Originally posted by moriarty:
Still, to be honest, when I first came on the Underground I was a little freaked out by the excessive use of the word "cunt". The use of the word "cunt" is absolutely, irredeemably mysogynistic around these parts, no matter what the context. Maybe it's a cultural thing we're talking about. Somehow I doubt it though, seeing as you lot spawned the Spice Girls.
Who are, indeed, a bunch of absolute...oh, hang on.
I keep hammering away at this idea that the current usage of the term "girl" is important because you seem to be saying that its use in the quote that sparked this was, intentionally or no, a way to place women in a weaker position to a man. I think it was used, in this instance, because that's what the women in this area (and, I presume, elsewhere) of that age and social standing choose to call themselves. And, by being surrounded by it, that is the term Cameron, or I, would use in that situation.
Way-ull...the longer I look at the sentence, and indeed the paragraph preceding it, the more uncomfortable I get with the whole thing. That could well just be the way people choose to express themselves within a culture, but..."pleased to report". "Spoilt for choice". I don't know if the intention was to sound like a letter to Penthouse, but there's a real note of possession and control in there. The women form a circle, wanting to be chosen for sex. One or more are selected. This isn't about female desire per se, but about female helplessness in the face of the male, who picks and chooses. The situation is reported through the male to the world - the women are voiceless. There are in the sentence to want, nothing more. The diminutive "girls", and the status-assertion "beautiful" (they could be intelligent, or great company, or caring, but instead they are identified by the characteristic which can be identified as desirable by other men from a distance - male gaze, anyone?) are pretty much the icing on the cake.
Now, this is no doubt not intentional. I'm sure that Cameron doesn't think about women in that way. But, as a sentence, as a sense-unit, it has failed to communicate whatever he does think about women. To me, that is.
And while I realize this doesn't attend to your larger questions of titling, I think it is important to discuss because this is the one concrete example of the use of the word "girl" that has made you go "ick." And your original question was, why do I feel this way about this statement.
Well, in true cake-having-and-eating theory bitch stylee, I'm looking to work through this on both a personal and theoretical level (I've found that lovin' Phelan). On one level, this is a linguistic puzzle - what is it about collection of words (a) that produces response (b) in person (c). Then, on a broader plain, are the elements of the group of words (a) essentially or characteristically likely to provoke response (b), and if so why? And what other words or combination of words will do this? Why?
But, there is also a highly personal level to this. In fact, rather more personal than the usual Barbestuff, since Cameron took it upon himself to email me. The details of the correspondence would be too long-winded to go into here, and are also not entirely mine to disseminate, but in brief Cameron had worked up no little righteous indignation, unfortunately predicated in no small part on the wholly erroneous belief that I was suggesting he dated underage girls. Which was sufficiently far out of left field to destabilise the whole thing. Still, ire is ire, and I was duly taken to task as, among other things, "overeducated".
Now, "overeducated" is always an interesting word. It always begs the question "what is a correct level of education?", to which the answer could be seen as "my level of education". It's rather like saying that somebody is "overtall" or "overDutch". Meanings can be gleaned from these ascriptions of value to previously neutral characteristics (Jan is educated. Jan is tall. Jan is Dutch), but it requires a fit to be made, an interface with judgements of how tall or how Dutch it is OK to be.
Another way to look at it is, of course, that the "over" is internal, related to other characteristics ascribed to the individual. Jean is too tall for a circus midget. Jean is too Dutch for a Frenchman. The Haus is too educated for somebody who, for some reason, should not have been educated to that level. Why not? Because it is too much education. And what is an acceptable level of education? And around we go again.
Cameron declined to comment on how much education would have been appropriate for me. Which is vocationally disappointing.
As you may note, "overeducated" as a term pisses me off no end. Which means that on a personal level I have been drawn in, ironically by an infelicity of language, to the infelicity (or otherwise) of this language. I have been clearly given the impression of having done something wrong nad indeed of there being something wrong with me. And, while I do believe that there are far wider issues at play here, I also freely declare an interest in whether that is the case or not.
Again, if the word "woman" replaced "girl" in the quoted paragraph, would that make a difference? If yes, how so? Is it the word "girl" that you have a problem with, or is it the entire paragraph itself?
See above, I suppose. "Girl" is a capstone. Were it to be replaced with "woman", the depriving of agency might be made more complex or surprising within the sentence. Or possibly not. In a sense, context is not just about the words slotting in and out, it is about times and deliveries. "Woman" cannot be substituted, because "woman" was not substituted.
Oh and, 'Nesh, I think the Peter Stringfellow factor is an effect rather than a cause, is the short, tired response to your suggestion. |
