BARBELITH underground
 

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


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

 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
04:47 / 18.06.02
Every time I hear the word I keep thinking of the story Dave Sim did with The Roach as NormalRoach who sat in a chair outside a bar, and every woman who walked by he would think louder and louder "Fucking cunt!" until they'd look at him, and he'd get all meek and scared.

Of course, now Sim prolly does that on his own porch.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
06:26 / 18.06.02
in answer to a couple of questions: i use 'cunt' for its original purpose, i.e. to powerfully describe something i find beautiful -female genitalia. i don't use 'prick', or any other description of male genitalia as insults. i only use 'fuck' and 'shit' when i'm stressed and i'm working on not using them either, as it makes me feel aggressive to do so, there are better ways i could be expressing myself, and fucking and shit are not shameful things.

rage - you originally posted the thread 'do you honestly want a revolution?'. if you're bored by the fact that real change involves having to do this kind of thing (my response in that thread stating that 'even' here at barbelith, we have a long, long way to go), then i would assume your answer to your own question would be 'no'. let's face it - if things stay as they are, you'll have people you feel superior to, that you can laugh at.

sinister haiku bureau - if you've never heard anyone outside of barbelith argue about the offensiveness of the word 'cunt' as an insult, then i assume you don't often mix with feminists. practically none the dykes i've ever met would use this word as an insult.
 
 
w1rebaby
07:56 / 18.06.02
Cholister:

Some here have suggested that if the word cunt became a *casual* insult, like 'dick', that would help redress the balance of power between the binary genders. It wouldn't. Men are privileged *despite* their relationship between their penises and language.

I quite agree. "I'm calling you a cunt but I'm really fighting for women's rights", doesn't quite hold up. But this does have the corollary that, if we've thought about how we use the word and still use it, that won't help perpetuate power imbalance, in other words it doesn't really matter either way.

(Incidentally, "cunt" is a casual insult in a lot of the social circles I inhabit.)
 
 
Rev. Orr
08:05 / 18.06.02
If people are so surprised that the word 'cunt' offends then why the hell are you using it as a swear word? That's its point, its raison d'etre. All the swear words I can think of (enter Haus to prove me wrong) from 'goddamned' to 'dangleberries' are based on bodily functions (sex or excretion) or religion - subjects which provoke an extreme emotional response. The best swear words combine provocative meaning with aggressive pronounciation either to increase the insult or to improve the cathartic emotional discharge in their use. That's why 'fuck' is more effective than 'frig' (unless you're speaking to a follower of the Norse gods) and why the word 'back', whilst nicely plosive, never really caught on as a response to dropping a large weight on one's foot. In the UK, 'cunt' seems to be treated as the verbal equivalent of NBC weapons - kept locked away until conventional arms like 'fuck' and 'shit' fail and brought out with some nervous reverence as the ultimate doomsday device.

None of which is to say that it isn't a mysoginistic term - its newly acquired place at the head of the curse-word league table is in no small way due to that - so is it acceptable to use it? Well, yeah, if you want to piss-off, insult, bait or demean someone who is, self identifies as, respects, knows or is related to a woman. At that point its a Ronseal insult, it'll do exactly what it says on the tin. The fact that it shouldn't be an insult, the transgressive thrill or release of using in a perverted and powerful way means that the next time rage is vetoing reason and we're reaching for our biggest verbal stick to beat someone with, we'll probably break the glass and reach for the cunt.

And for all the other times, when I can't be bothered to rifle through Roget and I just want some meaningless amplifier to pad out a sentence, what harm could it do me to avoid using the term? It's hardly news that a large number of people object on several grounds and rather than argue, why not just accept it? If I can condition myself not to say it in front of my grandmother then why couldn't I apply the same minimal level of effort to selecting my words in other contexts? I'll miss it - divorced from its meaning and associations, it's a viscerally satisfying word to say - but words do not exist purely as sounds, they are, by nature, referential.
 
 
Sax
08:55 / 18.06.02
This place constantly amazes me. Twenty-four hours after reading this thread, Barbelith has done what me old mum could never do - make me think twice about cussing. Will wonders never cease?

I would appreciate it if someone could start a new thread with inventive yet non-derogatory swear words for my arsenal.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:32 / 18.06.02
Just to hoover up the aphorists...

Phil Knows - do you actually have a statement to make? Would you like to refute Cholister's analysis of global wealth and power distribution? And, given that you are the Knodger, why exactly havre we let you hang around again?

Rage - Please, enlighten me. I'm afraid I have never come across this term, "PC". Could you help me out? I understand it stands for "political correctness", and that it often goes mad or bad, but that's all I know. Could you tell me who originated the movement, what its aims are, who its most enthusiastic current proponents are, what their agenda is and how they are pursuing it?
 
 
Sax
09:56 / 18.06.02
Barbelith is so PC.

Post Cunt.
 
 
Mr Wolfe
09:57 / 18.06.02
I think the things some of the females here have said are precise proof of why political correctness and feminism are outdated movements/concepts/ideologies. Would you like me to elaborate Haus?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:06 / 18.06.02
I'd love you to, Andrew, but I'm afraid I have no idea what this "political correctness" of which you speak is. So could you possibly, as Rage has so far regrettably not found time to fit into her busy schedule, start by bringing me up to speed on who originated the movement, what its aims are, who its most enthusiastic current proponents are, what their agenda is and how they are pursuing it?

Plus any other germane information I should know in order to understand PC better.

After that, please elaborate away.
 
 
Mr Wolfe
10:23 / 18.06.02
My pleasure Haus...

What Is Political Correctness?
Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the target of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution by the state.

The Odious Nature Of Political Correctness
To attempt to point out the odious nature of Political Correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech; these are the communities safe-guards against the imposition of tyranny, indeed their absence is tyranny ( see "On Liberty", Chapter II, by J.S. Mill). Which is why any such restrictions on expression such as those invoked by the laws of libel, slander and public decency, are grave matters to be decided by common law methodology; not by the dictates of the mob.

Clear Inspiration For Political Correctness
The declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behaviour that may upset homosexuals, women, none-whites, the crippled, the mentally impaired, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War ), which is why the terms niggers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject have become revered by the new generation.

The Origins Of Political Correctness
A community declines when the majority of its citizens become selfish, and under this influence it slowly dismantles all the restraints upon self-indulgence established by manners, customs, tradition and law (See the law of reverse civilisation). As each subsequent generation of selfish citizens inherits control of the community, it takes its opportunity to abandon more of the irksome restraints which genius and wisdom had installed. The proponents of this social demolition achieve their irrational purpose by publicly embracing absurdity through slogans while vilifying any who do not support their stance. The purpose of the slogan is to enshrine irrational fears, or fancies, as truth through the use of presumptuous words, so public pronouncement:

Dissembles the real nature of the claim
Identifies any dissenters as enemies of the truth
Acts as an excuse for any crimes committed in its name
For example the slogan Australia is Multicultural is a claim that:
Different cultures are compatible.
People who contradict this claim are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
People who contradict this claim are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.
Which is an attack upon truth, clear thinking and plain speaking .
From Bourgeois To Racist
Naturally as the restraints shrink the rebellion grows ever more extreme in nature. When the author of Animal Farm wrote an article in 1946 about the pleasures of a rose garden, he was criticised for being bourgois. George Orwell mentions this in his essay A Good Word For The Vicar Of Bray, published in the Tribune, 1946. Now, in the late 1990s, the results of being bourgeois ( but labelled racist, sexist etc ) are losing your job, your reputation, being jostled in the street , risking judicial penalty and perhaps receiving death threats. And it is this very extremity of reaction that has won media attention and the name Political Correctness, though the reaction will become even more unpleasant with the next generation.

Parental Values Always Attacked
The inevitable target for people impatient of restraint must always be parents, because these are society's agents for teaching private restraint. So the cherished notions of the parents are always subject to attack by their maturing off-spring. This resentment of tradition was observed in his own civilisation by Polybius (c. 200-118 BC), the Greek historian, who said:

"For every democracy which has enjoyed property for a considerable period first develops through its nature an attitude of discontent towards the existing order,.."
Tyranny Grows
Once a community embraces tyranny the penalties can only grow in severity. This gradual increase is easily seen by the example of Toastmasters. As the members of the club became more concerned about the delights of socialising and less concerned about the disciplines of public speaking, they became more intolerant of citizens who were earnest about learning the art of rhetoric. Once members who did their duty by truthfully pointing out the shortcomings in another members performance were just labelled as negative or discouraging; later this became a risk of being socially ostracised. Now (since 1998) unpopularity can result in being permanently ejected from the club by a majority vote.

Australian Experience Of PC Tyranny
In my country the tyranny erupted with the persecution of public figures such as Arthur Tunstall for uttering truths that had become unpopular, either directly in a speech, or indirectly by telling jokes. The maiden speech of the federal member of parliament for Ipswich contained so many disliked truths that the rabble escalated the ferocity of their attack and extended them to her supporters, introducing terror into Australian politics. Anyone who watched the TV coverage (1997/8) of Pauline Hanson's political campaign will have seen the nature of her opponents; a throng who looked and behaved more like barbarians than citizens of a civilised community. And any mob who chants "Burn the witch" (when she spoke outside an Ipswich hall after she had been refused entry ) leaves no doubt as to their intent or character.

Widespread Throughout The Community
Revealing the extent of the mob's support, their sentiments ( suitably refined ) were enthusiastically echoed by the media and the administration. And in an unprecedented act of cooperation, all the political parties conspired to eject Ms Hanson from the federal parliament in the election of October 3rd 1998. This was revealed by the how-to-vote cards of the parties involved in the seat of Blaire, which all placed Ms Hanson last. This was a public admission by both the major parties that they would rather risk losing the election than allow this forthright woman to keep her seat in parliament.

International Experience Of PC Tyranny
And it is not just in Australia but in every western democratic country popular demands have been made for restrictions on expression. Bowing to the clamour of the electorate, politicians in these countries have enacted absurd laws. The Australian community wide declaration of irrational hatred displayed by the persecution of Pauline Hanson, paralleled the Canadian experience of Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc., and the examples of the national soccer coach of England and a prominent public servant in Washington, USA confirm the hysteria is everywhere.

Inevitable Impact
Recognising the pathetic nature of the hysteria that is taking over the community will not halt its impact. Once expression gets placed in a strait-jacket of official truth, then the madness that occurs in all totalitarian states is obtained. Life, in private and public, becomes a meaningless charade, where reality shrinks, delusion thrives and terror rules.

Examples Of Denying Freedom Of Speech
Evidence of this effect is amply demonstrated by the Soviets, who embraced Political Correctness with the Communist Revolution. The lumbering, pompous, impoverished, humourless monster this Nation became is now History. And it should be remembered that in 1914 Tsarist Russia was considered, at least by Edmund Cars, a French economist who then published a book about the subject, to be an economic giant set to overshadow Europe. The SBS television program "What Ever Happened To Russia" which was broadcast at 8.30 pm on 25th August 1994, detailed the terrible effect the Bolshevik's oppression had on their empire. And SBS further detailed the terrible crimes inflicted upon the Russians by their leader Stalin, in the series "Blood On The Snow" broadcast in March 1999.

An Old Witness
Helen, a member of Parramatta writers club in 1992, was a citizen of Kiev during the Red Terror, and described living with official truth and the constant threat of arrest. Knowing the content of the latest party newspaper was critical to avoiding internment, as public contradiction, either directly or indirectly, meant denouncement to the KGB. If you complained about being hungry when food shortages were not officially recognised, then you became an enemy of the state. If you failed to praise a Soviet hero, or praised an ex-hero, then again your fate was sealed. The need to be politically correct dominated all conversation and behaviour, as failure meant drastic penalty. Uncertainty and fear pervaded everything, nobody could be sure that an official request to visit Party headquarters meant imprisonment, torture, death, public reward or nothing important.

Living with such a terrible handicap naturally destroyed all spontaneity of thought or action, rendering the whole community mad. The awful effect this had upon Helen's sanity was made clear when she escaped to Australia. Here she encountered the free press, which had an unpleasant impact upon her. One day she read The Australian newspaper which happened to carry two separate articles about Patrick White, one praising, the other denigrating, this well known writer. Poor Helen found herself turning from one to the other, which was she to repeat as correct? She nearly had a nervous breakdown.

Political Correctness Is Social Dementia
Unless plain speaking is allowed, clear thinking is denied. There can be no good reason for denying freedom of expression, there is no case to rebut, only the empty slogans of people inspired by selfishness and unrestrained by morality. The proponents of this nonsense neither understand the implications of what they say, or why they are saying it.

Social Decline Grows Worse With Each Generation
Political Correctness is part of the social decline that generation by generation makes public behaviour less restrained and less rational.
 
 
The Sinister Haiku Bureau
10:33 / 18.06.02
Knodge, it's generally considered polite to cite your sources when you quote somebody. Otherwise people might be misled into believing that it's your own work, rather than that you merely googled for it and posted a huge cut-and-paste swathe of what it says at said site. Either that or you have extremely high speed typing skills AND a photographic memory, in which case, consider me awed.
General citation skills are a useful habit, not merely in academia, but in everyday life as well. To demonstrate:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/smartboard/pc.htm P.Atkinson, July 2001.
 
 
The Apple-Picker
11:20 / 18.06.02
"Unless plain speaking is allowed, clear thinking is denied."

I wasn't aware we were discussing legislative action here to prohibit use of the word "cunt" or any other word. I thought we were talking about whether or not it was a good or a bad word. And then from that, we discuss personal responsibility once one is aware of its power.

I thought that it had also been suggested that use of such a word was the result of not thinking, let alone not thinking clearly. Speaking plainly and thoughtlessly are not the same things, are they? How does inflammatory language, usually used in an attack, enable clear thinking when being made defensive often inhibits clear thinking? Attack back, then?

I fail to see how people arguing against the casual (or calculating) use of the word "cunt" qualifies as "unrestrained by morality." Questions on what is right and what is wrong are from exactly where these arguments come.

It seems to me that thinking, morality, public discourse would all be better served without the interjection of words like dick, cock, cunt, pussy when used as insults.

Fuckhead. I will henceforth refrain from using the word fuckhead.
 
 
rizla mission
11:49 / 18.06.02
Can we rewind a few steps toward sanity and review the first paragraph of Orr's post, which makes pretty good sense to me.
Being obnoxious and offensive is, well, kinda the point of using swear words. Obviously if we were all going to be nice, respectful citizens all the time we wouldn't swear at all, as all swear words are demeaning to somebody .. but sometimes all of us get angry and feel the need to offend the sensibilities of either someone in particular or the world in general, and the best way todo that is by yelling some nasty, hurtful words that would never normally pass one's lips in reasonable, level-headed mode. Hense = cussing.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
11:59 / 18.06.02
yes, rizla, *but* barbelith is supposed to be about revolution and how revolutionary can we be if we are still unquestioningly using misogynist language? where barbefolks would not use a racial slur when 'angry and feeling the need to offend someone's sensibilities', they *would* use a term that has, at the very least, its roots in misogyny.

[note: i am not for one minute suggesting that this place is entirely sorted about racial issues]
 
 
Persephone
12:25 / 18.06.02
I don't want anyone to think that promoting "cunt" as a common insult is high on my list of priorities.

When you say:

Men are privileged *despite* their relationship between their penises and language.

...that is what I was getting at. Or rather I was getting at that the relationship between penises and language is a function of male privilege, and maybe that's not the same thing that you're saying? But theoretically, on the day that male privilege is no more, penises and vaginas will have equivalent relationships to language. I was just wondering if it could work the other way around, using language as a lever to flip the balance of power.

There's more than one problem with "cunt" used pejoratively, but the outstanding one to me is that it's seen as so much worse than, say, "dick." So where my argument is coming from is, if people are going to use reproductive body parts as insults, then what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. What Chol proposes --*not* using body parts as insults-- is obviously the better way... (wryly) I'm sorry to say that giving up calling men dicks was not accessible to me. Not that I spend a lot of time doing that anyway.

I thought we were talking about whether or not it was a good or a bad word. And then from that, we discuss personal responsibility once one is aware of its power.

That is a very neat summation, to me. My question is, can "cunt" not be a good and a bad word? Can it not derive power from such a duality? Or is the status of women in the world too critical to allow for any bad at this time?
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:26 / 18.06.02
Leaving aside the political correctness swamp of doom, I still find myself undecided about the use of the word "cunt" as an expletive.

For a start, it is true that I don't think about female genitalia when I use it. Much as I don't think about the penis when I say "prick" or sex when I say "fuck". These words are effective as expletives because of their shock value embedded in our language. This shock value may derive from a traditional disgust with sex and sexual organs and thus give these words an emotional power. The word "cunt" is particularly powerful because of the disgust, past and present, toward girly bits.

I am not sure if it is at all relevant that one might achieve a consensus on incorrectness of using "cunt" because of this disgust. "Don't say cunt, its filthy." Moreover, is it possible that a successful bid to make the use of "cunt" a taboo in certain situations would be counter productive? I'm thinking that if it is generally accepted that "cunt" shouldn't be used for swearing, this might increase the shock value even in other contexts.

I am alluding to a point that everyone else disagrees with and may be badly thought out on my part. I don't really think that widespread usage of the word cunt as a swear word, much as prick is used, will cause equality of thought. I think it may be possible that the strong taboo associated with the word may extend to a discomfort about female genitalia.

As to saying that we should all think and avoid swearing, well....fuck that. Thinking is fine, but I fail to see how the wholesale removal of expletives from our use of language is necessary or desirable. I just think of Victorian values - and by that I don't mean prostitution and opium dens. Then again...

Finally, this point about male privilege seems largely irrelevant. The history of usage as a term of disgust and offence caused is highly pertinent, but I fail to see how wealth and power distribution at a societal level are major factors in individual usage. I suppose I'll buy it as a tool for oppression, but doesn't this break down in specific interactions? What I mean to say is that, if the outrage stems from male power, is the (ab)use of the word "cunt" less offensive if the person in question is a working class male? Black? Gay? From a less developed country?

I am reminded of an argument between two good friends of mine, one a feminist woman and the other an anarchist/socialist man. They got quite heated and the woman pointed out how much more power, wealth and oppurtunity was available to men. The man responded that, given she was middle class, her wealth and oppurtunity would far outstrip his. All of which says very little.

I suppose I naively take the view that in avoiding a use of "cunt" equivalent to that of "prick" I am led to thinking about women and men differently. Perhaps I already do, but self censure would encode this difference in my language. Having said that, the last thing I want to do is cause deep offence.
 
 
Rev. Orr
12:55 / 18.06.02
If the last thing you want to do is cause deep offence then don't use 'cunt' as an insult. But if you do...

I'm not signing a pledge and saying that the word will never pass my lips again, but the idea that the impact or political import of a word has much or anything to do with what is in your head when you use it is weak. Words carry meaning they act, if you like, as symbols for a concept. As speakers of a common tongue we agree that when we say 'wood' we mean the material which grows as trees. The problem is that words do not have static or singular resonances. An Elizabethan could understand 'wood' as meaning mad, a rambler might expect a large number of trees and I'd probably snigger and mumble something about erections. Language has moved on and developed layers of meaning and allusion.

Okay, so you know this and I'm patronising. Fine. But if you accept that the purpose of a word is to communicate a concept to another individual then the prime factor in the selection of a word must therefore be the *perceived* meaning and levels of meaning of the word. Short version, if people say that they are offended by the use of 'cunt' in a pejorative manner, then it is offensive.

We're in no danger of 'going back to the Victorians' in avoiding using 'cunt' as an unthinking insult as they were the ones who were most responsible for that usage in the first place. Prior to that date, as I understand, a cunt was a cunt, nothing more, nothing less. It was an old, work-a-day noun without extra force above and beyond what it directly refered to. If I'm reading hir posts right, that's getting closer to what SFD is aiming for. When 'cunt' is a noun not a curse then you can use it with impunity. It won't make any sense to call someone a cunt, but in that future linguistic paradise the gross offence will be missing.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:30 / 18.06.02
Actually when I mentioned Victorian values, it was purely because some people have suggested that a) we avoid using expletives that cause offence and b) all expletives have derogotary roots. From this point of view, being thoughtful and avoiding all swear words would be ideal. I'm not sure that I agree with that.

But, yeah, to avoid offence I should not use cunt as an insult, nor as emotional emphasis. The problem is that there are plenty of people who also find the word offensive when used purely as a noun. Should I also avoid usage in that context? If not, why not?

I was interested in Persephone's point that language can be used as a lever but I'm not sure how much that is invalidated by the offence that the word clearly causes.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
14:26 / 18.06.02
I have been in a quandry about "cunt" for years. Because I LOVE the word "cunt." It's so much fun to say!! "Kuh-nn-T!" I love it! It seems so powerful to me. Such a powerful word to shout.

And yet... whenever I hurl the word "cunt!", which is always done with a sheer joy of speaking, I can never FULLY enjoy using it because of course I am thinking about the fact that it refers to a woman's vagina and is it OK to use that as a hurled epithet? Though certainly I also say "What a DICK," though generally not with as much joy because "dick" just isn't as much fun to say.

Can't we take the word back? Like nigga? Or homo? Like Inga Muscio has so lovelingly attempted to do? (She got the inspiration to write her book "Cunt: A Declaration of Independence" after she took to calling herself "Word Cunt" due to a typo - and I'm sure that half the reason she was inspired was due to the joy of cuntiness) ? I think it'd be great if we could run around saying things like, "Yeah, I know her. She's a good cunt."

Thinking about words and why we use them is certainly essential to their usage (by definition, wouldn't you say?) and I think there is certainly merit to the idea that putting cunt on equal footing with dick actually would be a blow of sorts to The Patriarchy. Why do I say this? Because if such a thing happens, then "cunt" has lost some of its scary fearsomeness as a word.... and wouldn't we agree that one of the reasons that "cunt" has such connotations about it is because the thing it describes is sometimes thought of as scary and fearsome? So if "cunt" becomes an average part of life swearword, couldn't one argue that your cunt itself becomes more of an average part of life?

Oh, and just a quick nod to PC-ness, which I really have no time at the moment to look up sources to back me up (but if you should like to, please do because I know my history on this one): "Political Correctness" was not as Andrew would like you to believe, something that "The Liberals" invented to discourage people from free speech, but rather a term invented in , I believe "The Closing of the American Mind" or something like that , some book written by a conservative guy , any way the term was invented as a catch-all phrase to describe the use of more multi-cultural terms for various groups. And by that I mean the use of "African-American" as opposed to "Black," "Physically Challenged" as opposed to "handicapped," etc. Anyway if that's not making sense, I can attempt to clear it up for you, but that would really be for another thread.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
14:46 / 18.06.02
thanks you SFD, for answering my question regarding the use of male genital slang as curse words.

Ierne--i understand what people are upset about, i'm asking what they want done. Do they want to reclaim the word, in the way inner city youth use derogatory terms for each other? And if a group of people, who the word applies to, use it freely, is it then not ok for someone outside that group to use the word?
Can i call a black friend of mine a nigga/nigger as long as its not a derogatory statement?
Can i call a vagina a cunt, as long as its not a derogatory statement?

these are the boundries im asking about. Do you folks want "cunt" to be a socially acceptable word as long as it is not an insult?
 
 
gozer the destructor
22:26 / 18.06.02
I've only recently become aware of the fact that some women find the word offensive. Since coming to london. Before I had heard that some people found the word 'disgusting', mostly female friends, but with no feminist explanation.

Also, people don't conciously prepare explosions of derogatory verbal abuse, they are conditioned emotional responses. Yes, it's certainly unenlightened to to be sexist but reflex actions can only be altered through systematic programing which no one finds easy.

It must also be kept i mind that if you swear at someone, you generally want a response and nothing elicits a response like offense, isn't that part and parcel of the whole game?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
02:11 / 19.06.02
I meant: Men. Have. Far. More. Than. Their. Fair. Share. Of. The. Power. In. The. World.

Ah. See, that's what I thought, but it still doesn't balance in my head.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
02:13 / 19.06.02
The history of usage as a term of disgust and offence caused is highly pertinent, but I fail to see how wealth and power distribution at a societal level are major factors in individual usage. I suppose I'll buy it as a tool for oppression, but doesn't this break down in specific interactions? What I mean to say is that, if the outrage stems from male power, is the (ab)use of the word "cunt" less offensive if the person in question is a working class male? Black? Gay? From a less developed country?

Yes! This is why I couldn't do it.
 
 
Billy Corgan
02:35 / 19.06.02
Sheesh. This whole thread has now entered the bashing-head-against-a-brick-wall-in-frustration zone, hasn't it?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
13:02 / 19.06.02
sfd - basically agree with you, but it occurs to me:

how revolutionary can we be if we are still unquestioningly using misogynist language?

Thoughts:

There seems to be an issue about just how far this is misogynist language, and how far it is language which, though stemming from a misogyinst cultural background, is 'offensive' either because it refers to something the patriarchy would rather did not get any public airing (!) - gender, sex, sexuality, naughty bits which must be controlled and stigmatised - or because of a root in patriarchy which views women's bits as more shameful than men's...in which case...

At the same time: I think it depends on where you want your revolution. There are any number of cross-sections through the revolution/status quo conflict, and this is a symptom rather than a major aspect on many of them. Is it worth fighting a hard fight over this one when there are others which may be more significant? Or is this a major battle wearing minor-issue drag?

[hoping to be useful, not to make trouble]
 
 
Shortfatdyke
13:41 / 19.06.02
hmm. useful, definately, to ask such a question: yes, i think this *is* a major battle. because i'm not 'just' talking about one word, i'm talking about language, unthinking use of language, the fact that if we modernise, rather than moderate (which has been suggested here, and which i find too much like repression), our language, we are changing ourselves. which is pretty damn revolutionary. that's not to say i dismiss anyone who has ever used 'cunt' as an insult. i would love the word 'cunt' to be used to describe female genitalia. it's incredibly sexy, and, as i've said here before, incredibly *powerful*. i feel it gives patriarchy a kick whenever it's used in this way.

to answer gozer's point, i can only repeat something cholister said - if you want to be offensive and use the word 'cunt', then surely what you mean is that cunts/vaginas are horrible things to be compared to? which brings us back to fear/loathing of women.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:47 / 19.06.02
I think that is pretty useful, Nick.

I've reflected over some of my posts - insomnia does throw an interesting light on things - and I just wanted to make clear that I am in no way anti feminist. I disagree with some feminist positions in terms of tactics but not objectives.

Anyway, its made me think a bit more closely about my use of language and the possible offence it could cause. A success then, from my perspective.
 
 
Tom Coates
16:27 / 19.06.02
I remain unconvinced that cunt is a word that is misogynistic any more than calling some a cock or a prick or an dick is misanerist (if that's the word). But it's potential effect is clearly radically different - which makes me think that the anxiety around the word is more to do with anxiety around the thing. And also lying in societal differences in men and women - women traditionally being educated / directed towards aspirations of cleanliness, ignorance about their bodies, shame with regard to them etc.

It seems to me that the pleasure in saying cunt is precisely because it is so transgressive. Not necessarily because it is 'offensive', but because one isn't supposed to say it. I think there's a release in expressing sensations of anger or frustration that you aren't really supposed to say.

There are any number of reasons for not being 'supposed' to say something though - only one of which is because saying it is morally wrong - like implying a relationship of superior to inferior and combining that with an attempt to wound in saying something like 'nigger'. I think there's somerthing very different about saying something like 'cunt' about a third party or even directly to a friend if said either affectionately or borne of frustration... That doesn't seem to be morally wrong at all.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
17:39 / 19.06.02
sfd; "to answer gozer's point, i can only repeat something cholister said - if you want to be offensive and use the word 'cunt', then surely what you mean is that cunts/vaginas are horrible things to be compared to? which brings us back to fear/loathing of women."

I probably should keep quiet here, but there's something that gets me here. If I call someone a 'dick', it's not because of fear/loathing of men. So it does seem like an element of (can't think of a better word, sorry) 'special pleading' as to why we can't use cunt. I can't really vocalise what I mean, but it seems like some people are suggesting that language that could be seen to denigrate men in this situation isn't misandrist, but language that could be seen to denigrate women is misogynist.

Which is not to say that I'm arguing for my right to call someone a cunt.

Does that make sense?

(And shouldn't this be in the Head Shop?)
 
 
Sax
06:27 / 20.06.02
To recap, then:

If you think cunt is a BAD WORD because you don't like people saying rude things pertaining to lady's bits, then you are a PRUDE.

If you think cunt is a BAD WORD because you object to a word for female genitalia being used as a term of abuse aimed towards contemptible characters, thereby suggesting that female genitalia is also contemptible, then you are a FEMINIST.

If you think cunt is a GOOD WORD because you use it as a term of abuse towards loathesome and contemptible people, thereby suggesting that female genitalia is also loathesome and contemptible, then you are a MISOGYNIST.

If you think cunt is a GOOD WORD because it is a valid term for the female genitalia and should be reclaimed from the hands of misogynists who have tarnished it as a term of abuse, then you are a FEMINIST.

Everyone clear on that now?
 
 
YNH
06:40 / 20.06.02
It seems to me that the pleasure in saying cunt is precisely because it is so transgressive.

Are there other words/terms that are pleasurably transgressive and therefore acceptable that might nonetheless evoke discomfort?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
06:49 / 20.06.02
I'm a little confused as to why the mere fact that some people want to discuss this topic has got other folk so vexed. Debate- reasoned, talking-type debate- is a good thing, no?
 
 
The Natural Way
07:38 / 20.06.02
Who's vexed?

This is bloody great debate. Barbelith's at its best when it confuses and muddies an issue, I think. Things are complicated - the board reflects that, and that's why I love it.

Carry on........
 
 
Jackie Susann
07:53 / 20.06.02
Confused and muddled... hmm, yes.

So, I figure most of us would accept that using 'gay' as an insult is dumb and homophobic, or, say, using 'spastic' as an insult is dumb and offensive, so is it that big a leap to say using 'cunt' as an insult is dumb and misogynistic?

It seems like the sticking point is assuming that cunt is the opposite of cock, so therefore if it's all right to use cock as an insult it must be all right to call someone a cunt. Now surely the problem with this logic is that people don't get oppressed, beaten, attacked, whatever, for their possession of a cock. So cock as insult has no correlate with cock as condition for exploitation and violence. Cunt, on the other hand... do you see where I'm going with this.

It is, of course, political correctness gone mad. Am particularly impressed by Andrew's take on Australian politics etc, by the by.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
08:05 / 20.06.02
people don't get oppressed, beaten, attacked, whatever, for their possession of a cock.

Umm... I can see a fine froth forming on the lips of some of the other posters from here. Maybe "people are less likely to get oppressed, etc, for their possesion of a cock" would be less likely to put a penny on the tracks of the thread?
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply