BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

You say "cunt" like it's a bad thing...

  
  

Page: 123(4)

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:36 / 26.08.02
You stated that you did not think the anti-cunt lobby had succeeded in proving any of these three positions. I asked you to clarify what proof you would feel to be convincing. You appear not to have understood the possibility that a case sufficiently convincing to change your mind might actually exist.

I repeat. What would you take to be a convincing argument, or what criteria would an argument need to fulfil before it was understood to be convincing, in the case of the statements that the word's use as a pejorative is A) misogynist, B) somehow worse than using "dick" or another masculine analogue and C) actually in any way related to specific biology in the context of swearing (just as "fuck" often has no relation to a sexual definition in the context of swearing)?

If you believe such statements are so incredible as to defy any possible contradiction, then well and good, in which case it is irrelevant that a "piss-poor job" has been made, since these are identified as insupportable statements by holy writ.
 
 
some guy
00:56 / 27.08.02
You appear not to have understood the possibility that a case sufficiently convincing to change your mind might actually exist.

If that were the case, why would I be asking questions? There's a case for everything, Haus.

What would you take to be a convincing argument, or what criteria would an argument need to fulfil before it was understood to be convincing, in the case of the statements that the word's use as a pejorative is A) misogynist, B) somehow worse than using "dick" or another masculine analogue and C) actually in any way related to specific biology in the context of swearing (just as "fuck" often has no relation to a sexual definition in the context of swearing)?

I'm going to answer your question here in the hope that you will return the favor and answer mine. To make a convincing argument that use of the word "cunt" is misogynist, you would need to demonstrate that its use carries an anti-woman intent - that is, that Joe calling Bob a cunt for cheating at cards carries, on the part of Joe and (in terms of generally accepted connotation, rather than denotation) the average person, a specific inference that Bob exhibits an unsavory feminine quality in cheating, and that by comparing Bob to a woman he is thereby impugning on his social status. I don't believe anyone in this thread has managed to do this.

You would need to present something similar for part C, and this you cannot do as evidenced by testimony further up the thread by people who use the word "cunt" without any connection to female biology. Unless we are to assume that everyone who takes this position is lying, of course.

Part B is probably the easiest to demonstrate, and your example of the concert film is a good one. But the level of distaste for the word obviously varies locally (as with use of "bloody" and "bastard" and so forth), and without support from parts A or C, part B is a very weak thing to hinge an argument on.

Interesting that you should invoke holy writ, as that's precisely what the "'cunt' is misogynist when used as a pejorative" brigade appear to be doing...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:33 / 27.08.02
OK, thanks - that makes things a lot clearer...although I now have an "a case for everything and everything in its case" earworm...

I think your construction of A) is slightly off. To demonstrate misogyny, Bob's cuntitude does not necessarily have to be identified as a display of a femininine quality; it could simply be that Bob is demonstrating a general quality of femininity; that is, that Bob is not being called a cunt for cheating, but is being called a cunt who cheats, both cheating and cuntitude (and thus the femaleness for which cuntitude can be taken as metonym) being bad. Two very different things. Which also has relevance to C) - the question here is the relationship between second-order terminologies and their descriptors. That is, "fuck" has its power as expletive partly because of its oh-so-satisfying Anglo-Saxon gutturality but also presumably because of its metonymic connection to an act that, like the ladypart, is generally kept covered up and hidden away. As attitudes to sex liberalise, the word becomes acceptable earlier and earlier in the TV schedules, but at heart the expletive use of "fuck" functions as both expletive and metonym; without the act of fucking, the expletive function of "fucking" cannot really exist, although the expletive use of "fucking" does not describe an act of fucking. Wittgenstein's quite good on this sort of thing, I think, although rather less potty-mouthed...

So, C) could with minor modification be fulfilled by the acknowledgement that calling somebody a cunt is conceptually metonymic, which I suspect is inevitable; the pejorative "cunt" requires the non-pejorative "cunt", whereas the non-pejorative "cunt" dos not require the pejorative "cunt" (although this assumes that there is only one possible non-pejorative cunt, which can be challenged, and a very good case can be made to say that some or all of the uses depend on conceptual interplay with the pejorative second-order terminology).

So, the statement that somebody calling somebody a cunt is not saying that that person is in fact a ladypart is self-evident, but no more meaningful in itself than the statement that one of our Australian brethren calling somebody a spunk is not in fact describing them clinically as an act of ejaculating semen - neither statement precludes the interaction of ladypart or jizzhurtle as concept and as idiomatic execution.

On B), I am reminded of Aus' assertion that "paki" was not an offensive term, but merely a shibboleth constructed by the politically correct in the United Kingdom. Certainly, "cunt" is of varying offensiveness in different areas, but we could perhaps agree that it is one of the last refuges of obscenity in the three major Anglophone nations (if it isn't too offensive to describe Canada as such), and particularly in the US. Whether that has relevance to A) or C) is highly debatable, but if we are looking for something to offend our dowager aunts, a rummage into the grab-bag of cuntification is generally a safe bet. Other countries with large English-speaking populations (India? Nigeria? The West Indies) are, I fear, largely outside my experience. Any takers?


So, that would be my immediate response. Would be glad to answer your question, but there doesn't seem to be one in your post.

Do any members of the "anti-cunt brigade" want to get involved here?
 
 
some guy
11:59 / 27.08.02
think your construction of A) is slightly off. To demonstrate misogyny, Bob's cuntitude does not necessarily have to be identified as a display of a femininine quality; it could simply be that Bob is demonstrating a general quality of femininity; that is, that Bob is not being called a cunt for cheating, but is being called a cunt who cheats, both cheating and cuntitude (and thus the femaleness for which cuntitude can be taken as metonym) being bad.

Yes, this is a very good point. But the word "cunt" clearly possesses a non-gendered pejorative connotation, in much the same way that the word "fuck" can be used as an utterance, insult or adjective without any type of sexual implication. Some of the people on Barbelith who use the word this way have said so outright. Perhaps it's accurate to say that sometimes the word carries misogynist overtones when used as a pejorative and sometimes it does not. Perhaps people are offended by the latter usage precisely because the former usage is so offensive - but as offense is the entire point of so-called "dirty words" anyway it becomes difficult to make a convincing case for restricting the language.

That is, "fuck" has its power as expletive partly because of its oh-so-satisfying Anglo-Saxon gutturality but also presumably because of its metonymic connection to an act that, like the ladypart, is generally kept covered up and hidden away.

"Presumably" is the key word here.

at heart the expletive use of "fuck" functions as both expletive and metonym; without the act of fucking, the expletive function of "fucking" cannot really exist, although the expletive use of "fucking" does not describe an act of fucking.

But language mutates and evolves over time, so that the origins of certain words become irrelevant to their later contexts. The expletive function and the literal denotation of the word "fucking" have become so divorced that it's difficult to make a convincing case that the one has a bearing on the other. I would argue that the same situation applies to the word "cunt," and that we are allowing emotions to trample over reason. Which is fine - we are emotional people. But as use of the word "fuck" is frequently delinked from any sexual meaning whatsoever, it seems that we also must accept that the word "cunt" is frequently delinked from any feminine or biological meaning. Perhaps in this one instance the stakes are too high (the very real influence of misogyny) to allow gray area to intrude?

So, C) could with minor modification be fulfilled by the acknowledgement that calling somebody a cunt is conceptually metonymic

I would classify this as Reading Too Much Into It. When Joe calls Bob a cunt for cheating at cards, it seems a bit silly to take him to task for conceptual metonymism (hah!) if he is not implying a link to the feminine. I suppose the basic disagreement boils down to "Intent matters!" versus "Intent is irrelevant!"

Certainly, "cunt" is of varying offensiveness in different areas, but we could perhaps agree that it is one of the last refuges of obscenity in the three major Anglophone nations (if it isn't too offensive to describe Canada as such), and particularly in the US.

The only thing I can say on this matter is that the word seems to be used much more frequently (and found to be much more offensive) in the UK than the US. It's not an expletive I hear commonly, and it doesn't seem to engender the shock or offense in my area as it seems to in yours. I'm not sure the "Paki" example holds much water, however, as it's a specific descriptor and "cunt," as we've already established, is not.

Would be glad to answer your question, but there doesn't seem to be one in your post.

An implied question, in that I would obviously like you to demonstrate "that the word's use as a pejorative is A) misogynist, B) somehow worse than using "dick" or another masculine analogue and C) actually in any way related to specific biology in the context of swearing (just as "fuck" often has no relation to a sexual definition in the context of swearing)."

We can cross off C as you've done a respectable job there. I disagree with an argument that hinges on the conceptual rather than the more relevant "real world usage and intent," but can appreciate your reasoning. I'm very interested in B, as the consensus so far seems to be that men can take it, and women can't, which frankly I find misogynist and offensive in itself.

I didn't think I'd say this, to be honest, but it's been a pleasure discussing this with you, Haus.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:50 / 27.08.02
Schnoogles. I am a bit migrainy and out of sorts with the world at the moment - sorry for being such a ladypart.

To the purpose.

Perhaps it's accurate to say that sometimes the word carries misogynist overtones when used as a pejorative and sometimes it does not.

True to an extent, I think...it is possible to describe someone as a cunt without any immediately gendered overtones, clearly; calling somebody who has just cut you up in traffic a cunt is in no sense a reflection on *their* gender. This doesn't necessarily mean, however, that the word has no gendered (rather than intrinsically *misogynistic* - that would probably the next step on from "gendered") sense. This kind of hinges on:

But language mutates and evolves over time, so that the origins of certain words become irrelevant to their later contexts. The expletive function and the literal denotation of the word "fucking" have become so divorced that it's difficult to make a convincing case that the one has a bearing on the other. I would argue that the same situation applies to the word "cunt," and that we are allowing emotions to trample over reason.

Which I think is sort of true and sort of not true. For example, I think on most meaningful levels that it matters little to most people on most situations that the petard by which they are hoist was originally a word used to denote an explosive device used against fortifications, or indeed that their vagina is derived from the Latin word for "sheath" (being itself, like so many things, a metaphor).

I think that it is far more contentious to make this claim about a word the varying meanings of which still have currency. For example "I'm fucking your cunt" could, with no change in punctation, be a rather rude description of a sexual act (using their first-order meanings), an extremely emphatic way for a ladypart to introduce itself to it owner, or a very unpleasant way to inform somebody that you have been sleeping with their wife.

So, while a series of usages are in play simultaneously, I would suggest that it is impossible to draw clear interpretative lines between them and say "there is no connection between this word and this morphologically identical word". At the same time, it is impossible to deny that "cunt" applied to Bob the cheat is not the same thing as "cunt" applied to a beloved and much-cosetted ladypart.

Which is where the Wittgenstein comes in. In a feather boa. Tapdancing. Cunt applied to Bob the cheater is a satellite of cunt applied to the aforementioned ladypart. It has a different meaning, but a common root, which can demonstrably be said to have its roots in ladypart land. The usual Wittgensteinian example is "sad" - the word describing a sad person does not mean the same thing as the word describing a sad painting, but the word describing a sad painting depends on the existence of the word describing a sad person for people to understand it. To which one could now add "sad" used to describe a sad fucker, which melds concepts from both first and second-order meanings.

So, to say that somebody may well not be thinking of a ladypart when they call someone a cunt is defensible. To say that the word "cunt" meaning ladypart and the word "cunt" meaning "person I do not approve of", or the word "fucking" meaning "having sex" and the word "fucking" meaning "I would very much like you to pay attention to what I am in the middle of saying" are totally unconnected conceptually is, I suspect, suspect - it would probably need an anthropological survey to come to a definite conclusion, but I think your argument as it stands is counter-intuitive and counter-rational.

If the contention is that Pete is not thinking of ladyparts when he calls Bob a cunt, then that is no doubt perfectly desensible, but not necessarily relevant to the linguistic function of the word, or indeed to what Betty thinks when she overhears Pete.

Which brings us most probably to:

I'm very interested in B, as the consensus so far seems to be that men can take it, and women can't, which frankly I find misogynist and offensive in itself.

Hmmm. Probably "misogynist" in a similar way to positive discrimination being "racist". I think the idea here is that women's experience of the word "cunt" is simply *different* to men's. For one thing, to be obvious, most (although not all) women have something that can be described as a cunt. Most men have nothing resembling the thing that can be described on women as a cunt, and those that do would generally not so describe it. Therefore most women could be identified as much closer to the symbolic crux, if you will - describing a woman as a "cunt" is actually a metonym (or more precisely a synecdoche), in a way that it simply cannot be for most men; there is a distancing effect for men, conversely (the term can be a metaphor, but not a synecdoche).

Now, if you are arguing that there is no connection between the word "cunt" and the word "cunt", this should not make a difference. But, even if Pete has no intent to do other than express strong disapproval when he calls Betty a stupid cunt for arriving late or losing her keys, his phraseology uses a part of herself to represent her whole, and one with very clear things to say about what women are for and what women in contrast are *not* for. Now, whether that is enough to justify a different attitude towards calling men and women cunts is a matter for the group, but the point is worthwhile that it is not a question of "women are too weak and puny to take this strong language" but "women relate to this language in a different way to men, and so are in fact taking something entirely different". Which may still be patronising or misguided or just plain wrong, but need not be misogynistic.

By which logic, intent may be relevant or not, just as context may be relevant or not.

Now, if you maintain that there is no connection whatsoever between the word "cunt" and the word "cunt", this entire argument can be thrown out as irrelevant, and I apologise to the court for wasting their time. But I really don't think that one can say that without some form of fairly hardcore supporting evidence, experiential, psycholinguistic or both. Whether that justifies not using it is another question again.
 
 
some guy
14:33 / 27.08.02
So, while a series of usages are in play simultaneously, I would suggest that it is impossible to draw clear interpretative lines between them and say "there is no connection between this word and this morphologically identical word".

I suppose I should have added the caveat "sometimes." I don't buy the Wittgenstein argument, sorry. Language is descriptive, not proscriptive, and the etymology of certain words is an interesting bit of trivia but cannot have relevance without intent. And so, we're back to the essential difference between the two camps - "intent matters" versus "intent is irrelevant." I doubt the twain shall meet, but that's fine. We're obviously a post away from agreeing to disagree! :-)

To say that the word "cunt" meaning ladypart and the word "cunt" meaning "person I do not approve of", or the word "fucking" meaning "having sex" and the word "fucking" meaning "I would very much like you to pay attention to what I am in the middle of saying" are totally unconnected conceptually is, I suspect, suspect - it would probably need an anthropological survey to come to a definite conclusion

Again, I would suggest that intent is the key element here, and that an anthropological survey is completely useless if I do not intend a sexual implication when I tell someone to fuck off. Your introduction of Betty's reaction to Joe and Bob's shenanigans is, I suspect, what's really at play here. Should Joe and Bob modify their language so as to not offend Betty, even if her interpretation of their exchange does not jive with their intent? How each of us answers that question is probably a good indicator of where we fall in the spectrum of 'cuntitude.'

I think the idea here is that women's experience of the word "cunt" is simply *different* to men's. For one thing, to be obvious, most (although not all) women have something that can be described as a cunt. Most men have nothing resembling the thing that can be described on women as a cunt, and those that do would generally not so describe it.

So should women not call people dicks? And should people modify their behavior to suit appearance rather than personal intent?

Now, if you maintain that there is no connection whatsoever between the word "cunt" and the word "cunt", this entire argument can be thrown out as irrelevant, and I apologise to the court for wasting their time. But I really don't think that one can say that without some form of fairly hardcore supporting evidence, experiential, psycholinguistic or both.

The word is the same; the meaning, different. Hardcore supporting evidence has been presented here already, in the form of testimonials by people who use "cunt" as an expletive divorced from any implication of femininity. No amount of theory can change this fundamental fact, and unless you are able to read minds and reveal that these people are not using the word separate from an implication of (negative) femininity, the court must side with Joe. Either there is a clear and obvious separation of definition when used contextually, or every person who claims this is a liar.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:17 / 27.08.02
Not necessarily a liar, just not very linguistically self-aware. Which are different things. Likewise, if they are telling the truth, then everyone who claims to react unhappily to the word "cunt" is, by your logic, a liar.

Which is why terms like "liar" are pretty much useless in any situation where opposing views are held about things not related to objective facts (which internal responses to the deployment or reception fo the word "cunt" is not). Which is why I would suggest that intent is relevant, but so is context and indeed what words are taken to mean, which is neither universal nor I suspect entirely quantifiable.

I think you have misunderstood the idea of second-order terminology, which his little to do with etymology or aetiology but is simply a theory of dependent meanings (not sure why that should make language "proscriptive").

Again, I think you have misunderstood a series of possible interpretations, evidenced by your contention that many people use "cunt" as an expletive divorced from any implication of femininity. One, because people's use of language is not necessarily perfectly communicated (see "nigger" or indeed "girl", as an obvious pair. And two, because "femininity" is not the issue. Femaleness possibly is, but I have certainly not so far maintained that "cunt" represents femininity. It represents either by denoting or by connoting/metaphorical reference, the female sex organs.

Honestly, I think we are near the "agreeing to disagree" stage, because we are also near the point of diminishing returns - you are gainsaying rather than addressing quite complex issues and points.

The question we can come back to, however, is:

Should Joe and Bob modify their language so as to not offend Betty, even if her interpretation of their exchange does not jive with their intent?

Which is one of the core questions - should language be avoided or controlled on the grounds that it may be offensive? Which extends far beyond cuntitude as an issue.

As for "dick". Very simply - "dick" is used by Wolverine in the film The X-Men to describe Cyclops. Cyclops does not respond "Shut up, cunt!". He does not do this because saying "cunt" would instantly raise the minimum viewing age and limit the film's audience.

Asking why this is the case could lead to some interesting questions, and indeed has. But simply stating baldly that "dick" is just the same qua insult is to fly in the face of so much evidence it really rather defies blitheness.
 
 
some guy
16:03 / 27.08.02
Likewise, if they are telling the truth, then everyone who claims to react unhappily to the word "cunt" is, by your logic, a liar.

I don't see how this follows. People get upset despite intent all the time.

Which is why I would suggest that intent is relevant, but so is context and indeed what words are taken to mean, which is neither universal nor I suspect entirely quantifiable.

Yeah, I agree. This is one of the reasons conversations like this can never be resolved.

I think you have misunderstood the idea of second-order terminology, which his little to do with etymology or aetiology but is simply a theory of dependent meanings

I just disagree that there are dependent meanings in every case.

I have certainly not so far maintained that "cunt" represents femininity. It represents either by denoting or by connoting/metaphorical reference, the female sex organs.

Yep, I'm sort of bastardizing the word "femininity" to cover a lot of ground, including femaleness, negative qualities we ascribe to women and sex organs.

Honestly, I think we are near the "agreeing to disagree" stage, because we are also near the point of diminishing returns - you are gainsaying rather than addressing quite complex issues and points.

And I feel you are doing the same, so we should probably just agree to disagree from this point!

Which is one of the core questions - should language be avoided or controlled on the grounds that it may be offensive? Which extends far beyond cuntitude as an issue.

This would be a great thread.

Asking why this is the case could lead to some interesting questions, and indeed has. But simply stating baldly that "dick" is just the same qua insult is to fly in the face of so much evidence it really rather defies blitheness.

No, I don't think it does. I think our attitudes toward men and women, and which are fair game when it comes to pejoratives and why, affect our usage of the words. But as you yourself take great pains to demonstrate above, it's all about second-order terminology...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:28 / 27.08.02
Well, we're kind of down to one-sentence replies, so it's not necessarily worth the petrol for me to respond at length...I would love one of the "anti-cunt brigade" to take up the baton.

One question of categories.

I just disagree that there are dependent meanings in every case.

As far as I can tell the options are i) that "cunt" means the same thing in every case it is used. ii) the pejorative sense of "cunt" is a dependent or associative meaning, or iii) there are two entirely different words that just happen to be spelled the same, like weal meaning a ridge raised on the skin and weal meaning riches or wealth, but mean two completely different things and are two completely different words. Am I missing a (iv)?
 
 
some guy
17:10 / 27.08.02
iv) The word has different meanings that can be traced back to a single meaning, yet are now so far removed as to be distinct.

A much less controversial example would be calling someone a "ham" or a "card;" nobody is implying that they are in fact meat from a pig or a flat game component. This is a bit like when several rivers flow from the same source - they're still different rivers.

Anyway, Haus, we ended it civil, and judging from both of our online personae that's saying something. If anyone else wants to pick up the baton, go to it. I'll watch from the sidelines.
 
 
Char Aina
18:20 / 20.04.04
Why don't you decide that nothing is ever going to offend you ever again? That way I can state that you are a motherfuc... ...back into English.

But it doesn't work that way. So I can't say that. That would be rude.

well, yeah, but i wouldnt be actually offended by your attacks on my mother(etc), if that were aimed at me. your use of those insults is so far removed from my knowledge of my mother*, and the intent to wound so obvious, that there is no power.
i have perhaps decided that it will not offend me?

how different is asking someone to speak differently from asking someone to listen differently?



I'm also not asking anyone to change the meaning of the word.


well, quite frankly, i thought that was the point. the word either means vagina when used as an insult, or it doesnt. i say it doesnt, regardless of where it came from originally.




You want to avoid sophmoric insult slinging? Fine. Just don't tell me that words are not insulting if you choose not to take them that way, because if you ignore the meaning of words then why are you using them in the first place?


see before.
dont tell anyone that words ARE insulting if you choose to to. yes, you are choosing to, by associating every use of the word with genitalia.





*
i would also argue that to call someone a cunt(although i love vaginas) is an insult despite my hetrosexual desire to be near one. i would kiss a vagina-cunt, i would not kiss a person-cunt.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:28 / 03.05.04
Picking this up a step back, LLBIMG and I had managed to carve out 4 possibilities:

i) that "cunt" means the same thing in every case it is used. ii) the pejorative sense of "cunt" is a dependent or associative meaning, or iii) there are two entirely different words that just happen to be spelled the same, like weal meaning a ridge raised on the skin and weal meaning riches or wealth, but mean two completely different things and are two completely different words.

iv) The word has different meanings that can be traced back to a single meaning, yet are now so far removed as to be distinct.

A much less controversial example would be calling someone a "ham" or a "card;" nobody is implying that they are in fact meat from a pig or a flat game component. This is a bit like when several rivers flow from the same source - they're still different rivers.

I'm pondering (iv), but it doesn't seem to represent what happens with "cunt", because "cunt" meaning ladypart and "cunt" meaning bad person (and "cunt" meaning woman by metonym, but let's skip that for the moment) have not evolved as parallel, different meanings from a single meaning - nor indeed have "ham" and "card". There was a signle meaning (pig meat, stiff paper), which then took on further meanings, and further meanings yet, and ended up where we are now, where the metaphor has become what you might call a dead metaphor - that is, in general the terms are employed without any metaphoric resonance - the stiff paper is not recalled by calling somebody a card *these days*.

So, I guess my question is, can one say as confidently that the metonymic bridge between "cunt" (ladypart), "cunt" (nasty person) and "cunt" (abusive metonym specifically applied to women) has been worn away by familiarity? Personally, I'm not sure we can...
 
 
sdv (non-human)
12:46 / 05.05.04
I'm not sure to what extent you are accepting that the word **** is an order-word that in it's use imposes an unacceptable social and political inferiority onto women.

Or is it that you want to reclaim it's use to re-establish a certain masculinity.
 
 
Ex
19:19 / 05.05.04
where we are now, where the metaphor has become what you might call a dead metaphor - that is, in general the terms are employed without any metaphoric resonance - the stiff paper is not recalled by calling somebody a card *these days*.


I don't know how much this adds to the discussion, but: I'm not sure metaphors ever really die. I can think of individual word meanings that are utterly lost - and there have been interesting on-board debates as to whether a word is still racist if nobody in the conversation knows it had racist origins (the phrase 'nitty gritty' or the term 'hysterical' spring to mind).
But metaphors are a different class of thing, perhaps - Firstly, they are too easy to 'reactivate', and perhaps more importantly, I think part of their power resides in there not being a conscious association. Whenever a metaphor 'dies', I see it as a sign that some kind of argument has been won (and lost) and that the word linkage remains as a marker of that victory.
You can say the same about other word usage; many apparently uncontroversial word adoptions fix in place a certain system or structure of beliefs, and then whenever the word is used, the system is invoked and strengthened (the example that persistantly springs to mind is 'bogus asylum seekers', but there are hundreds of other more apparently neutral ones; ummm - 'bisexual'). But I think a single word/ label/ classification isn't as 'strong' (in preserving whatever belief system generated it) as a metaphorical linkage.

I'm happy to believe that many people who use sexual terms or body parts as terms of offense don't think of sex or genitalia when they do it; I'm not convinced that means the metaphorical bridge has been worn away. More likely it's just gone underground.
 
 
Salamander
16:53 / 07.05.04
What I fail to see is just how someone might suggest that we would be able to restrict the use of the word cunt? Would the would-be litle Big Brothers of the world make it a PC offense, if so, would that not make it more offesive and therefore more likely to be used as an explitive? Or are you going to have Cunt Police, Patroling the streets listening for cunts? Perhaps we can build cunt robots, designed too seek out the word wherever it is spoken, night or day? Or maybe the people offended by the word cunt can ignore it? If you ignore it it won't go away, but then again is someone elses problem with the word really the problem of the person who spoke it (All gentlemanly considerations aside)?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
20:36 / 07.05.04
We're back in "haven't really payed any attention to the thread" land, aren't we?

Hermes, it's not about the nasty PC police restricting your freedoms. It's about the issue of whether various uses of the word are misogynistic or not. How one formulates a response to that depends on one's opinion of misogyny, I suppose. If you think misogyny is bad thing, then you will probably try not to use misogynistic language and you may develop a negative opinion to those who use it habitually - "banning" its use is beyond the realms of possibility for most of us, for better or for worse.
 
 
Salamander
18:55 / 08.05.04
No, but I would say that I am back into the happy land of satire being mistaken for position, but since I usually don't bother clarifying my position for everyone, this is to be expected, so to wit...

Websters Encyclopedic Unabriged Dictionary of the English language defines Misogyny thusly:

Misogyny: n. Hatred dislike or mistrust of women.

Websters Encyclopedic Unabriged Dictionary of the English language defines cunt thusly:

Cunt n. Slang(vulgar) 1. The vulva or vagina 2. Dispariging and Offensive a. a woman b. a contemptible person. 3. sexual intercourse with a woman.

So, as you can see, cunt can or cannot be used as a term for a female. Those who find the word insulting have chose deffinition 2a as THE deffinition, and I would say that it's there problem, not the problem of the person using it, because it is a word in the English language, slang or not. When people treat a word as being anything more than just that, a word, we have slipped into the emotional and metaphysical area of genital politics, and politics, as a natural consequence, will always be involved in trying to "police" that which it does not approve of. Do I really think that cunt police are going to be knocking on my door, of course not(Nor is it my meaning to suggest that this is what you meant). I was nearly pointing out with my satire the all to common conclusion to the types of thinking that politics, femminist or other, can lead to. And perhaps before accusing someone of not paying attention, perhaps you should inquire as to their meaning first, so as too avoid unneccesary thread rot such as this post. In finality, how a word is used and what is implied by that use is a contextual, case by case scenario, because the word has multiple meanings. Any attempt to classify the word as this or that is to automatically disregard the other deffinitions. Hopefully this has cleared up my position, and I appologize for the obtuseness of my previous post, but please, in the future, PM me if you have any off hand insults to send my way.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:07 / 08.05.04
So, you are saying that it is a matter of choice on the part of the woman being called a cunt as to whether she is being insulted in a unisex or gendered fashion?
 
 
Jester
10:21 / 09.05.04
I think part of their power resides in there not being a conscious association

I think this is the crux of why I (at least) find cunt an offensive and misogynistic word when used as an insult.

The comparison between fuck and cunt is an interesting one, I think partly because it shows how society's attitudes to sex have evolved differently from society's attitudes to vaginas. If vaginas were really as acceptable as sex, then surely they would both have lost their power as quickly? They are both, as has been pointed out, satifying Anglo-Saxon words to say...

Although I would say that I'm sure a lot of people use cunt and arn't misogynistic/arn't intending to use the insult as a direct 'fearsome' comparison to vaginaness, I would go along with Haus in that there is a linguistic and meaning-based link, even if it is a fairly unconscious one in some cases.

Maybe it is because, in my social circles at least, generally it is only men who use cunt as an insult - how does that compare to other peoples' experience? I think it is down to what Haus said about women having a different relationship to the word than men, that being underpinned by society's different perceptions of women and men, and female and male sexual parts...

I don't know, though, I hate the idea of a prescriptive ban on saying any particular word. But I don't ever use cunt as an insult, and am occasionally offended when I heard someone else use it as an insult in a context that bespeaks sexism. But, like SFD, I love using the word in its original, positive context...
 
 
Rev. Orr
17:06 / 09.05.04
Oh dear. Has somebody appointed Flyboy to be Supreme Mugwump again and forgotten to tell us all? Whisper it soft, children, nobody here can force you to do anything. Nobody is claiming they can. Can we sidle slowly away from the white elephants of enforcing restricted speech and 'cunt police' and return to the thread in hand, please? The question is theory, any application is up to the individual.

I'm still somewhat confused by the 'choose not to be offended' position. I realise that, at one end of the reducto ad absurdam mosh-pit, if I wake up tomorrow and decide that I am deeply offended by the word 'flapjack' and demand that no-one ever use it in my presence then I am on a hiding to nothing and will rally few troops to my cause. However, racing over to the other extreme, should I similarly decide that addressing every person less pale than myself as 'coon-boy' is perfectly acceptable and bears no relation to any other meaning they may read into the phrase, then I am likely to be arrested / beaten up / fired / forced to move to Devon in short order.

All speech is allusive. Words are meaning-bearing symbols and usualy operate on a conscious and subconcious level. We agree, collectively, to an idea loading for these sound and letter-shapes. If the message bourne by 'carboxyhaemaglobin' is less complex and layered than that by 'love' then that is just the way our language works. Thus we can end up with sentances like "I love you, I just don't love you." Language is based upon translating concepts into words by the speaker and the listener reversing the process. As result, it is subjective at both ends. There is no straight binary mapping of meaning to word and word to meaning. For true communication, the speaker must take into consideration the person ze is speaking to. This could be as extreme and simple as 'do they speak English or should I try another language?' or it could be 'my friend Steve is very touchy about his Scottishnes - I shall be careful when selecting English or British to make sure I use the one I mean'.

Given all of this, I still fail to see why the onus to modulate linguistic refence should be on the listener.
 
 
Horatio Hellpop
17:51 / 09.05.04
i don't think it makes sense to locate responsibility in the speaker or the listener, rather in the space between them or what they create through their interaction. if i'm aware that someone's intent is harmless and/or not directed toward myself i'm much more willing not to be offended than if i suspect their motives. similarly if they know/imagine that i might be offended (knowing my character or ethnic/geographic background) then the (abstract moral) responsibility for word usage should more accurately reflect their intent based on the information at hand. if the intent is to offend, it can be accomplished with or without using the rather limited palette of "obscene" words (those just being social loaded, and convenient rather than necessarily descriptive). there is a dynamic interaction at work in all communication and if it could take place with one person it probably would.

also i just like to imagine communication as creating something, like a sculpture, something physical necessarily by more than one set of hands, requiring interpretation to be meaningful.
 
 
Liger Null
11:35 / 24.05.04
I am a female and a feminist and in times of extreme anger I will use Dickhead against a man and Cunt against a woman. In my mind, I don't see this word as being sexist at all, particularly since there seem to be just as many insults related to male or non-gender specific organs (i.e., dick, prick, asshole, bullocks, dickhead) as female(pussy, cunt, twat, are in fact the ONLY ones that come to mind)

Shorty says she chooses not to use any of these words in a durogatory manner. While her choice is commendable, I am a hot-blooded person and resent ANYONE telling me what scatological terms I can't use to express my displeasure. They are, in fact, JUST WORDS, and only have as much power as the recipient is willing to give them.

In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt: No one can make you feel inferior with out your consent.
 
 
Liger Null
11:48 / 24.05.04
Not seeing that there were Other pages to this thread (kicking myself for not paying attention), I wish to qualify what I posted earlier.

I stand by my right to use scatological terms in anger (within the proper venue of course, I try not too use them in front of small children or my grandparents). I, however do not use terms that are racist in nature -although I do say Redneck and White Trash an awful lot, is that racist? Perhaps.

I believe that we would a do well to follow certain basic rules of etiquitte, but if we sit down and agonize over whether the words we use are sensitive enough, we won't be able to communicate at all.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:34 / 24.05.04
I am a hot-blooded person and resent ANYONE telling me what scatological terms I can't use to express my displeasure.

Incidentally, "scatological" means "obsessed with our concerned with the study of dung, whether fresh (for diagnostic) or fossilised (for palaeological) purposes".

So, as a matter of interest, if we assume that by "scatological" woodtiger merely means "rude" or "offensive", presumably there is some other process that prevents woodtiger from using terms of racist abuse when hir blood is hot, as ze avows that ze does not use such terms. However, ze also believes that if we spend too much time trying to work out which words are "sensitive", then we will never say anything at all.

So here's my question. Is it some form of inborn instinct that identifies racist language as not sensitive enough, as opposed to "cunt", "redneck" and "white trash", which are sensitive enough. If so, is it personal or universal? If the former, how do you argue that it is an acceptable level of sensitivity, being neither insensitive or oversensitive? If the latter, how do you explain others having different standards of sensitivity?

If, on the other hand, it is not inborn or instinctual, how does one determine that one has achieved the right level of sensitivty, and what process do you go through to get there?

(Incidentally, there's some stuff on white trash and its cognates here, here and here)
 
 
Ticker
13:52 / 09.07.07
I've been rereading this thread and mulling over language use on the board and off.

So here's my question. Is it some form of inborn instinct that identifies racist language as not sensitive enough, as opposed to "cunt", "redneck" and "white trash", which are sensitive enough. If so, is it personal or universal? If the former, how do you argue that it is an acceptable level of sensitivity, being neither insensitive or oversensitive? If the latter, how do you explain others having different standards of sensitivity?

If, on the other hand, it is not inborn or instinctual, how does one determine that one has achieved the right level of sensitivty, and what process do you go through to get there?


I find it very intersting and a bit troubling when pointing out sensitive word use the level of concern/response is gauged against the presumed injured party's position.
Why, as in Haus' above post, is racist language flagged as a higher priority then sexist, or is it not? I realize this maybe a different thread topic but why cling to a word choice that injuries others so much so that there are definate societal areas of censorship?

The pro-brigade seems to be arguing that this insult, intended to be harmful to the chosen recipient, is some sort of narrow beam fine tuned damage delivery system of a word. They seem to be on the whole unwilling to understand that cunt and her friends (twat included) are slung about as verbal weapons and as such these folks do not seem to accept responsiblity for the damage these words inflict. To my mind it is a bit like saying fallout from atomic weapon use drifting into other countires beside the enemy's is not really the responsibility of the country that launched it, even though it is known behavior of radioactive material.

So if a group of people say, the pejorative use of a bodypart they happen to own impacts them with a negative connotation of said body part and the act of owning one, why is it acceptable to wave off this reaction? Somehow their response is viewed as an oversensitivity to a word that was in fact used with the intent to cause harm/offense/injury. Seems to me we are just calling out the wider impact crater.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:08 / 09.07.07
Why, as in Haus' above post, is racist language flagged as a higher priority then sexist, or is it not?

Am I right in thinking that there is a verb missing after "as", XK, of the order of "highlighted" or "identified"?
 
 
Ticker
19:39 / 09.07.07
Yes I believe there is, thank you for pointing that out.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:49 / 09.07.07
No worries - I was actually not sure _what_ I ended up saying - was reading through the thread again, but that struck me, and I've certainly found myself appearing to say things that I did not mean before. Certainly, the tone in this thread is far more frivolous than I think 2007-model us would use, which is interesting in itself.

Hmm. It's a very good question. Reading back over, the reasons not to self-censor might break down as:

1) It isn't actually to do with women and/or their sexual organs, so there is no reason not to do so.
2) When I use it, that usage is not sexist, so my own usage is, in effect, already self-censored.
3) It _is_ to do with women and/or their sexual organs, but the nature of abusive or obscene language is too refer to sex organs, of men and women, and this is just the way language works.
4) As 3, but rather to avoid using terms referencing women's sexual organs without also avoiding cock, dick, prick and so forth would be hypocritical and/or unfair.

Roughly, does this seem accurate?
 
 
Ticker
11:55 / 11.07.07
Yes I think that is accurate. Do we have any reserve-the-right-to-use-it folks hanging about to add their insights?

1) It isn't actually to do with women and/or their sexual organs, so there is no reason not to do so.

I am at loss as to why if this is true an entirely different word that does not ref the body part could not be used.


2) When I use it, that usage is not sexist, so my own usage is, in effect, already self-censored.

If we agree our Western culture is by default negative about the female body, femaleness, and being female then I am not sure how using a female body part as an insult cannot be at the very least sexist?


3) It _is_ to do with women and/or their sexual organs, but the nature of abusive or obscene language is too refer to sex organs, of men and women, and this is just the way language works.

This naturalization of language as a fixed immutable beastie seems to be blithely ignoring the known mechanics of language. Which is a long way of saying I call bullshit on absolute arrival of language at any one destination.


4) As 3, but rather to avoid using terms referencing women's sexual organs without also avoiding cock, dick, prick and so forth would be hypocritical and/or unfair.


I agree and believe we as intellegent imaginative people must bear the burden of inventing better insults or avoiding them entirely. I support language to express one's emotional frustration and anger but I cannot support broad based harmful language. If someone is deserving of critique, and even a smackdown, is it not more effective to detail ( with a vast heaping of scorn and disdain) the specfics of why rather than defaulting to general 'you be bad' tags? If we unpack what it means when we use these words what do we get? Can we arrive at the meaning using other words or are we really just too lazy?
 
 
gu
21:07 / 21.08.07
Personally, I think the word "cunt" is considered more offensive than synonyms such as "pussy" for two main reasons :

1. The word has a very blunt and aggressive sound, much like "fuck." People tend to associate the aggressive quality of a word with the intensity in which it is used.
2. According to Wikipedia's article on the word, "It can also imply that women are useful only for having vaginas and thus serve no purpose save sexual gratification." While I believe this is not true, it would explain why women in particular seem to be extremely offended by the word.

In the same article the point, "Some feminists seek to reclaim cunt as an acceptable word for the female genitalia, in the interest of removing the power associated with its use" is brought up. Although swearwords today are considered less offensive then they were in earlier times, the word "cunt" is still a word that few people dare say in public. Why should "cunt" be treated so differently? It's just another swearword.

This brings up a different but related question - why does society deem certain words to be inappropriate? For example, is "poop" considered less offensive than "shit" simply because it sounds more comical and childish?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
21:24 / 21.08.07
Hi, JTlemonslice. While it's good to see new members posting in the Head Shop, it's also good if they read the threads they post in before composing their replies. Maybe you've done this, but in that I'm not getting much sense from your post of wanting to engage with some of the arguments and points of view that have been put forward as to why the word in question might not be "just another swear word". Would you like to respond to some of them before we move on to analogies with other words?
 
 
gu
22:22 / 21.08.07
I was simply stating my opinion on why the word may be deemed more offensive than synonymous words. I'll address some points made throughout the thread, however.

grant :
Sidebar question: a cock is a rooster, and Dick is a friend of mine. Why is "cunt" not anything else? Pussy certainly is. So, for that matter, is "cooter" (it's a turtle).
This may be yet another reason as to why “cunt” is considered such a bad word; for example, “cock's” double-meaning creates a certain comedic air, since it can be referring to two different things. As far as I know, in America, the word “cunt” has no second, radically different definition, therefore the slightly comedic effect created by a word's two different definitions is nonexistent.

Lurid Archive :
Of course there is a case to be made that in making the word "cunt" taboo, we actually reinforce the negative associations that go along with female genitalia.
Making a word taboo does reinforce any negativity associated with the word. In the case of the word “cunt,” the taboo-esque quality of the word coupled with the vulgarity associated with female genitals “built into” American society makes most of society regard the word as abhorrent.
 
  

Page: 123(4)

 
  
Add Your Reply