A young man is languishing in an Islamic prison right now, for a terrible crime. Look at this travesty of justice, this product of primitive morality.
Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the student journalist sentenced to death for blasphemy in Afghanistan, has been told he will spend the next 20 years in jail after the country’s highest court ruled against him – without even hearing his defence.
…
It later emerged he was convicted by three mullahs, in secret, without access to a lawyer. The sentence was commuted to 20 years on appeal. At that appeal, in October, the key prosecution witness withdrew his testimony, claiming he had been forced to lie on pain of death. The prosecution then appealed to the Supreme Court to reinstate the death sentence. The defence appealed to quash his conviction altogether.
Meanwhile, the student has been languishing in a Kabul jail, fearing for his life. Islamic fundamentalists have been baying for his blood while moderate groups have led marches countrywide demanding his release.
What was his crime? This is as bad as the criminality of the kangaroo court that convicted him.
Mr Kambaksh was found guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to death last year for circulating an essay on women’s rights which questioned verses in the Koran.
Don’t question. Don’t support women. We’ll kill you if you do either. Is that the message?
A harsh punishment, Rev. Do you lack all compassion?
Facilis (#345):
Theistic sleight-of-hand alert! Even if some atheists assert that there is no objective foundation for ethics without a god, it does not follow that they are admitting that there might be some objective foundation for ethics with a god. There might be no such objective foundation at all, period, with or without a deity in the mix.
And from #352:
Uh huh. So how exactly does God provide a “metaphysical foundation” for ethics? I’ve yet to see a theistic explanation for this which doesn’t either collapse into the despotic relativism of divine command theory, or flounder in incoherence or circularity.
Misrepresentation. Ruse believes that morality is an evolutionary adaptation, and that is why he believes that there is no further metaphysical justification for ethics outside the context of the evolved interactions of social animals.
Those moral feelings (plus the moral rules we extrapolate from them through reason and reflection) are real morals. There is no other kind.
Were we on a wing-ding last night?
Last I recall, I left off to go eat ice cream and watch wrastlin’….
Regarding those I accused of agreeing with Facilis:
Kel: For fucks sake facilis. having moral justification != morality comes from God.
Not agreeing with Facilis.
Patricia: But I will charge Facillis with:
Godbotting
Insipidity
Stupidity (!)
Trolling
Wanking
Not agreeing with Facilis (I did not even find anything relating to objectivity – just obeying one’s husband.)
Rev. BigDumbChimp: And Fail. We’ve been through this. You have not established a god let alone your god as the foundation for morality.
Not agreeing with Facilis.
Given how many of those hundreds of posts were written by Facilis, I’m sure you’ll just let me retract the statement instead of making me find the quotes that led to it. In future I will read my responses twice for error and probably never hit Post.
Errrrr….?
Rump?
(Looks puzzled…)
Oh. Right. I guess you could use that end, too…
@AJ Milne #506:
Crikey! Have you seen the TEETH at the other end? No way pal! The horn might provide some problems too, after all it isn’t short by any means. What could be a fun encounter could rapidly become a little too Vlad the Impaler for my tastes.
Louis
Feynmainiac:
Erg. I now go to hide in my lurk-hole until I figure out what I was thinking. Multitudinous apologies.
Here,in the first few paragraphs of http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2009/02/atheists-speaking-about-morality.html Fyfe argues that evolution does not provide an account of what morality is, and why no one should ever use it to argue for non-theistic morality. He also provides the time scale for the larger argument. I originally provided the beginning of the argument without checking to see if he actually got to that part of it in that post.
Heh. no worries. Mistakes are made. Just read my posting here.
There’s a good chance at least a 1/2 of it is a mistake.
Sure, it can get messy… But the thing is, as noted, unicorns have this crazy hangup about virginity…
And this method leaves open the saddlebacking/technical virgin loophole*.
*Yes, that’s what the kids are calling it these days.
Emu Sam – For my part, don’t worry about it. You’ve just been kissed by the Goddess Discordia. Happens to me all the time. *grin*
To an extent, but you can never really prove intent in this situation. Someone could simply fall back on the “somewhere in the world the word can be used without misogynistic connotations” excuse, or the ignorance excuse, all the while winking to those who recognize the subtext. But in practice, I generally do give people the benefit of the doubt. I look at it in context and in the context of their other comments, and I read people’s responses if the connotations are pointed out.
Emu Sam, the simple fact that you admitted to a big mistake is a huge point in your favor. No need to hide. If everyone who screwed up stopped posting here, there would be almost no conversation here. Just fools talking out of their asses, ignoring all things contrary to their beliefs.
Also, a lot of us had a huge laugh.
@ AJ Milne #510:
Saddlebacking eh? Another Dan Savage fan I see. “Technical Virgin” LOL I used that one 20 years ago. It didn’t convince anyone then either.
@SC, OM #512:
I agree you can never really prove intent in thee situations, and that is precisely why you have to be careful not to apply your own cultural preconceptions to other people (again what is good for the accuser has to also be good for the accused in these less than fulsomely definite circumstances). Of course people can hide behind dishonesty, but that is no reason to condemn honest people.
My argument is not with a reasonable, nuanced heuristic that takes into account history, posting habits, other statements (subtle winks to coconspirators included), and context. In fact I have been arguing in favour of taking context into account, both linguistically and practically.
I think we’re in agreement.
Louis
@ #213:
Fundamentalists are people who are truer and more consistent to religion. More religious people, you might say. They have a higher concentration of the mind poison, and so it shows a lot better there than in someone who disregards 90% of the teachings of a religion yet claims to be of that religion. People are good in spite of religion, not because of religion.
@ Facilis & everyone else:
So, the reason why Facilis’s still around is because he’s useful as a practice dummy for arguing against religious ignorants? Or? Just curious. He keeps coming back for more punishment, even though he must at some level realize the futility in trying to argue against logic and reason when his arguments aren’t based on it.
I think he is trying to be a missionary to Pharyngula, and bring us to his imaginary deity (fat chance, PZ will fly directly from C/U to Morris first). But I also get the impression he had a rather impoverished learning experience, and is truly learning a few things from us atheists, even if he won’t admit it.
Pretty much. I do think you’re perhaps a bit ingenuous about people’s use of the word, but that’s neither here nor there. But I should note that online I have the luxury of taking time to determine what someone’s about rather than making quick judgments based on their statements (which, by the way, has confirmed my initial impression in almost every case). In RL, though, I don’t. Someone who presents as a misogynist is someone potentially dangerous whom I want to avoid. For women, in this context, “Better safe than sorry” is a better rule of thumb than “Innocent until proven guilty.”
SC, OM
Bear in mind that where I come from the use of the word is NOT typically an indicator of misogyny in the most frequently used contexts, as mentioned. The examples I gave above are horrendously common. I use the word “horrendously” advisedly!
I am in no way being ingenuous (or even disingenuous), unfortunately when these sorts of debates arise they, like for example debates about the provisional nature of science, focus on the fringes of the phenomenon in question. These cultural, contextual differences ARE vital.
I’m also wary that the goalposts appear to have moved somewhat. If someone presents as a misogynist, then I agree with your choice of heuristic, however simple use of the word “cunt” is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to determine misogyny. This is why, as I’ve been banging on about, the context is vital. The flawed heuristic I’ve been taking issue with is “Simple use of word X, in the absence of context, is sufficient to determine Y about a person”. The USAian cultural situation supplies some of that context, the conditions of the specific use supply some more etc. As you’ve said examination of those contexts is what supplies the other bits of information sufficient to establish some characteristic (in this case misogyny). Other people were not saying this, they were trying to say that simple usage is necessary AND sufficient to establish a wide variety of characteristics (from outright bigotry all the way down to cluelessness).
As for your heuristic regarding real life and “better safe than sorry”, I tend to operate the same policy in real life as online. Everyone gets three strikes. The scum usually show themselves up within in a sufficiently short space of time. I tend to hope that of I treat people well, they will treat me well. But we’ve drifted FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR away from the linguistic point I was making right back at the start.
Louis
Again, I’ve heard only a couple of people make this claim. I’m not convinced that there’s no misogynistic connotation for all of the users of the word in those contexts, as you claim. Indeed, several of the people from the UK have acknowledged their awareness of these connotations. I’m curious: Do women there use it as an insult? You dismissed Kitty’s statement above that:
But it suggests that at least some people there recognize those connotations – they haven’t entirely disappeared, as you suggest. Your denial or apathy concerning this is, as others have noted above, symptomatic of a certain degree of contempt for women.
And as a male you have that privilege. That was my point: I don’t. Just as if I were a gay person in a bar and heard guys using the word “faggots” to describe people I probably wouldn’t stick around to find out more about their attitudes.
SC,OM,
Nope you’ve swung wildly away from what I was saying again. I don’t claim that ALL the users of those words in those examples find no misogynistic connotations, just that those usages of the word are not NECESSARILY misogynistic in those contexts. There’s a big difference.
Please deal with the LINGUISTIC issue I was making. Again, to make this very very clear, I am NOT defending the use of these words or apologising for them, I am disputing that the use of them alone is both necessary AND sufficient to establish misogyny (or a variety of other motives/character traits) and recognising a series of shades of grey that demonstrably exist. I thought we’d cleared that up and agreed on the linguistic issue.
I didn’t dismiss Kitty’s point out of hand, I treated it like the anecdote it was. I too can supply anecdotes (and have, and I’ve acknowledged them for what they are) they don’t establish anything. Why is, for example, my wife’s opinion, and the opinions of many of my female friends, not valid to you? They would disagree with you and Kitty and BMS and….on the same basis I would. Either you are going to have to spin some yarn about then being blinkered crytpo misogynists themselves (they ain’t) or accuse me of lying (I ain’t).
Accusing me of denial or apathy or contempt towards women is…well I’ll be exceedingly polite and simply say “unjustified”. In fact it’s more than a little insulting and unwarranted. Like it or not I have no contempt for women, denied, suppressed, or any other form. I genuinely, perfectly politely, perfectly reasonably disagree with a specific set of linguistic claims made by (originally) BMS and then in various other forms by various other people. I expressly DO NOT support the use of words like “cunt” as referring to women etc, I’ve gone to great pains to explain what circumstances their use is not exemplifying of misogyny and why. I agree that these are a minority of cases HERE, but not necessarily every where else.
I’m going to ask you a very simple question: What do you think I am arguing for? To make this clear I want you to state my argument in your own words. Could you do that for me please. I get the distinct impression you think I am arguing for something I am not.
Thanks
Louis
P.S. Re: your heuristic of “better safe than sorry” note I didn’t disagree with it. I think it’s a perfectly valid heuristic, my only comment was it was moving farther away from what I was discussing: the logic behind a specific linguistic claim.
Oh and yes, I’ve heard several women use the word under discussion as an insult. In my experience usually directed at men. Anecdote again though…
I realise as a man my anecdote is therefore dubious and of course the anecdote of any woman is automatically privileged and gains the status of evidence. ;-) JUST KIDDING! But there is a waft of rampant double standard floating about and it ain’t coming from me.
Anyway, possibly the most hilarious usage was when, many years ago, when we were both students working in a bar to make ends meet, my wife was called a “shitcunt” by a “young lady” for refusing to serve her alcohol when she was very obviously underage. We all laughed so hard at that one (men and women) that people didn’t get served for about 5 minutes.
Anyway, the regional variation in usage is interesting as an example, but not central to the argument I’ve been making all along re: the logic behind the linguistic claims BMS and others have made.
Cheers
Louis
ARSE! I keep forgetting things.
SC,
If I was in ANY situation and I heard people, any sort of people, referring to gay people as faggots, black people as niggers, women as cunts, handicapped people as cripples etc etc I wouldn’t walk off and miss the opportunity to find out who they were.
I’d kick off.
I won’t tolerate such crap anywhere near me. Yes, as a bloke (and a dirty great big one at that) I have that “privilege” (odious word, used by you in an odious manner), but then so does my wife’s cousin, a little Asian woman of much feistier temper than mine (and all power to her, she’s bloody terrifying!).
Absolutely no one gets away with that sort of thing in my (or her, or my wife’s) presence. Ever. You might say I operate a zero tolerance policy, how MACHO of me! (Swoon! Sorry I can’t resist mocking myself) None of this negates, speaks to, or is even minimally relevant to the linguistic point I’ve been making.
You seem to think that repudiation of a specific linguistic claim by BMS and others equates to defence of the use of the word “cunt” as a deliberately derogatory epithet towards women. It doesn’t. Please disabuse yourself of this utterly vacuous notion immediately if not sooner.
Please try to view disagreement with a specific linguistic claim not as some disguise for sinister women hating motives but as a sincere disagreement, made in good faith, by someone who genuinely doesn’t agree with a specific linguistic claim and has no other agenda than that.
If it weren’t so tragic it would be funny. Occasionally someone can disagree with you in good faith SC, with no ulterior motive, is it so hard for you to imagine that this is one of those times?
Cheers
Louis
P.S. Oh and btw, as I sit here recovering from what can only be described as an epic hangover, I am discussing this with my wife. She is a very lovely and intelligent lady, with absolutely no sympathy for my SIWOTI syndrome, who happens to think that anyone daft enough to claim I have any form of contempt for women (esp based in the argument I’ve been making) is…well…nucking futs. Just another privileged male anecdote for you. ;-)
Fuck but this is getting tedious, Louis. I know that you’re arguing against BMS’s hyperbolic statement. We all fucking know this. When I first joined the thread I thought JFK was being rather hard on you, but I now understand his frustration. You’re not addressing the subsequent arguments made by Endor and others.
No. I said that if it were the case that the word had completely lost those connotations in your culture then I would accept that. In order for the term to be used innocently, it would have to be the case that those connotations had been completely lost in that culture. But you haven’t established that. You’ve simply asserted it repeatedly, and dismissed people’s statements that show that those connotations are still attached.
Not at all. The fact that not everyone recognizes (or that some deny) that these connotations still exist doesn’t show anything.
That wasn’t your only comment, and it was specifically in response to your suggestion that you approach the matter the same way in real life as you do online, which wwas in response to an earlier point of mine. That’s how a discussion works, Louis.
I was simply curious because I don’t think I’ve ever seen a woman use it here. But it’s not particularly relevant – women can and do use misogynistic language all the time.
Idiotic. Are you really this obtuse?
I think that your claim that it can be used in your culture in a way that is innocent of all misogynistic connotations has not been made to my complete satisfaction. Please note that Endor and others are suggesting that the word itself retains misogynistic connotations – not that every speaker of it is intending to make a misogynistic statement.
Fuck off with this already, Louis. I never accused you of harboring “sinister women hating motives.” Your dismissal of the suggestion that misogynistic connotations of the word still exist in your culture does reflect contempt, and your comment about your wife’s cousin above marks you as willfully clueless.
My! I do hope that this thread has finally risen to its ultimate crescendo!
I can’t understand the need for these jumbo-sized posts by Louis and SC. It’s all very simple. In the United States, “cunt” almost always or always has a misogynistic undertone. In Britain and Australia, this is not necessarily the case, and in those countries it is possible to use the word as a pejorative without any noteworthy traces of misogynism.
Amusingly, I recently passed a few ruffians on the way to the store. One said to the other: “What the fuck are yer doin’, yer daft cunt.” They were both male.
What? No facilis is arguing for absolute transcendental morality, I’m arguing for provisional morality.
SC,
Sorry to frustrate you, but I HAVE dealt with the arguments made by Endor and others. See post #370 as an example. I really am not ignoring the more nuanced comments, I’ve even mentioned that I agree with many of them.
Fuck me but I am getting rather sick of being accused of things I am not doing. Go back to post #190 and you’ll see (for example) that I dealt with a point of Endor’s only to be accused of not dealing with it later by JFK, some couple of hundred posts later.
I see you didn’t get my attempt at humour in post #522, sorry about that. It was probably in poor taste. I won’t do it again. The comments re my wife’s cousin were deliberately humorous, sorry that wasn’t communicated. I thought I was engaged in a good faith discussion with a fellow adult who could cope with some mild humour at my own expense. Forgive me, I was gravely mistaken.
You didn’t accuse me of sinister woman hating motives? Really? What was your comment in #519 meant to indicate?
“Contempt for women” sure looks like an imputation of sinister women hating motives to me. Again, I assure you, I have no contempt for women. I’ve had a few accusations chucked at me on this thread, pretty unpleasant and untrue ones too. I’ve responded politely, calmly and I’ve tried to get you (and others) to deal with the argument I amactually making. You’re trying very very hard not to.
I disagree with a specific linguistic claim made by BMS in one way AND BY OTHER PEOPLE LIKE ENDOR IN ANOTHER WAY. Do you understand that the claims these different people are making take the SAME FORM? BMS’s hyperbolic claim is NOT the totality of what I am disagreeing with. I’ve said this repeatedly, several times, very VERY clearly. Do you not understand this yet?
I have not in any way denied that many uses of many words have implicit connotations, again I’ve said this several times. No one has yet dealt with my (deliberately uncontroversial example) of “gay”. Nor have I dismissed the suggestion that misogynistic connotations of the word “cunt” still exist in my culture, I’ve merely mentioned that they do not always apply and that the meaning of the word has evolved to have a separate meaning from its original. See my comments re speciation of words etc. I’ve commented SPECIFICALLY on this issue.
Again you attribute to me things I AM NOT DOING.
Sorry but you need to clam down and reread what I have written because, no matter how annoying you find this, you have clearly not actually done that.
Louis
wow. That’s an even higher crescendo than the last one!
Sorry for the monster posts, but I’ll be fucked seven ways from Sunday before I acquiesce to accusations that are demonstrably not true and support illogical special pleading and double standards as valid logic.
Cheers
Louis
Sven,
LOL
Louis
Believe me, there will be louder crescendos yet. JFK will be absolutely scathing after he reads my last post addressed to him.
In a last ditch attempt at consensus before bedtime:
SC,
Forget the previous antagonism. We were almost at a position of consensus at one point, I’d like to return there. Can I distil a lot of this thread into two hypothetical questions? Please bear with me.
Question 1:
If phrase 1) “Barry is a cunt” is interchangeable with phrase 2) “Barry is a penis” or phrase 3)”Barry is an arsehole” and each phrase means exactly the same thing is the use of the word “cunt” in the first phrase an expression of either misogyny (implicit or explicit), a legacy of cultural inequalities, apathy towards those inequalities, or cluelessness regarding those inequalities in a manner unique to the use of that word?
Note the above question is a conditional “if…then”. Let’s leave aside whether or not such a hypothetical cultural environment actually exists or not, since that seems to have lead us down a rabbit hole of contentiousness.
Phrase 1) uses a word that admittedly has, in other contexts at least (if not this one as well), negative connotations towards women. Phrase 2) uses a word that has similar potential connotations towards men. If the word “penis” doesn’t suffice for you, pick a word for male genitals that does like “dick” or “prick” or whatever. Phrase 3) uses a word that has no negative connotations for any specific sex.
My question is simple: if the three phrases, the three words, are genuinely interchangeable is the use of phrase 1) specially sexist in some manner that the others are not, does it imply the things (or perhaps other things) mentioned above?
I think the answer is “no”. If you think the answer is “yes” please explain to me why I am wrong.
Question 2:
a) If I describe my hypothetical Barry as being “gay” am I, in that description, making a comment on Barry’s state of happiness or his sexuality?
b) Regardless of your answer to a) above, if I now say that I was using the more commonly used 21st century, Western definition of the word “gay” and commenting on Barry’s sexuality, does that comment have implications for Barry’s state of happiness. In other words is it possible to use the word “gay” to describe Barry’s sexuality independently from describing his state of happiness? Remembering that the word “gay” does still retain one of its older meanings, i.e. that of “happy”.
Sorry for upsetting you and frustrating you, I assure you that has never been my intent. I would be very grateful if you would answer my questions.
Thanks.
Louis
No, you haven’t. You’ve stated your case most clearly in posts #370 and #373, and you haven’t made it. You’re just not getting it. No one is arguing that the meaning of words doesn’t change over time or that words always have exactly the same intended meaning regardless of context. (Your argument about “gay” is in fact disingenuous, as BMS’s comment specified using these words as insults; only your comment about the schoolkid using “gay” insultingly is relevant, and it doesn’t help your case.) What you are arguing is that the word has “speciated” in your culture and lost its misogynistic baggage. You can’t claim that it’s speciated “sufficiently” to make it possible to use it without these connotations. It has to be complete, and you haven’t really shown this to be the case. Worse, when people from your culture show up and say that these connotations are in fact still attached, you dismiss their comments.
My comment meant exactly what it said, what it “sure looks like” to you notwithstanding. If you don’t want anyone to suggest that you’re behaving contemptuously, stop doing it. Offense is not a fucking red herring here. It is people from your culture telling you that the word still has the baggage you claim it does not.
You’re confused. The word has those connotations, not the use of it. If the connotations still exist, it can’t really be used innocently. You’re trying to draw a line between contexts that doesn’t exist in reality.
I’m perfectly calm and have read what you’ve written. Again, you have not made your case.
I didn’t see any humor in it then, and still don’t. In contrast, witness:
SC,
My use of the word “gay” was never meant to be as a perfectly mapped analogy for “cunt”. I said so in post #373. I also don’t claim that the word “cunt” has speciated fully, in the manner “gay” has, again this is clear from #373. So no my example is not disingenuous you’ve just misunderstood it’s purpose. I’m trying to get everyone on the same page. If we agree that the “gay” example is at one extreme and the “nigger” example is at the other extreme and that “cunt” lies somewhere in between then we’ve hit a good point of consensus. This was, and remains, my only intent in using those examples. I’ve been trying to get people to acknowledge that these things are on a continuum. And I think agreement has occasionally existed on this aspect, buggered if I know where it went of late! How can we have a discussion if you’re going to continually misrepresent my arguments?
Again, where have I claimed that the word “cunt” absolutely does not have the misogynist baggage we both agree it has? I’ve simply not done this. All I have said that, as the word is in the process of speciating there are certain (perhaps fringe) uses where that baggage no longer applies. This isn’t the case in all circumstances and I freely admit it, and have done several times now.
I’m concerned about two things: 1) that we agree on much and are talking passed each other for some reason, and 2) that I’ve made some terrible error and am being thicker than two short planks.
Perhaps you answering my questions above will illustrate where I’ve gone wrong, if indeed I have.
Louis
Saying that “Islam hates women” is like saying that “BHP Billiton loves money” – it doesn’t, but it’s shareholders and CEOs do.
Likewise, there’s probably quite a few people working for BHP who hate the greed and destructiveness of it all, but are just caught up in, and dragged along with society they happen to have been born into.
Look, why don’t we just agree that you’re both cunts, and move on. Nice ones, of course;)
I would need more information. Is there evidence that the word still has misogynistic connotations in this culture? If so, how aware is the speaker of this?
I’ve very rarely used those words in the past, and recently stopped out of concern that I might be offending some men. But let’s get real. “Dick” is not the equivalent of “cunt.” Demeaning language has long been used as a practice of subordinating women. You acknowledge that calling a woman a “cunt” is terrible. The same cannot be said of “dick,” which has even been used (see Liar’s Poker and the discussion of BSDs) in a complimentary fashion. It simply doesn’t have the same baggage, and never could. Just like a black person calling a white person a “honky” isn’t equivalent to a white person using the n-word.
As I said above, this is dumb and irrelevant. As is your discussion of women using these terms positively in some contexts. If we women want to reclaim these words as applied to people we can try. But it’s not up to men to declare them free of misogynistic connotations.
Surely trying to reclaim words would be a futile exercise, especially if the cultural standard has shifted far away from the original meaning. I mean, good luck if you want to try. But really it seems like a wasted effort, and all such an action would do is cast people into a negative light they wouldn’t previously have been in.
What if I call myself a cunt?
I never said it was. But the much better analogy, as JFK pointed out, is the use of the word “gay” to mean “bad.”
That’s impossible. That would require that the baggage has been entirely lost. If it hasn’t, it applies. As Endor said above:
Well, it’s not always a futile exercise. It’s been done. But I have no interest in doing it in this case (it’s an ugly word that I hate the sound of). I wasn’t suggesting that I wanted to try. I was merely pointing out that members of the group insulted by the word using it in a positive way has no bearing on the issue at hand.
Clarification on the speciation issue:
Look at this like a Venn diagram. For the “nigger” example imagine that the one circle is simply “nigger: derogatory term for a black person”, i.e. the one, known definition of that horrible word. This is a word that has not speciated at all in terms of its definition.
The Venn diagram for “gay” would look different. You’d have (for the sake of simplicity) two non-overlapping circles, one marked “gay: happy” the other marked “gay: homosexual”. (I’d actually argue that,like biological species, the definition is blurry, i.e. there is some tiny overlap, but in this example it’s so small as to be negligible)
These are our two extremes. Words that have two different (speciated) definitions at one extreme. Words that do not at the other.
The horrible word cunt would also have two circles, one marked “cunt: derogatory term for female genitals”, the other marked “cunt: generic, interchangeable derogatory term for foolish person”. These two circles overlap to a certain extent. This is a word undergoing definitional speciation. We’ve caught it in the act.
The area of overlap is, obviously, where use of the term “cunt” is being used in a manner where it is unclear which definition takes priority. I’d agree that the borders of this overlap are a bit nebulous and it isn’t always clear where such definitions start and end. Either way, regardless of the size of the overlap, as long as it is >100% then there is a portion of that second circle (“cunt: generic, interchangeable derogatory term for foolish person”) that doesn’t overlap with the first circle. Obvious, right?
The word “cunt” is like a ring species. There is a continuum of “breeding” definitions but at the extremes no “breeding” is possible. At the extremes the two definitions are separate.
That just deals with definitions, and I hope is the uncontroversial part. It’s the point I was trying to make with #373.
The point BMS made was that any insulting use of the word “cunt” (for example, please let’s not complicate this with other words) is ALWAYS an indication of misogyny. This is, given the above speciation of definitions, trivially untrue. There exists a definition of the word “cunt” that has nothing to do with female genitalia. Granted, it isn’t always clear where this boundary between non female genitalia/female genitalia definitions lies because the word is speciating.
Here we’ve got to be careful to distinguish between the two phenomena under question: use and definition.
Let’s return to the phrase I used above “Barry is a cunt.” I’d strongly agree that this could be a “circle 1” use of the word “cunt”, i.e. derogatory comparison with female genitalia, and thus misogynistic. It could also be a “circle 2” use, i.e. generic, interchangeable derogatory term for foolish person. It could ALSO be an “interface” use, i.e. one of those borderline cases where, as the definition of the word is speciating, the circle 1 and 2 definitions are interchangeable, they both fit. The interface usage is the “baggage” area, it’s usage that cannot escape from the baggage associated with the “circle 1” usage in the manner that “circle 2” usage has.
What I was, and am, arguing was that the simple use of the term as an insult is insufficient to determine which of those scenarios is the case (circle 1, circle 2, or interface). Greater context is needed.
I hope this is not controversial! I don’t think it is, in fact I think we’ve agreed on this several times. Do you agree this deals with the original statement made by BMS?
I’ll assume you do for the sake of simplicity and move onto the more nuanced arguments of Endor and others.
Simply put, what Endor and others have been arguing for is this: because the interface of the two definitions exists one cannot assume that any insulting use of the word “cunt” is free from that confusion over definitions. Look at Endor in #206 for example. There she is arguing that no insulting use of the word “cunt” can be free of the baggage the interfacial area is loaded with, baggage I AGREE exists. Endor even agrees with me that context is exactly what’s needed to determine use. Although she also makes the error that no other possible definition of “cunt” exists, I hope I’ve demonstrated above that it does.
When someone uses the word we have to determine which definition of it they are using. Circle 1 usages are easy to spot, like Shadow’s usage in #68 of the Palin thread you mentioned. Easy to spot, easy to draw conclusions about. The interfacial area is what’s casuing the problem. If you agree that the word IS speciating, i.e. in the process of definitional split, then by definition (ha ha) you agree that there is an area of the Venn diagram in which there is no overlap (just like at the extremes of a ring species no interbreeding is possible). What Endor and others are trying to do is have their cake and eat it. They are trying to acknowledge the facts of the speciation (which is a demonstrable fact of linguistic usage) and ignore the existence of the different definition that they don’t want to exist.
Regardless of whether or not Endor thinks that usage is indicative of bigotry (of any type), apathy or cluelessness it is STILL the same argument in terms of its FORM as that of BMS: i.e. “Insulting use of word X, in the absence of context, is sufficient to establish charcteristic Y about the user”. The fact that Endor and others have substituted the set {A, B or C} for Y doesn’t change the FORM of the argument. It’s a classic example of poisoning the well. Endor and others are restricting the possible characteristics for the user of the word on the basis of simple use. Ironically Endor acknowledges that context is required to decide which characteristic is to be applied, but ignores using context to distinguish between different definitions, simply because she doesn’t believe different definitions exist, when they demonstrably do.
This, also ironically given the things you have accused me of, has been the tactic used by JFK and yourself. You use your scepticism of the existence of other definitions, despite admitting to the speciation I describe above, to deny that the form of argument you have been making is identical to that of BMS.
Does that make things clearer?
Louis
SC,
I notice you have deliberately avoided actually answering the questions I’ve asked. Since you demonstrably don’t know the reasons I am asking them, please don’t impute motives to me that I don’t have. The “gay” example I am using suffices for the purposes I am using it. I am not trying to map it onto insulting uses, just to illustrate a speciated word. I’ve explained this at length above. Again. You seem to be trying very hard not to understand this. Please just answer the questions, perhaps, just perhaps, they are not leading where you seem to think they are leading. You don’t even know why I am using it as an example despite the fact that I’ve explained it several times now, and it’s my example that’s dumb….hmmmm.
In the case of the first question it is DELIBERATELY HYPOTHETICAL. Understand? The inequalities you mention may or may not exist (in real life we both know they DO) but they do not change the definitions of the words used in those phrases. The question would apply if there were no bias, pro male bias or pro female bias. It’s a question about definitions and use. If the three phrases are interchangeable (i.e. the word at the end of each phrase is effectively meaningless, the definition is so loose as to encompass anything) then as I’ve in that HYPOTHETICAL scenario then I don’t think there is any specific bias evident in any of the phrases. Hence why I asked the question in a hypothetical way, I’m trying to build an uncontroversial position of consensus from which greater understanding and perhaps further consensus can develop.
Incidentally, I am not in any way trying to tell you, women, or anyone that any word, least of all “cunt”, is utterly free of misogynistic connotations under all circumstances. This is a very pernicious and IMO deliberately unpleasant way to misread my arguments. I am trying to say that a) different definitions of the word do exist, b) that the absolutist linguistic case re: imputing motives etc I refer to above is erroneous and c) that you don’t get to tell me what I mean when I use a word (in this case a word I don’t even fucking use as a rule. LOL Irony!). Because let’s be blunt you, and others, are trying to do precisely that. You are DEMANDING that the word “cunt” means what you say it means in all circumstances, regardless of other definitions, evolution of language, or usages.
Please just answer the questions. Honestly, you will like what follows.
Louis
Here is something more fun to think about: Attitudes towards female genitalia in Finnish folklore.
Incidentally we haven’t even got to the point about usage MODIFYING definition yet.
This would be another great use of the word “gay” as an example. The definition of the word “gay” speciated precisely BECAUSE of changing usage. The “dictionary” came after the “usage”. This is usage as environment in the speciation analogy. It was because of the successful usage of the word gay to mean homosexual that this speciation occurred.
This of course has some relevance to the comments about reclaiming words above.
“Cunt” in under going a similar process in various parts of the English speaking world right now. Granted, it’s everyone doing it, not just women, and that is a difference with “gay”. And it’s certainly not for the same reasons!
Oh well.
Louis
Louis, considering the fact that we supposedly resolved the issue on the purely racial epithet towards african-americans, imagine my surprise to see you use it twice in the very same fucking paragraph just now, when no discernable reason can be seen for you doing so.
I understand the point of wanting to discuss linguistics, but Jesus H. Christ, you are being seriously fucking annoying in your seemingly endless bloviations that are still littered with slurs and slanderous words. Is there some point to you continuing a 14-hour fucking discussion on insults? Obviously the word is not as offensive to you as you made out before, or you wouldn’t be so insistent on using it every fucking time you feel like you need to illustrate a point.
Consider my earlier retraction retracted. Now you’re just being unbelievably pedantic and annoying.
You haven’t shown any provisional morality. All I know is that moral behaviours are the product of an illusion created by socio-biological processes and there is no such thing as right or wrong or good or evil in reality(on the atheists worldview).
I pwn them with logic and reason. Read this thread
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/im_in_good_company.php
It is me pwning them with my traanscendental proof of God.
You should try to address what is clearly the more analogous example: the use of “that’s so gay” to insult something.
Wrong. Here’s what you’re not getting: If those connotations still exist in a culture, they color every use of the word in that culture. No use of the word as an insult is or can be completely free of them. (And your suggestion that “There exists a definition of the word “cunt” that has nothing to do with female genitalia” is disingenuous bullshit.) What Endor and others are trying to get you to do is to recognize this basic fact. Given that this is the case, using the word does to an extent imply misogyny, cluelessness, denial, or apathy; there’s no other option. Compare it to another term that came up recently – “cretin.” This word has in fact moved so far beyond its original meaning that probably most people don’t even know what this was.
All it makes clearer is that you’re missing something at a very fundamental level. This may be difficult for some people to believe, but I hate having these discussions over and over and over again. I was reluctant to enter this one, and have tried to ignore misogynistic comments here (especially several that have been directed at Barb) because I wanted to avoid the subject. I do think you’re arguing in good faith, and don’t think you have any bad motives. I think we’re going in circles at this point, though, and I’m finding this really boring, so I’ll let you have the last word.
BrokenSolider,
Sorry simply discussing a word is so offensive to you. I tend to think that it’s the specific use of a word that renders it offensive, not the word’s existence on the page (as it were).
The word IS offensive to me exactly as I pointed out before, does that mean I have to react to it the same way you do? Am I not allowed to react differently from you? Do you get to tell me what words I can and cannot use and in what context? Do you get to dictate tome what my reaction must be? I don’t think you do, I’m sorry if you think differently. I think I’ve made the point that I am in no way using the word to offend anyone, so any offence taken is precisely that: TAKEN.
That said, I do wish I’d started with vastly less controversial words like “guitar” for an unspeciated word (for example) Sadly, as we have been dealing with insults and bigotry I stayed with that theme.
I’m sorry you feel the need to retract your retraction. I’ll cheerfully accept “pedantic” btw, and I can quite easily understand the “annoying” (this is annoying me too btw). Sorry but this is actually an important issue to me. The control of language, its use in maintaining inequalities etc is interesting to me. I am wary of people who, on one hand, insist that I cannot tell them what a word means to them (quite right) but then try to insist that they can tell me what a word means to me. That strikes me as a ferocious double standard. One that shouldn’t exist for ANYONE.
Has it been that long? Crikey, that’s what insomnia and a hangover will get you!
Louis
Louis:
You mistook my comment for one that needed a reply.
Oh, ffs. It’s not at all a similar process, you twit. The word is not being reclaimed with a proud or positive usage by women, who are the only ones who can validly (attempt to) reclaim it. I’m not under many illusions that my attempted reclamation of “True Internet Pussy” will be successful, but it’s certainly qualitatively different from men using “pussy” as an insult and then claiming their own idiosyncratic nonsexist meaning.
SC,
I don’t want the last word and I’ll agree this is getting boring, and has upset too many people I don’t want to upset, yourself included. For that I can only apologise.
You think that my claim that a separate (non-female genitalia) definition for the word “cunt” exists is disingenuous bullshit…can we agree on “wrong”? LOL. I don’t think it is. I also don’t think that because some baggage still exists all usages are burdened by that baggage or that we can tell this without referral to context. You disagree with this too apparently. I’m happy to leave it at “agree to disagree”. Does that sound fair (please make the last word yours)?
Sorry for embroiling you in this discussion AGAIN!
Louis
SC: Oh FFS also!
The process point I was making was not that it was proudly being reclaimed by women but that it was undergoing speciation because of change of usage. You have repeatedly misunderstood precisely why I have used that analogy, I don’t expect you to understand it now.
Broken Soldier:
My mistake, I assumed I was dealing with a reasonable human being. A mistake I make too frequently it seems.
Louis
Fair enough, but the differences between these two cases are confusing the issue. No one is denying that words acquire new meanings over time by being used in a different way, so we don’t need examples of this occurring. That’s not all there is to the matter.
And your speciation metaphor is tired, Louis. A metaphor should be used to help illuminate, and your use of this one here is I think instead preventing you from recognizing key aspects of the situation.
It’s been repeatedly pointed out that a better analogy exists.
Your claim was: “There exists a definition of the word ‘cunt’ that has nothing to do with female genitalia.” [my bold] Please try to appreciate the difference between this and your phrasing above.
Indeed I do.
Sure. Whatever.
Louis, brokenSoldier has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he is an extremely reasonable human being. He is also speaking very reasonably here about your use of that word. Perhaps you should reexamine your thinking about the power of certain words.
I hate to post something on topic, and to break into the facinating discussion of the cultural connotations of the word “cunt”, but it would be good if as many people as possible joined the Facebook group relating to Pervez Kambakhsh:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=58129598684&ref=mf
Louis:
Kiss my ass.
I have found this thread highly interesting,and people have been arguing a lot from or motivated by ideology.
So if I go out with my mates and after the umptieth beer call one of my male friends a cunt,im being a misogynist?
Context,people.It matters.
Whatever did we all do with our time before we had the internet to let us engage in endless pointless vituperative arguments with total strangers over the utterly trivial?
I cant remember.
Already done! I feel a bit guilty for participating in the thread-jack but I just wanted to defend Louis. Some of his examples have not been well chosen but the accusations towards him have been been rather unfair, IMO.
SC:
With all due respect, you said you just recently became aware that the word can be directed at men, so maybe you are not aware of how different the usage is in those cases. Using the word “pussy” to insult men is misogynist because it implies that the man has female-like qualities that are considered inferior. In contrast, “cunt” in the usage Louis is speaking of does not seem to be intended to refer to any particularly female-like qualities. See here for an example.
Well I’m not going to restart the (as Ian Gould rightly states) endless pointless vituperative argument with total strangers over the utterly trivial again. Even though I hope I haven’t been vituperative through all of this.
However I will say to Broken Soldier that, kissing your ass aside, if you’re not grown up enough to accept a sincere apology when it’s offered, then regardless of SC’s endorsement of you (an endorsement I’d heartily agree with in general btw), I’d argue you’re not being a reasonable human being in any sense of the word. I’m sorry you feel the need for animosity when none exists on my part and certainly no offence was intended on my part. I think you need to calm down and realise that at least.
SC, the power of words? They have the power you grant them. Nothing more. They’re not magic and they’re meaningless in the absence of context. Perhaps you need to understand that. Incidentally, this was a lesson I learned the hard way. Shall I whore out my extensive personal experience with racism to score some cheap rhetorical trick? Plead offence at the mere use of a word in order to stifle discussion because *I* don’t like it? I think not. I’d rather deal with what I can and can’t establish. If it turns out that I’m wrong about something, I’ll cheerfully change my mind, but, just as I would have to show you good evidence, so you’d have to show me some.
As we both think (however rightly or wrongly) that neither of us have done this in this case, and as things are getting unnecessarily heated (IMO) I think the best thing for all of us to do, as above, is agree to disagree and leave the topic as friends. Do you think that’s possible? I hope so, and as said before, I realise these can be emotive topics and I apologise unreservedly for any and all offence caused.
Thanks.
Louis
Emu Sam:
Alonzo Fyfe argues that if we have an evolved moral sense, that does not in itself mean that it is “good” to do what that moral sense tells us. That’s right.
But then he also argues that we don’t have a moral sense, since admitting that we have an evolved moral sense would lead us to some unsettling conclusions, for instance that “If we evolved a disposition to decapitate our lovers and eat them after sex, that would be moral.” He appears to be using an argument from consequences to dismiss the hypothesis that we have an evolved moral sense! Not good at all.
There are a lot of other problems with his discussion. For example, an evolved moral sense in no way implies that individual morality is fixed, no more than a hypothetical “language instinct” implies that language is fixed.
I am a jew . But I dont see why you need to criticise a whole religion because of the three mullahs you are mentioning.
There are fanatics in any religion . The horrible things that are done are done by the wrong thinking of the people who commit them , not the fault of the religion itself.
This is true for almost all religions .
Bernard Makizoi
P.h.d
clinteas,
I should be honest with you about something. In your case, I have had the time (online luxury) of getting to know your attitudes better over a period of months. I know I said I would email you, but the comments you’ve made about women are the main reason I haven’t, even though I have been in touch with eight other men from here. It’s a shame, because I like you and think you’re a nice guy. I may be wrong about your attitudes and I may be missing out, but I don’t like the way you talk about women some of the time and it makes me wary.
windy:
Since I’ve heard from others here, including on this thread, that those connotations still exist in the broader culture, I am not convinced that the word could be used in a way which has “nothing to do with” female genitalia (this would require a complete loss of this meaning on the part of all potential listeners). Just as I’m not convinced that the insult “that’s so gay” could be used in a way that has nothing at all to do with gay people. I’m not saying it’s like “pussy” – just that Louis hasn’t made his case that the other connotations no longer attach. windy, on the recent thread about racism you asked a remarkable question about whether people would have a problem with using “races” to refer to animal subspecies. I found this astonishing and strange. The term is tainted by its ideological and oppressive use – how could this be anything other than counterproductive? Why on earth would you be suggesting it?
Only if by “you” you mean cultures. You as an individual cannot declare by fiat that certain words should not offend in certain contexts or have lost earlier connotations. Simply using them gratuitously doesn’t deprive them of their associations. Your suggestion that you should have used an uncontroversial word like guitar to make your points says to me that you are unappreciative of the power of derogatory words that have been used to oppress and how difficult it is to distance those words from their connotations.
Of course.
SC,
there you are….I hope you are ok my internet friend.
Wow,Im being dumped without ever getting a date,thats got to be a record !!
To be honest Im not sure what you are referring to regarding my posts related to women,and if you knew me better you would know that I have had a rather complex upbringing myself and the very last thing on my mind would be to say anything degrading,macho etc about women.
There would have been the odd drunk excited post over the years,but I would imagine a self-assured confident chick like yourself would have seen them for what they are and move on….
Sorry if I disappointed you in any way,but I am who I am.
As to your comments about windy,
all I can say is,everytime windy posts here,Im like,YES,windy is still one of the most sophisticated,original,wise commenters here.And on the cunt discussion,I agree with her wholeheartedly.
One more thing I thought of while I was mowing the lawn this afternoon – could the use of those taboo words be precisely because they are taboo rather than the connotations they have? When someone says ‘cunt’ or ‘fuck’ or whatever that the rebellion against the social stigma and pushing the boundaries is what the real connotation that is at play, rather than the negative connotation that’s associated with it?
i.e. does the fact that a word is taboo ultimately push for the use of said word?
Bernard, you’d have a point if it were only a couple of mullahs being jerks. But you’re missing two important points about Kambaksh’s case:
1. He wrote a paper mildly critical of Islam. Those of us living in Western countries think nothing about criticizing various religions. Read this blog and you’ll see religions, particularly fundamentalist religions, soundly condemned, let alone criticized. But in Afghanistan criticizing Islam is apostasy, a capital offense.
2. It isn’t a mullah or two issuing a fatwah like Ayatollah Khomeini did to Salmon Rushdie. Kambaksh was convicted by a civil court for a religious offense. In Western countries we expect separation of church and state (either de jure in the US, Japan and Australia or de facto in the rest of the Western civilization). In Afghanistan and other Islamic countries, religion and the state are intertwined.
When fundamentalism, of any flavor, is the prevailing rule of government in any country, that country deserves being condemned.
Of course. It would be nicely coloured, very tidy, and Barbera Streiand would be playing in the background.
…and probably annoying good-looking.
That doesn’t really make sense.
And I’m not expecting you to change or accusing you of anything. I’m just explaining where I’m coming from.
I didn’t make comments about windy. I addressed a comment to her. I’m just surprised that she appears to be that naive about these words.
No kidding. I never said otherwise. WTF?
Well, you posted a comment following a couple hundred others that ignored them entirely. You seem determined to do so.
Kel:
“Cunt” is not the equivalent of “fuck.” It’s not rejected because it’s profanity. It’s rejected because it originated and has been used to demean and degrade a group of people. Like the n-word. If, knowing these connotations you want to use it to try to be “subversive,” you may be contributing to giving it a new meaning, or you may be kidding yourself and insulting people in the process. What you should not do (especially if you’re not a member of the group the word is disparaging) is assume that your use of it is necessarily robbing it of its connotations and subverting it. It’s far more complicated than that, and depends on a number of factors that aren’t all within your control.
SC:
It’s not something I came up with, it has been recognized as a synonym for subspecies for a long time! IIRC, I was asking for clarification if some people were arguing for the nonexistence of race in general or just that it doesn’t pertain to humans.
PS. Did you happen to take a look at the presentation I linked to in #544? It’s rather off topic but I thought you might appreciate it…
PPS. thanks for the kind words clinteas!
Sometimes a word is rejected for good reasons. I still don’t understand the attachment to the word that leads people to write these long series of posts trying to show that its use can be unproblematic in some contexts. Would the world be a worse place if the use of “cunt” died out and it were dropped from the lexicon?
SC,
lets do this another time ok,im depressed and fed up anyway and there’s no point in defending something I dont think I am guilty of in the first place….
Cunt is a word that is used in context,if I use it towards you it would be an insult,if I use towards my drunken mate at 3 am it is not.Why is that so hard to understand.
SC,
I did mean “you” as “you plural” or “the listener”. I in no way am ignorant of, nor deny the use of, derogatory language to oppress, nor am I in any way trying to dictate how anyone chooses to hear a word (if you see my meaning). You are perfectly entitled to be offended by my use of a word, you are not entitled to claim, in the absence of evidence, that by my use of a word I intend to offend or adhere to one specific meaning when many are possible (if they are possible that is). You are not entitled to dictate to me what I mean by a word, just like I am not entitled to dictate to you that you shouldn’t be offended by it. The point about “guitar” was that I could have demonstrated the linguistic point I was trying to make in the absence of controversial baggage and then built from there. It would have been a less contentious demonstration of the specifics of linguistic evolution I was trying to get at. I think we’ve gone too far forward, and I’ve made too many mistakes, to start again at an uncontroversial beginning. Next time I’ll start differently….ONLY KIDDING!
I’m glad you think we can part on this issue on friendly terms. TBH, I don’t think I did a good job of making my case…perhaps not as bad a job as you think LOL ;-)…I’ll blame a combination of Y chromosome and hangover.
Cheers
Louis
You’re not still arguing about cunts, surely?
Well, take a break read this:
You don’t understand. Only Americans face those difficulties. Among Brits there is no such confusion. There is no chance, despite your intentions, that “cunt” (the version that’s interchangeable with “prick”) will be removed from British street slang.
Oops! That last post was supposed to be addressed to SC, not authorered by SC!
Facilis (#547):
If that’s all you know, then you don’t know much. Quite apart from anything else, Ruse doesn’t speak for all atheists, or even all atheists who see morality as an evolutionary adaptation. And reading the interview you linked to, it looks rather as if he was dumbing down his position somewhat – certainly he seemed to be eliding a lot of points which in a proper philosophical discourse would require a lot of unpacking, qualification and explaining.
Firstly, if morality is an evolved trait, it doesn’t necessarily follow that moral statements are not objectively true in some transcendental sense. It could be that evolution has provided us with a moral sense that allows us to grasp moral “facts”, if such exist, which would obviously be beneficial to a social animal. Nevertheless, if morality is an evolved trait, the idea that morals are objective facts in some transcendental sense still becomes rather odd. It certainly isn’t required to explain anything about our moral thinking and behaviour, and so can be set aside as a redundant hypothesis. From a Rusean point of view, moral non-realism is (at the very least) the more parsimonious option, since it makes fewer and simpler metaphysical assumptions (which is actually the case whether morality is supposed to be an evolved trait or not).
I think Ruse would have served the interview better if he’d taken this line, instead of misleadingly implying that moral non-realism followed automatically from the evolutionary scenario.
Secondly, Ruse is also rather sloppy when when talking about the illusory nature of morality. When he says (in the source that you didn’t cite properly):
“Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation.”
(Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm, 1989)
then it’s reasonably clear that the illusion he is talking about is the notion that ethics involves making true or false statements about some objectively existing transcendent state of affairs. I.e., it’s not morality that is illusion, but a particular understanding of what morality is. However, he doesn’t elaborate in a way that would make this clear, and in the interview he uses the term “illusion” as if it referred to morality per se, rather than to a notion of morality as something transcendentally objective. Which isn’t exactly helpful.
The point is that morality is real, it is important, and it can be argued rationally. It just isn’t the kind of thing that you insist that it is.
Evolution explains why we as a species exhibit moral behaviour and think in moral terms. It doesn’t provide a “foundation” for morality in the sense of providing an absolute or objective justification for moral claims (and I have yet to see any reason to suppose that such a foundation is even possible), but it does provide us with a basis for understanding morality as something deeply rooted in human nature. I.e., moral behaviour is not something superficial, but part of who we are as a species.
No, Facilis, it’s you making assertions and refusing to back them up with actual arguments, even when people repeatedly call you on it.
Perhaps you didn’t read my comments on the Molly thread (or above on this one), but I’m not exactly having a wonderful week myself.
?
What appears to be hard for you to understand is that the meanings attached to the word aren’t determined entirely by your specific intended use of it. Your particular context exists within a larger cultural context which itself exists within the larger context of the English-speaking world. I’m not saying it’s impossible for a cultural context to exist in which the woman-specific pejorative connotations have been lost entirely. I’m saying that Louis hasn’t convinced me that this is the case where he is.
Oh, OK. (Is it really used today in this way in the scientific literature?) I thought it had already been established that human races/subspecies did not exist, but I’m too lazy to go back and find the thread. Anyway, I understand better now what you were asking.
I just did. Very interesting. I wish they had translated all of the poems (especially the one about the woman’s vagina escaping from her body to satisfy its own appetites :)).
I do see your meaning, and you’re being clueless about language. People aren’t choosing to be offended – the meanings attached to the word which were meant to degrade and offend are still there. You can’t simply declare them dead and gone. It’s astounding that you recognize this when it’s directed at women – you’re not saying we “choose” to be offended by it then – but then attribute any offense at its being used for men to be purely a matter of choice.
Why, thank you.
You cannot make up definitions as you go based on your intentions. It doesn’t matter what I think. I said that if I could be convinced that in your cultural context those meanings no longer attached at all such that the word could be used completely innocently of all misogynistic connotations that would be different. But I’m not convinced of that, especially after a woman from your cultural context said she still hears those connotations and finds the word offensive and your response was that other people don’t.
Bullshit. See Kitty’s comment above.
Uh, I never said anything about any such “intentions.” Further, your claim is both irrelevant and stupid (as street slang chnges rapidly even with no one intending it).
But you couldn’t demonstrate your linguistic point about a pejorative term by referring to a qualitatively different sort of word. No one is arguing that words in general don’t develop new meanings. Appreciating the “controversial baggage” is essential to understanding the specific nature and power of these words and the complexities of their use.
Iain has earned a place on my “to be nominated” Molly list with his erudite rebuttal to poor Facilis. Great work.
The Fallacious Fool still shows no reason or logic, as evidenced by his earlier claim he actually presented his presupposition argument correctly.
SC,
like Louis,i will agree to disagree and leave it at that ok.
SC,
I never said I could make up the definitions, that’s a straw man of your own confection. And re: Kitty, I think it’s interesting you privilege her anecdote over mine (when actually BOTH are merely anecdotes), especially since it speaks to a misunderstanding of the claims you think I was making. Could you be being sexist by preferring anecdotal testimony from women over that from men? Double standard much.
My response to the argument Kitty made has been misunderstood (esp as it has been made in more posts than the one that directly responded to Kitty). I’m happy to concede that I made those arguments poorly/confusingly or that I could have made them more clearly. I’m not happy to capitulate to an “argument” on your part which relies on mere assertion about what a word means in all times and all places and nothing else. Do you understand what “agree to disagree” means? Have you woken up this morning determined to restart an argument that neither of us (apparently) want to continue.
If you want to continue the argument I will, but I am going to start again, from a less controversial place and make the linguistic argument more clearly. A clean slate if you will. My brain isn’t encumbered today by the metabolites of ethanol! ;-)
I’m getting frustrated at being misrepresented, regardless of whether that misrepresentation is due to poor construction of previous arguments on my part, misunderstanding/misrepresentation on your part, or movement of great white whales in the Antarctic. My patience, and ability to resist a really good dust up, are not infinite! Take this in the genuine good humour it is intended. Sadly one of the limits of text communication is the nuances of genuine good natured, good humoured discussion can be missed.
Cheers
Louis
P.S. The England/France match is on, wooooot! Go England!
SC,
I never said I could make up the definitions, that’s a straw man of your own confection. And re: Kitty, I think it’s interesting you privilege her anecdote over mine (when actually BOTH are merely anecdotes), especially since it speaks to a misunderstanding of the claims you think I was making. Could you be being sexist by preferring anecdotal testimony from women over that from men? Double standard much.
My response to the argument Kitty made has been misunderstood (esp as it has been made in more posts than the one that directly responded to Kitty). I’m happy to concede that I made those arguments poorly/confusingly or that I could have made them more clearly. I’m not happy to capitulate to an “argument” on your part which relies on mere assertion about what a word means in all times and all places and nothing else. Do you understand what “agree to disagree” means? Have you woken up this morning determined to restart an argument that neither of us (apparently) want to continue.
I am not claiming, for example, that you think language does not evolve. The point you have continually missed is that HOW language evolves IS relevant to the complexties/baggage associated with their use. Your persistent misunderstanding of, for example, how I was using the word “gay” is a case in point. I didn’t need to use “gay as insult” because it wasn’t anything to do with the point I was trying to make. You persist in reiterating these misunderstandings despite very polite attempts to get you to stop. Please stop. Please!
If you want to continue the argument I will, but I am going to start again, from a less controversial place and make the linguistic argument more clearly. A clean slate if you will. My brain isn’t encumbered today by the metabolites of ethanol! ;-)
I’m getting frustrated at being misrepresented, regardless of whether that misrepresentation is due to poor construction of previous arguments on my part, misunderstanding/misrepresentation on your part, or movement of great white whales in the Antarctic. My patience, and ability to resist a really good dust up, are not infinite! Take this in the genuine good humour it is intended. Sadly one of the limits of text communication is the nuances of genuine good natured, good humoured discussion can be missed.
Cheers
Louis
P.S. The England/France match is on, wooooot! Go England!
Which is probably true; cunt is still generally considered to be the most offensive word in UK English. It is probably the only word that couldn’t be used on the BBC – even racial epithets are considered passable on the Beeb, within certain contexts.
However, there is a coinage used by some men, amongst men, which is so far removed from the origins of the word as to be divorced from straight pejorative reference to female genitalia. So, the sexism lies in the fact that it has become co-opted exclusively to male banter – that the word is generally offensive to women is tacitly acknowledged by virtue of the context within which it is used. However, the word itself within that context is not understood by the users to have any direct reference to the vagina.
The users of the word clearly are aware of the potential for offense, but are also clear in their own minds of their itention. That seems to be where the ambiguity lies, and the confusion originates.
It seems to me that it would be fair to accept that many people do not intend misogyny when they use the word, and indeed are not misogynistic. But it would also be fair to say that the word is stil greviously insulting, and that women still have no ownership of the word; that it is still a sexist term. I think that it is entirely possible to be sexist without misogynistic, simply via carelessness.
FUCK! I double posted. Ignore the first one, I inserted an extra paragraph into the second. They are not identical.
Louis
OK. It sounds like we’re both going through a tough time, and it’s probably not the best moment to get into a debate about anything (not that I ever want to argue with you). I’m so sorry if my comment hurt you. I really didn’t want to because I do like you, but I did want to explain why I hadn’t emailed after I said I would. I could well be totally wrong about this, and probably am. But in the case of the person from here whom I contacted that turned out to be a disaster I wish I had been more cautious. So you can blame him for what’s possibly an excess of wariness on my part.
:/
(Louis and I have agreed to disagree several times now and then proceeded to continue arguing. I’m going to try my best to hold to my word now and let him and Erasmus and whoever have the last word.)
The last word? Zyxt apparently. If you could only learn to share, I’m sure you could all have it.
No need to be Kentish about it…
Touche, sir!
So we’re done? Thank fuck for that.
Louis
Kitty is wrong. The word “cunt” is used as a mild pejorative all the time in Britain. In the north of England it is on practically the exact same footing as “prick”. The only people I’ve known to kick up a fuss about the word are Americans.
We keep telling you till we’re blue in the face: it does not necessarily have sexist connotations outside the US. Several native speakers of British English have told you that, but you just won’t listen.
No, your claim is what’s irrelevant and stupid. You suggested that it is best policy to cease using the word, as (you think) it causes confusion. I said it that in general it only confuses Americans, who aren’t important as far as British slang is concerned. And that confusion can usually be remedied by a brief explanation of the linguistic differences. You so consistently fail to understand only by virtue of being singularly moronic, obstinate, and insecure.
The truth was always within you, Louis……;)
I have no idea how the word could POSSIBLY be sexist when it is used to mean nothing more than “a contemptible male”. The word is sexist in the US because it most often used to as a derogatory term to address women. That’s where the misogyny comes from. Take that feature away and the slang word cunt is no more sexist than “prick” or “wanker” “dickhead”.
So Bernard Bumner* is wrong as well, as is the BBC, evidently.
*By the way, well said, Bernard. I thought your comment made a great deal of sense.
This little smart-alec comment only underscores your profound ignorance of British English. There are in fact many diverse regional dialects in Britain. I was primarily talking about the dialects spoken in the north of England. It is absurd to try to use the word of a few Brits to nullify my word, because there are dozens upon dozens of different dialects, and I doubt any individual is familiar with them all.
In any case, my point was a logical point, and doesn’t require argument from authority. “Cunt” is often used to mean exactly “contemptible male”. How could such a usage POSSIBLY be sexist?
In any case, my point was a logical point.
Well. I can’t believe this is still going on!
Thank you for that.
What a pompous thing to say.
How about you try to understand that not everyone in the UK moves in the same circles as you and not everyone in Northern England (or the rest of the UK) uses the same language you do?
Good comment Bernard Bumner. Someone who actually puts his brain into gear before posting.
By some people, but it still remains the most offensive word in UK English. You know that to be the case.
Not a chance. I live in the north (west, but I’ve also lived in the east), and I know full well that if I call anybody outside of my immediate male friends by that term, then there is a good chance of violence. Prick might cause a verbal confrontation down the pub, but cunt is a guaranteed fight.
I also know that the vast majority of my female friends find the word repellent, not just distasteful.
By virtue of the fact that you know full well that you couldn’t use the term about a woman. You’re already acknowledging the fact that the term is offensive to women.
Erasmus – it has nothing to do with dialect. That is completely different from the slang you are quoting.
Go fuck yourself, moron.
Why don’t you try actually reading the thread and responding to the arguments that have been made?
No, it was not.
***
Kitty – Apparently you’re not only wrong about your own responses and those of your friends and acquaintances, you’re either No True Brit or you don’t exist!
*sigh*
Seriously? Using a word with the literal meaning of “female genitalia” to express the connoted meaning “contemptible male” doesn’t strike you as inherently and inextricably sexist?
*shakes head in sad sympathy for SC*
SC,OM. Sounds about right! But then it’s what I’ve come to expect from sexist males! They don’t recognise their sexism, even when it bites them.
I’m leaving now. This is so not worth any more of my time and I suggest you go and do something nice too.
I think I’ll roast a chunk of beef, make some Yorkshire puddings and open a nice bottle of red.
I’m not saying she doesn’t exist, I’m saying that in my estimation she is clearly wrong. It’s curious that you choose to listen to Kitty and Bernard Bumner (who are telling you what you want to hear), but not me, Louis, Clinteas and others.
Because you don’t have any arguments worth answering. Your problem is insecurity. Rather than accepting the distinct possibility that we’re right (why would we lie or deceive ourselves about this?), you choose to believe we’re part of a conspiracy to oppress women.
When I pass young male chavs (look it up) on the street, and one calls the other a “daft cunt”…am I to believe that that’s sexist, but “stupid prick” isn’t?
Oh dear. Cunt fight. Well, if you will talk about a nasty, aggressive word….
And yet the word “prick” is different, isn’t it?
There are too many batshit fringe nutcases posting on this blog. Isn’t good for my blood pressure.
Yes. Yes, it is different. It’s different because of the socio-historical context of sexism. If it’s not different in the user’s conscious intent, it is very different in its (perhaps debatable) unconscious connotations to the user and (not debatable) in its connotations, conscious or unconscious, in at least some of those who hear it used.
And if I am a “batshit fringe nutcase” for that opinion, then so be it. *shrug*
How can she be wrong about her own fucking response to the word? (clinteas is German and lives in Australia, by the way.) You’re claiming that it is not a word that retains connotations or causes offense where you are, and other people there are telling you that it is and it does and providing evidence of this. And yet you continue to insist that you’ve only heard Americans raise a “fuss” about it. That’s an outright lie.
I’ve now read again through your comments on this thread, and come to the conclusion that you’re an idiot and not worth anyone’s time.
In your case because you’re an insensitive sexist fuck.
You’re also insane.
Feel free to leave. You won’t be missed.
Which nicely dodges attempting to deal with what I actually wrote.
You must know that the word is generally considered to be the most offensive word in the language. You must also know that it is generally considered to be very offensive to women. Actually, you’ve written as much yourself.
The point isn’t that the term is necessarily used in a consciously misogynistic manner – I would definitely choose to disagree with anybody arguing that all sexism is misogyny. It is a casually sexist term in the context you’ve given, even if you don’t mean it to be so.
And, yes, I have used it myself. (In anger. Understanding that it is the most offensive four letter word I can muster.)
There is a big difference between a male describing another male as a penis, and a male calling another male a vagina. (See Sven’s post.)
Did I hear someone whining about those who are dismissive of people they don’t agree with? Can’t stomach people not telling you what you want to hear?
WHOA!
Don’t fucking drag me back in!
I’m not making the exact same arguments Erasmus, Clinteas or anyone is making, I’m certainly not calling anyone Not a True Brit or anything like it. Please don’t impute motives and arguments to me I don’t have and haven’t made.
Louis
In some parts of the country it’s very offensive, sure. It definitely isn’t “proper”. But young working class males in Teesside or Manchester seem to have no problem with it. For them it doesn’t have any sexist implication, when used against males; it’s used in much the same way as “knob” or “prick”.
Oh yes, I see the distinction. Yes, SC was so obviously right all along. I can picture the scene now: she draws the comparison between a certain objectionable female, and the male erectile organ. Possibly SC utters the word “knobhead” or even — gasp! — “dickwad”. I would be absolutely mortified. Slighted to the very core of my being. What kind of insensitive, stone-old misandrist, from the undercellars of far-right hate camps, would do such a thing? Why would SC hurt my feelings like that? It is OFFENSIVE!
Meanwhile, Sayed Pervez Kambaksh is still in prison.
Just sayin’ …
Yes, Iain. I’m in an organization with numerous people from that part of the world from whom I receive regular updates, and have over the past several months posted – on probably every thread related to these horrors and several others as well – links to petitions, women’s rights and LGBT organizations, interviews with activists, etc. I’ve done so on the other science blogs as well. I think Kitty said it well above: “Perhaps in 50 years it might change but while women are oppressed in many parts of the world – go back to the the origin of this thread – it isn’t exactly high on most women’s wish lists to feel comfortable calling anyone a cunt for any reason.”
Erasmus, you’re still a moron.
The problem is that you started off acknowledging that, but then shifted to much more definitive rhetoric, such as:
Bah! Pick the meaning out of it, if you please…
Holy flying fuck on a stick. No wonder this thread got so long.
I am sadly not surprised that a post about how women are systematically oppressed became a few specific guys trying like all hell to defend being able to use cunt as an insult.
Here’s the way being a non-asshole works:
Person 1: *uses offensive term*
Person 2: Wow, that’s an offensive term. Please don’t.
Person 1: Really? I don’t use it that way, and didn’t even think that would be an interpretation.
Person 2: Well, it certainly is that in large swaths of the world, many of whom participate in this international online place. Using it as an insult reinforces that offense to a lot of people reading it.
Person 1: Oh, well then. I’ll use my big human brain to think of other insults to use, since I have a very large vocabulary and being asked not to use one specific word really isn’t that big a deal.
See? Easy.
Also, believe it or not, most people who find the term cunt offensive also don’t call people dicks or pricks, out of a similar consideration, so that’s a lost argument.
What I meant is that despite the fairly regular appliance of the C word over here, I have never witnessed such protracted debate over its use. But this isn’t the first time I’ve come across Americans kicking up a big fuss.
Interesting: I notice “50 years” and “many parts of the world”. So basically, even if there’s perfect equality — even if your sex has the advantage — you’re going to use any excuse you can to whine about how offended and oppressed you are.
I can’t speak for others, but I wasn’t trying to defend using cunt as an insult. Rather I was saying that the word’s usage is dependant on context and the society it’s in. I just want to make this point clear.
What a smug little ass you are, Erasmus. You can’t even fucking read people’s words and understand them. Louis and Kel are making arguments. I disagree with them, but that’s what they’re doing. You, on the other hand, are in fact handwavingly trying to defend the use of these words, because you’re a sexist jerk. I have the distinct sense you’re dying to call me a cunt. Why don’t you go ahead and do it already? You won’t be banned for it, and it will allow you to express your contempt for women (or at least us uppity ones) in a way that won’t require you to address the content of people’s posts or to try to form a coherent argument yourself – intellectual feats you’re clearly not up to.
heyo.
shot you back an email a few days back, SC.
did u get it? a bit concerned about my internet connection down here in this backwater swamp.
:)
No, what I was saying is that a certain restricted use of the C word is not sexist in any meaningful sense. Again, I’m not out to subtly oppress women, despite your paranoid delusions.
I am going to start using the words “packy” and “golliwog” because in a certain restricted use of those words, they are not racist.
And neither are the working-class blokes in Manchester; we get it. And yet it’s wrong–both you and those dudes in Manchester are subtly oppressing women, by using and defending the use of that particular word. I am not talking about conscious intentions.
Are they Teletubies or Muppets?
Honestly I have no idea what either of those words mean.
These will lead you to the Urban Dictionary.
Packy
Golliwog
Funny thing, before John Fogerty took over the band and changed their name, CCR was called The Golliwogs.
“Honestly I have no idea what either of those words mean.”
golliwogs are little racist caricatures with the big red lips and shit.
I only know cause there was a controversy about the characters in that game “loco roco.”
I guess I probably could have figured out packy and being from where I am from I should have known Golliwog.
Strange that I can not ever recall having heard those referred to as that.
I think too many people do not understand the great power of language. Language, no less than laws or customs, has been used to marginalize and oppress segments of the human population since – well, pretty much since language was invented. Take two people, otherwise identical, and label one “slave” and the other “master”, and you suddenly can create an entire set of ideas regarding their place in their society. To deny the historical context of the use of certain words is to use a word in ignorance. That, in and of itself, isn’t necessarily a bad thing; we can be brought up having learned to use a word with specific people in specific situations and believe that the word is pretty harmless. But as a human being who must use language to communicate, it is your responsibility to learn what that word may mean in the broader social environment.
And also, generally speaking, I believe that it is up to the historical oppressee to determine what is offensive, rather than the historical oppressor. My wife, and some of her female friends, once had a discussion regarding the word “cunt”. They informed me about their feelings regarding its use. I didn’t use the word before the conversation, and I certainly haven’t used the word since.
Oh, and pretty much what Carlie said above, as well.
hey, ichthyic–i never heard back from u, but just figured you were just as buried and behind in ur email as i am.
if so, np at all; write whenever’s good, but if you didn’t get an email from me a week ago or so, that’s a data point for concern about ur connection there.
I don’t think you’re part of any friggin’ conspiracy, Erasmus. I’m quite certain, though, that you’re a sexist jerk.
***
Hey Ichthyic,
I did get it. It’s been a miserable week, but I’ll write back just as soon as I can! Hope you’re doing well.
hey, ichthyic–i never heard back from u, but just figured you were just as buried and behind in ur email as i am.
I never got your email.
send again?
OK, but to show that it subtly oppresses women you’ll need a better argument than “The C word is inherently sexist because it refers to female genitalia”. But at this point I’m almost bored to sleep.
UK usage (AFAIK) “Paki” – used as a term of racist abuse, for anyone apparently from the Indian Sub Continent or Asia. Often synonymous with Muslims. Not suitable for any white person to use at any time, though not as strong as “nigger”, which is unbroadcastable (though, of course, sometimes used by young blacks). Prince Harry (army man) recently got into trouble for referring to one of his old polo mates by this as a familiar nickname – the friend didn’t mind at all – but cause much embarrassment in the press and at the Palace. However, the term is also used by some Pakistanis as a group name.
“Golliwog” was originally a much-loved child’s doll, an image of a negro c.Black & White Minstrel time (which ended here in the 1970s. Also used, most famously, as a collectible mascot for Robinson’s Jam. Connected with the now virtually unused, and racist, name “Wog” – or maybe. Many people feel that the original doll, while it seems now like an offensive caricature, was rather sweet and completely harmless. The effective banning of golliwogs is often seen, by whites, is “political correctness gone mad” So far as I know, it wasn’t really been an issue with black people. I guess they have so much real, or perceived, racism to deal with that worrying about children’s dolls is low on their list of priorities.
Of course, I’m not advocating the use of any racist terms – but this is more a note on what I think is the current usage in the UK.
Late to the party again. I simply can’t keep up with you guys and find time to eat and sleep. How do you do it?
Bobber: ever heard of the Eupemism Treadmill? It’s the game we all play with descriptive words as they come into fashion and then subsequently become “offensive” or unpalatable, only to be replaced by another dscription which follows the same path. Witness the progression from “crippled” to “handicapped” to “disabled” etc.
On the subject of golliwogs, I remember when I was a child learning to read with the aid of Enid Blyton’s Noddy and Big Ears books (probably unknown to U.S. readers, and you’re not missing much!) Anyway, in the books there were black characters called golliwogs. Nothing wrong with that in itself, only the golliwogs were always causing trouble and behaving badly. However, I personally never associated black people with golliwogs, and certainly never made any connection between antisocial behaviour and black skinned people simply on the basis of children’s fictional characters, but nevertheless Enid Blyton’s books were eventually withdrawn on the grounds that they were “racist”. Similarly, the makers of a certain brand of jam (jelly in the U.S.) with a prominent image of a golliwog on the jar was also withdrawn. This was in the 1970’s I believe, but both the books and the jam had been around for decades before that.
Now – as I see it, Enid Blyton’s books were mildly racist (even though I never personally saw any racism as a child), but the jam? No way. The difference was in the way the character was portrayed. Enid Blyton deliberately made her golliwog characters mildly threatening, so the racism charge was valid. But on the jam jar it was just a happy smiling black figure. Where’s the racism there? My sister even had a stuffed golliwog toy, and none of us ever saw any harm in it. If anything it was the very opposite of racism, as it was a cherished toy.
So if anyone asked me if golliwogs were racist, I’d say no. Not in themselves. But their history has been “tainted” by past events which obviously still linger. Only recently a shopkeeper who sold stuffed golliwogs had to remove them all from a shop window because somebody “complained”. Why? What harm were they doing? Stuffed golliwog toys would probably actually improve relations between blacks and whites, but once something is regarded as “racist” or “offensive”, in the bin it goes – for good. Pity.
Sorry about the long post but I wanted to get that off my chest. I’ll go back to single line comments from now on!
I agree, Elwood, The dolls were I think first procduced in about the 1920s and were, almost universally known as “Gollies”. Many, many, small kids went to bed with one every night, and loved them to bits, often literally! They were easy to knit too.
Oh yes – the word “Paki” too. That’s a good one. Apparently Prince Harry or William (can’t remember which) got into trouble recently for saying “my little Paki friend” and had to apologise.
I don’t see anything wrong with that either. I’m regularly called a “Brummie” (I’m from Birmingham, England) and it offends me not one whit. Similarly with Scottie or Yankee. On its own it’s just a word. (Is anyone here offended by the word Yankee?)
But I have heard the phrase “dirty Paki” many many times, and that IS racist. If the Prince had said anything like that he would have been severely castigated, and for good reason. But he didn’t. He said “My little Paki friend” and I don’t see why he should apologise for that. It was a term of endearment.
Words – they slip and slide, and change meanings all the time. Sometimes people only hear what they want to hear, and if someone is anticipating being offended, then they will be. Some even actively look for offence, and of course they find it everywhere. Sod ’em. There are better things to do with your life than go around looking for imagined offence.
And where are all the transitional fossils, man? If evolution were happening there would surely be transitional fossils, but I haven’t seen any. If you want to convince me you’ll need to show me better evidence.
Elwood:
Interesting about the Euphemism Treadmill. I was exposed to something similar years ago, not through the academic work of Steven Pinker, but through the comedy of George Carlin, when he described the change through time of what was originally called “shell shock” in World War I to where it is now the softer-sounding “post-traumatic stress disorder.” For certain, the meanings of many words do change over time, and perhaps an insulting slur eighty years ago becomes today’s harmless slang term (and vice versa). I would draw certain distinctions, however. For example, during my years working with the deaf, it was not usual for deaf people, among themselves, to call each other anything else but deaf (which is why I continue to use the term so freely), whereas in more formal settings, or in settings where they were talking with hearing people who were unfamiliar with deaf culture, they would use the sign for “hearing impaired” rather than deaf, because even though deaf had no negative connotation within their culture, they felt that it was a way for hearing people to dismiss them. Likewise, during the Gallaudet protests of the late 80s, when the deaf community saw itself as fighting against hearing oppression, many deaf people at the school I worked at preferred their hearing friends and co-workers to use the sign “hearing impaired” rather than “deaf.” Now, the the word deaf is back in vogue. And all of this in the space of ten years. I adapted. Deaf people have every right to determine what term is acceptable when it is applied to them, and what is offensive. So does every other segment of the greater population, in my opinion.
I don’t mourn the loss of certain words because they are felt to be offensive. It’s just change. Vocabularies evolve, no less than populations. These changes should happen; language that is used to separate or belittle should be discarded. The richness of our discourse isn’t lessened; I would argue that it is enhanced by the greater civility and potential for understanding between people.
Try Phyllis Diller adjusting to retirement. If that isn’t a fossil in transition, then I don’t know what would be.
*(even a good-natured one)
Elwood said:
When I was called a Yankee while I lived in New England, it was by fellow Yankees and there was no offense. Now that I live in North Carolina, people here who use the term to refer to me do indeed use it as a pejorative term. In some cases, yes, the word is a just a word, and again, as Carlin said, “it’s the racist asshole using the word you have to worry about.” But we need to be cognizant of the effect of words that transcend regional meanings, and that are recognized throughout a larger segment of the culture.
I am.
But only because I am a fan of the Mets, Dodgers, and Red Sox.
My family is Swamp Yankee:
http://www.nesales.com/swampyankee.htm
To the extent that anyone uses it nowadays, I think it’s been positively owned.
After reading the latest comments I think the point is made. It’s not the word that is offensive, it’s the context, plus of course the intention of the speaker whether to mean to cause offense in the first place. The whole treadmill scenario doesn’t need to occur if people weren’t so quick to “take offense” where none is intended. For example, if I ask a person “are you deaf?” I shouldn’t have to worry if I’m offending that person, but if they are offended, is that my fault? The question isn’t meant to cause offense, it would be merely to ascertain the best method for communicating, and I wouldn’t want to dance around the phrase “Sorry to have to ask, but are you by any chance hard of hearing at all?” That’s just one example of course, but basically my point is that in society as a whole we are trying to evade a problem that will never go away. The “euphemism treadmill” is proof of that. People will always find ways of being offended. The fault is with the “offendee”, not the supposed “offender”, if you get my drift.
AnthonyK – Robinson’s Jam. Thanks, I’d completely forgotten that!
As a postscript to that, I just want to clarify that the fault lies with the offendee when clearly no offense was intended in the first place!
And usually I reckon it is perfectly clear, my little Paki friend!
Goodnight all.
El
woodElwood:
I think, first, we should separate
which identifies a term used to describe the observed evolution of language from the rest, where you said
which I disagree with. The person using the word does not have the liberty of determining whether or not his or her words were offensive. Innocence may be claimed – “I didn’t intend to cause offense” – but THAT offense was caused is in the purview of the person who is offended, and the fault does, indeed, lie with the “offender”. If the phrase “ignorance of the law is no excuse” is generally valid, so is ignorance of negative connotation outside one’s own frame of reference. If I use a word that causes offense, it is my obligation, as a person who respects other persons, to apologize for the inadvertant offense and not use that word again, NOT to defend the use of that word in another, narrower, social context. Social responsibility doesn’t just apply to the worlds of economics and law; it also extends to the world of culture.
Of course the problem will never go away. If we want people to think about their use of “cunt” or to stop using it, we’ll absolutely need to find a suitable replacement. Because men just can’t be asked to stop using it. They want to use it, and fuck if concern for the fact that it has a history as an insulting and derogatory term to women is going to stop them! “Cunt, cunt, cunt! I’ll show you pussies! It shouldn’t bother you, it doesn’t bother you, and if it does, well, that’s your fucking problem, ya humorless twats! Deal with it!”
The assholishness on display here is really quite sickening.
That’s just the problem. There are at least a few people on this thread who plainly don’t, and so recognize no such obligation.
Bobber: yes, actually I do agree with that. I considered someone might make that very point right after I hit “post” but right now I’m too tired to think clearly. The whole subject demands closer scrutiny, and the truth probably lies somewhere in between our points of view, if there is in fact a “truth” to all this, which I’m starting to doubt. I take your (entirely valid) point on board and I’ll sleep on it.
Goodnight.
People will always find ways of being offended. The fault is with the “offendee”, not the supposed “offender”, if you get my drift.
No, it isn’t. It’s still with the offender, even if it was an accident. By the time my kids were 5 they knew enough that if you step on someone’s foot on accident, you say “Sorry” and try to watch closer where you step so it doesn’t happen again, because it doesn’t matter that you didn’t do it on purpose, it matters that their foot is hurt and you did it. Same way with what you say. I think people bristle so much because someone says “What you just said is sexist” and they hear “YOU are sexist”, when that’s not what was said at all. If you said something sexist and weren’t trying to be sexist, then you simply don’t say it again.
I worked for a while with some blind people. They found it rather amusing when sighted people said something like “Yes, but when will you see me next” and then got all embarrassed. They themselves used the word all the time. They also found it funny when I came round to the house one evening and had to turn the lights on, and then again when I couldn’t read the braille menu they had for the local Chinese Takeaway.
I had an insight, correct useage I think, into the world of the blind – which is of course my own world too.
The experience was great for me because they were both mature students, both professionals, and they were studying maths to GCSE level. Why? “Because,” the woman confided – she was also deaf btw “we thought it might be fun.”
It was – maths to blind people – intriguing. Their greatest problem was that while the textbook used in the college was about 200 A4 pages, their braille version was in 48 volumes!
And how do you explain a graph to a blind person, or get them to plot, say y = 2x + 3?
Fascinating. And they both passed, she with a B, he a C. Even better – we all had fun!
SC,
thanks for your post @ 587,appreciate it,all good….
Gee things sure got a bit personal last nite hey !
You dont know me,but Im not a misogynist.
*Is getting ready for another Pharyngula night shift*
I can’t help wondering if those people defending the TAKING of offence (in general) would defend certain groups/individuals taking offence at, for example:
1) A fat person being gently told by their doctor to lose weight for the good of their health.
2) A petition to continue the maintenance the separation of church and state in the US by so minor a thing as removing “I God We Trust” from the currency or taking “One Nation Under God” from the pledge. (Both “recent” additions)
3) A sign on the side of a bus that reads “There probably is no god, now just enjoy your life”.
4) In a formal debate, when having been demonstrated to be lying about a specific claim, the person who lied is referred to as a liar.
5) An instance of questioning the validity of another person’s religious claims when those claims are presented as being factual.
6) Use of a word in a discussion about words and their uses.
Note that I’m not saying one way or the other what my opinion is, and again, I’d rather people didn’t impute motives/arguments to me I don’t have/make, I’m just curious to see how far this defence of TAKING offence will go, when it isn’t the person in question being offended.
I’m also wondering if anyone would like to know what offends me? ;-)
Louis
Louis,
mate,let it rest.
Flogging a dead horse is only good when its the Sex Pistols album.
Clinteas,
I’m letting the other argument (about linguistics) rest. (BTW I thought that SC’s question about transitional fossils was bloody brilliant, nice work SC!) I’m genuinely curious how far people are willing to extend this notion that a simple cry of “I’m offended!” is a valid argument for/against anything. (The toe-stepping argument someone used above doesn’t work because there is absolutely no ambiguity about the fact of toes being stepped on, the ambiguity is in the intent)
But you’re right, no good will probably come of it.
Louis
Louis,
For me, it’s pretty simple.
If others tell me that they find something I do or say offensive (even if I see no reasonable cause for it) and I find the claim credible, then I weigh up their feelings against my feelings.
If it’s no biggie, then I’ll try to avoid that behaviour in their presence, mainly because I prefer to be polite and good mannered rather than boorish. If, on the other hand, it’s a matter of principle or otherwise important to me, I’ll continue the behaviour and damn their feelings.
John,
Sounds bloody good to me!
Louis
Aw, hell, clinteas. I never thought you were, and I feel awful about what I said. Awful enough to apologize in an email? Hmmmmm, maybe not…
;P
Louis, you need Analogy 101. :)
Okay,
On words:
In the rest of the world, kaffir is a slur used against atheists. It isn’t a very nice word, it is indeed bigotted, but the meaning to it is distinctly different to what it is here in South Africa, where it denotes black people and is considered a particularly offensive racist term.
In fact, as an atheist working for a newspaper I had to explain that kaffir means atheist.
Words have different meanings depending on where you are.
As to BSM’s statement:
Last I checked we were in a culture where youth is deified, so that kind of takes care of people using the word “girl” when referring to a woman as being automatically sexist.
:p
(Besides, in South Africa, it gets the same basic treatment as kaffir – here if you use it when referring to a black woman you are essentially calling her a domestic worker, and thus being racist, not sexist. Boy, is similarly used.)
I have never heard the term dick used as a compliment. Any reference to the male appendage is generally negative. Jerk is a direct reference to male masturbation, and is considered negative. As is jacking off.
Male terms for females are also considered negative. To call a woman butch, is seen as being negative in the same way as to call a man a sissy is negative – they just play to opposing negative stereotypes.
This doesn’t make us mysogynistic or mysandrous.
It is more about our view of individuals than our view of members of the opposite sex. Even the term bitch applies to both genders nowadays – it is a frequent complainer.
As to “using it even though people say it is offensive” well, yeah, that is kind of the point to an insult. You are supposed to be offended.
P.S. Although I suppose I should point out that, out of two possible interpretations of my question, your comment only answers one, which, whilst interesting and perfectly useful from a rhetorical/tactical* standpoint, is not what I was trying to get at from a logical standpoint.
Is “I’m offended” a valid *logical* argument for or against anything? Is a claim of offence sufficient to stifle discussion or debate? No matter how real that offence might be or how serious the basis that offence might come from is. Is “I’m offended” a resolution of some particular question under debate, a refutation of other points, or is it a red herring, or something else entirely?
I think “I’m offended” is shorthand for something else. I think it can be shorthand for something useful, but also shorthand for something not so useful in terms of discussion, examination of various phenomena etc. I think a lot of the problems in this thread (and many others on many different topics) arise from the fact that “I’m offended” is rarely picked apart to understand what lies underneath.
This is partly why I am curious about the arguments surrounding the offensive words used above. There’s a genuine, linguistic, logical claim being made, and it is one I genuinely disagree with (if it’s the claim I think it is). I’m not seeking to reserve the use of these words, or to protect their users from being labelled sexist (or whatever), I’m genuinely interested in the underpinning logic and argument of their use, and the reactions to their use.
However, all that said, Neil mentioned, I think WAAAAAAAAAY back in #281, that these esoteric curiosities, mine included, are examples of privilege. I agree. (However I will say that in a battle for equality, all battles, trivial or otherwise, will be fought somewhere on the spectrum of equality) The fact that I am in a privileged position allows me the opportunity to try to unpick these ideas. I’d like to be able to unpick the ideas with proper acknowledgement of their emotive content and oppressive usages without being distracted by them. I confess to having failed to do that in this instance, and thus I’ve become embroiled in the morass of emotionally important, perhaps unexamined, red herrings that typifies any controversial topics. I can only blame myself for that.
Louis
*I’ve often said that in the culture war creationists/fundamentalists/evangelicals etc seem determined to have the only really controversial questions are those of which tactics we adopt in combating them.
If people are too stupid or lazy to understand the arguments that have been made over the course of several hundred comments and choose instead to throw up a confused post that fails to address fundamental issues (especially when it ends with the absurd “insults are supposed to be offensive”), I for one am not going to be bothered to respond to them.
SC, OM,
Analogy 101? Pfff the way I fucked up expressing the analogy I was going for, I think analogy kindergarten is better. I’m still pleading the hangover excuse for Saturday!
I think the analogy I’m trying to make is valid, I just don’t think I’ve given a good account of it yet. Do you reckon that there is a possible discussion of the evolution of language, that doesn’t in any way focus on the unpleasant and controversial words we have been discussing, that could come out of this?
Louis
SC,
on a personal note,
in a previous life me and ex bred chihuahuas and chinese cresteds.We have gone through what you went through a lot,I have paid thousands of dollars over the years for resuscitation attempts and surgery on dogs,I know very very well how you felt,trust me.
No need to apologize for anything.
I suppose to my list in #653 I should have included “crackergate”.
Louis
I’ll give it a go.
The doctor isn’t shouting “you’re fat” to her patient as an insult. A statement of fact – “You are clinically obese and for the sake of your health you should drop a few pounds” – is not equivalent to calling someone a cunt. These circumstances are not analagous.
Removing those terms from government documents and sponsored speech does no harm, because these would be omissions of terms that may cause offense – in other words, their removal SOLVES a potentially offensive situation. Again, the analogy is false.
As with 1) above, there is no insult directed at anyone – it isn’t saying that people who believe in God are imbeciles. It is no different than seeing the countless church signs I see driving through North Carolina all the time, or the advertisements taken out in local papers by various religious organizations. These are appropriate methods of communicating a message, as long as that message is positive promotion. The analogy would be made if the message read “Anyone who believes in God is a murderous, atheist-killing theo-fascist”. (Note that this is different than saying “Religion can lead to murder, atheist-killing and theo-fascism.”)
If a person can be demonstrated to have lied (as opposed to being simply ignorant), then a liar is a liar, and the offense was done by the person perpetrating the falsehood.
Truth claims, and the use of racist/sexist/classist slang, are two different things. The analogy is false.
If I have been told, in the course of a discussion, that a word is offensive, and I continue defend the use of that word or simply continue using it because “no offense is intended”, it plainly means that my intention is to either ignore that the word is offensive and insulting, or that I wish to be offensive and insulting. Human beings can’t read minds; we can hear and read language. Whether or not you intended to offend doesn’t matter; that your words caused justifiable offense should be enough for you to stop using those words, unless you wish to continue causing offense.
A person may be wounded by a stray bullet as easily as an aimed one. As I have said before, words have power, and to not recognize this is to flippantly disregard the historical context within which words appear and evolve.
LOL true dat. If Fred Phelps held up his usual banners in the UK, he would be mistaken for just another anti-smoking crusader …..
Bobber,
They weren’t meant to be analogous. I’m trying to map out where people think “I’m offended” constitutes a valid argument for/against anything. I made that clear. People TAKE offence at things, whether or not offence was intended or whether or not something was an insult.
Anyway, you missed at least one other “or”: or they consider that the claim of “offence” is either not merited/honest/valid and an attempt to shut down discussion etc. The clue is in the phrase “TAKING offence” people can take offence where no offence is intended or even reasonable to do so.
Words do not have power, that is magical thinking. Words have power in CONTEXT. I agree that the HISTORICAL context is one segment of that context. Words in an of themselves are powerless.
I think, like other people have, you think I am arguing for something I’m not.
Louis
P.S. Do I win something for getting #666?
Do I win something for #667? BUGGER! LOL
Louis
Louis, you’re being a bit thick. The historical context is what gives words their meaning. In the case of words such as “cunt” and the n-word part of this meaning is that these words are disparaging and offensive. That’s why dictionaries don’t just say “cunt: a slang term for a woman,” but “cunt: slang for a woman – disparaging and offensive.” It is culturally recognized as part of the meaning of the word, as reflected in dictionaries, and those elements don’t disappear because a user is unaware of them or not intending to convey them.
You’ve recognized this yourself. You’re trying to make the argument that these aspects have been lost in your specific context, but you haven’t made that case. It’s that simple.
Then why bring them up at all?
Oh, is THAT why? But then again, that’s not what SC or others are saying, at least not exclusively. They are not merely saying “I’m offended”, they are explaining why a term is offensive – again, there is a difference there. For instance, I personally am not offended by the words dago or wop, even though those words have been used to disparage people of my ethnicity in the past. But I know that those words are patently offensive.
Right. And they should take offense at those things which are offensive. This is defensible, and appropriate.
I would argue that neither case can validly be applied to the discussion occurring in this thread. My interpretation of what happened above is that certain persons were called on the carpet for their use of particular words that are generally deemed offensive to large segments of the population, and that such feelings of offense come from thousands of years of historic oppression and marginalization which such words harken back to, whether or not the users of those particular words know it or not. No one is telling these people they will be imprisoned or gagged for using those words; they ARE being told that using such words is offensive, and why. This isn’t stifling debate; it is education.
(1) Words also have power out of your particular context, and extend to a wider one which you should be aware of before you use those words in that wider context. (2) Words can be stand-ins for thoughts and actions, and this is one way they derive power. Remember, your intent can’t be interpreted except through what you say. On what evidence do you consider me to NOT be a racist if I were to use the word “nigger” in my casual conversation? That’s a power behind words – to define YOU (in the general sense, I don’t mean you in particular ; ) ) to others.
What are you arguing?
I am not sure that I have ever heard the C-word used to refer specifically to a woman.
I have heard it used to refer to lady parts, and I have heard it used to refer to extremely not-nice people (of both genders, but most often male) and inanimate objects.
Perhaps I’m just not hanging around with sexist enough people? Or maybe it’s a geographical thing (I’m a Midlander, BTW.)
I think we’ve reached a point of diminishing returns. People appear to be tossing in their comments without reading the thread or attempting to engage with the arguments that have been made. This is unproductive.
In light of what SC wrote above, I hope that no one thinks I was approaching the point of contention without trying to understand the context of the discussion. If I have misinterpreted and, through misinterpretation, falsely represented or miscomprehended the ideas expressed by others, I apologize.
Not thick SC, precise.
I agree with what Bobber wrote to an extent, I’m rephrasing it to be more accurate. Historical context is ONE of the things that give words their meaning. It is not, for all words, all of the things that give them meaning if it were words could never evolve at all. I’m not trying to do what you clearly think I’m trying to do. I’ve moved on.
Also, I’m honestly trying to move away from the offensive words in question because I think any point about linguistic evolution that might be interesting will be obscured by the red herrings that keep coming up. That’s why I asked you above if you thought that a useful discussion about linguistics could arise from this.
Please try to understand this, I’m getting tired of repeating myself whilst you and various other psychics (and I mean psychics) predict what you think I mean and proceed to attack a variety of straw men. You already know I agree that in the foregoing I haven’t demonstrated any such loss in any such context. If I want to I can get to that, but I’d rather not because that wasn’t precisely why I got into this is the first place.
Louis
Not thick SC, precise.
I agree with what Bobber wrote to an extent, I’m rephrasing it to be more accurate. Historical context is ONE of the things that give words their meaning. It is not, for all words, all of the things that give them meaning if it were words could never evolve at all. I’m not trying to do what you clearly think I’m trying to do. I’ve moved on.
Also, I’m honestly trying to move away from the offensive words in question because I think any point about linguistic evolution that might be interesting will be obscured by the red herrings that keep coming up. That’s why I asked you above if you thought that a useful discussion about linguistics could arise from this.
Please try to understand this, I’m getting tired of repeating myself whilst you and various other psychics (and I mean psychics) predict what you think I mean and proceed to attack a variety of straw men. You already know I agree that in the foregoing I haven’t demonstrated any such loss in any such context. If I want to I can get to that, but I’d rather not because that wasn’t precisely why I got into this is the first place.
Louis
Sorry for double post.
Bobber, *I* think you’re misrepresenting me because a) I am not using the words, b) I’m not defending their use and c) I haven’t been called to any carpet. I was taking issue with a specific linguistic claim.
Louis
In that case, allow me to clarify, so as not to unintentionally offend (because stray bullets wound, as I said):
I didn’t think that was the case.
Way up in comment #165, you said
It is most definitely relevant. That term has a history. Whether or not you are using a slang term to mean “idiot” or “bad driver” doesn’t make that term any less offensive, especially since once you have learned its true meaning in a wider and more accepted context, I maintain that you cannot separate your usage from its true meaning. So, yes, I think you are defending their use – just in the narrow context. What *I* am saying is that once you know about the wider context, you should recognize that your quaint colloquialism is really a truly offensive term (for a variety of very valid social and historical reasons) and it is our responsibility as decent human beings to discontinue its use.
As I said before, it is our words that are interpreted by others to divine our intent. If you mean “idiot”, say “idiot”. But if you say “cunt” while meaning “idiot”, it is YOUR fault if you are misinterpreted to appear as a misogynist, because you have used a misoygnistic term.
Ah, I didn’t think you were, and I think that was a poor choice of words on my part anyway. Allow me to plead temporary stupidity. At least, I hope it’s temporary.
In any event, I’ll also drop this particular line of thought, as I agree it may not be going anywhere productive, and because I definitely do not want to pursue an erroneous line of thought if I have missed the major points of contention.
Fuck it, I’m going to try to illustrate what I mean by “historical context is just one of the contexts that decide the offensiveness of a word” and “magical thinking re: words”.
Hypothetical time again (if that word confuses people, look it up):
I am, right here and now, coining a brand new word. The word is Jxqzqzy. It means “female genitalia”. That is its only meaning. If I say to someone, anyone, in as insulting a manner as possible “You are a jxqzqzy!”, am I being sexist/misogynist? We’ll assume I know all about the oppression of women, the invidious comparison I’m making and everything.
I think the answer is yes.
Is it offensive to women in general?
I think the answer is yes.
But how can this be?
Could it be because there are OTHER contexts which demonstrate the misogynistic usage and/or offensiveness? Why yes it is. Could it partly be the history of comparing undesirable people unfavourably to female genitals? Could it partly be the history of oppression of women? Could it be that that history is independent of the word being used? Yes in all cases.
Get it yet? The word itself is irrelevant. In the case of “cunt” the word itself is just the token used to express that misogyny, historically and currently. (I am now worried I’m going to have to explain the difference between can be used and always is used) The history is independent of the word. This is what I’m trying to get at when I say people are attaching magical properties to words.
Not only that but usage determines meaning. If we use the hypothetical neologism I made above “jxqzqzy” but we discover that instead of being used as an insult we find that it is used only ever as an expression of all things that are wonderful about female genitalia as in “That blonde at the front desk sure is a nice jxqzqzy”, does the sexism/misogyny lie in the word? No, it lies in the reduction of all the complex and wonderful things about the blonde on the front desk to merely her genitalia. The context, the usage, again provides the misogyny. The word doesn’t contain it.
That the word can often be associated with such expressions of misogyny/sexism/whatever is utterly uncontroversial and no where will you find me dispute it. But again the power lies in the context, not the word itself. Using the word as a shorthand for the context is shoddy thinking.
Again, because I am fucking sick and fucking tired of being fucking misunderstood and mis-fucking-represented: NONE OF THIS EXCUSES OR IS INTENDED TO EXCUSE CALLING A WOMAN A CUNT OR REFERRING TO WOMEN MERELY AS FUNCTIONS OF THEIR GENITALS ETC.
Get it? It is solely a linguistic point not some defence of misogyny nor a claim that I have proven cunt is as inoffensive as a totally inoffensive thing. Fuck me deftly, when the straw clears I’ll be fucking grateful.
Louis
Bobber,
A lot of water has passed under the thread since #165! ;-)
You won’t offend me, I am, to all intents and purposes, unoffendable. Annoying me is a different matter, I am, to all intents and purposes, very annoyable!
I’m more than well aware of the history of the use of the word “cunt”. Does that prevent it from new uses*? Does it mean that its use as an insult, in the absence of further context, is sufficient in all cases to establish misogyny/the legacy of cultural misogyny/ignorance/apathy on the part of the user? I’d argue for various reasons that are either being misunderstood, misexpressed (self confessedly) or just missed that no not 100% of the time and that the GREATER CONTEXT IS NEEDED. See not an absolute “no” a qualified “no”. A no of nuance.
True meaning. Please don’t make me laugh. This is the best illustration of the ad hoc fallacies being committed here I’ve seen. So good in fact I am tempted to ask if your “cunt” is Scottish and puts sugar on its porridge, but I imagine that will be misunderstood too (not least because, as I hope the quote marks indicate, that I absolutely do not mean “cunt” as in female genitalia in this instance but “cunt” as in “the word cunt”). No word has a TRUE meaning. Usage determines meaning and we all agree that the meanings of words evolve. Meaning is fluid.
I don’t in any way question your perfect right to think of anyone using that “quaint colloquialism” (how delightfully patronising, it’s so good when you have the spurious moral high ground isn’t it, carry on Moral Warrior) as a misogynist. Please continue to do so. All I have been taking issue with is your right to claim that this judgement on your part is 100% justified in 100% of circumstance without any reference to further context. Did you see that last part: without any reference to further context? Please tell me you saw it otherwise I am going to be moved to sarcasm.
;-)
Look, snarky as the above might come across, I assure you it is all in good humour, with no small dollop of self mocking jest. Please take it in the spirit it is intended.
Cheers
Louis
*Before anyone says it I am more than painfully aware that I haven’t yet demonstrated these exist, nor am I claiming they do for the purposes of 90% of the argument I making a in this post. Do you understand why, when we are talking about the evolution of new words or new uses of old words I want to move away from controversial words and to uncontroversial ones? It’s because the point will be lost in the controversy. It already has once here.
All,
I really want to clear up the evolving words issue without reference to controversial/unpleasant words. I think the point will be made more clearly. PLEASE realise this is separate from, but relevant to, the “cunt” wars!
I want to ask few questions:
1) How do the definitions of words evolve?
2) Can anyone gives examples of words that have:
a) “Speciated”, by which I mean there are (at least) two uncontroversially different, unrelated definitions of the same word based on the fact that the word is used in very different contexts
b) That have not evolved at all, by which I mean have one definition and one use.
c) That are “speciating”, by which I mean the definition of the word is currently, and demonstrably undergoing change by virtue of different uses being made off it that do not map 100% onto the original definition.
The concept of “ring species” and modes of speciation like allopatric, sympatric, peripatric and parapatric, which I’m pretty sure everyone on Pharyngula are familiar with, are relevant here. just in case.
3) Popularity:
a) If, in a population 99% of the people use word X with definition A, and 1% use word X with both definition A and (new) definition B, is B a valid definition of word X?
b) Same question, just 51% A vs 49% A and (new) B.
c) If the answer to a) and b) are not the same, where, in your estimation is the cut off point? 75%? 60%? etc.
Again the reason I am asking these questions is to probe the parameters of the positions people are occupying. Tragically I am not psychic. I prefer to ask people what they think rather than use flawed heuristics to predict what they think and then demand that what I think they think is true. The questions are not designed to trick, justify, apologise for, upset, offend, titillate or cause orgasm in anyone.
Cheers
Louis
Windy:
I suspect a large number of Americans who use that word think it’s simply a quaint Britishism, and have no idea it has any sexual connotation. I think I understand that “bloody” is similarly much rawer than we North American Anglophiles generally realize, and of course, the North American connotation of “fanny” is 180 degrees removed (literally, if you choose the correct axis!) from its British (and, AFAIK, Australian) meaning.
I see I’ve come (you should pardon the expression) to this discussion days late, and I’m loath to prolong any unpleasantness… but digging in to language and usage is a line of inquiry I really love. I hope I can make a couple of observations (i.e., academically, brokenSoldier ;^) ) without causing any hard feelings or causing a resumption of hostilities:
1. I don’t believe there’s any English-speaking culture in which cunt (or pussy or twat, for that matter) is entirely divorced from any reference to genitalia. The slang usage of those words might be more or less literal in any given language culture, but to suggest the link to their genital genesis has been entirely severed strains credulity. Ditto for dick, cock, and prick. Any analysis of the cultural and linguistic import of these words must deal with their anatomical origins.
2. These genital insults are not merely offensive, but offensive on multiple levels:
a. To reduce any person (or whole gender) to a single anatomical aspect is inherently dehumanizing.
b. To use specifically sexual anatomy as an insult is inherently anti-sexual, and thus offensive to anyone with a sex-positive outlook.
c. Given that these specific anatomical features uniquely define traditional genders, their use as insults is unavoidably sexist. (Note: I understand there’s a lot more to gender than superficial sexual dimorphism, but I don’t think people throwing around cunt or prick in conversation are necessarily taking a particularly nuanced view of gender issues.) When used as an insult, the genitals stand for the gender, which in turn stands for the negative stereotypes about the gender… even when the insult is applied to a person of the same gender it references (e.g., calling a man a prick isn’t a sexual compliment; it’s an assertion that he’s guilty of the stereotypical characteristics of his gender, such as hyperagression and brutishness).
And yet… and yet…
3. These slang terms are offensive when directed at individuals as insults, not simply because they’re slang. For instance, there’s a world of difference between “what an incredible pussy you are!” on the one hand, and “what an incredible pussy you have!” on the other (and this is similarly true if you substitute “dick” for “pussy”).
4. Even as insults, I make room for contexts and situations in which their use might be acceptable, as irony or satire or even an expression of intimacy (i.e., the fact of being able to use “fighting words” within a relationship in a way that’s perceived as friendly or humorous rather than combative, as a sign of just how close the relationship is). That is, you might be able to privately call your best friend a “prick” or a “twat” and get a laugh or a smile, where the same exchange in public, or with someone other than your best friend, couldn’t fail to be offensive. In addition, sometimes the objects of a particular sort of insult appropriate the insult as a way of pushing back on its underlying prejudice: For example, sex workers might defiantly refer to themselves as strippers and whores rather than adopting such coy euphemisms as exotic dancers and escorts, for the specific purpose of declaring themselves to be unashamed of the sexual nature of their work.
My peculiar habit (failing, perhaps), as an old English major, is to take a literary view of many usages. Notwithstanding my comment at 2.a. above, using a part of something to name the whole thing is a time-honored literary device (syndecdoche, which is a subspecies of metaphor); I’m reluctant to rule it out, even in such an outre context. If some bozo on the street calls a woman a “cunt,” it’s almost guaranteed to be both insulting and misogynistic… but I make room for the possibility that a poet might make more fruitful use of the term.
Poets, after all, are in the business of cutting right to the earthy heart of the matter:
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement;
For nothing can be sole or whole
That has not been rent.
—William Butler Yeats, “Crazy Jane Talks With the Bishop”
BTW, speaking of poetry, I think this whole discussion has ignored the importance of sound: Why is cunt considered a harhser, nastier insult than pussy, despite the two words being virtual synonyms? Well, just say them out loud. The former sounds like a gunshot; the latter sounds sleek and glossy, and is physically difficult to spit out angrily.
Oddly, I can’t think of any slang word relating to male genitalia that’s as pretty a word as “pussy” is. I guess we guys just aren’t that sleek, no matter how you say it! ;^)
Anthony K #41 mentions the “Three k’s” of the Germanic Hausfrau as
“all of them beginning with a “k” in German: to kiss, to cook, and to deliver children”
I believe he is incorrect? Kuche, Kirche, Kinder = Kitchen, Church, and Children. I don’t think “kissing” is on the list.
Actual Germans here may correct me, of course.
玉蒲, “jade stalk”, is kind of pretty, I think.
Louis sed,
Except, apparently, me.
To whom he referred as “he/she/it” @ 172.
“It“??? “It“????!?!?!? Could you be more of a dismissive, condescending, privileged jackass?
For the record, I subscribe to the insult theory hewn to at Shakesville – no gendered insults.
Fuck off.
a. To reduce any person (or whole gender) to a single anatomical aspect is inherently dehumanizing.
But for some strange reason, the human brain tends towards sexual and scatological insults, although logically it doesn’t make sense to consider any bodily functions inherently “bad”… I wonder if it’s really feasible to do away with “asshole” and the like?
And I don’t think that insult words are exclusively “anti”-sex organs and and bodily functions, but probably also in part about unconsciously attributing certain “powers” of their own to these things? (cf. history of Finnish ‘cunt’ @544)
When used as an insult, the genitals stand for the gender, which in turn stands for the negative stereotypes about the gender…
That’s what I was wondering about above- I can see how “pussy” directed at men stands for negative stereotypes about women, but which negative stereotypes about women does “cunt” stand for when directed at men? (not saying there aren’t any, just that it’s not as obvious)
SC, OM
Well lets see: The whole thread started as being about a man being sentenced to 20 years in prison for criticising how Sharia law treats women.
And he was lucky he didn’t end up dead.
Then, after a particularly stupid comment by BSM, it evolved into the evolution of particularly offensive words, and whether those words would render someone automatically vehemnently anti-woman.
Because you know, having a foul mouth and occassionally referencing reproductive organs as swear words is the same as having a criminal code which is anti-woman, and punishes people for criticising this aspect of it.
Now are those words offensive? Well, yes. They are swear words, they are supposed to be offensive. Fuck is supposed to be offensive, but due to overuse it has become more like punctuation, replacing the exclamaition mark.
Does that mean people who use those words are automatically sexist, racist, or any of that? Umm, no. As my examples showed with kaffir, and for that matter the use of the word girl, meaning changes depending on context and setting.
Further, refering to genitalia is always an insult, even calling someone a boob is an insult. Do you think that men are anti-boobs?
The West has a culture which demonises sex in general. Bugger, fuck, screw etc… all swear words.
If something has a sexual conotations, it will be used as an insult. I have heard people get called dildos, and I don’t think the people who were doing it were suddenly anti-inanimate objects.
To proclaim suddenly that this means that every person who uses foul language inherited from this is anti-female, or anti-male, strikes me as being stupid. Is it offensive? Yes. Is it automatically sexist? Probably not.
SC, OM
Well lets see: The whole thread started as being about a man being sentenced to 20 years in prison for criticising how Sharia law treats women.
And he was lucky he didn’t end up dead.
Then, after a particularly stupid comment by BSM, it evolved into the evolution of particularly offensive words, and whether those words would render someone automatically vehemnently anti-woman.
Because you know, having a foul mouth and occassionally referencing reproductive organs as swear words is the same as having a criminal code which is anti-woman, and punishes people for criticising this aspect of it.
Now are those words offensive? Well, yes. They are swear words, they are supposed to be offensive. Fuck is supposed to be offensive, but due to overuse it has become more like punctuation, replacing the exclamaition mark.
Does that mean people who use those words are automatically sexist, racist, or any of that? Umm, no. As my examples showed with kaffir, and for that matter the use of the word girl, meaning changes depending on context and setting.
Further, refering to genitalia is always an insult, even calling someone a boob is an insult. Do you think that men are anti-boobs?
The West has a culture which demonises sex in general. Bugger, fuck, screw etc… all swear words.
If something has a sexual conotations, it will be used as an insult. I have heard people get called dildos, and I don’t think the people who were doing it were suddenly anti-inanimate objects.
To proclaim suddenly that this means that every person who uses foul language inherited from this is anti-female, or anti-male, strikes me as being stupid. Is it offensive? Yes. Is it automatically sexist? Probably not.
BMS,
1) I don’t (or rather didn’t until I read the recent Survivor thread) know what sex you were. I would have guessed you were a woman, but I’ve been wrong in the past.
2) He/She/It is a joke. A tongue in cheek reference to my ignorance about your sex (or gender if you prefer). My apologies if you’re too keen to take offence at everything to see that. Obviously an “it” couldn’t write your post. Please stop projecting attitudes onto people that they simply don’t have.
So no, YOU fuck off.*
Louis
*This references a Billy Connelly joke which I’d mention in full but for fear THAT would be misunderstood too.
@Bill Dauphin in #681,
Well there’s no hard feelings on my part towards anyone, nor hostility. A touch of frustration at being misrepresented occasionally perhaps, but that’s my problem, no one else’s.
Anyway to the meat!
There’s very little of your post I would disagree with. I would even say it doesn’t go far enough in places.
Thanks from bringing in the sound of words and the less than fulsomely sex positive attitudes sex/genital based insults incorporate. I’d thought of adding those comments (although the sex positive thing was IIRC alluded to above by someone, I forget who), but since the other stuff was getting missed, and since I’d made a hash of things already, why make life harder!
The bits I would disagree with come in parts 1 and 2c.
From 1: I’d agree that there is no English speaking culture in which cunt is entirely divorced from any reference to genitalia, but this is subtly different (at least to my reading of what you wrote) from the point I was trying to make. I.e. That there are uses of “cunt” that in no way reference the genitalia in some English speaking (sub?) cultures but that these are not the only uses possible, and everyone recognises that the genital focussed usage is the more prevalent (and the legacy it can bring to non-genital usages). I read your sentence as “I don’t believe there’s any English-speaking culture in which the whole set of definitions of the word “cunt” (or pussy or twat, for that matter) is entirely divorced from any reference to genitalia.”. I hope that’s a fair reading and what you meant, because that I agree with.
In fact, and I’m surprised no one has done this yet, if you pull up “cunt” in that bastion of correct definitions (cough, splutter) “dictionary.com” (an American resource IIRC) there is a separate reference for “a contemptible person”, separate from definitions involving any sexual connotation. Now, to clarify, I realise the unpleasant history and historical usage of the word exists, I am more than aware of the current cultural usage in the USA and elsewhere and I in no way claim that at all times, in all places, in all usages that this definition is separate from any other connotations. All I do claim is that this separate sub definition exists, and we’ve caught a word in the act of speciating. Full separation has not happened yet (if it ever will) but it is not necessary to establish the refutation of the absolutist claims being advanced by some.
This is why I’ve been trying to, now without reference to controversial words, get people thinking about HOW definitions of words evolve. The fact that they evolve is (apparently) not in dispute, but the processes by which they evolve, which are the cornerstone of the much misunderstood points I’ve been trying to make, are very important to claims about definition, and any subsequent claims made about motivations of people using words.
So, as an ex-English major and therefore vastly more likely to know about this than I, would you care to take a stab at the questions I asked in #680? If only for my own edification. I’d be very grateful.
From 2c: I don’t think this goes far enough, and I think parts of it are simply wrong. Maybe in the USA calling someone a “prick” implies qualities of hyperaggression etc. Here in the UK (like every other sex-insult word mentioned in this thread) it often means stupid or undesirable person and is completely interchangeable with a variety of sexed and non-sexed words. There simply are no sexual connotations implied in its usage in a wide variety of circumstances. Again, this is not ALL circumstances or ALL usages but it simply doesn’t need to be. My point on this was, and is, that in the case of usage of one of these words as an insult, in the absence of further context, it is merely a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to establish some motive on the part of the user, Be that motive overt sexism, a legacy of cultural sexism, ignorance of etymology or history, or apathy towards either that history, etymology or the inequalities rampant in society, or even a lack of nuance in sexual out look. Like the word “fuck” in certain circumstances these words are interchangeable and verging on meaninglessness apart from indicating undesirability on their target.
Those claiming that mere insulting use of these words is both necessary AND sufficient to establish some motive or state on the part of the user are, IMO, failing to take account of HOW language evolves (not THAT it evolves, I hope that is beyond dispute). They are also attributing magical properties to words that I don’t think exist (and I’m in relatively good company with people like Steven Pinker etc) as mentioned in #678. This also speaks to the issue of “history”. That the history of a word’s use and meaning exists is undeniable. That that history still informs many (in the cases of some words, all) of a word’s usages is equally undeniable. But as words evolve and separate meanings and usages emerge that history becomes less relevant as the new usage parts from the old and perhaps, it is word dependant, so irrelevant as to be meaningless. At that point full speciation has occurred. Now I agree this hasn’t happened to poor old “cunt” yet. It is however, IMO, HAPPENING. Hence why I think the concept of “ring species” is relevant (although that point has been completely ignored). Hence why I mentioned modes of speciation and have asked questions about HOW language evolves (all of which have been evaded or ignored thus far).
Whilst this might seem trivial to some people, and doubtless it is, I’ll use another analogy, one that will likely be misunderstood yet again:
I support the right for people to believe as they will, despite the fact that I am an atheist (in fact actually because of it but that’s a separate issue). If someone wants to believe in god then I am more than happy to let them do it. If they believe that I am going to hell for my sin of atheism, then I am content to let them believe it SO LONG AS they do not claim a) I must believe as they do without evidence, and b) that their belief is logically supported and based on evidence when it ain’t. I think it’s not on to allow those sorts of claims to pass unexamined and unchallenged. I’d hope I could garner a modicum of sympathy on that issue! ;-)
The same thing applies here: I am more than content to support the right for people to use the heuristic that (for example) use of the word “cunt” as an insult is a display of one of the many characteristics mentioned throughout the thread (in fact, as I’ve already agreed in the majority of cases it IS a display of one of those characteristics at least). I am more than content for them to think it of ME, should I use the word in that manner (which I don’t, or do so rarely it borders on not at all). I am also more than content to admit my “sinful” nature and that, like anyone, I have attitudes that need shaping up/correcting/obliterating. What I am NOT content to allow to pass unquestioned and unchallenged is the absolutist claim that this heuristic applies in all cases at all times (because IMO this is refuted by HOW language evolves. Note HOW not THAT), or that this heuristic can be applied accurately in many cases without further reference to context. (i.e. that the heuristic is perfect, supported totally by both logic and evidence, because one simple example to the contrary would destroy that claim, and as a valuable heuristic I don’t want to see it vulnerable to that easy refutation).
Such heuristics and language are not only at the core of our societies, they are at the core of our thoughts. Isn’t trying to develop/evolve better heuristics something we should all be interested in? If only because it will reduce conflict about matters of little substance. Personally I think improving such heuristics goes further. I think they are part of paving the way to a more tolerant and rational society. And before someone misconstrues that: no I absolutely don’t think that calling people cunts is part of the path to a more tolerant and rational society! Given the flagrant misunderstandings and leaps for high horses flying about, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone did claim that, even with this comment! Better heuristics lead to better understanding.
Sorry again for length/turgidity etc.
Louis
Louis,
might want to check out the Survivor thread around post 887 LOL.You got expelled !!
Clinteas,
Colour me shocked!
Frankly I’m getting a little pissed off at being misrepresented at vilified for simple disagreement. BMS thinks I’m defending something I’m not, saying something I’m not and refuses to listen to…well anything.
For the record BMS: as I’ve said several times now: I am FULLY cognizant of the offence the word “cunt” used as an insult causes, hence why I don’t (or like I said do so very rarely it borders on not at all) use the fucking word as an insult (or even at all). In fact my lifetime’s supply of using the damnable word has nearly been used up in this thread! I am not defending its use, I am simply taking issue with the logic and linguistics underpinning heuristic you propose for imputing motives on the part of others.
Please stop TAKING offence at YOUR misunderstanding of what I am saying. Stop attacking straw men.
Back to clinteas: I note you get an honourable mention too.
This situation is….regrettable. Unfortunately, I knew the risks even mentioning that I disagreed with that claim. I knew my comments would be misunderstood.
I find it more than mildly hilarious, when at the worst what I have done is be wrong about a simple argument, I am somehow a worse criminal than the demonstrated homophobes Barb or Pete or whoever, and I am simply not arguing for what BMS thinks I am, nor have I done so with the barrage of unwarranted insults and sneers that she has.
Frankly I think her behaviour is disgusting and she should apologise, but then I’m male so I must be wrong. Right?
Louis
I will offer some of my “critics”* one question at this point. Forgive the preamble:
At the worst I am wrong. At the worst, the arguments I am actually making (not the straw men of them some people like) are wrong and I will have to correct them (and will be happy to do so). AT THE WORST.
I have not defended, and have not made any, disparaging comments about people based on their sex/sexuality/whatever (as I am now, again, wrongly being accused of). I have stated several time clearly that I have no intent to give offence and apologised repeatedly, to the point of bending over backwards, for any I might have inadvertently caused. I’ve conceded where I have made my case poorly and tried to clarify, even to the extent of dragging things away from controversial topics to safer waters in order that the point is not obscured by controversy.
Can any of you say the same?
Louis
*I think a critic has to know what they are talking about and represent it accurately. In my case the misrepresentations have on occasion been so egregious that I can only conclude that some of my “critics” are hysterical idiots looking for trouble where none exists, determined to bully their point of view through and silence reasonable disagreement by force of appeals to prejudice and persecution, and ad hoc nonsense. I find it more than mildly ironic that these are precisely the sorts of tactics used by those they claim to deplore….
Oh whilst I am being strung up I suppose I’ll ask another question that is going to be ignored or twisted beyond recognition:
Is it possible, BMS and others, that disagreement with one of your claims can be honest, principled, intellectual and not based on prejudice or a desire to protect/perpetrate prejudice or apathy towards prejudice or ignorance of prejudice? Can anyone disagree with you, on what I agree is an emotive and dangerous topic, rationally?
Louis
Ah I see I am to be taken down to be hung, drawn and quartered*. So fuck it, I’ll ask ANOTHER question that will likely be ignored or misrepresented:
I wonder if SC and other more reasonable people think that post #887 on the “Survivor” thread, or BMS’s recent comment here @ #684 are accurate representations of my conduct on this thread** and views.
Louis
*Do I really, really have to point out the self mocking humour in these statements? Is it not obvious?
**Verbose, pedantic, nit picking, annoying*** etc I concede willingly. Sexist, homophobic, deliberately insulting etc NEVER! And I’ll fight to the last fucking breath if I consider myself to be wronged.
***Which is more annoying, trying to clarify a point made in error, or being misrepresented as a bigot when that misrepresentation is AT LEAST made on the basis of lack of understanding?
Louis,
you made your point,everyone gets it,but let it rest !
Some topics are clearly just too emotionally or socially/historically loaded to argue rationally on an internet blog.
Clinteas,
You’re probably right. Except about the “everyone gets it part”. ;-)
Louis
Windy:
I actually think scatological and sexual insults are notably separate cases, despite the anatomical proximity (if not overlap; see the Yeats quotation) of the body parts and bodily functions they refer to. I think it’s pretty easy to see why excretory references are used as insults: Excretion is generally unpleasant and messy and foul-smelling and associated with disease (in ways that wouldn’t be well understood by the prescientific cultures in which these usages originally arose). Is it really that hard to imagine why comparing someone to shit should have become an insult? Or comparing someone to the place the shit comes from?
Sexual insults are, IMHO, a bit more complex, tying into a less obvious matrix of cultural taboos and stereotypes. Ultimately, the question of why these are insults goes back to why humans so readily demonize human sexuality… and that, I confess, is a giant fucking mystery to me! ;^)
But I didn’t just forget the scatological, nor the broadly sexual insults like forms of fuck and screw; I deliberately limited my comments to anatomically gendered insults, because that seemed to be what the thread was about.
I’d say at the top level, the insult would be the same in both cases: not manly. Beyond that, I agree with you that it’s a bit complex. Pussy, in my experience, references the stereotype that women are soft and sensitive, which may be benign when applied to women (i.e., it’s possible to see softness and sensitivity as A Feature, Not a Bug™ in women), but which implies weakness, if not cowardice, when mapped to our cultural expectations of men.
Cunt, OTOH, is not a soft word at all (see my earlier comment about its sound), and certainly doesn’t suggest weakness. I actually hear this used to insult men less often than to insult women; I presume its sense as an insult has to do with other, harsher stereotypes about women: cattiness, bitchiness, etc. (I gather from this conversation that in some non-U.S. English language cultures, it carries the connotation of “stupid,” which is pretty obviously sexist, no?)
Interestingly, I’ve heard women call each other cunt as an insult (or a mock insult), but I can’t recall hearing women call each other pussy. I surmise that the stereotypes embodied by the latter word wouldn’t be insults in a woman-to-woman context. I keep coming back to the notion that two such near-synonyms have such different colloquial meanings has to do with their music: Pussy is a sweet, unmanly pop song; cunt is angry punk.
Louis:
My comments about “hostilities” didn’t refer to an attitude of hostility on your part (or anyone else’s); it was just a winking reference to the lengthy and disputational nature of the conversation I was “joining already in progress.”
As much as I love talking about this stuff (as I mentioned before, my approach is more literary than social-critical), I’ll try not to prolong everyone’s agony too much longer. That said, though…
Sorry to disappoint, but that’s not what I meant. I mean that I don’t accept that anyone uses, or hears, that word or any of its slang synonyms without genitals being at least part of the thought process, whether with some immediacy or as a relatively distant emotional resonance. That is, I don’t accept that there’s any significant population of native English speakers in which it has entirely been forgotten that cunt means twat means pussy means vulva. Assertions to the contrary are, IMHO, either disingenuous or naive.
Of course it means “contemptible person,” but the notion that that’s “separate from definitions involving any sexual connotation” is your own (IMHO insupportable) extrapolation from the definition. The existence of a metaphorical definition does not imply the nonexistence of the metaphor itself. The term means “contemptible” because of the sexual connotation, not separate from it.
Of course, why such a lovely thing as a vulva should be equated with contemptibility is a sociological mystery to me (see my comments to Windy above)… but it is what it is.
Generally, I’m suspicious of the claim that any such specific, particular insult really only means something generically insulting like “stupid” or “contemptible.” Stupid is a word every English speaker has available; when one chooses something earthier and more specific instead, it’s poor literary criticism (and probably poor linguistics, though I lack the training to make that claim confidently) to pretend the choice has no import.
As a postscript to that, I just want to clarify that the fault lies with the offendee when clearly no offense was intended in the first place!
And usually I reckon it is perfectly clear, my little Paki friend! – Elwood Herring
Elwood, I usually enjoy your comments, but I think your stuff about “my little Paki friend” and golliwogs shows quite clearly that you don’t get it. The claim that it’s clear no insult was intended by Prince Harry is entirely unsupported. The event took place at Sandhurst (British military academy for non-UK readers). Do you think a trainee army officer from an ethnic minority, who complained about Prince Harry using racist language, would thereby enhance his career prospects? Similarly, the “harmless” display of golliwogs may very well have been intended as a provocation; but even if not, they clearly embody a racial stereotype of black people as happy, smiling, and childlike, clearly unfitted to responsibility. If you can’t see why this is perceived as insulting, you clearly lack empathy.
On “cunt” and other genitalia-related insults, there really is a straightforward answer for those who’ve been whining on and on about being pulled up for using them: don’t use them. Then your use of them won’t cause you to be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as sexist. Simple, no?
That proves they weren’t using ‘cunt’ misogynistically as much as “one said to the other: ‘What the fuck are you doing, you fag.’ They were both straight” proves they weren’t using ‘fag’ homophobically.
I’ve got a bridge to sell you, and so on.
And “bitch boy” is often used to mean exactly “contemptible male”. How could such a usage POSSIBLY be sexist?
It’s a suspension bridge, by the way. With skyhooks.
Bill,
Tragically there is no conversation to be had on this matter any longer. Your post, whilst there is almost nothing that hasn’t been said before and that I haven’t already agreed with several times, ignores, yet again, the point I have been trying to make about HOW language evolves. Thanks for the clarification about your first post, I agree, again almost entirely, with every word you’ve written. And I’ve agreed since this whole debacle started. Hence my verbose frustration at misrepresentation. How much clearer I can make it is beyond me.
I think you make a wonderful point about the confusing nature of why so lovely a thing as a vulva (or a penis, or even dammit an arsehole for those so minded!) should be equated with contemptibility. It’s something that’s confused me for ages. I’ve always thought the best response to anyone who calls you a prick or a cunt is “How very kind. Thank you very much.” After all, which one of us would do without our respective genitals willingly? (In the absence of quite staggeringly nasty medical issues!)
So thanks, but no thanks. I can see any useful discussion about the modes of word evolution, i.e. a topic I think genuinely relevant (perhaps wrongly), are just not going to happen. I also have to say I have been continually amazed by the lack of “thinking outside the box” (a pun in every sense of the word) and the unwillingness on some people’s part to consider unfamiliar usages of familiar words. I could make a snarky point about the parochialism of Americans, but I wouldn’t because I know it to be untrue and unfair. So in the absence of dealing with what I think the key issue actually is, what else is there to be said?
Cheers
Louis
Knockgoats,
I don’t use them. Sorry, didn’t you know that? MY usage (or indeed anyone else’s) wasn’t the origin of my disagreement.
Sorry that you didn’t notice that.
Louis
Not at all, but you did say that reducing anyone to a “single anatomical aspect” was dehumanising, which would seem to apply to scatological as well as sexual insults. But, at least the former are more “equal opportunity” insults.
The flavor of the male “cunt” is that of “bitch”, more toward the “hardass” end of “bitch” than the “pussy” end.
Knockgoats,
I don’t use them. Sorry, didn’t you know that? MY usage (or indeed anyone else’s) wasn’t the origin of my disagreement.
Sorry that you didn’t notice that. – Louis
Louis, I did not mention your name, nor refer to you in any way. Sorry that you didn’t notice that – it might have prevented you exposing the extent of your egotism for all to laugh at.
Addressed at 669 647 580 549 and 533, just by my quick skim here, and I know I saw it addressed a few more times.
This tactic of continually claiming that nothing you’ve said has been understood or addressed to your satisfaction is common of the persecution complex. Might you have one?
You have defended the use of the word “cunt.” You have asserted that it can be used without sexism. That is a defense of it. Even if you’re not defending it for yourself, you’re defending it for others.
If you’re wrong, and it is only used with sexism, then you have been defending sexism. By accident, perhaps, but did you really think your defenses here will prove less useful to sexists than non?
And all the yelling! Is everyone here so STUPID that they can’t understand what you’re saying unless it’s in all caps?
You’re better than everyone else here.
Bridgetroll: you’re not worth responding to properly. Your “interpretations” of what I’m saying are, well, clearly the acts of a troll under his or her little bridge. No “tactics” on my part, I disagree that how language evolves has been adequately addressed anywhere, your opinion notwithstanding. And it’s clear you haven’t read what I’ve written because I haven’t defended the use of the word cunt, I’ve disagreed with the original claim by BMS (and the mildly different claim by others) that “Use of word X as an insult is necessary and sufficient, in the absence of further context, to establish motive Y on the part of the user”. That’s a big difference. The end.
Knockgoats: My apologies then, but you did say something about people “whining on and on about being pulled up for using them” which, given the level of unwarranted vitriol and frequent misunderstandings my comments on the issue have received from some quarters, it was hardly an unreasonable leap for me to make. If I got you wrong, my bad.
Louis
As I munch my lunch I thought of something re: “defence”:
If someone made the claim “Terrorists commit atrocities because they are religious” and I disagreed with that claim, am I defending terrorists? I think the obvious answer is “no”. I’d also say that even if ALL terrorists were religious, greater context would be needed to demonstrate that claim. Scott Atran springs to mind. Make any sense to anyone?
Perhaps another one: “We’re at war in Iraq, and if you don’t support the war you are against our troops.” Am I, by not supporting the war, against the troops? Am I defending those people who ARE against the troops (if any such people exist) by disagreeing with that claim?
Perhaps a more relevant one to the original topic of the thread and to the diversion: “A young man has been imprisoned in Afganistan for blasphemy. If you do not support his imprisonment you are defending those people who say that the Afgan nation doesn’t have the right to imprison people for acts it deems criminal.”. Sound fair? Not to me it doesn’t.
Before anyone says it, of course these analogies are not perfect overlaps, nor are they intended to be. They are intended to illustrate a form of argument being used here by some people, an erroneous and fallacious argument btw. It even has a name if you can be bothered to look it up.
Louis
Louis:
Your reply to me @701 is such a strange mixture of what appears to be praise and agreement, on the one hand, and arch more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger scorn, on the other, that I don’t quite know how to respond.
No matter, though: I’ve said what I had to say here, and have tried to do so cogently and entertainingly. If my contribution to this was in some way useful to you, muy bueno; if not, c’est la vie.
Windy:
I think we may be in “violent agreement”:
I didn’t say it didn’t. But…
…I thought the inequality specifically of gendered anatomical insults was the heart of what we were talking about; thus, the “equal opportunity” character of asshole is precisely why I hadn’t mentioned it.
BTW, asshole (or areshole for those that prefer it) is also nonsexual (and before folks start ‘splainin’ me teh buttsecks, that’s not what asshole refers to in its common usage as an insult)… and that’s yet another reason I hadn’t touched on it in my ruminations about insults based on sexual anatomy.
Under the heading of amusing typos…
The Sphincter of Mars, perhaps? Obviously, I meant arsehole.
Bill,
I’d go for the muy bueno option if I were you! Any scorn is more general than specific. If any exists at all.
Areshole? Nice. “In 2015 The USA mwil be launching its Misson to Mars. The landing site is planned to be Taint Valley, just next to the Areshole”.
Ahh I am amused.
Louis
I too have been frequently struck by TYPO the Gdo of Clerical Errors.
Louis
Constantly claiming that no one has ever addressed what you said, even after people have done so dozens of times, is either a rhetorical tactic or a sign of outright imbecility. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but if you must insist it was no tactic…
I’ve read all 713 posts in this thread. You’ve done nothing but defend the use of the word “cunt.” You’re welcome to do so, but this duplicity is deplorable.
It depends. If you said “terrorists commit atrocities because they have been disenfranchised of peaceful political means to redress their grievances,” then yes, that would be a defense of terrorism.
Pointing out that there may be a legitimate use, or just a last resort use of terrorism, is of course a defense of terrorism.
And that’s what you’ve done with “cunt.” For if there are uses of “cunt” which are not sexist, then those uses are of course legitimate. They may be insulting to the target, but not to women in general, and the point of an insult is to hurt the target. When I say you’re an egotistical bully, for instance, I intend for you to take offense, and I hope that no one else does.
So yes, Louis, all you have done here is defend the use of the word “cunt,” because all you have done here is say that someone can use the word in a non-sexist way.
And did you really think your defenses here will prove less useful to sexists than non?
More of that egotism, btw. Louis is smarter than everyone else here.
bridge troll @714, I wouldn’t say that, but yeah, Louis is still fighting the tar baby.
Louis: your points are well and truly clear, over lo these many posts. In my opinion, further perseverance is futile and counterproductive – you’ve progressed from the point of diminishing returns to a point of negative returns.
And, just to change the subject, Islam hates women.
That much is certainly true. He’s been perfectly clear for hundreds of posts now. He just thinks that if anyone disagrees with him, they must not be understanding him. Because obviously he’s right, so any disagreement must be a big mistake.
Bridge troll,
1) Is it possible that use of the word cunt, if not sexist under a minority of circumstance (note the “if”), is still condemnable on another basis? I’d say “yes”. You missed the point of the analogies. Your own twisted analogy represents nothing I’ve said or done.
2) Some has made a comment about how the definitions of language evolve taking into account what I’ve said about modes of speciation and ring species etc? Really? Or have they handwaved it away in a manner that’s consistent with your views and thus “dealt” with it?
3) I don’t think I’m right per se, please stop imputing motives to me I don’t have, I think that the issues I’ve been raising have (more often than not) been lost in the mix of other issues and as such not discussed in the way I was trying to discuss them. Do you see the difference?
4) The question about who I think will benefit from the arguments I’ve made (and they are not defences of use, the fact that you can’t understand that is….interesting) is a good one, but a red herring. Sexists cannot benefit from any argument I’ve made because, and this is abundantly clear to anyone with a reading age of five or above, I’ve been arguing for greater context being used to decide an imputation of motives in a minority of cases. That greater context will reveal a sexist instantly. Someone up thread (forgive me I forget who) mentioned “subtle winks to the in crowd” or something like it, i.e. when a sexist uses the term as an insult and tries to hide behind “it’s not sexist” those “subtle winks” etc PROVIDE that greater context, they are enough to establish the disingenuousness of the first claim.
5) As I’ve said before, you persist in your delusions. It’s clear that, despite “reading” 713+ posts on this thread, you HAVEN’T understood what I am arguing. Whether you like that or not a fair reading will demonstrate the falsity of your claim. Sorry if that offends you.
Now, since John Morales and others are quite right in that I should leave the tar baby alone (whether or not I’m wrong, right, or something in between) unless you want to discuss modes of speciation of word definitions with reference to uncontroversial words (something I’m happy to do, and is relevant) and the concept of ring species, I’m going to stop. You can persist in your delusions all you like, it don’t make ’em real. Back under your bridge little troll.
Louis
Louis, I can’t believe you’re still at this.
We were having a discussion about a specific word (or set of related words). No one has any obligation to you to extend the discussion to other unrelated or tangentially-related cases or to discuss any more general issues of language transformation – especially as your last several posts have been extremely foot-stompy and arrogant. Everyone gets your fucking point and has for some time. The matter has been discussed, you’re not bringing anything new to the table, and you long ago ceased to engage with substantive points.
I thought BMS’ calling for your and clinteas’ banning was completely silly, and as I said above I simply think you’re wrong (and should be a little more appreciative of the potential implications of what you’re doing). I like your comments elesewhere and have nothing against you. You‘re the one who is too emotionally wrapped up in this (because you feel misunderstood and defensive) to step back and view it with a clearer eye. You’re in a full-out snit. Let it go.
SC,
You read snit where none exists. If a teeensy bit of irritation has crept through I can only apologise. I am merely human after all.
I assure you, whatever you may think, I’m not emotionally wrapped up in any issue. I genuinely think the original claim (and subsequent claims of similar form) are wrong (in part although not totality, as mentioned). I genuinely hoped for a clear debate on the issue. Perhaps I’m too much of an optimist, and perhaps the limitations of text based communication once again let things down re: emotional states etc. Incidentally I wouldn’t be so tenacious (read: bloody minded persistent fucking pain in the arse ;-) ) if I didn’t think the point was being missed/certain claims were in error. But, meh, I’ve been wrong before and I’ll be wrong again. My nose still has skin on it!
I don’t think you have anything against me, although tbh I seriously dislike being accused of things I’m not doing (just like anyone does I imagine) and I dislike the claim that I’ve not dealt with substantial points because, to be blunt, I’m not a delusional idiot. Perhaps I’m right, my points have been misconstrued. Did that ever occur to you? Because I’ll tell you for free that the fact that I might be (quite likely am) very wrong has occurred to me.
Again, don’t read this as a snit. What would someone who had genuinely had their arguments misrepresented say? How else can such a person correct misinterpretations without mentioning them? If, and I only say “IF”, that is the case here then what am I to do (other than leave it alone, which let’s face it is what I am going to do)? The reason the thread continued is because different people continued to bring up other things and I replied. How that is evidence of anything other than a continuing “discussion” (and I use the word loosely) I don’t know.
All in all, you’re right about much and there is such little disagreement between us that it makes almost no difference. It’s always the petty disagreements that generate the most noise.*
Cheers
Louis
*Oh fuck, as I wrote that I thought “what if someone wrongly thinks I mean that sexism/sexist language is petty?” LOL It never ends!
And yet you’ve given no example of how this could be. I’ve said there is nothing else wrong with the word “cunt” if it’s not sexist. You’ve replied, “nuh uh! there might be!” Here’s a precious metaphor for you:
It’s as if I’ve said “there is no Celestial Teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars.” And your reply is just “I’d say ‘yes’, there is a Celestial Teapot.” Well, point to it then, Louis.
What is the other problem that makes the word “cunt” unacceptable, if it’s not sexist?
That it might be personally offensive to the subject is no reply; the whole purpose of an insult is to give personal offense. You are a self-righteous blowhard who regards his own pedantry to be the highest good. I say this to offend you. Everyone agrees that personal insults have their rightful place; the problem here is only that “cunt” is sexist and damaging to all women, not just the target.
You had the opportunity to give your example at 717, and you declined to do so. Because you cannot. So all you’ve been doing here is defending the use of the word “cunt.”
Yes. 549 and 580. There hasn’t been any speciation, or Kitty couldn’t have made her comment.
Yes you do. Else you would have bothered to give an example of what else could be wrong with the word “cunt” besides sexism in 717, instead of assuming that it’s just so obvious that you’re right. And you wouldn’t be so attached to this condescending attitude:
Every one of your last twenty comments or so has just reeked of condescension. I don’t care if you’ll acknowledge this or not; I’m having fun with your lack of self-awareness.
Dude, they did in this very thread. The sexist Erasmus cited you at 603, and I notice you never argued against him.
Taking for granted for a moment your unsupported assertion that there are non-sexist uses of the word “cunt”, I understand what you’re trying to get at here. And it’s hopelessly naive.
One of these two possibilities is true:
1. No one fools anyone, ever, and if a sexist tries to use your arguments in their defense, they will inevitably be exposed in their duplicity, to every honest observer’s understanding and agreement.
2. Sometimes people successfully bullshit each other, and your arguments may be useful in the sexist bullshitter’s repertoire.
Back to reality, there is no non-sexist usage of the word “cunt” anyway, so all you’ve been doing here, while defending the use of the word “cunt”, is defending sexism.
Try to offend me, or try to be respectful, but drop the backhanded condescension. This “haha what a dumbass you are, sorry if that offends you” stuff just makes you look childish. It’s obvious that you’re trying to be insulting, and that’s fine (though you could use some practice), but then the facade of politeness doesn’t look good on you.
Childish and lazy, Louis. I’m not going to be offended by my own nym. Had you gone to school with someone named Seymour Butts you would have had a laugh a day. Try harder, or just grow up, and admit that all you’ve been doing is defending the word “cunt.” Such honesty will earn the respect of Erasmus, at least, if no one else.