to take in kindergarten is making light of it. It’s a damn silly thing, period. I said it earlier: it’s the mark of someone who can’t make a rational argument. I cannot see anyone as a “victim” of name-calling, especially not on the internet where the threat of escalation is tiny. And frankly, both the idea of having a popular blog, and the very concept of free speech, means you probably should get used to it. Once again, if you show that it works to get you riled up, you’ve just invited it even more.
But, in all seriousness and without any snark or ironic digs whatsoever, I see you, Rebecca, Ophelia, and anyone else as being perfectly capable of dealing with such petty attempts at reducing the conversation – or at the very least, you should learn quickly or cancel your internet service. What I’m most concerned about is how inane things like names start to become some kind of fuel for “what’s wrong with society.” Not only is this blowing things way out of proportion, but it almost certainly does not help people take feminism seriously. It’s like the NAACP claiming Baloo from Disney’s The Jungle Book was poking fun at blacks, when he was obviously a beatnik.
Before you say it, let me head it off. My real name’s Al Denelsbeck (the nym has just stuck around from a casual use years ago.) Google that if you like, and see how many results you have to go down before you come to the insults, from a troll on a newsgroup I frequented, stuck now in archives. Not one person came to my defense, nor did I expect them to, nor do I care. Small minds produce small attacks; so? I delete plenty of spam, too.
Al, I notice you’ve yet to answer the questions about racial epithets. Why don’t the same rules apply to them as the ones you’re invoking for gender-specific slurs?
Okay, guys, it’s liable to slow down a bit now. I already blew an auction I should have nailed because I was busy typing responses and not watching the clock. You all owe me some cheap software ;-)
C. Mason Taylor:
This is a slippery slope to tread. Should every bit of my language be judged on how anyone/everyone else is capable of interpreting it? We don’t like it when someone defines “true christian” to exclude some bigoted fundamentalist, but that’s what you’re arguing here. There is no way I can prevent someone from taking offense at my words if they so desire, or twisting them to their own ends. The best I can do is to use them as the majority does, and if someone departs from that, that’s their tough luck. This doesn’t make me an arbiter, as you try to put it – it places that title on society. Now, the ball’s in your court: prove that “cunt” means what you say it does.
Several of you asked if I thought “nigger” was okay. Now, be careful, because I don’t fall for crass games like this, intentional or not. I have made it clear, several times, that anyone using names instead of decent arguments is childish and not worth the time. My point, and I won’t repeat it so make the attempt to get it now, is whether blacks should give a shit about “nigger” – and the answer is no. Any variation you like, doesn’t matter – stop caring about names and the people who use them to manipulate you. You’re not puppets.
Now, did you miss what I said about polarization? Yeah, let’s try this again. Because I tell you to stop responding to names, I’m not justifying, permitting, or condoning their use. Seriously, that’s a stupid argument and I have much higher standards of debate.
Stacy Kennedy:
Poverty-stricken (I’ve been out of work for well over a year, and before that worked for a goddamn non-profit,) a bit overweight and way out of shape, and as for the attractiveness part, that remains up for grabs – it gets worse as you get closer. I spent the entirety of my school experience with very few friends and largely ostracized, for every reason someone cared to come up with, including routine accusations of being gay. When I quit school at sixteen, I remained in contact with no one. Not one schoolmate. I stayed way too skinny and goofy-looking until my middle thirties, when I finally fleshed out into someone fairly normal looking – and then passed it. And I’ve been an atheist all my adult life, not “in the closet” either. I probably should be, because it’s potentially costing me photo students…
Epithets? Out the ass, though I will readily admit others have it worse. So? Does this somehow mean the advice doesn’t count? Does this mean, when they were used on me, that my smiling indulgently as if I was talking to a child didn’t work just ducky? Seriously, what’s your point? Or is this another form of ad hom? ;-)
In general (in other words, not to anyone in particular):
Know something? I never used any of the words you’re all so fired up about. Pity the fool who actually took Ophelia up on her challenge.
Jen:
I don’t know if we’re actually disagreeing at all.
My comment about “a bit of a drag” was very specific to a UK or similar context, where “twat” is used and understood in a much less sexist way than in the US, so far as I can tell from over here. I don’t like that it’s plainly sexist, but maybe it’s true that it’s lost most of its original freight, like “bastard” over here, so for some poeple in some places, maybe that usage is no big deal.
That was in no way, shape, or form meant to say that it’s okay for an American woman like Abbie to call an American woman like Rebecca a twat. She wasn’t speaking British, or about someone British, or primarily to the British(ish) speakers, and she knew that full well. She was obviously speaking American, and knows that “twat” is a lot more loaded for many Americans, and quite intentionally chose to call Rebecca a “twat” in American English for a mostly American audience.
The fact that “twat” can be understood differently by some people somewhere is irrelevant.
Imagine going to Mexico and calling somebody cabron.
Don’t fucking do that.
“Cabron” may literally just mean “goat,” but in colloquial Mexican Spanish, that’s not what it means. It means something offensive—so offensive that the literal word is usually not used literally, at least when talking about goat meat. Actual goat isn’t called “cabron” (literally goat), but “cabrito”—literally “little goat” but actually a euphemism to avoid saying “cabron” even if in fact the goat in question is a full-sized adult goat, as it usually is.
If you go to Mexico or a Mexican restaurant in the US and insist on calling goat meat “cabron” even though the menu says “cabrito,” don’t expect people to take it well. There’s a reason it says “cabrito” on the menu. And if you go out of your way to call a human a cabron, expect a bad scene. You’re fucking with them, and they know it. Calling goat meat “cabron” might mean that you’re just an ignorant gringo who uses words literally. Calling a human a “cabron” or “cabrona” is pretty clearly not that—it’s going out of your way to call a human a bad name, on purpose, because you think it’s funny and you think you can get away with it. They may demonstrate that at least the latter is not true.
An American woman calling an American woman a “twat,” in America, for a largely American audience, is like that, irrespective of what “twat” may mean in other languages or dialects. It’s pointedly sexist name-calling even if that’s not a necessary truth about the word “twat” under all circumstances in all places where some dialect of English is spoken.
I don’t think there’s any maybe about that. There’s only a “maybe” under other, counterfactual circumstances, e.g., if Abbie was British and simply didn’t know any better than to say that in America.
What has actually gone on is a huge drag. I entirely agree about that.
This is not a “crass game”. This is one of the points that has been made here: that sexist epithets are as bad as racist ones, but they are typically seen as less bad.
Epithets? Out the ass, though I will readily admit others have it worse. So? Does this somehow mean the advice doesn’t count?
Ok, I do apologize for assuming you’d never experienced anything like that. But let’s be clear, your advice sounded an awful lot like “cruel words aren’t that bad, they only hurt if people let them”. I suspect you know better than that.
Why? Are you feeling beleaguered because of a few questions? ; ) Seriously, I don’t think anyone here means to attack you. How would you feel if we called you the male equivalent of “smelly snatch”, and many, many people went on in that vein for days and days–not on your blog, where you could control it, but on Scienceblogs? Because that’s the situation that started this discussion about the acceptability, or not, of certain words.
Sorry for the blockquote fail, above.
To be clear, I am not one who would argue that certain words are never acceptable. I think context and intent are important. Re Paul W’s question: Years ago, I stayed for a while in Scotland and had a Scottish boyfriend (a very sweet and funny guy). He used the word cunt the way a lot of young men where I live now (U.S. West coast) use the word dude. He used it mostly of men, and not as an insult. As in “So I met this cunt at the club, and he says there’s this theatre in Glasgow shows old films.”
Obviously though that isn’t the context we’re dealing with here.
(sorry ophelia , I will drop RB for this thread after this response)
@mordacious1
The nomination is because of the “nuanced” discussions of sexist epithets – along with RB’s silence about people who did use it. Add the fact that I think RB writes well and thinks well (well except this incident) and Im curious as to what his thinking was. I still give him the benefit of doubt.
Besides if Ophelia and RB can talk it out maybe it wont be as personal as it is now.
It’s just not the same if someone who agrees with Ophelia tries to come up with convincing / sincere arguments.
Just for old times’ sake I would like to agree with those on here who claim that ‘twat’ carries no sexist connotations in the UK, it is a fairly mild ribald word that can be applied to both sexes by both sexes and very frequently is.
In strength ‘twat’ is pretty much the same as ‘cock’, although, interestingly, only a man can be denigrated by being called a ‘cock’. In fact, in the UK, I think the only gender specific abuse words are ‘bitch’ and cow’ and in neither case can they be used interchangeably with ‘woman’ (and so do not strike me as sexist). There are a great many male-specifc denigratory terms (wanker, cock, dick, dickhead, bellend, tosser, etc, etc) but again they cannot be used as simple derogatory terms for a man but only when you want to say this is a certain kind of man and insult him in the process, so not sexist.
Finally! Some reasoned discussion. Thanks all, there may yet be hope.
I can’t enter because – lets face it Dennis Markuze didn’t bother with me so I can hardly claim to have a reputation to risk. Anyway this is what I would have entered as my attempt:
Is it the epithet itself which is the problem?
Lets start with a basic agreement that yes – epithets are objectionable. That is the whole point to insults in the first place, and what we view as insulting can say something about us. But does that mean they themselves are a major contributor to sexism?
Take the insult “dick.” What does that mean really? It means we view someone who is basically a fucker who pisses on us. Given that most of us aren’t kinky, we don’t like dicks. It is an insult which seems to be directed only at men, given that it is a piece of male anatomy.
Do we take those who use the term to be anti-male? Not really.
Now let’s take the insult bitch. While the base meaning of the word is different, the insult intended by it is much the same. The trouble is though that a woman is called a bitch for things that label a guy not “dick” but “strong” or “dynamic” or “ambitious.” Heck a woman can be called a bitch for not wanting to sleep with you.
I have never once heard a man get called a dick for not being easy to get into bed. This is also a no win situation for women, as if she does sleep with you she is a slut.
Yet the problem isn’t in the word itself, it is in the double standard behind the word. In the no-win nature of how the words are used. Asshole can be just as sexist, if you are calling a woman an asshole for something you would normally praise a guy for. The word simply reflects the attitude, and it is the attitude that is the problem.
Is the problem insurmountable? No. We are moving towards a society that doesn’t consider the women in it “our women” – but instead to be human beings. We are coming to understand in our post slavery culture that we do not own other people, and as we move away from patriarchy, we are coming to understand that women are people.
This means that we are starting to understand that it is not up to women to conform to our desires, anymore than it is up to anybody else to. In a situation in which a woman says no, we are learning that doesn’t make her a bitch, the guy calling her a bitch is a wanker.
The fights by feminist activists are raising consciousness on sexism itself, and over time those of us who listen are learning to spot our own sexist bullshit. Though the erosion and loss of privilege is painful, that privilege is a cancer which holds us back as a society. It needs to be cut out.
The words are the symptom, sexism is the disease.
While y’all are busy thinking I’m one of the bad guys for some ridiculous reason, despite all the support I’ve given Ophelia in the past (including asking Mooney to unban her Teh Intersocktion), allow me to point out that it’s “Malise Ruthven” … not “Malies Ruthven” (from your <s>loving</s> meticulous editor, Russell). Please buy a copy if Does God Hate Women, which is an excellent book.
Btw, as I just noted at Abbie’s place, Ophelia is a fucking good writer. I’m pissed off with her the moment – very pissed off, as it happens – but I take nothing away from her talent.
As you were. You may resume your witch hunt.
er,”of” … not “if”.
Hi Russell. Does that mean we’re now looking for a woman to accept Ophelia’s invitation? After all, a witch is a female. ;)
If you can’t find someone else, I’ll do it. The only thing I might not fit is the “reputation” thing, but I don’t use sexist epithets, ban swearing on my site, and lean to the accommodationist side of the “Don’t be a dick” debate. So, I’m certainly not the sort of person that you’d expect to be defending any epithets, let alone sexist ones. And the most that has been said about me — and it”s a statement I’m proud of — is that I’m an anti-feminist who doesn’t seem to hate women. And I genuinely think that your position, Ophelia, is at least overstated.
And yes, I’ll stick to 300 words. The only stipulation I have is that if you want to exert editorial control of what I say that I be given the privilege of posting my actual statement on my own blog — and I’ll link to yours as well, or post it in its entirety if you want — so that if there is any editing that I think unfair people can see what I intended to say.
@Just Al
It’s not your place to tell members of an oppressed group how they should react to words that have historically been (and in some cases, continue to be) used to emphasize their status as other and as less than the normative group (which, in these examples, would be whites or men).
Once we find a partner for Ophelia in this pas de deux, all we’ll need is an interested, astute audience to benefit from it and offer fresh commentary in response. I fear the chosen subject and available witnesses may not be able to carry the weight of such aspirations. Everything to be said has already been over-said, to no real purpose.
This “topic” of epithets was old and dried up for me decades ago. The new freshman Women’s Studies class I enthusiastically signed up for in 1978 led off with the instructor asking us to name as many disparaging epithets typically directed at women as we could, while she wrote them on the chalkboard. She then smilingly asked us to think of epithets directed at men, with the obvious expectation that we would be stumped, thereby demonstrating a profound point about inequality and systemic hostility toward women. I naturally enough proceeded to screw the agenda by single-handedly reciting a list of maledictions longer than the one for women while defending the relevance of each specific term, sincerely and with passion. This didn’t go well, because it was plain that the course was not conceived as an open, caring discussion of gender conflicts and concerns, which interested me greatly, but as indoctrination in the shibboleths and pet peeves of orthodox feminist outrage. I dropped the course — I was stinking up the vibe as the only male, anyway — realizing that even the gentlest, most friendly dissent was unwelcome. This bigoted class didn’t dissuade me from calling myself a feminist, though and from making common cause with all who were fighting for respect and equal opportunity for women, but always on humanist terms that put individuals and intellectual honesty foremost, not group identities and ideologies, and that focused discussion on matters of large consequence, not small, symptomatic farts. Epithets are farts.
Just throwing it out there: plenty of people criticize and make jokes about doctors, lawyers and politicians, but they’re doing just fine. Not an explanation or excuse for anything, just thought it was interesting.
So I mentioned earlier my position might be just different enough to make it work, and now I’m on a computer rather than a phone, so here’s some clarification:
I mostly avoid using words that could be perceived as misogynist epithets, but I do make exceptions in rare cases, primarily in regards to humor or when I simply can’t see a way around a certain idiom. For instance, I recently said something along the lines of, “Thermodynamics is a bitch” (it wasn’t thermodynamics, I think it was some philosophy term, but it was something nerdy like that) and although I hesitated for a long time, I couldn’t find another way to say what I wanted to say that conveyed the same flippant tone. In context it was very clearly not meant in a misogynist way — it was no more a slander against women than using the slang term “gyp” is a slander against gypsies. Nonetheless, of course, the word still has other meanings, and prejudice can creep in in very sneaky and pernicious ways. I consider that decision I made to be a borderline case.
In media which is strictly intended to be comedy, I am willing to tolerate a heck of a lot more than that. Humor relies so much on the unexpected and the uncomfortable that I sort of feel like breaking the rules — even good and important rules — is par for the course.
I feel that erv’s “Twatson” remark and other similar epithets are bad, but not that bad. She’s fairly young if I’m not mistaken? I was nearly 30 before I started to really grok the way that choice of words can so profoundly impact the way we think. There’s a certain cavalier “I can say whatever I want!” attitude that I have a lot of sympathy for. Certainly, I am extremely opposed to the use-mention confusion that causes people to censor themselves even when they are talking about words. (e.g. if I had said “Tw*tson” in the first sentence of this paragraph, or when people say things like “the N-word.” Just say the damn word you are talking about!) I don’t tend to like absolute taboos, and so I am extremely sympathetic to erv’s position that she should be able to use the entire English language and not have to censor particular words — even if in the end I disagree and think that it’s naive and insensitive to think sexist epithets like that don’t have a pernicious negative impact that far outweighs whatever expressive benefit they convey.
So in sum: I try really hard not to use sexist epithets in my own speech (and usually avoid them even if they could not possibly be interpreted in a sexist context, but especially if they are) and I generally disapprove of it in others’, including erv’s — but I have deep sympathies for those who complain about the “word police”, and there are contexts in which I find such epithets more or less “acceptable” (primarily comedy, where unacceptability is exactly the point). Is that different enough from where you’re at to stage a debate?
Quoth Al
and
Al, I think you are missing the point. I don’t see anyone saying, “Oh noes, someone has called me ‘cunt’. I’m such a delicate flower that I will now have to go to my fainting couch and recover my strength”. The problem really is what the use of such language says about the person using it. For example, I am an engineer, with several decades of work experience in the high-tech field. If I encounter a co-worker who uses “cunt” as an insult, my response(s) would depend on a number of factors: If it was someone under my authority, I would take them aside, and talk about professionalism and appropriate workplace behaviour. (I might also do this if it appeared to be a naive youth, even if not under my authority.) If it was a peer, or someone over me, I would take this as an indication of his attitude towards women in general, and probably watch out for more sexist behaviours and attitudes.
ALso, for those who are having trouble understanding the comparison with racial epithets, perhaps this will be helpful: 40+ years ago in various parts of Canada where there was a mix of English- and French-speaking people, it was not uncommon for a bigot, upon hearing someone speaking in French to say, “Hey you – speak white!” (sometimes even when the conversation was not actually directed at the bigot.) To me, it is obvious that this is an insult to both the Francophone in particular, and to non-whites in general.
Not me. I don’t use sexist epithets…unless I’m calling some guy a dickhead (which for some reason was the funniest thing I had ever heard when I first encountered the word about 45 years ago … couldn’t stop laughing at the mental imagery).
Humour has to be given a pass, but, that said, people who aspire to humour need to recognise when they’re not funny and would fail to get a gig in the free section of the Edinburgh Fringe. That means giving up the epithets.
Now, here’s someone who is funny, and uses epithets (racial, in this case).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4
Highly, highly NSFW.
Has been doing the rounds in the UK in the wake of the riots, as a way of discouraging parents from letting their children watch MTV.
I thought only 14-year-olds used the Scott Adams defence.
One can think that, only if one hasn’t thought about the issue much at all. Annoyance is about the mildest form of anger we have. If something doesn’t even merit annoyance by a recipient, then why on Earth would you ‘never use or defend the use’ of it?
“I can’t have been racist! One of my best friends is black! Anyway, the reason people shouldn’t be upset over the use of ‘nigger’ (though I would never use the term myself)…” Snarking aside, what the hell kind of defence is that supposed to be? He and Ophelia can’t be on opposite sides of an issue because he’s supported her in the past? Geez Ophelia, you really are an ingrate. After all Russell’s done for you…
Godless Heathen:
Yeah? Yeah? well, it’s not your place to tell me what my place is or isn’t, so there, poopypants!
For fuck’s sake, give it up. I’m offering advice on a blog. Don’t heed it if you don’t like, but stop making stupid arguments just because I actually stood by my point when someone tried to challenge my values in regard to other situations. That’s just lame.
Now, any adults want to debate?
Just Al:
“Our community” refers to the skeptical/atheist community – not a closed circle, to be sure, but consisting of a range of well-known authors, activists and bloggers, and the people who read/interact with them and attend conferences. I use the word “our” because I participate in this community by reading, commenting and attending conferences (when I can, which isn’t often).
Kan Al read? I did not say RW “represented” the community. I wrote that she was a prominent member of it – something that is readily discerned by her frequent appearances as a featured speaker at conferences; as well as the traffic on her site.
As a matter of fact, I do. Take note of my gravatar. I didn’t grab some random image… that’s actually me. I’m a member of an online community dedicated to amateur bodybuilding, strength training and fitness. As someone with a solid background in science and skepticism, I frequently respond to detailed questions on nutrition, diet and supplementation. Since “bodybuilding/fitness” isn’t a closed circle, either, people wander in and out… and a few of them have been strange people indeed. For example, there was one individual who sent me 17 e-mails within a 2-hour period, to ask increasingly detailed, hypothetical questions. After I told him that he was abusing the PM (personal message) system, he proceeded to insult me – so I blocked him. His response to this was to rant about me on a forum that I moderate – certainly, I dealt with him when I found out about it (as an admin, I hold all the cards)… but I’m happy to say that some of the other folks that I’ve helped in the past weren’t inclined to indulge his whinging.
IMHO, this is little different than defending a co-worker you like and respect when you see/hear others gossiping and backstabbing him/her. Can s/he take care of themselves? Sure – but, to the extent that you care about that person (not to mention basic fairness) you don’t stay silent.
And no, I am not trying to say that no one supported Rebecca. I don’t “try to say” anything… if I have something to say, I say it.
Not at all, for the reasons enumerated above. And once again, please read the actual words: I wrote “support.” Not “defend.” To support someone is to stand with them. To defend someone is to get out in front – there’s a difference. This has nada to do with “gender equality.” It has everything to do with empathy.
True story: when I was kindergarten-age, I my own personal tormenter by the name of “Todd.” For whatever reason, Todd used to kick me in the shins when he saw me in the playground of the apartment complex we both lived in. I used to run home, crying, naturally enough. My mother spoke to his mother several times, but it had zero effect.
Then one day, when he kicked me, instead of crying, I hauled off and kicked the little twerp right back. And I took great pleasure in watching his face slowly contort from the shock and pain; it was his turn to run home, sobbing about what a meanie-head I was. Lesson learned: when someone throws a punch, punch back if you can.
Insofar as “kindergarten rules” are concerned, after observing my own kids’ educations, it’s safe to say that many of these rules are for the benefit of the teacher (i.e., maintaining good order in the classroom), not the students. In addition, it’s safe to say that spats between very young children who are incompletely socialized are not to be taken seriously. On the other hand, in situations where adults are on the receiving end of of insults ranging from crass to violent, ignoring them simply isn’t in the cards. This isn’t a “one-on-one” situation.
Uhhhh… why are you addressing this concern to me? Feel free to point me to where I’ve made a claim that this is an example of “what’s wrong with society” – I’ll be happy to modify or clarify any such remark.
For the record, various people have pointed out racism in Disney cartoons – “Dumbo,” “Song of the South,” and “Peter Pan” are notable examples.
I had no intention of saying “it” (whatever “it” you’re imagining here). I have no interest in your real name, or in questioning/challenging your story – my default position is to assume the person I’m debating with is doing so in good faith and speaking truthfully about his/her experiences.
It’s obvious that you prefer your “loner” status… whatever floats yer boat. But your choices aren’t necessarily reflective of some universal truth about how online conflict should be managed.
The Bromine:
Covered that, in comments 47, 86, and 105. I guess I have to individually answer everyone who can’t read the whole posts. It says they’re juvenile, cannot make a decent argument, and not worth debating.
That’s where we disagree. I think you can’t derive an attitude about everyone from a use towards an individual. I’ve called plenty of people “bastard” and “fuckhead” – so if they’re male, I hate males? If I’ve used them for both sexes, I hate everyone? This is where it gets stupid.
Just because a gender can be determined, or is even a factor, in any given situation, does not make such situations representative of gender bias. Gender bias is where, to a significant majority, gender is an important factor in treatment. If very few women are hired in a workplace where plenty are qualified, then you can consider bias. But because one woman gets fired doesn’t mean you can say the same.
Goooood morning.
I’ve only skimmed the comments so far, so no doubt I’ve overlooked urgent things. Bear with me.
Allan, you’re a strong candidate. I may well take you up on it! About the editing: if you disagree with any edit, as I said, we can start over or end the discussion. In other words you have veto power over any edits you don’t like, not in the sense that I’ll post the reply unedited but in the sense that we can start that exchange over or stop altogether. But you of course are at liberty to post anything you like on your blog whether I agree or not!
Russell –
But you know the reasons, don’t you? Basically they’re all to do with endorsing, praising, urging on Abbie Smith even though she has been calling a woman “Twatson” and “a fucking bitch” and referring to her “smelly skepchick snatch” and even though her three massive RW-based threads are packed full of that kind of thing.
What is ridiculous about that reason?
You say you don’t approve of sexist epithets, and I take your word for it, but then why do you keep endorsing what Abbie Smith is doing?
That’s what I don’t get. You could say it’s none of my fucking business – but you chose early on to come here to shout at me for not talking about Stef McGraw, and then you chose to do it again on Facebook, summoning people (by tagging them) to come and support you. So you made it my business. I tried to talk to you about it again last week – but you didn’t answer. Now you’re fucking angry. Well, ditto.
Oh yeah, missed this.
C. Mason Taylor:
I don’t. I’m not the one that tried to open the discussion, and in fact felt it was probably a waste of time. What are you gonna do about it, though? Do you think arguing with me is going to make them start arguing reasonably?
Stacy Kennedy:
I feel I’m repeating the same points to everyone who doesn’t want to consider that their standpoint might not be as effective as it could be, and so keep making the same arguments to my comments. It’s one thing to debate any one person, such as Ophelia. That’s easy enough time to manage. It’s another to get involved in numerous discussions where anyone who doesn’t get an immediate answer (like Jen Phillips) thinks they’ve got something to get snarky over.
Now, I did say I paid no attention whatsoever to the whole schmeer, and that I wasn’t going to discuss it. What I addressed here was Ophelia’s approach to someone using epithets, and whether there was any chance of a reasoned discussion (in short, I sincerely doubt it.) I can’t, and won’t, speak for the infinite number of discussions going on. I’ll throw a question out to you, however: how long do you think they might have gone on if the use of those words wasn’t any part of the discussion?
In other words, did someone react, prove that such an approach worked to get them fired up, and cause it to snowball? And, as I’ve tried to point out in other comments, is anyone quite sure that their reaction to such words is accurate, e.g., reflects true occurrences of sexism rather than childish hotbutton pushing? The sign says, “Do not feed the trolls,” but it helps to know what one is. My definition, as I’ve said, is someone who uses trash talk rather than decent points.
C. Mason Taylor @ 94:
Really, now? Come on. Falsely accusing people of crimes is both wrong and a serious problem, and shouldn’t just be casually dismissed like that.
C. Mason Taylor @ 99:
Doesn’t this line of thought apply equally well to the blanket claims of “MRA,” “misogynist,” “gender traitor” and the like that have been getting thrown around, as it does to things like “Twatson”? It’s not a matter of what words are being used, it’s the simple fact that, rather than responding to the arguments being raised, a lot of people have just been accusing each other of various things.
Stacy Kennedy @ 100:
Justicar is not everyone at ERV. Even Abbie did not weigh in at all until after the CFI conference, and most of what Abbie has been saying since then has been directed at Watson’s conduct at the CFI conference, and a few other examples of perceived bad behavior since then (e.g., boycotting Dawkins), plus pointing out hypocrisy (e.g., objectifying herself in nude calendars, and then complaining about being politely sexualized–note, not objectified, as what Elevator Guy did does NOT fit the definition of objectification). Even among the people who did disagree with the initial video, over at ERV, I’m mostly only hearing dissent of the “I disagree, it doesn’t bother me, but she’s fine to feel uncomfortable about it and ask people not to do that to HER. Just don’t speak for me on the issue.”
Then please, by all means, point out where what I said is inaccurate. And I am well aware that it is available; as far as I can tell, I was the first person to provide a link to it here, before my comment was altered.
The facts of the matter, which are easily confirmed by watching the video, are accurate to what I stated above:
* Watson went from talking about comments saying that she should be raped and/or that the speaker would like to fuck her, to talking about Stef McGraw, and did so in a way that seems intended to imply they are comparable; given that Watson’s degree is in *COMMUNICATION,* it is rather a stretch to assume that she would be unaware of this implication.
* Many of the quotes from the event which have been attributed to Watson were correct; she did indeed claim that Stef “conveniently” left off part of the transcript from Watson’s video (implying ill-will rather than brevity on Stef’s part), that Stef was “parroting misogynist” comments, and that Stef was “ignorant of Feminism 101.”
* (This is mostly to point out irony) Watson also not only changed her wording from being “sexualized” by Elevator Guy (from her original video) to being “objectified” by Elevator Guy (at the CFI speech), she did so while completely ignoring that the definition, even as handily provided by the Feminism 101 blog page she used in her speech, does *not* accurately describe how Elevator Guy treated her. She conflated sexualization with sexual objectification, which was *exactly* what the blog page she chose was saying not to do.
Would that be sort of like, “It’s reasonable to disagree with people criticizing RW. It isn’t reasonable to demean them, much less demean and censor them for weeks and weeks, using accusations of bigotry to do so.”? Because that is a large part of what contributed to all the stuff at ERV: at a lot of the other blogs, people who did not agree with the pro-Watson side were insulted, censored, and banned. ERV hasn’t been banning anyone from *either* side; there have actually been a few reasonable debates going on there about Elevatorgate. As far as I am aware, nobody has changed their stance over them, but they have still remained civil, and nobody was banned or had their comments deleted. That is not at all what has been happening here, at Pharyngula, at Greg Laden’s blog, and at a number of other sites.
When people are insulted and ignored, it breaks down communication. It’s *very common* for them to start hurling insults instead of trying to discuss things civilly at that point; it might not be the most rational course of action, but it’s a perfectly human one.
I haven’t resorted to using anything like “twat,” “cunt,” “bitch,” etc., except as examples (as just now). I have also spoken out at ERV against their use. However, as I pointed out there, I am not the tone police, and I do not feel the need to call out people each and every time they use a naughty word. I still seem to get lumped into the “You all support this” / “You’re all misogynists” statements.
“Remained civil”? Hardly.
Maybe you meant “the few people who restricted themselves to reasonable debates” remained civil. Nevertheless by doing their “reasonable” debating in a sea of cunting and bitching, they are not actually being civil. They may think they are, or pretend to think they are, but they’re not.
Al @ 107 – thanks for answering the “nigger” question.
As Elly said, it’s absolutely not a game. It’s the heart of the matter. As I and others keep saying: the rules are different, and we want to know why. We want to know why racism is right out and sexism is ok.
Now, as for “blacks should not give a shit about ‘nigger'” – really? So if various senators and representatives started calling Obama a nigger, no one should give a shit? Really? If various scientists started calling Neil deGrasse Tyson a nigger, no one should give a shit? Really?
I’m not entirely up on all that’s been going on in the blogosphere regarding this issue, so I’m not entirely sure what the argument is.
Ophelia, is your argument that sexist epithets are worse than other kinds? Like, calling someone a twat is inherently worse than calling them a completely worthless aggregation of molecules whom no one would miss if they passed away? Where do you draw the line, and why?
If you’ve already answered such questions in previous posts, please give me a few links.
Bret Alan / Ginx @ 92 – thanks for the offer. I think Allan fits the criteria better in several ways, but you’re on the list.
Tim, my claim is that (what I’ve been calling) identity epithets in general are worse than other kinds. I don’t have time to find links for you. You could try a search; that might work.
Elly:
That didn’t answer the question. I don’t care what community it is. I asked if you knew it applied to the community, and not simply an individual.
I know I read:
Now, what this has to do with reactions to epithets in general, I have no idea. But that’s the post I was actually commenting on – Ophelia’s original, at the top of the page. And subsequently, any questions posed to me. By all means, do any damn thing you like – I’ve said nothing whatsoever about how you treat your community and those within it. My points have been all about what value and qualities epithets have.
To address your points as you’re putting them, I’d have to give such epithets real value, and I don’t. You say “lack of respect,” but how gently do I need to remind you that you live in the real world, where lack of respect is guaranteed? Why is this even being brought up?
I’m glad you have a game plan. By all means, go berate those using epithets. I’m sure they’ll learn their lesson, and never use them again. Too bad you didn’t think of this early in the Elevatorgate discussions, it would have kept things on track, I’m sure.
So, did this work? Or did this analogy apply really poorly to the discussions? Did the commenters run home crying? I’m betting they didn’t, else we wouldn’t be having this discussion here.
Try again. The teachers cannot be around to police every interaction during the school day, nor would their constant attention to name-calling be useful in the slightest. However, defusing the name-calling by teaching every child that it has no effect is a hell of a lot more useful. If the weapon doesn’t work, it’s not a weapon anymore.
So? What does this have to do with Baloo? I chose that example for a particular reason – I did not say Disney movies did not display racism anywhere. Fuck, try to understand the point, rather than being obtuse. When you select meaningless battles, you create a reputation for looking for trouble, rather than being rational, and this damages your impact.
I offered my perspective, and advice that I knew from experience worked. What more do you really expect? Nowhere did I offer some kind of authority, nor insist that everyone had to listen. Be as close-minded as you like, no skin off my nose. But if you want to debate, you have to make valid points and stay abreast of the details, or I’ll respond accordingly.
Seriously, what’s your point about the community? Some nitwit tossing names around affects us all? If I don’t give a shit, I’m not part of your community and thus my advice won’t work? I should fan the flames by getting up in arms and impotently railing about names (which I imagine is viewed gleefully by everyone using them just to provoke a reaction)?
#116, “While y’all are busy thinking I’m one of the bad guys for some ridiculous reason”
I think the reason is you said ERV (and her saying that Twatson is a fucking drunk bitch like that other white trash whore from the Rational Response Squad) had been sensible and level headed all along, while leaving cheerful comments about Naughty Abbie and how many comments her posts could attract. I don’t think those things are sensible or level headed, but you don’t seem to have a problem with them. If you think the sentence I have put between parentheses is just fine, then yeah I at least would think you’re not one of the good guys.
Thing is I don’t know if you think it’s just fine or not. Do you?
Ah, hell. I hadn’t seen Russell’s comment at ERV when I replied @ 132. I just took a deep breath and found it and read it. I take back the last line of 132, at any rate.
Sigh. I dont think RB is a bad guy – but he is certainly wrong about this entire fracas. And I thought Ophelia’s strike through clearly indicated that all you need to have is a position that some sexist epithets are worse than others , and that some “dont matter” for you to make your case to Ophelia , without us thinking you are misogynistic, or in league with religious oppressors or some other exaggeration.
Tim,
The difference between these insults is not one of strength, but one of kind. The point isn’t about what’s more insulting to the person, but rather about why it’s insulting, and to whom. When you use a group characteristic as an insult, you are insulting the entire group, not just the person you are striving to insult.
Do you agree that using a racial slur against an opponent is “inherently worse” than calling them a completely worthless aggregation of molecules whom no one would miss if they passed away
Wait, is this actually happening?
This calls for some high brow popcorn!
I think this depends on what gauge you’re using to measure ‘worse’ by. If it’s the harm caused to the individual a racial slur could easily pale to an entirely race neutral insult. Consider the impact of calling someone’s who’s suicidal a jewboy and consider telling them no one will miss them when the die. I don’t know much psychology but I’d wager the later had a higher chance of causing lasting damage to the individual.
Ophelia:
I have yet to see it determined, demonstrated, or precedented that sexism is even at work here. I’m not sure (which is not to say that I deny it categorically) that “cunt” is being used in a sexist manner, rather than simply pejorative or only because it provokes a reaction. Part of my point is, if it does not actually denote sexism, then this discussion is meaningless – all we’re talking about is nasty words. I do not think anyone hearing the word gets to define what was going on in the speaker’s mind in any way.
That said, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the attempt to paint me as sexist. While you might try to deny this, the questioning was aimed to reveal that I was defending the use of “cunt” (or at the very least not deriding it) while rejecting any legitimate use of “nigger” et al – in other words, that I was displaying those double-standards you’re taking issue with. However, I wasn’t. I don’t stand by the use of any nasty word, even when I use them myself – I find cussing expresses things more directly at times, but am not going to get into any discussion as to whether I was actually engaging in sexual relations with the fucking computer, know what I mean? ;-)
But the user of “nigger” and “cunt” and “tallywhacker” (okay, maybe not that last,) or any derogatory word or phrase, is simply displaying their inability to discuss things maturely, if not actively trying to provoke a response. The key, however, is derogatory usage, which can apply to quite a few words, and also not apply to many often considered as such.
As opposed to endless discussions regarding whether anyone should engage them to find out why they did it? Absolutely. Is the person calling Obama a nigger actually racist, or Republican, or simply small-minded? Who cares? They’ve proven their value to the discussion, and motives won’t explain anything.
You see, you’re changing the criteria midstream. You ostensibly asked for the initial discussion to determine motives and/or legitimacy in usage, which I see as being unlikely to produce anything of value, but whatever. What you might have hoped to demonstrate is that the words were/are uncalled for, and the question above reflects this. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a given, and there’s no reason to even discuss it – rational adults simply don’t engage in that way.
But… if you’re then saying that such usage is a direct indication of sexism, I find that too much of a leap. There’s a lot of support needed, both for the motives of the speaker and for any who might have defended the usage (did this actually occur?). So how it ties into a bigger picture of sexism apparent in our society, or even in the narrow confines of skeptical blog discussions (which also has to be taken into account,) is something that will need a whole lot of supporting factors, none of which will be determined by any such discussion.
Now, sexist, racist, classist, etc… I don’t really make much of a distinction in my level of acceptance of these, which is “none.” Sure, if a representative calls someone a “nigger,” I’m classifying them accordingly, the same I would if they said, “misandrist twat.” And that “accordingly” may very well take into account that it was applied towards a good friend in an accepted non-antagonistic manner. But you’ll notice that very few people have asked what they should think about the user of the words, only what they should do about it. Well, sure, vote the dipshit out of office. But on the internet? Where do I vote away the trolls? And do we trash free speech over just sexist remarks, or sexist and racist, or perhaps anti-religious… no. We have free speech.
So what can you do about it? Nothing. So how do we handle being called names? Classify the speaker and let it go. And again, if and when such words are simply being used to provoke, then this reaction takes care of that too.
Yes, I think I can safely say it will happen. I’ll give it more time in case anyone else wants to offer (and because I don’t have time to start it today anyway), but I think Allan is a viable candidate.
I have asked my ex to do this, but he feels it is a no-win situation for him and he doesn’t want to use his real name. If you are still stuck, let me know and I will try further to persuade him.
Al – but as has already been pointed out, it’s not really relevant whether or not you think “cunt” is sexist, just as it’s not really relevant whether or not I think “nigger” is racist.
daffodil –
:- D
Thanks!
@Tim: If Person A were to call Person B a “white nigger”, that is not just an insult to person b, it is also an insult to everyone with dark skin.
As for the hierarchical rating of insults, calling a woman a “twat” is a way of reducing her to just her genitalia. Is that better or worse than calling her a “completely worthless aggregation of molecules whom no one would miss if they passed away”? Hard to say.
Ophelia:
Maybe there’s something I’m missing from not actually seeing these discussions, and if so, it will remain that way ;-). But I admit I’m at a loss as to what any individual can do in a forum discussion about how anyone else acts.
I mean, do you want them to stop discussing valid points, and derail the discussion to talk only about bad words? Lower themselves to the same level? I’ve found, from personal experience, that ignoring all attempts to sidetrack and staying on topic, even in a sea of abuse and derision, is the only effective way of proceeding, if not simply abandoning the discussion entirely. Perhaps, and I’m just throwing this out there, they should be commended for trying to retain the discussion in a civil and focused manner despite the surrounding sea of “cunts” and “bitches”?
I know I’d feel better if you judged my content on its individual merits (or lack thereof,) rather than those around me in many cases.
Al…………..It’s not actually all that cute to admit that you don’t know anything about the thing I’m referring to, and you’re going to keep it that way, but dispute what I said about it anyway.
And I’ve already said, it’s not a matter of bad words. It’s not about swearing. How many times, exactly, do I have to say that?
Ophelia:
I have said nothing whatsoever about how I view “cunt.” I am not arguing from personal opinion that I think everyone should follow.
I have, repeatedly, maintained that the word cannot be defined by the person hearing. Sure, they’re welcome to take offense – but as you said, this is not about bad words. Nor does it appear to be about any individual being sexist. It is about the word itself denoting sexism, and most especially a supposedly acceptable form of sexism in society, or at least within the confines of the infamous discussions.
And you have not established that in any way. To be blunt, it is an unwarranted assumption that any critical thinker should not fall for.
Once you have established this, you have a reason to address the sexism involved. Until that time, you might as well blame ghosts for global warming.
I’m hungry, and need to get some shit done. Have fun.
But you’re part of the group that’s doing the wrong doing.
This may be a poor example, but suppose you’re out with friends and they make complete asses of themselves at a bar. Now your behavior may have been entirely appropriate but after the first hour and a half of your friends slapping the backsides of the waitresses, yelling at the bar tender and making it well known you were ‘with them,’ when the bouncer arrives (what took them so long?) arguing ‘I’ve behaved’ isn’t going to work. Not only are you with this ‘group’ you’ve done nothing to reign them in aside from maybe saying ‘Hey cut that out guys…’ (Which is barely a rebuke. Especially when it’s said with a smile and a laugh.)
No it isn’t.
One good reason to think so is (as everyone has said 400 times) on analogy with racist epithets. If racist epithets denote a supposedly acceptable form of racism in society – and that’s pretty widely accepted – then sexist epithets denote a supposedly acceptable form of sexism in society. That’s not rocket science. It’s also not an unwarranted assumption.
It’s quite obvious that you don’t give epithets real value. And you’ve said so. Repeatedly. It should also be quite obvious that most of the people you’re engaging with (including yours truly) do not agree with you.
So why are you continuing to challenge and debate, when it’s obvious that – like the name-callers you claim to be above – this tactic clearly isn’t “working”?
As I said above, my default pattern is to assume good faith on the part of those I’m debating with. However your subsequent responses (to both Ophelia and me) suggest none on your part. My original point to you was that – although this particular thread is concerned with having a “nuanced discussion” of sexual epithets – it cannot be divorced from the larger context… which conveniently happens to be one that you arbitrarily ruled off limits. Thus, there can be no understanding, since you are determined to not understand… only grandstand.
In other words, your posts fit the pattern of “concern trolling.”
The quote above speaks volumes. Western civilization as we know it (aka “real world” you and I inhabit) is founded on the assumption of mutual respect. It’s an ideal: which is why there are criminal laws, civil codes and even etiquette books designed to uphold and reinforce it. When various individuals transgress reasonable boundaries (even when covered by “free speech”) it is not unreasonable to defend the ideal. Some will continue to push the boundaries, to be sure, so keeping them intact requires some pushing back. When it comes to using sexual epithets, transgressors may not care or respond appropriately, but many others will absorb the lesson – as Ophelia’s (and others’) discussion of racist epithets exemplifies. I, for one, did not need to have multiple people berate me about my choice of words, in order for me to grasp that racist epithets were out-of-bounds.
This is my last response to you… as I’m concerned, you’ve taken up as much oxygen as I care to allot.
I agree with you that words in general cannot simply be defined by the person hearing. But that’s a red herring. This is not about semantics, or the invariant meaning of words. It’s about the uses of words, when set against a backdrop of personal relationships.
This is a very important distinction. The ‘word itself’ is irrelevant. It is the use of the word in the context of their social relationships that reflects badly upon interlocutors.
I don’t see how you can’t see that such epithets are…I want to say dehumanizing, but that’s not it, Stigmatizing? Could be. It’s the grouping together that’s the problem. It’s calling someone a woman, implying that being a woman is a bad thing. That’s what makes these insults wrong. Similar to usage of “gay”.
That said, i don’t think they’re equally wrong. I don’t think “bitch” is as bad as “cunt” as an example. But that has less to do with why they’re bad, but more so the amount of force typically used behind the word. The latter is a very forceful word, an extremely forceful word, while I often don’t see the first used as much like that. I also think that as the former becomes something much more specific and less general that it loses a lot of the gender negativity, although it CAN still exist, but it’s entirely in usage.
Maybe it’s all entirely in usage. If you’re implying that someone is like X or Y group and that’s a negative thing, then that’s a very very bad thing to do. I’ll take this a step further and say that implying that someone is like X or Y group and that’s a positive thing is also a very bad thing to do for different reasons. Like for example “Oh that’s very white/Christian of you!”
This is rather silly, words have meaning, you do not get to wave away the meaning of words simply because you “didn’t mean it in a racist, sexist, bigoted way”. How is it even possible to use the words as an insult and not mean them that way? I suppose if you hit your hand with a hammer and just start screaming curse words without a target, but that is not what we are discussing here. is it?
Easily. Suppose in context, I say something that is laughably obvious and banal, in the context of the conversation. You might reply:
In context, that sentence implies an insult, implying: “we all know that, you jackass”. But the literal meaning of ‘professor’ (and the meaning of the whole sentence) is neutral, if not positive. The conventional meaning of the word does not directly contribute to the insulting use of the word. Hence, you have used the word to insult, even though the conventional meaning (i.e., the word itself) possesses no insulting content.
But that’s not true. Words are defined by the person hearing AND the person listening. Words are also given meaning and impact by the way they are and have been used in society (e.g. as compliments, insults, neutrally, to disparage entire groups of people, etc).
@Benjamin S Nelson That hypothetical doesnt’t fit, Use Nigger, Cunt or Faggot as an insult without it being racist sexist or bigoted.
@Forbidden Snowflake and people in general: My answer to you would involve some of the same thoughts that Julian is bringing up. How do we objectively measure what is “worse”?
I don’t have an answer. I’m still just trying to understand what Ophelia’s concerns are. I am frequently dismayed, for example, that so many people are happy to curse each other out on the Internet – and ascribe beneficent motives to themselves in doing so – when really they’re just pissed off. Making an argument that another person finds insulting is one thing; making an argument and also throwing in some incendiary language just for the fun of it is another.
Coming from this position, when I read Ophelia’s post, I thought “why sexist epithets, specifically?” Why not complain about all forms of unnecessary insult on the Internet? Apparently Ophelia sees “identity” epithets as worse than other insults – thus my question to her. I am still looking for the evidence that there is something objectively worse about such insults themselves (and what sort of evidence would this be? A Sam Harris-ian account of which insults decrease wellbeing the most?) It seems that *if* someone’s goal was to insult an entire group of people, identity epithets are exactly what one would use to do that. So is the complaint that you used an insult that insulted an entire group, or that *you wanted to insult an entire group* in the first place? Shouldn’t the criticism be of the latter?
I don’t know.
Switching topics for a moment – all of the above is predicated on the assumption that both parties involved in a verbal attack (the attacker and the receiver) perceive whatever words were used *literally.* For example, I don’t perceive it as literally calling someone a penis when the insult “dick” is used, and I doubt any valid argument can be made that I should. It seems such complications must be taken into account in a discussion such as this one.
@Tim Martin
Do you really need to know why or what the difference is between calling someone an idiot and calling someone a Nigger is? Should we use small words to explain it?
@David: Please don’t. I’m not interested in discussing something with someone who gets mad when they are asked for an argument.
I’m not mad, Its just odd when someone tries to compare a general insult about someones behavior or comments to racial or sexist slurs and disingenuously pretends they don’t understand how there is any difference between one or the other. Especially on a site where it has been explained in detail at least a dozen times in the past week.
Oh. This whiny position again.
People who think that issues of racist and sexist epithets should only be discussed in a dispassionate, academic way have no fucking business having discussions about epithets whatsoever.
Woden1,
I wasn’t casually dismissing it. I was, in fact, describing a general behavior of “what about the men?” that surrounds the attacks on and dismissal of feminism. If someone says the sentence, “people ought not to be falsely accused of crimes. That isn’t nice.” I agree, one hundred percent, regardless of whether it’s rape or murder, or stealing a fucking candy bar.
If someone says, however, “the real focus of debates on rape should be how bad it is for men who are falsely accused. Innocent until proven guilty isn’t enough. We should enact laws which make it more difficult to raise our already abysmally low rape conviction rate in order to further protect all those falsely accused men,” that’s absolutely ridiculous.
I agree that it’s also unhelpful, but not that it’s the same. I agree with you that some people on this side of the discussion have over-applied accusations of misogyny, just as people on the ERV side have over-applied terms like “idiot” and “hypocrite.” (Though ‘gender traitor’ is one your side seems obsessed with, and has been used very little to none at all, at least here. I believe I saw a single poster use it once at ERV unironically, and that was all). I even said, earlier in this thread, that I personally do not see real misogyny on the part of the more prominent spokespeople on the ERV side, including Abbie herself, but again, all that is separate. When “misogynist,” “hypocrite,” and “idiot” are justified, I thoroughly condone their use. When they are not, I disagree with the hyperbole, which I find unhelpful among friends.
Using “cunt” and “twat” to describe women behaving in ways the user dislikes is something entirely different. Using “misogynist” does not wrap up half the human race and their genitalia in its contempt. It’s not a term that’s intended to hurt or demean, but a term that’s intended explicitly to describe behavior. If you incorrectly accused me of being a thief over something, I might well be offended by it. But you wouldn’t be incidentally demeaning anybody else in doing so.
I’ll agree that doing both things helps to shut down debate and discussion, but not that they’re equivalent.
Just Al,
Sorry I helped cause you to lose access to cheap software. I can certainly appreciate that. As far as this discussion, I don’t think we have anything else to say to one another. You think ‘cunt’ can be used in non-sexist ways; I don’t think that’s up to you. You think name-calling is bad, I agree. You think despite its badness, people should ignore it/not care about it. I’d agree if it were a schoolyard bullying situation, but it isn’t.
Positing that identity insults are “worse” simply because they “insult an entire group” misses the mark, IMHO. It’s the how they insult an entire group that matters.
Racist and sexist epithets are explicit statements of the target’s “lesser than” status – based on their group identity. It was not so long ago, when words like “nigger” were used freely by racist whites, and there was nothing that the target could do about it, because racism was ultimately supported by violence (or the threat thereof).
Calling a woman a “cunt” carries the same undertones. While women were never slaves in the US in a legal sense, they were still, in many key respects, treated as property, whose primary purpose in life was to provide sexual release to men and bear children. Because of this “lesser than” status, their behavior was also heavily “policed” (in both social and legal terms) – thus terms like “bitch,” “slut” and “whore.”
You could say that racist and sexist epithets are “vertical” insults. Their intent is to not just express personal contempt… but to remind their targets of their groups’ historically inferior status. The free use of such epithets also implies the user feels that the inferior status was/is deserved.
Suffice it to say, calling someone an “asshole” or “shit head” – while certainly uncivil – doesn’t fall in the same category. You could say that they’re “horizontal” insults – expressions of contempt that could be used by anybody, against anybody.
Tim @164: I think you’re missing the point of this discussion. It’s not about insults-in-general (though that’s worth discussing, just not here and now), nor about intentionally denigrating an entire group. It’s about choosing insults against a particular person that just happen to be denigrating to an entire group (and not even always the group the target belongs to, either — eg. calling a man a “stupid cunt”).
The claim (with which I’m inclined to agree) is you can’t use a word that refers, in its literal sense, to group X as an epithet without thereby implying that X has some bad quality — or else, how does it work as an insult?[1]
Now I accept that some of the people using female-genitalia epithets in the current Stupid Dust-Up Going On Mostly Elsewhere (Thank FSM!) sincerely don’t intend to imply that there’s something wrong with female genitalia (several of them being owners of such). I think they Just Don’t Get It. But if Ophelia can find a suitable debating partner, I will read the results with interest.
[1] Arguable caveat: the mere act of deliberate mis-identification can be seen as insulting, since it rhetorically denies the target their own identity, even if the imposed identity is not being portrayed as a bad thing in itself. But that’s pretty thin gruel, and is probably hardly ever the case in the real world.
What happened to my comment? Maybe I didn’t hit ‘post’. Anyways, here it is again, though I think Elly says it better.
The thing that people don’t seem to understand about identity epithets is not simply that they denigrate an entire group: it’s that they denigrate an entire group by reminding members of such a group that they occupy, by virtue of their membership, a lower rung in the great power differential that we call Western society. ‘Nigger’ isn’t offensive simply because it talks about an entire group; it’s that the word derives its power from the fact that historically, the group of people to which the term applies didn’t have it, or had it in a limited way.
You can call me ‘honky’, ‘dude’, or ‘breeder’ all you want: while those terms do pigeonhole me in my respective identities as a white, male, heterosexual, they do not carry the same weight. At no time in recent history was it debatable as to whether I, as a member of those groups, had the right to self-determination or even personhood. That’s why such epithets are more ‘harmful’, in general.
We’re mostly hearing from people who are flat out denying that the use of sexist epithets insults an entire sex. That’s a big part of the disagreement.
Incorrect. These words can be used with a number of different figurative meanings ascribed to them, but their literal meaning doesn’t disappear when that happens.
If you leave here with nothing else, please at least recognize what the argument is not. It’s not about policing naughty words. It’s not about immaturity, or crassness, or vulgarity in general. It’s about sexist language getting a pass in a culture where, mostly, racist language does not. Just Al claims that this is a ‘slippery slope’ argument, but it isn’t. Both categories are at the bottom of the same canyon.
Ophelia:
You know something? Your hobby horse isn’t giving you the lovely overview you think it does, so perhaps you should just get off.
See the words in your quote that I bolded? Look closely. See them? Good. Now, show me, in some manner that approaches a rational, logical train of thought, how you can differentiate a sexist epithet from a derogatory term towards a particular woman, or any person or object in general.
Show me, so that I can see the difference between “cunt” and “dick.”
Show me, so that I know that the British and Scottish usages, towards males and even inanimate objects, actually denotes the widespread objectification of women in those countries.
Show me that any and every user is not simply taking about one woman, but about every woman.
That’s what it would take to convince me you actually know the difference between a sexist epithet and a nasty word. You’re lucky – I decided to skip the demand for EEGs.
But to be frank, being female and being offended is not what denotes sexism.
Ophelia, you are not ready for the discussion you’re asking for, because you’re purposefully avoiding understanding why there is a distinction.
Now, kindly take note: Any of the aforementioned discussion uses can most certainly be intended in a sexist manner. The word is not absolved of that potential. It simply does not automatically have it by its nature. Much as anyone might want a nice litmus paper like that, it doesn’t actually exist. You have to judge each individual case on its own merits. Yes, thinking is hard, as is actually paying any fucking attention to what someone is saying. Life is, as they say, a bitch.
Al –
Oh, ok then. If you say I’m not ready for the discussion, I’ll just cancel it. Thanks for telling me.
Two issues. First, your question was general, and I gave a general reply. Just so you know, that’s how the meaning/use distinction works.
Second, your examples happen all the time, amongst people within those groups. Peter Beattie was right about that much. The words are negative by convention, but they can be used positively in certain contexts amongst certain trusted relationships. Those negative, conventional meanings cannot be simply ignored by outsiders — among strangers, use doesn’t get to split very far from meaning — but that’s not a surprise, is it?
Al you’re quite wrong. There really is something especially wrong about making a commonality about an innate characteristic and then making a negative (or a positive for that matter, as I said earlier) connotation towards it because it degrades the entire innate characteristic (Be it gender, skin color, sexual orientation, handedness (not exactly a modern one, but whatever), etc.)
It’s also NOT the same as making commonalities regarding non-innate characteristics about things such as beliefs or affiliations, although those things may not be helpful either, but it’s for entirely different reasons.
Ben – but when they’re being used positively they’re not being used as insults, right? They’re being used as “insults” but not as insults. That’s the point of using them, no?
Now.
[having taken a few deep breaths]
Al, if you want to continue this discussion, don’t talk to me like that.
The sense of entitlement of the likes of Al is very odd. It is also very arrogant.
He is effectively demanding Ophelia give him a lesson that involves English comprehension, sociology and history. A lesson I would add that he should have received in school. If he was not paying attention that is his problem. It is not one he gets to demand Ophelia fix for him. especially given the manner in which he asked for the lesson.
Not to mention the fact that the thread is full of comments that do just what he demanded.
Maybe he wants me to do it myself, personally. But I’ve been doing it, for weeks; I’m not going to do it all over from scratch every time someone who hasn’t been following comes along and demands a primer on the basics.
Woden1 @134:
No, she clearly did not intend to imply that the two were comparable. Between the comments RW showed where the posters, angry at her discussions of feminist subjects like FGM, talked about raping and torturing her, and her discussion of what SM had to say, there were two long paragraphs in which she went over the elevator story. She mentioned a couple of comments, one of which was “I can’t believe that someone (gasp) would talk with you on an elevator. How dare a man talk with you alone. You sound like the fundamental Muslims that you hate, due to their positions on women. Congratulations.” Then she began her discussion of what SM had to say with
” There’s another comment I found on a blog, from actually one of your own, and I wanted to use it as an example, not to embarrass this person, but to point out that we have a serious problem when young women are this ignorant about feminism. So let me read it to you. This is from the UNI Freethought blog. Stef McGraw, she posts a transcript of the story I just told you, the elevator story, and she writes: ‘My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her. What’s wrong with that?…'”
You can read the transcript here:
http://www.thearmchairskeptic.com/2011/07/transcript-of-rebecca-watson-talk-at.html
Yes, she certainly did say those things. So what? Expressing an opinion that someone is parroting prejudice, or ignorant, deserves ceaseless attack? Those are reasonable, civil criticisms. And the remark about part of the transcription being left off pointed out that SM was not providing the context to what went on in the elevator.
Well, it’s interesting that you think “MRA” is a “discriminatory epithet :) But in answer to your question, no. “Accusing somebody” of something is not the same thing as calling them a twat, or a cunt, or a bitch. If someone calls you a misogynist, and you believe you are not one and dislike the label, you can argue the point. If someone calls you a cunt, or a nigger, now you’ve been saddled with a word designed to demean you–not your ideas, you. Who you are.
Also a third party can see the conversation, and will know what it is about someone’s ideas that is being attacked by saying they are misogynistic. That third party will not know what is being attacked when the person is called a cunt.
As usual, I can’t believe this “conversation” is being had with some people.* If you use sexist or misogynistic slurs despite women’s objections, if you encourage their use at your site, if you defend their use, if you minimize their harm, if you joke about how someone using them in the course of a vicious attack is “naughty” and call that behavior reasonable, if you demand from your perch of comfortable ignorance that I yet again explain every detail of my objection despite the fact that these “debates” themselves serve as a painful reminder and reinforcement of my second-class status, you are not my ally. I don’t trust you. I don’t want to engage with you. You would never do this if someone used a racist slur about Sikivu Hutchinson or an antisemitic slur about Josh Rosenau, and you fucking know it. The only conclusion I can draw is that you do at some level think of women as lesser. I’m glad to know it, and don’t want anything to do with you. And if you think I’m going to be part of a community in which that attitude is prevalent and in which slurs are remotely acceptable, you’re wrong.
*Not the pack of obtuse or disingenuous jokers, but people for whom it’s shocking.
Duh. I don’t think the long discussion here, which you’ve apparently not followed very closely, has been on the whole an argument that “The word itself magically and inherently means something bad!” (Randall Kennedy wrote a very interesting book called Nigger, in which he discussed the not originally racist etymology of that word.)
We’re talking about words as they’ve been used in a particular country with a particular history in the context of a particular discussion, a discussion about women, and feminism. (You’ve admitted you haven’t bothered to check the OPs at the blog we’re talking about.)
Re the comparison of words like “cunt” to “nigger”:
Wow. That’s what you thought was going on? I thought I was making a point, and you thought it was all about you, and playing “gotcha”.
Speaking for myself, yes, I did think you would reject the legitimate use of “nigger” in many contexts–say, by white people in a heated discussion with black people. And I thought that maybe, having thought about why that word in that context would be worse than, say, the whites calling the black person an “asshole”, you’d consider the possibility that gendered insults can work the same way that “nigger” can. While I think there’s systemic sexism in the way one set of words gets a pass relative to the others–and yes, as I’ve said before, context matters–it never occurred to me that you would take the point personally and decide you were being unfairly castigated.
I think we’ve got JA’s point. Words are just words, don’t let them bother you (unless you’re him and you’re looking to take offence at anyone who disagrees with him.)
Going off the last few weeks, it seems safe to assume to a very large portion of skeptics the mere implication they might be influenced by bigoted views is an insult on par with a smack to the face.
Ophelia, sure, there’s a principled distinction you can make between ‘insults’ and insults, depending on the use in context.
Though in practice there are a lot of cases where it’s hard to tell between ‘insults’ and insults, even among people who are familiar. Like the scene in Goodfellas where Billy Batts tells Tommy to go home and get his shinebox. The first time, it sounded like it was an ‘insult’; the second time, you know it was an insult.
That’s basically the point I tried to make to Peter Beattie. If people who are familiar with each other can’t figure out whether something is an ‘insult’ or an insult, then why do we think that strangers are in a better position to tell? If Tommy can’t quite figure whether or not Billy is ball-busting, and they at least know each other, then why should a random man think that their ‘insults’ to a female stranger will (or ought to be) received in the spirit that was intended?
Ben: got it. Good point.
It’s all very “Most Dangerous Catch” – a weird show on the Discover channel that I started to watch years after everyone else got hooked. It’s about guys who go out crab fishing in the Bering Sea; muy macho. There’s lots of joke-insulting and also lots of squabbling and fighting; either way it’s all about being girly.
You know, there’s a thing here…I have the thought “maybe the discussion will convince me I’m wrong.” Then I feel a kind of alarm, then I think about why, and realize it’s because I don’t want to start saying “sexist epithets are no big deal,” because I think they do harm. Then I note that that’s exactly what we’ll be discussing and what ex hypothesi I will have been convinced the opposite of, and I ponder how very circular it all is.
A story, if you will…
Back when I was in graduate school, there was another woman in our lab, named “Kathryn.” Since it was a casual environment, and everyone was on a first name basis, I took to calling her “Kath,” or “Kathy” – shortened names which virtually every other Kathryn/Katherine/Catherine in my experience typically used.
But not this Kathryn. One day, she informed me – point blank – that she did NOT like to be called “Kath” or “Kathy.” Her name was “Kathryn,” and that’s specifically what she wanted to be called.
Well, ok then. From then on, she was “Kathryn” to me. While I didn’t particularly like her (no particular reason beyond temperamental differences), I like to get along with people, and I saw no reason to not acquiesce to her request.
A few salient points (you knew there would be a moral here, right?):
1. My motives in calling her “Kath,” and “Kathy” were pure as the driven snow. Most of my friends and acquaintances preferred to be known by shorter, more casual names than the longer, more formal ones they were given at birth. I did not do it to antagonize her; and she knew no offense was meant.
2. Nonetheless, it bothered her enough that she directed (it was definitely not a request!) me to stop. Suffice it to say: I did not demand an “objective,” “logical” or “rational” reason for her preference. I did not demand she justify her request in terms that I found acceptable, before I would consider changing my habit.
3. I did not justify myself, either, by explaining that every other Kathryn/Katherine/Catherine I’d known preferred to be “Kath” or “Kathy” (or else didn’t care one way or the other). I also didn’t use my own indifference to what people call me, as some superior example of how one ought to feel about variations on one’s name.*
It was enough for me that she didn’t like being called “Kath” or “Kathy” – and it was no skin off my nose to grant her request. She was not quashing my free speech – my “right” to call her what I felt like calling her, did not trump her right to be called what she wished to be called. Sure, I could have insisted that she was being irrational, and that “Kath” wasn’t any kind of insult… but then I would have been disrespecting her.
This little anecdote illustrates why demands for “objective” reasons to proscribe sexual slurs are simply wrong. It is not wrong for people to simply not like them, for whatever reasons that suit them. Since when are “emotional” reasons invalid, or less worthy of respect than “rational” ones?
Here’s the deal: substantial numbers of women (like yours truly) think these words are not just offensive… they’re beyond the pale. That – in and of itself – should be reason enough to avoid using them, if you’re a civilized human being. It’s about treating people the way they want to be treated: badda bing, badda boom. Even if one of those women isn’t the target of your slurs, she will still be offended by it – and rightfully so, I might add. While a sufficient number of rational reasons to not use these epithets have been given in previous posts, I am sick and tired of seeing certain people sneeringly imply that reactions they consider “irrational” are invalid, by definition.
‘Nuff said.
*FYI, “Elly” is not my real name – rather, it’s a nickname given to me by a colleague in the UK, who – like soooo many others – can’t cope with my real name. Dunno why it’s such a struggle for a lot of folks but clearly it is… and I really don’t care. As long as it’s well-intentioned, people can call me whatever they like.
Great points, Elly. (Or should I call you “Elly” haha)
The “it’s irrational” thing bugs the hell out of me. It doesn’t have to be rational, and in fact it’s not irrational in the sense of being reasonless, but it’s certainly not a matter of logic.
There are good reasons not to accept any and all claims of “it’s offensive,” because then you get people shutting down writers and cartoonists they don’t like. But when there’s nothing substantive like that at stake, it’s a different matter.
That certainly applies to sexist epithets. Would public discourse be impoverished if people avoided using trigger epithets of that kind? Well is it impoverished by the absence of “nigger”? Hardly!
@Elly #170: I see what you’re saying. People deliberately using such epithets to assert someone’s inferior status is certainly something that occurs.
…At the same time, I wonder if it’s possible for such an epithet to mean less than that. I wonder if it’s possible for a (modified) epithet like “Twatson” to be very insulting, but not to the extent that anyone is claiming that women are inferior or that they deserve to be treated as such. Furthermore, it would seem strange for a fellow woman to be the one claiming that women are inferior.
@Eamon #171:
Would “dick” or “bastard” be included in this? I may have missed it, but I don’t usually see people getting so worked up over these words.
While the word “douchebag” does not refer to a person or a part of a person, I think it speaks to your argument. I used “douche” or “douchebag” as an insult for many of my childhood years before finding out that a douche was an actual thing. To this day, I have nothing against the verb or the bag with which one does it. And yet the word still carries the meaning of insult in my brain because words are defined by usage – and there is no doubt that when people call you a douchebag they mean for you to be insulted by it.
Yes, many of these words originally became insults because what they refer to was considered a bad thing. But my example and countless others show that neither the speaker nor the listener has to think of or even know the literal meaning of a word for it to be an insult. How the word came into existence does not necessarily determine what it means now. This is why I asked Elly above if, maybe, ERV wasn’t putting down the entire female sex when she called Watson “Twatson.”
You seem to agree when you say “some of the people using female-genitalia epithets in the current Stupid Dust-Up Going On Mostly Elsewhere (Thank FSM!) sincerely don’t intend to imply that there’s something wrong with female genitalia (several of them being owners of such).”
Right, so… if a speaker doesn’t mean an insult as some people have taken it (which you accept), and if there’s no logical reason why the insult would have to mean what people have said it means (which I showed above), then there is nothing objectively true about the insistence that these words must mean such and such.
@Jen #173:
I’m going to need some evidence for that assertion. When I wrote above that “the word still carries the meaning of insult in my brain,” I was not imagining words carrying meanings around, inside my brain or out. When I tell someone to “knock it off,” I do not think of them pushing one thing off the top of another. When I say I want to “get this straight,” I do not think of physically straightening anything. Yes, the literal meanings of the myriad metaphors in human language are neurally primed when we use those metaphors, but that is usually as far as it goes. Our speech is at all times full of words that literally mean something other than what we’re saying, and we do not notice it. As I said above, I am perfectly capable of calling someone a dick without thinking of penises, and I submit that many other humans are as well.
Fair enough. What I’m still looking for is evidence that sexist language is, well, sexist. Do you think ERV has a low opinion of the entire female sex? It seems she would have to in order for your assertion to be true. Let me ask the question this way – what would falsify your hypothesis that “twat”, for example, is sexist?
That is a question I would address to anyone who is convinced that epithets with literal meanings that refer to body parts are inherently sexist.
And one further question (with introductory comments): At a linguistics blog that I frequent, the commenters often have discussions about how words mean different things to different people. When it comes to insults, the disparities can be… very unfortunate. “Spaz,” for example, is a mild insult in the US, and a “grievous insult” in the UK. I have also learned from experience and from comments in threads such as this one, that “cunt” is taken as a weaker insult in the UK than in the US (I imagine people here will know what I’m talking about.)
The tendency is always to interpret words in the way we are used to interpreting them, and possibly to not accept that a word could mean something less or different to another linguistic group. Insults are always difficult in that a person can make me feel really bad by saying something that wasn’t really bad to them.
The question I ask is, with all respect, what is the evidence that that sort of thing isn’t happening here?
Well, if I can’t call someone a cunt, skank, bitch or slut, then how will I be able to express myself? I mean, don’t take those words away from me, I need them…..
Ah, but if you’re (rightly) convinced that sexist attitudes do harm, then pretty much the only way a person can argue in favor of sexist epithets is by showing they are not sexist. And that would be silly.
So — say what you will about circularity, but at least it’s consistent!
And that’s the part that’s bothersome: the attitude that it’s somehow unworthy to respect people’s feelings, if they can’t articulate a reason for them that’s good enough to pass muster! As if someone’s freedom of speech is truly diminished if compelled through “political correctness” to err on the side of civility. Let’s break out the tiny violin, and shed a tear for the poor, poor slur-slingers and their damaged fee-fees.
I think one of the best refutations of this, came from – believe it or not – Bitch Ph.D. While I was not a regular reader, I came across an excerpt of one of her posts on the torture “debate” on “Sadly No” ( http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/2710.html ) – and it’s worth quoting here (the first para is from the actual post author, HTML Mencken):
Ok, I’m using this in a way that HTML Mencken didn’t intend, but it’s a related point. Certain things can be intuitively repellent – like torture, or sexist/racist slurs, for that matter. Insisting on having rational, logical discussions over the acceptability of something that many people find fundamentally indecent is… simply repellent. Demands for rational discussion of these things, are nearly always attempts to rationalize. It’s a distancing tactic: hiding behind logic to avoid being held accountable for acting like a jerk.
Elly, I agree with you on so much re: this topic, but I’m not sure these two little things were given enough boundaries:
Obviously those aren’t contextualized, on purpose. But they are each complete sentences, and it does worry me where they may take us without clarification. Surely, it should depend upon whether there are valid reasons behind the emotional response, and behind feelings of “fundamental indecency”?
Ophelia:
They have remained mostly civil to the people who actually go to ERV and talk with them. They have NOT been civil to the people (like you) who just sit on the sidelines and make snarky comments… and, frankly, why do you think that anyone regularly commenting at ERV has even the slightest reason to be civil to you at this point? You have repeatedly insulted and censored us, and have hardly been civil in doing so despite not using gendered insults.
Stacy Kennedy @ 182:
If you and others in the pro-Watson camp think those are “reasonable, civil criticisms,” then I guess that explains a lot of the tone issues. First of all, attacking a person, such as calling them ignorant (of feminism 101 or anything else), rather than attacking their argument, is a clear-cut case of an ad hominem fallacy; just to point out the obvious, that is neither reasonable nor civil. Furthermore, it’s especially bad that PZ Myers supported Watson’s treatment of McGraw in light of that particular comment, given that it is almost identical to the “Courtier’s Reply” that he has criticized theists for using.
Then, let’s look at “parroting:” This implies not only that she is repeating the claims of others, but that she is mindlessly repeating them without any thought given to their meanings, much as a parrot will repeat words without understanding them. This is an incredibly insulting thing to say, and is, furthermore, yet another example of an ad hominem fallacy.
Also, Stef McGraw most certainly did provide full context, given that she linked to Watson’s video in the blog post in question.
Well, it’s interesting that you think “MRA” is a “discriminatory epithet :)
Actually, no, I do not. I do, however, find a baseless claim of “You’re just an MRA” to be equally quick to ending a discussion as the discriminatory epithets being noted. It also works if you blow someone off with nearly any other “Oh, you’re just a [X]” comments. And, once again, such comments are based entirely on the ad hominem fallacy; they do nothing to counter any arguments or data presented, and instead merely attack the person presenting them.
Think of it this way: If the original comment was made by an emotionless machine, would the given response make sense? If not, chances are the response is an ad hominem. For example, calling someone a misogynist: claiming a machine is a misogynist is clearly absurd, therefore, it is obviously attacking the individual rather than what they are saying. If you are not doing anything else to address what they said, then you’ve done nothing to show that they were wrong, and instead pulled the debating equivalent of saying “Well, you’re a doodyhead!” It’s not cool when Creationists do it to us, and it’s equally not cool when fellow atheists do it to us.
Argh, forgot to hit the quote button.
“Well, it’s interesting that you think “MRA” is a “discriminatory epithet :)” should have been a quote.
But this didn’t happen. Watson implied that McGraw was ignorant of a few things by way of attacking McGraw’s argument. That’s not an abusive ad hominem, it’s an error theory. You might disagree with the particular way RW went about her delivery (I do, to some extent), but you can’t characterize RW’s remarks as simple ad hominems.
Get off it, Woden. If RW didn’t just said those things. She explained why, in her opinion, SM was wrong–ignorant of “feminism 101”. She discussed the context of her elevator anecdote, and why, in her opinion, it constituted an unsolicited sexual advance. She discussed objectification vs. sexual attraction. It’s all in the transcript.
Sorry to break it to you, but a few words picked out of the context of an extended argument do not make for an ad hom. Fallacy fail.
You’re trying to make it out that SM was somehow savaged–which in turn justifies the savaging RW got at Smith’s place. Not buying it.
Please ignore the “If” at the start of my second sentence above.
Stacey Kennedy mentioned Randall Kennedy upthread.
here’s a short essay by him on the etymology and cultural impact of the word ‘nigger’.
Apropos to what Ophelia and Ben were discussing up in the 180’s, Kennedy writes:
Woden again, and then I’ll shut up…maybe.
The Courtier’s Reply is a satire of the sort of theologian who claims an atheist can’t criticize god-belief without understanding sophistimacated theology. Since the theology in question is predicated on belief in a supernatural being for whom the theologian has no proof, it is just as pointless as one of the emperor’s courtiers claiming that the child who noticed the emp’s nakedness is unfamiliar with the luxurious fabrics and fine tailoring of the emperor’s imaginary garments, and is therefore unqualified to criticize the emperor’s alleged state of undress.
So what’s imaginary, in the argument between the two principals here? Sexism? Women are sometimes objectified?
The essence of The Courtier’s Reply is not “you’re wrong because you don’t know enough about X.” It is, “you cannot criticize X until you understand all sorts of complicated and impressive-sounding things about Y and Z, which are predicated on X actually existing.”
Woden1,
Sigh.
There is a difference between sententiam ad hominem and argumentum ad hominem, and no commenters are ELIZAs.
I’m sure that someone more scholarly than I will be able to correct me but I’ve always thought of swear words as “powerful” and that that was the reason they tended to be associated with sex, religion and bodily functions. Part of their power was their restricted use and that a way to remove their power was to make their use widespread or to make the referent inconsequential.
Isn’t it the irrelevance of Thor or Zeus the reason that no one now swears using their names? If words like cunt are powerful is that because they are denigrating or because they represent something awful (literally)?
In any case, correcting sexist attitudes by focussing on terminology sounds like sympathetic magic. It seems more useful to stick the pin in the sexist rather than in the puppet of (usually) his vocabulary.
Can you please explain what it is, exactly, that you’re looking for? Because it’s been explained multiple times in this and other threads on this and other blogs.
@Elly:
This. It’s incredibly frustrating when people do this.
Dang, looks like Al’s the man. I was sorta hoping I’d get in there, since a) I’m always keen for a healthy debate (not to mention more exposure for my blog, hahaha), and b) I think our opinions on the matter are just divergent enough for a debate, but close enough that we might have some convergence.
I want to comment on Al’s frequent comparison to swearing and bad words. I reiterate what everybody else is saying, is that the problem is that they are epithets (and not just epithets, but “identity epithets” to take Ophelia’s term — I like that by the way!), not that it is swearing. But, Al has half a point in that there is a danger here of avoiding certain words for the wrong reasons. There is nothing magical about the letters T-W-A-T, and it had been, say, a word in a different language that meant something entirely different, then that’s fine. We ought to (mostly) avoid these words because of the sociological context, but the words themselves are not evil, and we should leave open the possibility that there are contexts in which it would in fact be acceptable (even if many people here cannot think of any: asserting a priori that it could never conceivably be okay verges dangerously close to “swear word” territory, and I am not comfortable with that)
I’ll note that even the most anti-epithet commenters here have intelligently distinguished use-mention so that when talking about the epithet, they NAME the epithet rather than immaturely starring out the vowels or something stupid like that. That’s a key test for me: The stars are so stupid, they seem to indicate there is some magic in the word itself, as if it was fine to mean it as long as you don’t say it (whereas the reverse is very close to true, though not quite).
This seems to indicate — to me at least — that most of the people here are clearly distinguishing between swear words vs. identity epithets. So Al’s half a point falls flat in this context. But he did have half a point there… if one is talking about stupid b*tches and c*nts and tw*ts all the time, that’s equally misogynist with or without the asterisks.
Just as an anecdote that may have some relevance:
I was nearly terminally embarrassed in a super market in Cognac last summer when my mother called out to my father to look at some stuff. Unfortunately my father’s name is Con.
Were the French people who clearly heard my mum’s shout right to be outraged?
quoth Al:
How about this:
If one sees an 8 year old female human, I cannot imagine a situation in which it would be inappropriate to describe her as a girl, or to call her a girl. However,”girl” is also used as a derogatory term when directed at adult men. Used in this way, the word “girl” becomes a sexist insult, with collateral damage.
And here’s a gender-free counter-example: If I say someone is “a dumb ox”, I am saying that they are as stupid as an ox. I thereby simultaneously denigrate the intelligence of the insultee as well as the ox. But pretty much everyone will agree that oxen are not very bright, so this insult has no collateral damage.
I think words like cunt, slut and bitch show contempt for women. If you don’t have contempt for women why would you want to sound like you do? And how can anyone tell the difference?
Still waiting for Ophelia to approve my comment from last night….
I post this in case she isn’t aware there is something pending.
James,
I think you might be confusing people here. If your “Al getting in” is supposed to refer to me, I didn’t even say that half a point, and right now am being quite careful not to comment at all on this until the dialogue gets going. And it would be Allan, not Al. My reference to swearing was only to indicate that, in general, I’m opposed to ANY kind of epithets, and thus defending them is clearly not out of, say, a desire to use them or a defense of my using them myself.
C Mason Taylor @#195:
You’re correct, of course – as standalone sentences they’re surely incomplete. And as I hinted in an earlier thread where Ophelia juxtaposed Markuze and ERV commenters, incomplete thoughts lend themselves to misinterpretations.
Mainly, these sentences were meant as a protest against an unstated, but constantly implied value system – “emotional” = “bad”; “rational” = “good.” I liked the Bitch Ph.D. quote because it’s a pithy assessment of where too much “rational” analysis can take you – it can be easy to talk yourself into approving of a whole range of morally questionable things, because it places a distance between you and your feelings. This was on display in the Blackford quote that kicked off this thread:
He doesn’t “like” the terms himself, and even gives his reasons! Yet, he doesn’t permit these reasons to evoke any sense of moral outrage (let alone condemnation) – emotions bad!!! Rather, let’s all gather ’round and have an analytical and dispassionate discussion about it… despite the fact that this discussion has already been had, like, eleventy billion times already. Apparently, we need to have it again, because… well, we haven’t had it here yet, and people he likes and wishes to remain on good terms with seem to think it’s ok (or at least no big deal).
Note he also relies on this assumption to frame RW’s supporters – we’re “irrational” and “determined to protect her at all costs!” Emotions bad!!! So obviously anyone who’s abs-a-fucking-lutely gobsmacked at an internet hate fest that resembles the “Meat’s back on the table, boys” orc-feeding frenzy from “The Two Towers” is someone who’s not worth taking seriously – ’cause Stef McGraw’s discomfiture at having her public statements publicly discussed is far more important than the fact that RW has been subjected to weeks of threats and abuse. The woman’s had everything from her credibility to her bangability endlessly dissected amongst numerous posts and thousands of comments – but since empathy is a feeling, “supporters” don’t have a leg to stand on, doncha know.
Certainly I’m not slagging rational analysis, or somehow implying that it’s inferior to emotion (that’s not a good place to be, either). The point of playing “the opposite card” was to bring the assumption out into the open so it could be discussed. I’ve made previous points that – in the end – the bottom line for me is respect. Respect for human rights and dignity should sit at the core of decisions about how to proceed and how to react to various events and human interactions (such as figuring out how to respond to “Elevator Gate” and RW). Sometimes those gut responses to violations of that core represent touchstones. They are not inherently unworthy of notice – or respect – simply because they come from one’s emotional center.
You’re correct, I was confused. I have had to skim most of the thread and didn’t notice you there… When Ophelia referred to “Allan”, I assumed she meant that “Just Al” had disclosed his real name or something (that being one of the conditions) and he was going to be in the debate.
My comment still stands in regards to Al’s analogies to swearing, but to be clear, I wasn’t meaning to talk about you. Sorry for my confusion! :)
“I think words like cunt, slut and bitch show contempt for women. If you don’t have contempt for women why would you want to sound like you do? And how can anyone tell the difference?”
Well you may not have contempt for women in general but want to hurt or disparage one woman in particular. Although it would be very odd in the UK to hear anyone refer to a woman as a ‘cunt’, I should say. That epithet is pretty much reserved for men and it certainly does not suggest effeminacy. I think this debate is going to struggle with the Atlantic divide!
The more I think about it, the more I think this analogy to swearing could be useful.
Readers of B&W presumably have a pretty high tolerance for swearing, and a fucking lot of it at times. But surely we all also recognize there are contexts in which it’s not appropriate, not even so much because we can’t be sure other people don’t have a hangup about it (though that is frequently the case), but because there are heavily loaded 2nd-level connotations to those words. It conveys a sense of informality and coarseness that goes beyond the meaning of the word.
Consider a research paper that said, “The resulting data showed an extremely high degree of statistical significance,” vs. “The resulting data showed a fucking high degree of statistical significance.” It’s more than just prudeness that steers us away from the latter. Even though the surface-level meaning of the two sentences is identical, the latter is problematic because it suggests a lack of seriousness, among other things.Words like “definitely” and “paper” don’t carry any second-level connotations, and so can be used freely in any context where they apply. Words like “fuck” and “shit” carry moderate second-level connotations, and so should be used with caution. Even non-swear words, like “genocide” and “rape” can carry some connotations that may advise caution. (“In order to create a population bottleneck, we committed genocide on each population of <i>E. coli</i>, leaving only a small number of cells.” Nope, no good — even though the meaning of all the words may be accurate)Identity epithets are absolutely loaded with second-level connotations, so they should be used with extreme care, probably almost never, or at least in very limited contexts. Even when there is not the slightest trace of surface-level misogyny — take the phrase, “James Sweet should really quit his bitching” — connotations lurk beneath the surface (in this case, that whining and complaining are womanly traits) which may not be experienced by all listeners, but which advise against the use of the word anyway. (As a side note to where I stand, I have mostly excised the verb “to bitch”, meaning to whine or to complain, from my own speech, but I don’t see it as a serious enough issue to say something to someone else who is using it. While I think the connotations are still theoretically there, the phrase in that sense has become so disconnected from its misogynist origins that I have real doubts as to whether there is any practical effect on people’s perceptions of using it. Like I say, I think it’s better on balance to steer clear, and I do so myself, but this is one where I pick my battles and let it go.)So yeah, it sort of is like attitudes towards swearing, but ideally it is the attitude of a rational adult: There are reasons I don’t swear in every fucking context, and there are reasons I try hard to avoid identity epithets. It is the difference in the amount and severity and sociological background of the second-level connotations that make it advisable to avoid identity epithets in virtually all contexts.
@Godless Heathen #205:
This is why I brought up “concern trolling” – earlier. The point of the game is for Al to establish himself as the sole arbiter of what’s rational. In order to keep the game going, no argument anyone here can make can ever satisfy him. The “rules” state that no one who doesn’t agree 100% with Al has a valid point to make.
He’s the ruthlessly logical interrogator. We’re the benighted sheeple, who lack his all-important insights on how to respond to a situation that – by his own admission – he’s largely ignorant of.
So obviously, if he has to explain what he’s looking for to you, you’re not clever enough or logical enough to give it to him… by definition. Zing!!! The trick works since most decent, “rational” people generally assume up front that people like him come here to debate/exchange ideas. We’re sincere, and therefore conclude that others are too. But he isn’t: he came here to play “Big Me – Little You” – as revealed in his sneering response to Ophelia:
My dear ol’ dad taught me long ago: “the best defense is a good offense.” A truism, of course, but there’s still some good guidance there when it comes to negotiating conflict with people who enjoy being asshats.
“My dear ol’ dad taught me long ago: “the best defense is a good offense.” ”
Anther example of the Atlantic divide: not in football (soccer) it isn’t. Or in cricket.
The intention may be just to disparage one woman in particular, but the result is sounding like having contempt for women. So I ask again: Why would someone who isn’t sexist want to sound sexist? There are other insults to choose from. I don’t think your first choice of insult for a black person would be “nigger”.
“The intention may be just to disparage one woman in particular, but the result is sounding like having contempt for women. So I ask again: Why would someone who isn’t sexist want to sound sexist? There are other insults to choose from. I don’t think your first choice of insult for a black person would be “nigger”.”
But I might disagree that describing a woman as a ‘bitch’ sounds like disparagement of women in general. In fact I think it almost always means ‘a woman who behaves in a particular kind of unpleasant manner’. It isn’t analogous to ‘nigger’ because that word in its usual use can only mean ‘black person’. Of course ‘bitch’ can be used like that too, (‘I am here with my bitches’) and in that sense it is disparaging to women in general and sexist. It is a pity that we haven’t taken a leaf from hip hop and chosen different spellings to indicate the different uses. The reason that it isn’t racist for Jay Z to talk about hanging around with his ‘niggaz’ is because it has a completely distinct meaning from ‘niggers’, it means black people of a certain (positively denoted) kind, not black people (negatively denoted) in general.
If I and quite a few other people tell you, that words like bitch, cunt and twat are sexist and do indeed disparage women, why do you insist that they only mean what you mean by them? How many people need to tell you that those words make you sound sexist before you stop using them? A hypothetical situation: All the people in the room think those words are sexist. Would you still use them and demand people don’t take them as sexist terms?
In case you haven’t noticed, Jay-Z is black. When it comes to racist epithets and their meaning, that makes all the difference. You don’t get to call people niggers or even niggaz even if Jay-Z does. Unless you want to sound racist. Just like men don’t get to “take back” epithets that are used to disparage women.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWdVwt2deY4
Yes and no.
The problem lies in defining “a particular kind of unpleasant manner.” Often what is considered acceptable behavior for one gender (male) is perceived as “unpleasant” when expressed by the other. Female leaders (think Hilary Clinton here) have often been subjected to this.
Thus, the term “bitch” is often used as a weapon – it’s designed to “police” women’s behavior.
“If I and quite a few other people tell you, that words like bitch, cunt and twat are sexist and do indeed disparage women, why do you insist that they only mean what you mean by them?”
Well that cuts both ways, doesn’t it? This is complicated by the fact that ‘twat’ and ‘cunt’ seem to have a significantly different use on either side of the Atlantic, but meanings cannot be decided by any particular group, can they? Words mean what they are used to mean.
“A hypothetical situation: All the people in the room think those words are sexist. Would you still use them and demand people don’t take them as sexist terms?”
Let me send that one back to you: all the people in the room think the words are harmless: would you still insist etc?
“In case you haven’t noticed, Jay-Z is black. When it comes to racist epithets and their meaning, that makes all the difference.”
Why and how? We agree that sexist epithets may still be sexist used by women, why does the same not follow (mutatis mutandis) for racist epithets?
“You don’t get to call people niggers or even niggaz even if Jay-Z does. Unless you want to sound racist.”
Well, again, that depends. There is at least one well known white person in thee UK who describes his black friends in public as ‘niggaz’ without any suggestion off racist intent. That’s because he is using a different word from ‘niggers’ even though they sound exactly the same and are drawn from the same root.
“The problem lies in defining “a particular kind of unpleasant manner.” Often what is considered acceptable behavior for one gender (male) is perceived as “unpleasant” when expressed by the other.”
That’s true, but I don’t see how it figures in this debate. If a man calls a woman a ‘bitch’ he is seeking to denigrate her, but not from the simple fact of her being a woman, but because he thinks of her as certain kind of woman. That is not sexist, although it may be malicious. Women use the word in precisely the same way, of course. Very often, it is not even a very strong insult, almost no insult at all. I frequently hear men and women say something like ‘she’s lovely but a bit of a bitch’. It means that she can be cruelly waspish, usually.
“Thus, the term “bitch” is often used as a weapon – it’s designed to “police” women’s behavior.“”
Again I agree, but I don’t see the relevance. All insults are used like this, aren’t they? Whether aimed at men or women unless they are just being used as outbursts or as a means to hurt.
Words, style, content. I’d take the inverse order on that.
Really my own preference is that everybody writes well-articulated thoughts that could be, without so much as a modification, be printed in a quality academic journal.
I do not care for insults of any kind and someone has to seriously pile on me for me to shoot one off.
But that said, that is me. I realize that there are different modes of discourse and for some, saying straight up if they think someone is being an idiot, a nasty idiot, etc is just fine at the first opportunity, and some of the “genitalia ” and “body-part” insults are basically just extremized code for these.
If we call someone a “swine” we don’t literally mean that they are, we mean a connotation. The genitalia versions are sexist, because they often do underline a notion of stereotype that is carried alone in the connotation. But their use is not always sexist, in that I have seen both men and women being called all sorts of genitalia, and certainly Phil’s don’t be a dick talk was not solely meant to target guys.
But yes, we can try to split the difference. Someone who is mean-spirited and mean could be described in less words as “asshole”. Is that difference in formulation critical?
Well to me, content comes first. If the person in question indeed is mean-spirited and mean, I do not particularly care how precisely that sentiment is expressed, or more precisely I care far less about the how, if the what is accurate enough. The other way around is not the case. Throwing around invectives simply to mess with people, without content or counter to content, that is a much bigger problem for me, and there is plenty of that around. Calling people names simply because you can and because it helps divert the conversation is a staple of verbal bullying and trolling, that is frankly quite rampant.
I know people who have expressed great ideas but couldn’t hold the curse words. And I hear people say the most insulting and offensive things in polished, polite language. Frankly, the latter is way worse. It’s easy to criticize surface language. And to hide ones insults behind polish is often used to in turn attack those who criticize it, trying to paint them as rude (Gnu atheism much?). Content and context.
If a good friend of mine would tell me: “Don’t be such a twat.” I sure know what it means. And it’s actually not even an insult.
Words, shmords. It’s what you say that has primacy.
@Elly
That’s kind of what I thought. I hate when people do that.
My dad does it sometimes (usually not on gender issues, although it has happened in that context at least once), and it drives my Mom and I bonkers. On the one hand, it’s helped both of us hone our debating skills, but on the other, my dad sometimes refuses to see the other side because he’s so concerned with being rational. And, of course, whatever he deems rational is what’s rational (or logical), even when he isn’t being rational at all. In the past year, I’ve started calling him out on it. I’m not sure it’s changed him, but it makes me feel better to call a spade a spade.
Wrong. If he is applying a gender “filter” to his interpretation of her behavior, then it is sexist.
This is why I brought up female leaders in general, and Hilary Clinton in particular. See: http://blog.cleveland.com/lifestyles/2008/03/_httpblogclevelandcompdextra20_1.html for one example of how this affects women in leadership roles.
@Torquil
So why is it an insult to “men” then?
James, don’t worry, I’m not ruling you out.
Tim Martin, I haven’t checked for comments held for approval yet.
Godless Heathen,
I recognize that. I must confess to having behaved that way in the past. The problems often seems to be a blindness in particular situation to the possibility that different persons can have different values, different goals or different priorities among shared values and/or goals. Often enough the personal values can be so internalized one doesn’t recognize that they are the base that drives everything. They are experienced as so basic that they sometimes are seen as as obvious as gravity. And if you start questioning bravity you can’t be rational.
Because of differences in how women and racial minorities relate to members of their respective groups.
As I noted back at #170, racist and sexist epithets are legacies from a not-so-very-long-ago time when the target was socially and legally designated as “inferior.” Thus, a white person calling a black person “nigger” is offensive; whereas a black person calling another black person “nigger” (or some variant) is doing so ironically (for lack of a better word – I’m not particularly comfortable speaking for people whose experience of the world is different from mine). There’s a shared history there, so the term is not malicious – most of the members of the group found strength in unity. Sure, there were (and are) some sellouts, but in general, what helped the group to make progress also helped the individual make progress.
It’s more complicated with women, since the majority of straight women have male family members, friends and lovers whose sexism (or anti-sexism, for that matter), will influence her thinking. And many women experience individual success by catering to sexist expectations and attitudes. Thus, they have incentives to perpetuate sexism; more so than racial minorities have to perpetuate racism.
@Elly,
I totally understand the shortening names thing. I’m Laurence, not Larry. I don’t like to be called Larry. And if you call me that after I’ve told you not too, then you’re being a jerk.
Tim, your comment is posted. Your bad luck to include a couple of links just after I’d left; sorry.
It doesn’t cut both ways. You either use those terms or you don’t. If you don’t, you don’t risk appearing sexist and as someone who gladly ignores the fact that those terms can possibly be taken as disparaging to women. If you use them, you have to keep explaining why other people are wrong about them and you are right. So why risk it? Really?
Racist epithets can certainly be racist if used by black people to insult other black people. If a black person were to call another black person “stupid nigger” there would certainly be a contempt of black people going on there. You don’t hear that much though. But I can tell you, hearing a woman call another woman “silly little twat” makes me cringe.
In general, people who are not in the recieving and of sexist/racist/homophobic slurs or have their group identity used as an insult (calling a man cunt/pussy/bitch) don’t get to tell those in the receiving and how to feel about it.
We weren’t really talking about term of endearment among friends. We were talking about insults and you insisting on using sexist epithets as insults.
Words are what you say. What you say consists of words.
One thing it’s worth knowing about the use of “nigger” by blacks is that it in fact is a substantive pejorative. I think I learned that via Henry Louis Gates, or maybe it was Nicholas Lemann’s The Promised Land – or maybe it was both. At any rate, in the past, at least, “nigger” was a kind of class term – meaning much the same as lumpenproletariat (she says, realizing she ought to look up “lumpenproletariat” to make sure she knows what it means, but not taking the time right now). It meant no account, idle, shiftless, irresponsible, likely to be criminal. I don’t know if it’s still used that way or not – or if it has “issues” exactly like the ones to do with “bitch” used by women – if “PC” black people avoid that usage like the plague while more conservative and/or anti-“PC” rebels cheerily use it.
“Wrong. If he is applying a gender “filter” to his interpretation of her behavior, then it is sexist.”
Why? It doesn’t follow for men. If I describe a man as an ‘oaf’ or a ‘redneck’ or a ‘neanderthal’ or a ‘gorilla’ etc, etc, I am denigrating him for exhibiting a certain kind of behaviour that is socially designated as being especially male (although it is not in fact limited to men). That is gender specific but not sexist because men really do behave in those negative ways, as do women when we describe them as ‘bitches’ etc. We might not all agree that those behaviours deserve to be disparaged, but then we won’t all agree about anything.
It becomes sexist, to my mind, only when the disparaging word is used to designate women simply as women, for example, ‘there were two men and two bitches in the car’ . In that case, a specific woman isn’t being denigrated for a specific behaviour, but women in general are being treated with contempt.
@Laurence:
Thanks for letting me know. The lesson I learned from that incident was to ask – or else use the full/formal name of the person I’m introduced to, until given permission to do otherwise.
Ophelia, there are so many accounts of the use of ‘nigger’ and attempts to explain the complexities that we probably will never agree on the whole story, but you seem to have described the Chris Rock version of ‘nigger’. I think that bears out my distinction. Chris Rock was trying to legitimise the word (comedically) by distinguishing between black people in general and black individuals who exhibit specific behaviours.
When hip hoppers use ‘nigga’ though, it does not carry negative connotations but means something like ‘comrade’ usually, or, something like what ‘friend of ours’ means in the cosa nostra.
Elly all the way back at 195 –
Yes but. We have to be cautious about that, because it’s so difficult to limit. (I suppose that’s a slippery slope argument, sigh…) You get Leon Kass and the argument from Yuk. Lots of things are intuitively repellent (to some) that we don’t want to veto – homosexuality for instance.
But it’s also true that expecting all emotional reactions to be “rational” is absurd and often oppressive. Like here. I don’t claim that my reaction to (as opposed to my thoughts about) being called a bitch or a cunt are “rational” – I just claim that they’re not irrational.
“So why is [cunt] an insult to “men” then?”
It will sound flippant but it isn’t to reply: because that is how that word is used. It is quite common in many languages to use the words for genitalia as insults. After all, there are many, many more words of insult drawn from the male genitalia than from the female, all of them demeaning.
Torquil, what elements of bitchy behavior are especially female, exactly? Is it simply because the definition of bitch *is* ‘a disagreeable/strident/whiny/whatever female’? A *female* dog? what? Because there is no parallel in the definitions of ‘oaf’, ‘redneck’ ‘neanderthal’ or ‘gorilla’.
“Torquil, what elements of bitchy behavior are especially female, exactly? Is it simply because the definition of bitch *is* ‘a disagreeable/strident/whiny/whatever female’?”
None of them, but then no elements of oafish behaviour are specifically male, or limited to men and yet it seems strange to call a woman an ‘oaf’. That’s because words mean what they are used to mean. Actually, it is quite common for men these days (in the UK at least) to be described as bitches or as bitchy to mean that they are waspishly critical of others, which is one limit of how the word is applied to women. But if I said that ‘he is a bitch’ it would not impugn his masculinity.
Argument from popularity? Sexism and Racism have enjoyed free reign over many cultures throughout most of our history. Not really a good selling point, if you ask me.
All of them? You’ve got some serious balls to be saying that kind of thing around here.
Thanks Ophelia. I was thinking primarily of the term’s use in comedy and music, but it’s a great point. Like I said above, I’m not real comfortable speaking for the experience of others in this – I know I still have a lot of learning to do.
@Tim #173:
FWIW, I personally find “dick” problematic — though I’m not clear on what’s being meant by comparing someone to a penis. Perhaps: a stupid thing that’s always trying to intrude where it’s not wanted?
I’m not sure what your point is re “bastard” (an epithet I’ll confess to liking). As discussed upthread, it seems to have been successfully cut free from its origin, and anyway natal illegitimacy has lost most of its stigma (hell — I rarely even hear the term “illegitimate child” any more!). Or if you mean, as a masculine epithet: yes, it seems to used only at men, but it is not a word that pertains to men as a group (unlike “cunt” or “bitch” which in their plain sense are female-defining words).
Your reference to “douchebag” tangentially brings in a theme which I don’t think has been addressed in this thread: bodily hygiene. ISTM we have a bit of an ambiguous relationship to our genitalia because of their anatomical linkage to excretory functions, the fact that they are openings into the slimy interior of the body, and require ablutionary attention if they’re not to become, well, literally smelly and disgusting. So I suspect that’s part of the impetus for them being appropriated as nouns of insult, along with sexual anxieties and gender-status themes.
(Though I find it interesting in the context of this discussion that an item of feminine hygiene is an insult, but I’ve never heard anyone called “used toilet paper”, or synonyms thereof.)
Yes, you’re correct as far as that goes: word meaning is defined by the community of usage, and what seems to be happening here is two factions of a community (what I’ll call the “skeptical/atheist community) are disagreeing on what certain words should be taken as meaning (somewhat complicated by being overlain by other community divisions due to geography and social class). My opinion is that the views of those objecting to these words should be given precedence. There’s a history here that cannot be blithely cancelled out by pointing to the truism that words, reductionistically, are arbitrary symbols.
“All of them? You’ve got some serious balls to be saying that kind of thing around here”
Ha! But it doesn’t quite work because if you describe something (not someone, oddly) as ‘balls’ (rather than having balls) it is denigratory, isn’t it?
The argument isn’t ‘because this is often done it is all right’ it is something like ‘if male genitalia is used to disparage people (mostly men) as routinely as female genitalia that at least weakens the argument that using female genitalia as an insult implies contempt for or hatred of women’.
“Though I find it interesting in the context of this discussion that an item of feminine hygiene is an insult, but I’ve never heard anyone called “used toilet paper”, or synonyms thereof.”
‘Arsewipe’ (or ‘asswipe’).
It really does depend. I know more then a few non blacks (hispanics to be specific) who do it amongst each other and use it the same way you might use ‘guy.’ It’s never ironic and I don’t think history is ever factored into their thinking. It’s just how everyone spoke where they grew up so that’s how they speak. They still get when it would be wrong to call someone nigga (me for example) and I’ve never seen them use it in a way that would denote disrespect.
Which is why I don’t get why bitches would be less sexist when used by a woman. If a black man were to say nigger (“You ain’t nothing but a nigga so quit actin like you better than us”) as a way to put another black man in his place, everyone would understand he was using the word’s racial history to wound the person he was speaking to. Nigga would lose any sign of camaraderie and become the slur it was original meant to be.
I don’t think the example I used is exactly the same as calling a woman a bitch but they seem close enough for me to at least be suspicious of a claim that a woman (by virtue of being a woman) couldn’t echo or be guilty of using sexist language.
Kinda sidetracked myself a bit there.
Ophelia – yes, I got called on that by C. Mason Taylor (#196) – and it’s a solid point. My clarification is at #214 – although I’m sure it’s imperfect, too. Trouble with blog comments is that the medium isn’t favorable to deep thoughts/analysis.
“It really does depend. I know more then a few non blacks (hispanics to be specific) who do it amongst each other and use it the same way you might use ‘guy.’2
Yes, I have been told (but not actually witnessed it myself) that white London gang members have taken to calling each other ‘nigger’, which, if true, is interesting.
<blockquote>The argument isn’t ‘because this is often done it is all right’ it is something like ‘if male genitalia is used to disparage people (mostly men) as routinely as female genitalia that at least weakens the argument that using female genitalia as an insult implies contempt for or hatred of women’.</blockquote>
Only if you start with the premise of equality, i.e that there is nothing ‘lesser’ or ‘inferior about women as compared to men, which obviously, has not been true for long in a global sense, and still *isn’t* true, that is, is not believed to be true, by significant numbers of people today.
‘nigger’ is worse than ‘honkey’ or ‘cracker’ because of the entrenched class differential. Until very, very recently in US history, the trashiest white trash no’count was still considered superior to a black man, no matter how well-educated or employed, etc. There is a similar comparison to be made with identity insults of any stripe.
@249: D’oh!
I hereby withdraw the parenthetical remark.
Elly (@ 251) – yes but on the other hand blog comments (at best) can be favorable to learning on the fly, so to speak. They can inform more leisurely deep thoughts/analysis.
“Ironically” wasn’t an ideal word choice… just the best one I could come up with at that particular moment to describe non-hostile use. Nonetheless, it’s a clear sign that I’m getting in over my head. ;-)
In general, I don’t think it is less sexist, although as I mentioned waaaaay back up at #70 – there are clearly some women who see it as a complimentary term. I don’t think it works (it doesn’t for me, at any rate), but time will tell.
“There is a similar comparison to be made with identity insults of any stripe.”
Yes, but I am arguing that ‘bitch’ is not an identity insult at all in its most common usage. The same is true of ‘cunt’ and ”twat’ in the UK, although it seems that this is different in the US. If I say, ‘I hate working with Kathleen because she is a bitch’, meaning she is a vindictive woman, that is not sexist in my view. If I say ‘I hate working with Kathleen because she is a bitch’, meaning because she is a woman (although nobody in the UK would understand that meaning without prompting) that is sexist.
Like #254 – we’ve made progress! There really is a dirty toilet-paper epithet.
Heehee.
I like this thread.
A quick question for the Americans on here: if I said ‘I can’t stand Bill, he’s such a cunt’, would you understand that I thought him generally unpleasant/mean/vindictive or effeminate?
Torquil @ 257 –
This is maybe where not necessarily rational but not irrational “feeling” comes into play. I totally disagree that ‘I hate working with Kathleen because she is a bitch’ can (at this stage of history) possibly be non-sexist – and I also think that my feeling about that trumps yours. That’s because you could after all just say “because she is vindictive”; you don’t need to say “because she is a bitch”; you don’t lose anything, but (I’m claiming) women do. If workplaces are full of people saying “Kathleen is a bitch” then those workplaces are (not even very subtly) hostile environments for women.
I guess I would ask you why Kathleen’s gender had anything to do with why you disliked working with her. Your choice of ‘bitch’ to describe her, over things that would be more specifically descriptive of her behavior (e.g. ‘disagreeable’, ‘whiny’, ‘humorless’, etc.) suggests that her femaleness contributes something to your opinion of her as a coworker. I don’t think it’s possible to separate the female identity from that term, and thus not possible to defuse the sexist overtones of using it, in any context.
Torquil, to answer your question – I would first of all understand that you thought him someone who should be called smelly female genitalia; then that he’s nasty. Effeminate wouldn’t come into it at all.
I can’t really think of an example for that except dick. (Balls is sort of the equivalent of bullshit in the uses I’ve heard.) Pussy and cunt remain the go to body parts, especially when you want to insult someone or imply weakness and frailty. Dick is more often associated with surly or obnoxious (which is a widely held male stereotype, I think.)
Balls though, still remains the compliment of choice is you wish to give credit to someone’s mettle or fortitude, traits almost exclusively associated with manliness. I still haven’t heard a female equivalent.
I desperately want to roll my eyes and say posers but I can’t stop laughing. If I’m ever in London, definitely one of the sights to see.
Ophelia beat me to it. #261 was a reply to Torquil’s @257.
Re: Torquil’s @259,
This term for a woman’s body part is being used as a synonym for vindictive/mean/idiotic, etc. and you don’t see where others get a sexist overtone from that?
What Ophelia said. And it makes you sound sexist because it seems that you judge women on different criteria than men.
“That’s because you could after all just say “because she is vindictive”; you don’t need to say “because she is a bitch”; you don’t lose anything”
I lose the strength of feeling: she is like this and I hate her for it. You might equally say ‘I hate working for Bill because he is such a dickhead’. I needn’t use the epithet but it communicates something extra than if I just said he was foolish.
If I am suffering from a vindictive woman boss and wish to vent, what terms are available?
Well, I hate working for Bill because he’s a fucking asshole. Am I any less frustrated than you are because I didn’t drag his gender into it?
what the fuck does her gender have to do with it??
Christ on a pony, man, think of the drywall!
“This term for a woman’s body part is being used as a synonym for vindictive/mean/idiotic, etc. and you don’t see where others get a sexist overtone from that?”
Well, no, precisely because ALL terms for genitalia, male as well as female (many more male than female, I think) are used in this way.
There aren’t any. This is frustrating. I feel the frustration myself. I don’t even use the damn words when there’s no one else within hearing, any more, but there are pitches of rage when I want to. So I know what you mean. But there aren’t any.
Are there any terms for a vindictive man boss that have anything like the satisfying bite of “bitch”? I sure as hell don’t know of any, and believe me I’ve tried.
“what the fuck does her gender have to do with it??”
It limits the number of abusive terms that it is possible to direct at her.
But why? Why can’t she be an asshole too? Or a bloody, festering, running sore? Or a dirty toe rag? Use your imagination, dude!
I should add that I’ve never even wanted to call anyone a cunt, no matter what the pitch of rage. I hate that word.
“But why? Why can’t she be an asshole too? Or a bloody, festering, running sore? Or a dirty toe rag? Use your imagination, dude!”
Because we have to use words the way they are used. Not that means you should use these words, it just explains something about why we do.
I don’t use ‘cunt’ much either Ophelia, but come the man, come the epithet (this word can only be used about men in the UK, remember).
“Are there any terms for a vindictive man boss that have anything like the satisfying bite of “bitch”? I sure as hell don’t know of any, and believe me I’ve tried.”
Actually, ‘cunt’ is probably the one, unfortunately for me. Although ‘wanker’ in the UK pretty much does the job too (a useful word because it can carry just about every level of intensity).
Torquil:
Like Julian, I’m drawing a bit of a blank as to the ‘many more’ you are referring to here. ‘Dick’ & ‘Prick’ are pretty insulting, I agree. What else is there?
And re:
Replace ‘woman’ with ‘black’ or ‘middle eastern’. What terms are available to you then?
“Like Julian, I’m drawing a bit of a blank as to the ‘many more’ you are referring to here. ‘Dick’ & ‘Prick’ are pretty insulting, I agree. What else is there?”
From the top of my head: dickhead, nob, bellend, ballsack, plonker …
“Replace ‘woman’ with ‘black’ or ‘middle eastern’. What terms are available to you then?”
All the terms that are available for any other man or woman.
Elly’s comment @ 214 is related to a thought I had earlier today, which has to do with where this disagreement with Russell came from – the one that he calls a witch hunt. I can see why he doesn’t like it, so I can see why he’s so angry at me (up to a point…), but his comments were in public, so I don’t really think it’s a crime to discuss them in public.
The thought I had (and god knows it’s obvious) is that it just doesn’t work to do what he did, which is to take either a jokey tone or a lofty “let’s discuss this dispassionately” tone about this particular subject when you are not yourself the object of the epithets (or putative epithets) in question.
Well, that’s already too general, I suppose, because we’re doing it here – white people talking about the use of “nigger.” But we’re doing it very cautiously and with a lot of hedging, and after hundreds of preceding comments about epithets and how they work.
It’s just a mug’s game, that’s all. A doomed enterprise. It always was.
And that’s not because feminists are crazy, or because Americans are crazy. It’s because this kind of thing is loaded. It’s very, very loaded. That’s why comedians work with it – because it’s so loaded. But they are professionals! Don’t try this at home. Don’t be David Brent, don’t be Michael Scott.
Maybe it’s way different in Australia. Maybe they’re so evolved that this subject isn’t even loaded any more. But here in the US, at least, it is. Ok so we can cut people from Australia some slack. Fair enough. But they can cut us some, too…
Ophelia,
“Are there any terms for a vindictive man boss that have anything like the satisfying bite of “bitch”?”
“Bastard” would be the one used, at least in my neck of the woods. In general, those two terms mean about the same thing but are just gender specific.
Really? What an extraordinary rule. Does everyone adhere to this?
Who is ‘we’? And why do we have to? Can’t ‘we’ decide that, as much as we love our favorite insults, it might be worth our time and effort to find alternatives that won’t inadvertently sully a whole group of people we didn’t really mean to insult? How many individual complaints of “it denigrates all women when people use the word ‘cunt’ as an insult” would it take before it matters enough to buck the trend?
It sounds like a variation on the argument from popularity again–everyone’s doing it, I don’t mean anything bad by it, I like using these words to vent, therefore there’s no problem. This seems to be the state of things, not just in Torquil-dom, but pretty much everywhere.
You like your puns, don’t you?
One of the biggest points being argued here is that the sensitivity(? def wrong word) we show races should be extended to the sexes. Since we wouldn’t insult or demean someone because of their race (and would likely suspect at least some unconscious racism on the part of someone who would) we shouldn’t do the same based on their gender or sex (and it isn’t unreasonable to suspect at least some unconscious sexism in those that frequently do.)
Melissa McKuen at Shakesville had (I thought) a great way of articulating her frustration with a related sort of “analytical” approach:
Obviously, I don’t think he (or men like him) see this as a “fun” mental exercise… at an intellectual level, I think they do get it. But my point was that he doesn’t feel it… so the fact that other women (*cough* erv *cough*) happily engage in (or turn a blind eye to) the use of such epithets, it leads him to think that there must be a “nuanced” debate to be had on the subject.
Sorry, that’s Melissa McEwan… my bad.
“Really? What an extraordinary rule. Does everyone adhere to this?”
I think it is a pretty firm rule, yes. I have never heard a woman called a ‘cunt’ anyhow and it would sound very strange. I don’t think it is so extraordinary, though, I think the rule for ‘pussy’ in the US is similar, no?
yes, and importantly, we’re doing it with the acknowledgement (as in the Kennedy quote at # 202) that it’s STILL a loaded word, that context matters tremendously, and that the conditions of its use within the black community are far from unanimously agreed upon. Sure, we can cite examples of its use as a synonym for ‘paisan’ or whatever, and talk about the merits of reclaiming and repurposing such terms. None of that changes the fact that many people alive in the US today remember when it was used broadly and specifically to insult people on racial grounds. Nor that it is still used in such a way, somewhat more clandestinely, but with no discernible discomfiture. There are more than a few people in the US who will still use the term outright in unambiguously racist discussions. There are still more people (largely in the Southern states) who purposely pronounce ‘negro’ (already on thin ice, in terms of cultural acceptability) as ‘nigra’ in such a way that it sounds pretty darn close to ‘nigger’, but they can plead legitimacy by explaining that it’s just their dialect that made it sound that way.
This word isn’t getting unloaded any time soon, and it has the benefit, at this point in history, of mainstream cultural condemnation limiting its use. I can’t see that happening for the female identity slurs anytime soon.
We actually have had such a “nuanced” debate on the subject in the past. Russell even changed his mind about the way “bitch” works, and decided to stop using it. I think he even thanked me (or said he was glad, or something like that) for bringing it up. So I wanted to cut him some slack on this…but it became too difficult.
Which ought not to be that hard to understand. That’s what I don’t get. That’s the whole point of insults – to make people crazy. It’s asking way too much (Just Al to the contrary notwithstanding) to expect people to rise serenely above deliberate taunting personal insults. I can’t do it; I don’t claim to be able to do it; I don’t particularly want to be able to do it. What I want is to be equally (or almost equally) unable to rise serenely above insults to people in other groups. I want to take all identity-epithets personally, and I think I pretty much do.
Exactly – and for the last part, it’s going in the opposite direction. Female identity slurs are getting more and more normalized and mainstream-approved.
Time marches on; it’s time to start the dialogue. I’ve decided to give the job to James Sweet.
Fair enough. I hope it’s a productive discussion.
Sorry to disappoint, Allan.
I hate this part! : (
Torquil @284:
By and large, yes, men are more frequently called ‘pussies’ than women, when the term is used to denote weakness or frailty. But it’s the feminizing power of the word that gives it the impact as a synonym for weakness and frailty in the first place–other, less vulgar synonyms, such as ‘woman’ or ‘girl’ work just as well in this capacity. Ergo, calling a woman a pussy would be redundant, because she’s already weak and frail by definition.
Women are often called ‘pussy’ under different circumstances, as in “I’m looking for some pussy tonight”. One assumes that the speaker is not in fact seeking disembodied genitalia*, but instead voicing a wish to find a sexual partner, so ‘pussy’, again, is synonymous with ‘woman’–clearly the most interesting part of a woman from the speaker’s perspective. Point being, you can’t uncouple the words from their literal meanings. It doesn’t matter if you don’t mean them that way. That’s what they mean.
*Although in some cases that would clearly be the preference, hence the delightfully funny riddle:
Q: What’s a woman? A: A life support system for a pussy.
Ophelia,
No worries. If I feel energetic, I’ll just do a blog post on it. Tonight, however, I don’t feel that energetic [grin].
@Eamon #247 and people in general: You said that this argument was about “choosing insults against a particular person that just happen to be denigrating to an entire group.” Also, “you can’t use a word that refers, in its literal sense, to group X as an epithet without thereby implying that X has some bad quality — or else, how does it work as an insult?”
This is an untenable position. How can we falsify the hypothesis that every utterance of “twat” is 1) an insult to all women, and 2) is insulting specifically because it says women are inferior to non-women?
I would think that the existence of significant numbers of people who use “twat” to insult single individuals, and not all women, would be evidence against this hypothesis.
I would think that women using “twat” as an insult would be evidence against this hypothesis, unless there were some evidence that they meant to also insult themselves.
I would think the fact that it is possible to use and understand a word like “twat” as an insult without even knowing its literal meaning would be strong evidence against this hypothesis.
I would think that the existence of words like “dick” and “bastard” and “stupid” and “lame*,” which “refer in their literal senses to specific groups” yet do not rile people up as much as words like “cunt” and “twat,” would be evidence against this hypothesis.
Eamon, you cannot say, as you do above, that “bastard has been cut free from its origin” if other words cannot also be cut free from their origin. And if they can, how do you determine which words have and which haven’t?
By usage, of course. That’s where the evidence comes from. Except the evidence is flat-out against the hypothesis that “twat” refers to all women and it means that all women are inferior.
Ophelia and certain others seem to take the meaning this way. I do not argue that these words have that meaning to them. However, it is unacceptable therefore to conclude that this is what it must mean to everyone. It would be wrong to say that “Paki” is as bad an insult in the US as in other parts of the world. It would be wrong to say that “cunt” or “spaz” have the same degree of insult or vulgarity in the US and the UK – the data is clear on that (see my comment at #192). Linguistic groups differ in the meanings and strengths they assign to the same patterns of sound.
Eamon, in the end you write as if you agree with this, despite it contradicting what you said earlier at #171.
Well, one slight nitpick. It’s not about what the words should mean. It’s about what they do mean, as evidenced by millions of English users around the globe. But yes, the point is that people disagree in the meaning or the strength of these insults.
I would be happy to agree with others just on this, without even getting to the topic of what to do from here. I say this because a number of people seem to be arguing for the “untenable position” I outlined above, and there’s simply no evidence for it.
*With ‘stupid’ and ‘lame’ I am referring to uses such as “That’s so lame” or “That’s stupid.” The problem here, according to those who subscribe to the Etymological Fallacy, is that the speaker is implying that there is something bad about stupid people, and handicapped people.
Hmm… I wasn’t clear on one thing in my comment above. Let me rewrite the 3rd-to-last paragraph:
Well, one slight nitpick. It’s not about what the words should mean. It’s about what they do mean, as evidenced by millions of English users around the globe. But yes, the point is that people *have learned different meanings and degrees of insult* for the same words, and thus they do not agree about what these words mean or connote.
But I don’t. I’ve said – several times, I think – that I realize “twat” is used differently in the UK and Au/NZ from the way it’s used in the US (and Canada?). On the other hand it’s also the case that some people even in the UK and Australia (I don’t know about NZ) realize it (originally) means female genitalia, and some of those think it’s a sexist epithet.
I don’t say that’s what it must mean to everyone. On the other hand I do say that when it’s pointed out to people that it is indeed a sexist epithet (and pretty strong insult) in the US, if they write on the intertubes, they should take that into account. I wouldn’t use “Paki” online (or offline, for that matter, because it’s really not even a word outside the UK, so its only meaning is insulting); I wouldn’t say it’s not racist in the US so I’m just going to use it in a global medium.
I have only skimmed through, but there’s actually been some awesome discussion in here. Much I’d like to cherry pick and comment on. Either way, kudos, and I shall be going back to digest some of the longer back and forths later.
Looking forward to the debate.
FWIW, I’ve only ever heard, as far as I remember, twat from brits and/or british telly, and/or an aussie doing a brit impersonation.
Certainly in the circles I’ve moved in, which have included liberal use of swearing, it hasn’t been popular.
(I didn’t actually know it referred to a woman’s genitalia until this topic came up, tbh.)
How so?
Take white for example. I could use white to insult a single individual (‘That’s sooo white.’ ‘Dude, you’re fucking white.’ ‘Quit acting so white.’) and only aim to insult that singe individual but the insult doesn’t work unless ‘white’ is something bad and wrong that you should aspire not to be.
Unless I’m reading you wrong, you’re assuming women are by default free of any kind of sexist thinking and could not be guilty of acting against women’s best interest. I would point you to Michelle Bachman and several outspoken religious woman who make it very obvious a set of ovaries does not a feminist make.
I think you’re error here comes from misstating what Eamon said. He isn’t trying to make the point for “every utterance of “twat”.”
@Ophelia #295: Sorry! I never was able to ascertain *exactly* what your argument was, so apologies if I make mistakes.
But… when you say that “twat” is a sexist epithet, do you not mean that it insults women *in general?* Because the very thing I’m arguing against is the idea that because some people may use it that way, that all people do, or that all people must take it that way.
@297: Indeed, I’d never heard “twat” until a visit to England when I was 17 (and even then it was a couple of weeks before I discovered it didn’t just mean “stupid”). I think I’ve rarely heard it spoken in Canada (though I’ve worked in a pretty cuss-free environment for the past 10 years).
@298: According to my very limited exposure, the use of “white” as an insult is ironic. Saying “That’s mighty white of you” is either a compliment on the target’s generosity, or an insult indicating the generosity was done in a condescending manner that preserves the target’s privilege. In either case, it doesn’t seem to be saying something about all white people. Of course, being melanin-challenged myself, I think I’m allowed to use it ;-).
Tim, is your point just the obvious one that if X has no idea that “twat” means anything other than “fool” then X is not using it as a sexist epithet? Because I realize that.
What does this mean?
“Another condition: I have editorial control.”
Conditional dialectic luv is sweet, isn’t it? Especially when the condition is one way trust/power relationships that end when the person in power decides they end. That is kind of um…so paternalistic.
[clump clump clump…the sound of 99.9% of thinking men running from the dialogue]
Hey, I’m part of the non-sissy group, which is 0.1% of thinking men! Wooohoo, elitism at long last!
I love it when I make a long argument and have a throw-away line somewhere. Then all I get as a response is a quote of that throw-away line and some trivial reaction to just that line that does not at all engage with the actual argument I made. Yep that’s precisely what happened here.
But no, words are not what we say and yes what we say consists of words, trivially I might add. But meaning derives from what words do, to channel Austin and deSaussure. And what they do is what matters, not what they are. One and the same word can do many things. We do meaning injustice if all we see are the words that are said.
Hitch is certainly right, in the sense that he’s repeating the discussion we had above about the distinction between speaker’s meaning and semantic (conventional) meaning. There are ‘insults’ and then there are insults.
Though speaker’s meaning and semantic meaning are also obviously connected. If you use your words in a regular way, and have those habits catch on, then a few generations later your community might experience a change in semantic meaning. That’s how the LGBT community re-appropriated the word “queer”. And sometimes, use doesn’t get to depart very far from semantic meaning — for instance, between strangers. That’s because, in the event that there’s a difference between semantic meaning and speaker’s meaning, only trust and charity will allow the listener to figure out what is intended.
While that’s an important observation about epithets, it doesn’t make any sense of the burning hellscape over at ERV. People are intentionally engaged in a kind of trust-breaking.
@Ophelia: Not just that. My point is that one can be aware of other meanings of a word and still only invoke one meaning at a time.
Perhaps you’re not thinking that “an insult” is a standalone meaning for a word to have? “Hello,” though the word certainly came from somewhere, is a word that you say when you greet someone. “God bless you” is something you say when someone sneezes (I say it, and I’m an atheist), and the literal meaning of asking god to bless someone does not apply. “Goodbye” is a word you say as a valediction (and it comes, incidentally, from the slurring of ‘god be with ye’).
Point being, the *insult* meaning of “twat” or “douche” or “dick” can exist and be invoked and/or felt separately from any other meanings.
I admit that this idea of separation is complicated. I’m told that the reason older generations object to my use of “awesome” to describe trivial things is that they still hear the “awe” in “awesome” – to them it sounds like word inflation to describe a pizza as awesome. I can hear it that way too, if I try, but for the most part my brain goes with the associations it’s learned through (let’s say) thousands of speakers in my generation.
Similarly, I think that it might be easier to hear the genitalia in “twat” than it is to hear the female dog in “bitch,” or easier to hear the genitalia in “cunt” than to hear it in “dick.” This would be a result of history and usage. But my point is that there are some people (perhaps younger people, or just people who have used these epithets a lot?) for whom the literal meaning is silent enough that it is irrelevant to the insult. My mom once called me a son of a bitch – I’m pretty sure the literal meaning was completely irrelevant then.
So if you’re trying to say that people who don’t know the literal meanings aren’t being sexist, whereas people who do know them are, I don’t see how you support that conclusion. If I am one of the English speakers who distantly associates ‘twat the genital’ with ‘twat the insult,’ and I use twat as an insult, I am not thinking of genitals (just as ‘awesome’ doesn’t make me think of ‘awe,’ and ‘dick’ doesn’t make me think of penises). And even if I were thinking of genitals, it does not follow that I think women are inferior to men.
I know this is getting long, but I think one more bit will be helpful. Personally, I *do* think of the literal meaning of ‘twat’ when used in an insulting and non-jocular way (I didn’t think of it when Gervais did it, because it was pure joke.) This mediates the way I use the word. But, for a long time, I didn’t think of the literal meaning (that is, being gay) of “fag” or “faggot” when using it as an insult. I was completely familiar with that meaning, of course, but I was also familiar with using the word as a harsh insult, without reference to sexuality. This sort of thing is emanently possible, and I guarantee that if you spend much time at a middle school in America today, you’ll see it.
The problem, and I think this is what Ophelia’s point is based on, is when someone who doesn’t take the insult literally insults someone who does. In this case, was the insulter sexist? No. But the insulted sure feels bad – probably worse than what was intended. It sounds like something that needs to be talked about; I guess I’m in agreement with Ophelia on that. But that doesn’t make the insulter sexist.
@Eamon and julian: For more information on the etymology of “white of you,” see http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3179
Ben, isn’t the problem what they say. Not how they say it? Also isn’t it precisely because people disagree and those words are used against people you like or agree with, or are you, that it is a problem?
And isn’t it true that plenty of invectives are thrown around at Pharyngula, but they are the “good guys” so it’s OK? For some interesting reflection in that direction see the comment section of The Dick Delusion over there.
I think the point being that some insults can be indeed completely inappropriate, wrong, hurtful, using the full weight of negative stereotypes and sexism, and basically just an all out form of verbal abuse etc. But what makes it such is the context, not the word.
@julian #298: Julian said (emphasis mine),
Odd, then, that “douche” and “twat” work as insults even if you don’t know ‘what they are.’
You need to argue for your statement that I’ve put in bold. I don’t think you’ll be able to, as it is an untenable position. “Douchebag” stings because of the vitriol behind it. The human mind makes arbitrary associations between sound and meaning; you can listen to any word used as an insult and come to feel it as an insult regardless of what other meanings it may have. The insult does work.
That is not to say that your description cannot be true ever. If a person says “that was white of you” because they think that white people are better than other people, then they are essentially insulting all non-white people. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that via their words, they have revealed their insulting beliefs to the world. In this case, you have a point. But not in every case.
Such as the case in which “twat” (or dick, or bastard, or doodiehead) is used purely as an insult. Why is the word insulting? Because it pisses people off when you say it. Why did it become insulting? Possibly because of misogyny (I haven’t researched it). Etymology still isn’t destiny.
You’re right. If ERV called Watson a twat because ERV thinks being a woman is an insult, then ERV would certainly be insulting all women (even if she didn’t admit to it). But if she called Watson a twat because… well, because it’s a word that personally attacks another person and makes them feel bad, then it’s just the same as calling them a jerk, a dick, an asshole, a fucker, etc. (Or am I not allowed to use “fucker” as an insult because I think sex is a good thing?)
I’m not sure who said what at this point. Anyone who calls ‘twat’ sexist is making an argument for every utterance of it. That’s what I’m arguing against.
Hitch, you rightly point out that ‘context’ can involve both what is said and how it is said. Then you imply that the problem is the former, not the latter.
If it were just one or the other, then it wouldn’t be a problem for me, so long as the community was still something I could salvage some trust from. But I don’t read the comments section at ERV or Pharyngula or care about what goes on in either, because they’re obnoxious communities, in part because the obnoxiousness makes honest intelligent dialogue harder than it is worth. (And hey, none of this “good guy” or “bad guy” stuff. I’m sure they’re fine people, some of them. I just prefer to spend my time elsewhere.)
But those are not themselves the same. “Jerk” is very mild; “asshole” is less so; and so on.
You seem to be saying that “douchebag” is insulting because of onomatopoeia. But it’s not just that. It’s true that ‘d’s and ‘b’s are good for harshness; that’s part of why “bitch” is so harsh; but nonsense syllables with b and d in them aren’t every bit as insulting. “Bag” has ominous overtones even if you don’t know what “douche” means.
@Ophelia:
No no, that’s not what I’m saying at all. ‘Douchebag’ is insulting because people use it as an insult. ‘Tree’ refers to those leafy things with trunks because people use it to refer to them. ‘Hello’ is a greeting because people use it as a greeting (same thing with “what’s up” in the US or “y’alright” in the UK – despite their literal meanings as questions, they are in many instances used as informal versions of ‘hello.’)
I’m not sure if you got confused because I was talking about arbitary associations between sound and meaning, but onomatopoeia isn’t arbitrary. There are sounds that have certain effects on the human mind as a result of our neurology. But unlike the bee who is forced to communicate using non-arbitrary symbols, humans can take a sound or sounds that neurologically have nothing to do with a concept, and tie them together. Thus, the sound pattern “tree” has nothing tree-like about it (and if it did, then the Spanish word “arbol” would be a horrible imitation of it). The meaning is entirely a learned association. Learned via usage.
Same with douchebag and all the others. Douchebag, cunt, and twat are serious insults because we use them that way – when we’re really angry, when we really want to hurt someone, when our disapproval is strong (a la Takei). As you point out, jerk and asshole are more mild *because we use them more mildly.* There is no predestination here. I guarantee you that if people start using “asshole” as the worst insult they can, “asshole” will start to feel like a worse insult. It is all a matter of what associations we learn from our linguistic communities.
“if she called Watson a twat because… well, because it’s a word that personally attacks another person and makes them feel bad, then it’s just the same as calling them a jerk, a dick, an asshole, a fucker, etc.”
linky.
@Jose:
You haven’t supported those assertions, and I’ve already rebutted them. Just look at my comments in this thread.
But we aren’t talking about obscure words and we aren’t talking about cases like ‘belgium.’
We’re talking about words where the meanings are well understood by the people using them as are the associations those words come with. That’s very different from a 10 year old boy being called ‘dick jockey’ for the first time and while understanding it as an insult missing the accusation of homosexuality.
I understand the mind is perfectly capable of attaching meaning even to what would otherwise be gibberish. I get that. But when the ‘meaning’ of the word is still understood, it makes no sense to divorce it from whatever baggage it carries. ‘You’re cheap like a whore’ isn’t just a condemnation of someone’s ethics. It’s built on the assumption a whore is cheap and to be regarded with contempt otherwise it wouldn’t have been an insult to begin with. (which is probably what I should have said earlier instead of, doesn’t work.)
Maybe in the UK and elsewhere. The same is not true here in the USA, I don’t believe it’s true in the environment Ms Smith used it and it definitely isn’t true of the people she’s applying it to. And calling someone a fucker really isn’t the same as calling them a bitch, even though fucker is probably much more severe. Fucker has essentially lost all meaning besides being an expression of passionate dislike.
I think you’re the one being overly literal with language now.
@Julian: To me, you are tying yourself in knots trying to explain how your logic applies to ‘twat’ but not to ‘fucker.’ Clearly these are the two examples that we should talk about.
Fucker: It has a literal meaning. People know the literal meaning. It also has an “insult meaning” (the kind that can exist separately from the literal meaning).
Twat: It has a literal meaning. People know the literal meaning. It also has an “insult meaning” (the kind that can exist separately from the literal meaning).
Let me highlight that it is a very important piece of information that each of these words has an “insult meaning.” In Japanese, “illegitimate child” (“shiseiji”) is not an insult, at least not one that you would call a man in the street, because shiseiji has no meaning as an insult. The word ‘bastard’ in English -regardless of current mores about legitimacy- is an insult because it has an insult meaning. One of its uses is to insult. Similar is “bitch,” which has a literal meaning and an insult meaning, and the two are not one. Calling someone a ‘female dog’ (“inunomesu”) in Japanese is not an insult. They would look at you and wonder why you just called them that. Meanwhile, insults of “bitch” in English are quite separate from the literal meaning of ‘female dog.’ And I’m pretty sure that the time when my mom called me a “son of a bitch,” she didn’t mean that literally. She was pissed and was taking her anger out on me… not on herself.
The only thing we can conclude from this is that a word that describes an undesirable thing to be, but that doesn’t have an Insult Meaning, is not a word that can be easily used as an insult. And a word that does have an Insult Meaning doesn’t need a literal meaning to be an insult. And if it does have a literal meaning, interlocutors need not access that entry in their mental dictionary when insulting or being insulted.
When you say that “Fucker has essentially lost all meaning besides being an expression of passionate dislike,” what you mean is that people don’t pay much attention to the literal meaning of this Insult anymore. They know the literal meaning, but it takes a backseat to the Insult Meaning. Now, here’s the question I’ve been asking this entire thread:
What if there exist people for whom the literal meaning of ‘twat’ takes a backseat to the Insult Meaning?!
That is exactly what we’re finding here.
Tim, yes…
I’m not sure if you’ve pointed out the obvious or clarified. It’s that sleepy time of the day and I’m not unusually sharp.
#314, you have said that people can use a particular word as an insult because they use it as an insult. That’s not a rebuttal or an explanation. You can’t say things like “some people voted for candidate A because some people voted for him”, or “some people like pop music because they like pop music”.
There’s a reason why those words are insults, whether the ones using them know/care about the reason or not.
There’s no question that such people exist. So what?
Words with nasty baggage do get used innocently. See Huck Finn’s use of the word nigger. Or my long-ago Scottish boyfriend who used “cunt” the way some people use “guy”.
It’s still true that those words are (also) used to demean certain classes of people. All of the people within the class, not just the individuals to whom the word is directed at any given time. In the US, at least (not necessarily everywhere!) cunt and twat are words which have historically been used to dismiss and demean women.
They still carry that baggage. That doesn’t mean that someone ignorant of that baggage is being a “bad guy” when he uses them. But we can point out the problem to him–the problem being that using the words to insult an individual causes collateral damage.
(And I’m pretty sure erv and her cohorts are among those who are aware of the literal meaning of twat.)
Oops, I didn’t address Insult Meaning, just Innocent Meaning.
Think the point still holds, though. You want to insult someone? Call them an asshole; everybody has one.
Benyamin@304 “Hey, I’m part of the non-sissy group”
Mind if I call you בנג’מין? But you said that. Mind if I interview you?
Exactly what IS a sissy, and what does sissy mean to you? Is that a gendered epithet? Why did you use it in this context? And why did you call me a sissy, or, in the metaphor, any man that would decline to be part of a leveraged discussion?
Tim Martin:
I think the middle school “fag” and “faggot” example undermines your point more than it supports it.
When kids use “fag” and “faggot” freely as insults, how do you think that makes gay kids feel?
I think it often reinforces the idea that they are at the bottom of the status hierarchy—they’re the Others whose feelings don’t even count, such that you can compare anybody you want to insult to them, and it’s voila, it’s an insult. It appeals to the idea that fags are defective, inferior, and ridiculous, and that it’s okay to ridicule them by ridiculing other people as being like them.
Sure, a lot of gay kids recognize that many other kids are mostly just stupid inconsiderate kids, who take whatever insult is floating around and use it unthinkingly, with no particular intent to insult gay people.
But most are also well aware that other kids can only get away with that because gay kids don’t have the clout to stop them. We really do live in a homophobic society, where gay kids are bullied in school for being gay, and where a lot of other kids who aren’t anti-gay won’t stand up for them for fear of being targeted too, and a lot of teachers will not draw a firm line about homophobic insults because if they insist that gays are fine people, soem parents will complain that the fucking liberal teachers are corrupting their kids, and there damn well is something very wrong with being gay.
Gay kids are intensely aware of that. And for many, they’re reminded of it every time they hear somebody called a “fag,” or hear “that’s so gay” used to mean “that’s embarrassingly bad,” or whatever. They know it wouldn’t be happening if they were not social inferiors, irrespective of the intent of the particular speaker in the particular context.
When I was a kid, long ago, I knew a few white kids who called other white kids nigger as an insult. To them, black people—or at least prototypical “niggers” if not typical black people—were a standard category of contemptible people, at least in a shallow rhetorical sense. That made them a good thing to liken white people to, in order to express contempt.
Even if somebody does that just to appeal to a trope they don’t actually agree with, because it’s a free-floating insult for them, it’s still a racist or homophobic act. Maybe not intentionally, but still negligently.
And even if the speaker doesn’t mean to liken somebody to every black person, or a typical black person—just the bad ones, who deserve to be called “niggers,” not Michael Jordan or Bill Cosby, or the nice middle-class black family down the street—it’s still racist speech. You may not mean to demean black people generally by using “nigger” as an insult, but you nonetheless do, because it’s too blunt an instrument.
It’s like casually driving through a red light late at night without being particularly careful about whether there’s traffic coming crosswise, because you haven’t noticed anybody else out driving. You may not intend to t-bone anybody, but if you do, it’s still your fault. It’s not the same thing as intentionally ramming somebody, but it’s irresponsible, and it’s not the other person’s fault for taking offense at you t-boning them.
Sure, there are some insults that are so free-floating that the literal meaning is clearly not intended, to almost everybody. If you call somebody “a bastard,” almost nobody will think you mean it to literally compare somebody to people whose parents weren’t married, because almost nobody uses it that way anymore.
“Nigger” and “fag” are not like that. There are still lots of people who use those insults in earnest, expressing contempt for blacks and gays. There are also lots of insensitive people who don’t care if they sound like those people, and regularly remind blacks and gays of their inferior social status.
For such uses to be racist or homophobic, they don’t have to be motivated by intent to demean blacks or gays. Negligence is enough—being part of the problem, perpetuating group denigration, rather than part of the solution by refusing to say those things, and standing up for people who have good reasons not to like it.
The fact that middle-school kids do that sort of thing frequently doesn’t make it okay, even for middle schoolers. It’s not just a matter of them having a different vocabulary. Middle school is hell for a lot of kids because there are too many kids so intent on demeaning people that they’ll use whatever tools are available to demean someone, irrespective of the collateral damage.
We should be a lot better at insulting people than middle schoolers.
Benyamin again@ ” in the event that there’s a difference between semantic meaning and speaker’s meaning, only trust and charity will allow the listener to figure out what is intended. While that’s an important observation about epithets, it doesn’t make any sense of the burning hellscape over at ERV. People are intentionally engaged in a kind of trust-breaking.”
Burning hellscape? Trust BREAKING? Trust with whom–people who believe in setting arbitrary, altruistic rules? These are almost always the people who have a financial or other agenda–who derive benefit from adherence to the arbitrary.
You obviously haven’t visited that thread. But then again, you are a proponent of the leveraged discussion.
Aw, porn thinks he’s funny. You’ve got our number! That’s good, porn.
Uh oh, Ophelia–they’re onto you. Quick, quit complaining about gendered and sexual orientation and racial insults–people have figured out you’ve got a financial stake in all this!
A financial agenda! Hell yes – I’m getting rich off this.
(Actually, Abbie Smith is making money from her heightened popularity. She’s paid by the click. I’m not paid at all. Just so you know.)
Heh; cross-post, Stacy.
Jinx.
Ophelia,
I hadn’t thought about it.
Why aren’t you?
Yes and in the case of twat, part of the insult meaning is tied to gender. In the case of fucker it isn’t. The word stands alone as an insult or as a way for the speaker to add more oomph to whatever other insult he’s delivering. There’s no play on being someone who tries to screw people.
Oddly enough it still works in Spanish. Maybe it’s a European thing.
I don’t disagree. Generally speaking when someone calls you a bitch they don’t mean female dog. Likewise when they smash their figure and yell it in pain they probably aren’t invoking anything but the first curse word to come to mind.
That doesn’t mean when people say ‘You bitch’ it’s the same as saying ‘You fucker.’
For example, a drill instructor calling a recruit bitch or faggot as opposed to calling the same recruit fucker or turd. Bitch is used to remind him of his place beneath the drill instructor and to emasculate him. Fucker is not.
Probably wouldn’t word it like that but I think I agree. A bad thing doesn’t necessarily translate into a workable insult and a word can be complete gibberish and still be considered very offensive. Sure.
Hence why it has essentially lost all meaning. It’s literally a series of syllables invoked to express anger and contempt at this point. The same cannot be said of twat, bitch, cunt or a number of widely used insults.
I don’t doubt there are but that’s neither here nor there. Jew is used as synonym for cheap and fraudulent by a good many people. Nigga is used as guy by a good deal many more. That doesn’t divorce the usage from racist undertones it might carry especially when applied to the people it was meant for.
porno:
It is definitely a gendered epithet, though a very mild one. In this context, you might find that my comment contained a trace of irony. The intention, here, was to make an ironic dismissal of your pre-emptive dismissal.
(Thanks for translating my name into Hebrew. Didn’t know that’s what it looked like.)
With feminists who broadly think that people have acted inappropriately towards RW in the context of EG. I don’t know who is setting ‘arbitrary altruistic’ rules, but I also don’t know what counts as altruism or rules for you. RW said “Here’s a thing; don’t do that”, not “Here is my complete and authoritative guide to modern sexual flirtation by me, the Kommissar of Feminism, Rebecca Watson”.
That strikes me as an overreaction. This is a spat within a relatively marginal population (movement atheists). The big bucks aren’t rolling in for arguing about feminism with strangers over the internet. Not around here, anyway. I don’t see Ophelia allowing any advertisements on this site. (Except for the Does God Hate Women book, I mean.)
I don’t know what you mean by an “other” agenda. If you mean something like “moral agenda”, then yeah, probably; lots of folks have personal projects that they endorse, and lots of them proselytize. And good for them. Isn’t that wonderful, to have a public space to talk about important issues? I know I benefit from such discussions, and presumably some others do too. But what’s even more wonderful is when people exchange reasons for reasons, instead of unreasonable invective.
No. I visited once or twice, read a few comments, but could not sustain my attention for long. I’m sure that some of these people are fine in other contexts, but the discussion generally seemed like weak tea.
@Ophelia: Ok I don’t know which point(s) you’re agreeing with me on. Hopefully your “yes” means you agree with this, but maybe not:
…where “sexist” is defined as prejudiced against women and/or insulting women in general.
I just remembered about this.
Note that Randal didn’t know it was a racial slur. Then, he learns that it is, in fact, and then he tries to clean it because he doesn’t think it’s racist, like the others terms are (note he won’t try to save “nignog, jigaboo”, etc.) At least he acknowledges words have a meaning despite what he feels like at the moment or what he “takes it to be”. And he doesn’t use it proudly and willingly even after learning that it is a racial slur, like the people at ERV.
@Ophelia
Do we get paid by the comment or by number of words? and wheres my cheque?
re: getting paid for this
oops. didn’t notice the lack of adverts–good for her. That shows belief in what she writes,
But that also leaves issues of cultural capital and materialistc dialectic rewards unanswered for now. It can take years for those dividends to roll in. Some of these discussions take years to produce financial fruit, but each conversation—following the arbitrary rules–gets you further up the ladder to the glass basement.
But spoken like true middle class folks–always visualize the $$$$ first, act later. Dividends come in all forms–for instance, your current cred with Sleazy Meyers. How’s your stock profile there? I bet it looks as good as gold next to the yen right now ( sound of wheels in white peoples brains ” which yen is he talking about? The currency or the yen to be closer to PZ?)
Ben:”you might find that my comment contained a trace of irony.”
So,gendered epithets on this blog are what? A one way street as long as they contain ironic subtext? Stop being such a mangina then, and say what you really want to say! Or is that not allowed as well…? [sound of potential censorship chainsaw whirring in the background]
“Isn’t that wonderful, to have a public space to talk about important issues? I know I benefit from such discussions, and presumably some others do too. But what’s even more wonderful is when people exchange reasons for reasons, instead of unreasonable invective.”
Well, um, yea…wait: sign on the lawn that says “no dogs shit here except my dogs”–which is cool and all, but at least provide some tea and biscuits, along with some rubber boots. Otherwise it’s just another poopy-dry ol’ garden party with the cephalopods.(white people brains adding up the value of dried cephalopods)
But I appreciate your rather well thought out response to my query–not at all as pedantic or otherwise ped–whatever as the aged moss-nutted PZ blog; but also lacking in fruits and nuts, as per ERV–which is actually a riot of free speech, a collusion of some of the most refreshingly not-spayed-or-neutered, fun folks I have met on teh innernet to date. And a surprising amount of not-whining.
“With feminists who broadly think that people have acted inappropriately towards RW in the context of EG. I don’t know who is setting ‘arbitrary altruistic’ rules”
I ain’t one of those by no stretch, so I better get out of here before my rocky mountain oysters feel the need to clam up in their shell, or get fried in that hellfire you were preaching up there. But arbitrary in the sense of ‘it’s ok to talk about white male privilege, but not ok to talk about RW’s privileged statement in that case, and so forth.
Altruistic in the sense that while it is nice to claim that everyone is so noble, and so selfless as that they are valiantly “sticking up for ” her, the fact is 1) look at all that energy, and blog-paper that could have been devoted to other causes? 2) altruistic in that no one actually is saying anything uber-substantial other than statement upon restatement of the same over-talked topic of unaddressed privilege (BTW, I actually took no offense to her initial statements, and found them rather funny–but also quite short-sighted in light of Dawkins actual abuse, and EG’s near-snuff-pornographic lack/denial of voice).
If statistics are anything, something like ( and this is totally out of my ass right now) 15 kids have died in America from child abuse, some 12 black women have ACTUALLY been raped, and some 1 out of ten men in prison have been coercively cornholed or otherwise sexually abused.
But hell,who wants to read all that yukki nonsense, when you can touch tentacles with PZ’s, and shit all over an actual rape victim for his ‘white privilege’–Richard Dawkins.
I mean, I’m just sayin’…
Mangina, pussyfied man bitch, fempecked…
Is anyone else keeping track of all the lovely words Ms Smith and her friends are using to emasculate the men who are vocal about disagreeing with her?
I think the last people to use this argument before pr0n were the birthers.
The rest of it’s been asked and answered. You (and the most recent contribution to the Nuanced Discussion) and countless others keep offering this false dichotomy that we’ve picked *this* meaningless, silly battle at the expense of any number of other more worthy causes. So far none of you have responded to the repeated refutations of this inaccurate claim.
I stopped keeping track of the vocabulary at ERV at least a week ago.
Oh dear. I took a glance at the vocabulary at ERV (couldn’t find a single one of those, julian – tell me you haven’t been reading her friends!! that can’t be good for you) and ended up at a post of PZ’s. Too damn funny…
Ah, plenty of “fempecked” (in ERV-friend comments on that post). That’s a cute one. Right up there with pussy-whipped.
You keep those rocky mountain oysters of yours wild and free, porno, you rebel, you.
(Meta: giggle)
I was lmao reading that thread last night. Hey, she thanked him for not being an asshole!
Yeah, Smith must be mighty proud of her fanboiz.
Pornomomo:
No idea what the rules are at the moment, except maybe ‘don’t be an asshole’. Ask Ophelia. For myself, I think “sissy” is gendered without being sexist, but I honor the injunctions of the host.
You’re welcome, I guess. Though it’s hard to suss out your meaning when you keep inventing Wild West idioms.
Shrug. I’m okay talking about all kinds of things, including political correctness norms, the politics of the philosophy of language, and so on. But usually I don’t think I can even hope to get any insightful discussion when people are set on talking in an overly glib register. (And it doesn’t help when the threads are overflowing with chatter. B&W is more like a crowded bar and less like a hockey game.)
I’m not especially serious by nature, but I am at least semi-serious when I think there’s some cool philosophical and ethical issues to talk about. From what I’ve seen wrt that thread, the colorful choice of language is more interesting than the content of what is said.
1. Blogging is not a zero-sum game, and there’s no reason to believe that drama increases or decreases one’s ability to write on topics that matter. B&W’s headlines have been as topical as ever. Also, that point has nothing to do with altruism.
2. I don’t know how to interpret this sentence in such a way that it is a true. The Nuanced Discussion thread seems substantial enough. Also, the distinction between semantic meaning and speaker’s meaning is substantial, and is starting to resonate (hence, it seems to me that the discussion is at least to some degree shifting away from sexist epithets and towards context of use).
I’m not worried about over-talking about privilege. In many contexts it’s totally appropriate to talk about privilege. One mature reply to being accused of being privileged is to say: I am grateful for many things that I am entitled to, and I grieve for (and am incensed by) those who deprive others of these entitlements. Or something to that effect.
I’m more concerned when people use ‘privilege’ in a petty, presumptuous, or pretentious way. “Privilege” ought to be used as an explanation of how other people have come to definite systematic mistakes. It should not be used as a bear trap you pull out and spring on people whenever you want to shut down the conversation and/or piss everybody off. Lots of people are guilty of this, Dawkins included.
I’m perplexed by those on the ERV side who brought up Dawkins’s experience of child abuse as if they thought it mattered. His entire point when admitting that anecdote is that the physical abuse (for him) was no big deal, in comparison to the mental torture of thinking your friends are going to hell for being Protestant. Well, fine; in the same spirit, one might just as well have added that it is mental torture for a woman to think that half of humanity thinks it doesn’t have to listen to her preferences, and behaves as though it is automatically entitled to her trust. How crappy that must be.
EG is anonymous. I’ll be concerned about his voice when he’s not. (Snuff film? Really? C’mon, guy.)
Right, but in this case I’m saying that I want you to think more carefully about what you’re just saying. You don’t get to exonerate one sort of harm by pointing out that there are other, more serious sorts of harms. It’s not a zero sum game. Hopefully, you can condemn one, and then condemn the other.
Yeah, I should have said Ms Smith’s friends since I haven’t seen her use any of those (and I don’t think she has).
Stacy Kennedy: “You keep those rocky mountain oysters of yours wild and free, porno, you rebel, you.”
That’s cute, and thank you for that. It’s tempting to whip them out now, and show you that really, they are not as free as you might think they are. But I won’t…
8===o
Thanks for your permission to keep my boys toasty all by myself ( but in case you miss the larger point, I don’t need permission to do that any more–I’m all growed up now, but thanks for your concern–my boys and me appreciate it) Wild and free…hey you guys!! Come back here!!! Watch out for the ….ca…rr…ss….zz. Splaaaaat.”I was lmao reading that thread last night”
Wow. I didn’t think anyone over here had that reading level! Isn’t it all sweat lodge seriousness? I was misled!!
But you get the humor there? You geeet it? What humor, specifically? I agree–it is a hilarious thread, and it is that way because it is not censored.
The splice of humor with the truth, so you don’t get your boys run over–is something we learn to do so that we don’t get hurt again. Phil Giordana pointed that out ( and I think much to his detriment, he still laughs too hard). It’s a male “crushed boys” anxiety that most men have in the dialogues. We take it on the chin, we buck up, we man up, and then we shut up.
It’s a guy thing, ya know? We’re just ‘born that way…’
So what made you laugh the hardest, the stats about 22% of men being raped in the Congo, the 70% in El Salvador( self reports from the men who weren’t murdered afterwards), or the stuff about child abuse directed at young boys? Hahahahahah. Me too, that shit cracks me up!
Ben, I hope you have an explanation for why you are mocking my name. Pornomomo? Does that have object meaning to you? But I called you three forms of Benjamin, so I hope you have a good excuse …
“when you keep inventing Wild West idioms.”I roll like dat–but on a horse, of course. Oh don’t get any ideas–I don’t wear white armor; just a dusty nut cup, an over-sized ten-gallon hat that says NASCAR on it, and some pistols swingin’ at my thighs, like an errant do-gooder, or a ramblin’ word policeman.”the colorful choice of language is more interesting than the content of what is said.”
THAT’S THE POINT. Not everything is a weeping Yoni drum session. And, hey, it’s fun arguing with the alternative people, the workers of the world, the non-pedants, pedigrees, and non ped-whatevers, and so forth ( there is an inherent often negative class system imposed when only academics are yukking about their own academic jokes, and laying tracks that come to affect the ‘lower classes’)
“I am grateful for many things that I am entitled to, and I grieve for (and am incensed by) those who deprive others of these entitlements. ”
that sounds like a good non-religious prayer indeed. Say three of those every night–really.I like that alot. It’s a good thing.
But not everybody has the ‘right’ language to weigh in to these discussions. So we exclude them? Hmmm. We mock them? Hmmm. We call them dumbasses, and so forth to their ‘blog face’ without realizing that some of those dumbasses and so might barely be computer literate, much less book smart.
Then they go home and kick their dog, and so forth, and give up on talking to the ‘smart folks.’ I actually know that guy…
“when people use ‘privilege’ in a petty, presumptuous, or pretentious way.”
Example? I mean I understand when assholes do it, it’s bad, but when you or me do it,we mean it, and we know what we’re talking about–right? Them other folks…
“I’m perplexed by those on the ERV side who brought up Dawkins’s experience of child abuse as if they thought it mattered.”
This would be a waaaaay better prayer before bedtime, I think. Real food for thought.
Why? Because somewhere in Dawkies relaying of his rape experience, there are layers upon layers of baggage ” the invisible knapsack of having someone touch your sack when you’re ten,” and then laughing at it, instead of reporting it, because ‘guys don’t tell,’ and so forth; guys are mocked when they tell, and so on, for not having the words to fully describe it, explain it, or work it into a dialogue that denies your experience exists.
Or the words to describe it to an audience who largely doesn’t give a shit about abused boys; who considers them ‘lucky’, or a dialogue that largely puts distance between boys who are abused, while supportively encircling girls who are abused.
And a whole bunch of other stuff in the invisible knapsack full of his personal, professional, and relatively private, emotional junk. Small surprise then, when guys sound ‘harsh’ in their non-coddling, chiding, and ‘privileged’ voices.
There really isn’t language yet to describe the differences between abused girls and abused boys at this point in history–a relatively early phase of exploring abuse.
“I’ll be concerned about his voice when ..”
When? The facts have always been there; the definitions have not. Canada’s report about the sexual abuse of boys is entitled “The invisible Boy Report” with good reason–it reflects reality–we should know our ‘place.’ Dawkins is still there–confront him about what a bad example he is not sticking up for other boys who endured what he did.”You don’t get to exonerate one sort of harm”
I don’t? I was wondering when the rules would kick in. So I will just keep talking about Rebbeca Watson, Rebbeca Watson, Rebbeca Watson; anxiety and fear in a late night elevator with a nameless guy; anxiety and fear in an elevato–wait!! Anxiety and fear in a rather large dark, scary opening that transports people UP and DOWN–but this time with a GUY in it who is lurking for a potential encounter with….awwww never mind. Myabject is shattered…
I got it. Two months ago. That sort of redundancy hurts my fingertips…
and lastly, the “snuf-silence” is a metaphor for a larger issue: whereas no doubt EG was a socially inept sex-encounter-hopeful; elevator guy has had a world of words take place without his opinion, his intent, or his ability at redemption. He is a tool in a product that renders him voiceless and metaphorically dead/null.
Whether you, or I or anyone agrees, it is this exact sort of dialogue that can, and has, helped create images of men that lead to death, incarceration, and in the very very least, silence about the harms that they may have endured which make them the “way they are.”
Guy’s just ‘roll like that.’
Self-absorbed nitwit cleanup in aisle one.
Well, I don’t know the Hebrew for “pornonymous”. Though I suppose Google could help with that.
I don’t understand your point. Yes, it can be fun talking to people from whatever stripes. Here I am. Talk talk talk.
It does sound religious. Sometimes we have to ask what religions get right.
Right. Everyone deserves dignity, consideration. But that includes me. I’m a free man. If I think people are in a bad way, or are overcome with the giggles, if I think they’re actively trying to break trust, then I just instinctively don’t want to invest that kind of time talking to them. And even putting that aside, there are other issues, like the fact that I’m uncomfortable when there’s a crowd of people talking over each other.
Not at all. e.g., when you use an accusation of ‘privilege’ instead of as an error theory used to explain someone’s systematic errors, then you’re probably doing an inappropriate thing. Doesn’t matter who does it, it’s inappropriate.
You might be right about that. I certainly can’t say; I haven’t experienced anything so terrible. That is my privilege.
But my point is just to remind you of what Dawkins’s point was in relaying that experience in the first place. His point was to talk about psychological torture. If we get to talk about the psychological torture of myths, then let’s talk about men overreacting to a feminist for talking about her preferences.
But what you’ve just described is a kind of revenge egalitarianism. You sound almost jealous of the fact that molestation of girls is treated unequally to the molestation of boys. Maybe that antipathy should be directed entirely at the clergy who did the abuse and hid the abuses, and not to fellow travellers and victims.
You’re mixing up the two subjects. By this point, I was talking about EG, or the elevator guy, not child abuse. You talked about EG as if he’d been denied a voice, and I think that’s a stretch.
Sure, in the sense that it’s a rule of informal logic, a red herring. Everybody is already on board with the “condemn the church for abusing helpless little boys” angle. The issue is whether or not women are worthy of consideration and dignity, and where and how to draw the line between another person’s sense of discomfort and one’s own entitlement to live freely. That issue is not at all resolved.
Right, and that might be an issue if anybody knows who he is. But among those who do know who he is, he’s probably not silent.
So let’s change the dialogue in such a way that we do not make things worse for everyone.
“Revenge egalitarianism” – very good indeed. Useful.
Bad formatting, pornonymous.
Right. I’m not letting “pornonymous” comment here any more. I went to take a quick look at his comments at ERV to see how bad they are – and found this from the last hour or so –
No.
Pornonymous posted a response over at ERV–the deleted comments apparently.
Well of course he did. They always do. They’re martyrs for free speech, as any fule kno.
Whassamatta, Ophelia, don’t you want to read more brilliant analysis of how discussions like the one about RW’s encounter with EG leads to “images of men” that lead to their incarceration and death?
Or at least be kept up to date on the state of porno’s oysters?
(Actually his ramblings about abused children made me want to vomit. I’ll eat my toque if that narcissist gives a tinker’s damn about raped kids. Or honest discourse.)
As Paul W. pointed out early in this (awesome)(except for pornonymous) thread, this is about cheap shots. And it’s also about collateral damage.
There are people out there who really sincerely regard women with contempt.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to differentiate yourself from them. You’re not going to do it by continuing to use gendered insults. The same applies to other identity insults. There are racists out there, and anti-Semites, and so on. And when they use identity slurs, they really mean it. And when you use them, they think to themselves, “See? I’m not alone. Other people see that those porch monkeys really are a bunch of criminals.”
Not good, eh?
People aren’t telepathic. How am I supposed to know if you’re telling your buddy that you’re going to make him your bitch because “make someone your bitch” is just a phrase that means “dominate you,” and you want your friend to know you’re going to dominate him, or because you truly believe that women should be dominated by men, in general?
Really, how am I supposed to know?
So stop complaining if I label you “misogynist” when you use that kind of language. If you haven’t bothered to exercise your brain enough to come up with an insult that doesn’t involve denigrating someone by referring to their specifically female characteristics, why should I give you the time of day? Why should I assume that you mean well, when there are so many people who really don’t mean well at all? It’s not worth the risk of giving you the benefit of the doubt. Actual misogynists take that benefit of the doubt and run with it all the time, and it’s people like you who allow them to do so.
SallyStrange wrote:
In case anyone needs a gender-neutral expression for “make someone your bitch,” they could say “make someone your bottom” (borrowing from BDSM terminology):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_%28BDSM%29
But then everybody would think you were talking about A Midsummer Night’s Dream and be hopelessly confused.
:- b