So in my integrated communications theory / women’s studies / sex education course the other day, following up on an assignment to read Laurel Richardson’s Gender Stereotyping in the English Language from a collection called, I think, Feminist Frontiers, 6th ed., edited by Richardson et. al., we were doing an exercise on ways to combat gender bias in language.
Richardson lists six, including obvious ones like the use of “men” to mean “men and women” as in “...all men are created equal,” and some not so obvious ones like the fact that words for men often refer to external things — for instance the original word “husband” meant “farmer,” while words for women tend to put them in reference to men (for instance the word “wife” has always meant, um, well, wife!)
So, during this exercise some people started asking about male-to-male insults that use feminizing terms — for instance “you throw like a girl,” or the Dr. Cox character from Scrubs who always calls, um, whuzzis name the star by girls names to insult him. Anyway, since that was the exercise the question then became how do you counter shit like that? And someone (actually I think it was one of the instructors) said “what if you just said “thanks” when someone said “you throw like a girl.” Because depending on the girl that could be quite a complement, right?
It was a good discussion and it’s worth mentioning that the professor amended Richardson’s list of six to include that business about men using womens names, nicknames, or characteristics to insult each other.
So why bring all this up? Well, there’s that little matter Z of The Naked Truth and I and my commenters have been discussing about the dearth of affirmative, non-dependent language for women initiating and being active during sex and especially during intercourse. (Do check out those links — people are really stepping up and finding… for the most part creating actually… some fun new language for what’s actually been going on since before English stopped being an obscure Germanic offshoot.)
Anyway, in the spirit of my interdisciplinary course (and a self-interested, well, interest in making the world a better place for everyone including me) I think maybe in addition to all the terms we’ve been playing with so far (because, really, can there ever be enough words in English related to sex) what if we started…
...canonizing words that are currently insults like they were a good thing?
For instance “She threw him till all that was left of him was a pool of sweat and all that was left of her was a smile” would put a whole ‘nuther meaning to “Dude, you throw like a girl.” “Really? Whoah, Thanks!” (Or if not an outright redefinition then at least a serious kink in the current implication.)
Or for instance “John, next time we’re in the shower I want to see if I can pussy someone your height standing up” might make it harder to take being called a pussy seriously.
or for instance “She hardened me with Shirleys, pushed me back on the bed, and Breck-ed my balls till we were both shaking with lust before cunting me hollow” could instead leave the prospective insultee with a wistful smile on his face.
And not I’m not serious but yes I’m being very serious. Because for the most part feminizing male insults aren’t just sexist they’re also objectively not very insulting! Which makes it all the stupider to do in the first place.
More suggestions along these lines would also be very helpful. (Note: helpful for society I mean, it’s not a homework assigment.)
Submitted by 1918 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-02-05 23:38.
Actually the Old English term "wif", which gave us the modern word "wife," just meant "woman." (So Chaucer's "wife of Bath" was just a "woman of Bath.") Hence the terms midwives, fishwives, old wives' tales, etc. There was no separate term for "married woman"; you just said, "she's my woman." The word "woman" comes from "wifman," i.e. "female person." I have my PhD in Old English, is the reason I'm pontificating on this. Not to say that all was hunky-dory in the olden days, just that that particular word doesn't reflect it. One thing that does reflect it is that a bit later in history, words that formerly described female identity tended to become sexualized. For instance "huswif" (house-woman, like modern "housewife") became "hussy." "Bowsome" (accommodating -- literally "inclined to bow") became "buxom." Etc. Sorry to pontificate; it's an interesting subject.
[I take it back then. I'll just say "since not *too* long after English stopped being a Germanic dialect." :-) Seriously, though, I'll defer to you because the sources I checked (quite a while ago) didn't go that far back. So thanks, Invisibilia. I'm pretty sure that my point still stands. Oh yeah, and although she studied pre-med and became a physical therapist, my mom somehow once studied enough Caucerian or just-pre-Chaucerian English to be able to have once read it semi-recreationally! --fl]
Submitted by 1918 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-02-05 23:56.
I have a women's volleyball t-shirt that says "You run like a girl. You throw like a girl. You serve 60 mph in their face like a girl." I like it.
The language is actually a problem I've run into in being a BDSM switch--he can call me "slut" and "whore" and I can call him... there's no real good word for a man who's sexy but in, you know, a bad way. "Pervert"? "Dirty boy?" Not really bad things. "Asshole" and the like? Not sexual (and makes me feel bad to say). There's really nothing with the same both-brutal-and-sexual impact as "whore."
Actually, there is.. "fag." But goddamit, I'm not going there.
[Yeah, perhaps ironically I'm not thinking about trying to "convert" the clearest insults -- there's obviously a limit to what you can change with naming alone. (That doesn't mean there aren't other methods, just that there are better ones.) Excellent point that there aren't many corresponding insults for men, eh? And finally the shirt sounds great. I couldn't find it on Google but it looks like Northwestern women's program has a t-shirt that says "you wish you could throw like a girl." Thanks, Holly. --fl]
Submitted by 1918 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-02-06 09:05.
Invisibilia, that is so interesting. If you don't have a blog, you should. Tell me more.
The word that really irritates me is pussy. For one thing, next month is March and I can't say "pussy willow" without blushing. OK, that is clearly my own issue, but seriously it just sounds so crass. I would have a much easier time talking about sex if I had better words. I like the word vagina and think people should not be afraid to say vagina (it seems that many people are) but it is too clinical for an intimate conversation. I even like the word cunt better than pussy because there is something empowering about using the word, sort of like dyke, but it is not very intimate. When I am talking to my partner about my vagina, I usually just say "me" but that is pretty vague, and I think pet names are dumb-you know like "my Lady Jane" Please. So you see the dilemma. Maybe it's just me and everyone else just says pussy and moves on, but I don't like it. I like the word cock because it is kind of sexy and masculine but not crass. There should be a female equivalent but there's not.
[For the record I was looking for male-insult words to subvert and "pussy" is a big one. And now that I think about it, if to "pussy" a man meant not that a woman had let him "have" her vagina/pussy/cunt but that in the course of having her way with him he, or maybe both he *and she* are left lying there like a cat in a sunny spot then... well, first of all it would seriously crimp the word as an insult. Now that you mention it, though, by shifting it from a body part to an act or consequence of an act it might help reduce your cringe factor, Mag. As for "vagina," a reservation a lot of people have is that it's just one part of the vulva, and not even an externally visible part. The nice thing, though, is that nearly *every* word we have for *anything* related to sex is a euphemism. Heck, even "sex" is a euphemism since it once meant only "gender" or "to determine gender!" :-) --fl]
Submitted by 1918 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-02-06 11:10.
sugar mag, I like the word pussy, but it took me a while to get to this point. I like the associations with cats, so sensual and independent :) I really, really hate vagina, to the point where any attempted sexual mention of the word turns me off, instantly. I like cunt, mainly because it's a good, well-rounded, word, that sounds equally effective spat out in anger, or whispered caressingly.
However, I *think* of my cunt/pussy/vagina as "me", and refer to it however whoever is paying it most attention at the time does.
[Yeah, in my class the teachers and, it looked like, a lot of the students just sort of assumed people had some kind of pet names for their parts or (yikes!) their partner's parts. For myself I'm just "me" because that's who it's all part of. And partners are usually "you" or (since I like to touch when I talk) "here." Thanks, Z. --fl]
Submitted by 1918 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-02-06 12:08.
You know, the more I think about this, the more this is what I think (and I'm purposely ignoring any tongue-in-cheek aspects of the post): the patriarchy cannot be held to blame for everything. I will not deny that it can be held to blame for many things, and there are still many good fights to be fought. But I don’t believe language is one of them, and more than that, I believe it is sometimes a sop. Language can only oppress us if we are already oppressed, but it's a convenient hook to hang a whole load of grievances on.
Submitted by 1918 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-02-06 14:28.
I definitely hear that complaint. I think "slut" or "boy-slut" work pretty well for men, but I know some people find them awkward. Words with "toy" in them are also good (like "sex toy" and "fuck toy", but probably not "boy toy" because it's a bit twee).
"Fag" is a word I'd be willing to use in very specific circumstances, like if (a) the guy had specifically asked me to and (b) he were sucking another guy's cock at the time of use. This is all very hypothetical, though, since I've had no luck in bringing about (b).
I love the adjective "pretty" for men. (I also love pretty men.)
Submitted by 1918 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-02-06 15:18.
I guess it's just in the ear of the beholder :-). It's a word a yucky person I don't like would use. Blech. So that's the real reason. I like your take on the word pussy, I wish I could think of it that way.
Submitted by 1918 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-02-06 16:34.
being a veterinarian, i have no problem saying or even thinking of my chick-bits as "vagina"...but no, it's not particularly sexy at all. sugar mag, i am indeed with you on the use of the word "pussy", it just doesn't work for me at all. i love Z's interpretation, but in my head it's a diminutive (i.e., belittlement) of a cat, some sweet harmless little thing.
ironically enough, the equivalent to "cock" is indeed "cunt". funny how 99 out of 100 people on the street would tell me it's a much harsher, crasser word that "pussy", but it works just fine for me. not to steal invisibilia's thunder (i LOVE etymology!), but go check out the origins of cunt. it's an old, old word, that's only picked up it's disparagingly dirty connotation in the last century or so.
Submitted by 1918 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-02-06 22:12.
Oh, goody, a new (to me) word-site! Thank you, Fireweaver!
Sunflower
Submitted by 1918 (not verified) on Fri, 2008-02-08 00:01.
My first impressions of this entire debate are much the same. This entire issue reminds me of George Orwell's 1984 and 'Newspeak'. I don't think the English language has isolated women, and it's funny how many female authors (George Elliot, Mary Shelley, Jane Austen, Anais Nin, and others) were capable of holding their own.
At the core? You've created an unnecessary debate, and by perusing the comments and in both posts, I can only say: does it matter what you think? Really, truly. Does it matter what any of the other commenter think (about Z's expression?) but that being said, most of you don't think about it, because all you care about is what you think. She's electing to express herself, not only that, she's describing an experience, and the language she chooses is none of anyone's business, and if it is anyone's business, it's the business of Z's readers, not for you to highlight and analyze.
The thing with you Fig, and I'm going to say it only because I've experienced it a few times when you've highlighted some of my posts (which you no longer do –thank God), is that you'll quote a snippet of what I've written (the last post of mine that you quoted in March 2007, indicates this), and link it and then your readers will pass a judgment without even 'thinking' that it's my personal experience they're fucking judging (based on the snippet you take from a blogpost), but in the meantime you've taken a personal experience, and painted it with your faux feminist spiel, and ignored the fact that the post is a personal post, meaning that it's my individual experience: ie when I wrote that post I didn't write it with the thought that someone else will use it for their own ends, and frankly I don't give a shit what someone else will think about my post. News: It's mine, it's personal and my personal experience, and to have every virtual stranger 'take a side' is offensive, and has been offensive. And this is what you've done again, take another's (usually a female) post, cast assertions, and color it to suit yourself, and inject your persona into it, and distort the meaning to suit your purposes. There's nothing 'feminist' about that. Moreover, there's nothing original about your modus operandi - using others' posts to further your female readership.
In my two and a bit years of blogging, I've never ever had the 'privilege' of any of your readers giving me feedback based on posts of mine that you've highlighted, probably because they don't read the posts, they just read what Lord Fig's view is (of another person's personal experience).
What I've seen, mainly from you, and your other readers commenting (in regard to Z's post), is a damned 'grammar' lesson. Why? Because you've distorted it to create a grammatical discussion, and create yet another shonky/faux feminist issue, rather than appreciate what Z has written, from her perspective. To me, all you're doing (and rather subtly I might add) is being 'macho': exerting what 'you' find important, and what works for you.
Then again what the hell am I talking about…your view of the English language is limited to your 'preferable' Anglo-Saxon lexicon. You are yet to realize that the English language is not made up of a majority of Anglo-Saxon words to begin with. 80% of words in the English language are derived from other languages. That's no news.
There really ought to be a Code of Blog Conduct, where bloggers, don't use another's posts without prior permission, and for the other blogger to draft an agreement, and request proofed blog post copies prior to publication.
Yeah, maybe I'm mean, but you know what? I'm more of a feminist than what you are. The second you post a woman's posts (any woman), and foist your 'view' as a man, you're not a feminist. Your just a man expressing his own personal preferences. It's egotistical actually.
[Well. Everything you say is true, of course. This blog *is* about what I think! And I *do* excerpt what other people say, and (I think because of some feedback you gave) I've made a point of recommending that people go read the original posts in context. As for being a feminist, I dunno. I *do* know that what I'm trying to do is learn and use stuff I'm learning from people who *are* feminists to kick loose stuff that I was raised on, that I see other men raised on, and that I think makes the world a shitty place for *everybody.* One of the things I was raised on was a whole array of assertions about the way men and women are supposed to be that boils down to, primarily, bullshit like men "act," women "judge," men "initiate," women "acquiesce," women give and men take. For maybe the last 40 years you and other women have been working hard to introduce actual reality to that view of life. And for maybe the last 40 year men have been sitting on or, for the more progressive of us, foundering around on dead zero thinking that's fine with us. And so I dunno, if I'm doing a crappy job trying to articulate ideas *to other men* that might shake us off the dime, and if I do an even worse job trying to encourage others to show men another way to see things besides "you're wrong" then big whoop. I'm doing a bad job. If I keep doing it long enough maybe someone else will come along and start doing a good job and then I can stop and just love my partner and raise our children and blog about domesticity knowing neither my son nor daughter are as likely to go through the kind of negative-sum gender Hell nearly everyone else so far has because, at least so far, just yelling at men hasn't worked so hot but the new methods other people do way better than I are making a difference. Finally, thanks again for the feedback. And finally, thanks for reminding me to think before knee-jerking Orwell's preference for "anglo-saxonisms" when I really meant "concrete, direct, non-medical, non-indirect, non-more-difficult-to-translate-into-non-Anglo-culture-context words." But I still fewer people around the world would understand if I agreed that I intercoursed up than if I said I fucked up. Which in *at least* that one particular I really agree I did. Finally, sorry if no one ever visited your blog or commented from here. It's their loss. After comments you left last spring I stopped quoting you but I haven't stopped reading because you've got a lot to say. Anyway, Anastasia, you've always been in my blogroll but I've moved your link back up to the top. --fl]
Submitted by 1918 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-02-12 07:39.
Hi Figleaf, I've been thinking about this last comment and I wanted to tell you that I think it's a little harsh. I have learned some things I didn't know from your site and I have questioned some assumptions that I have had for a long time. I have enjoyed this discussion about use of language and choice of words and I did not see it as a grammar lesson so much as an exploration of language, and that is interesting to me. You do have more female readers than male ones, but there are also men who read your blog. I dunno, maybe we women just like your poetry and photos. But what I really like about your site is that it has made me think and I appreciate that. Your blog (and some other blogs) inspired me to start a blog, and it is not like your blog and it's not a sex blog or anything like that, it's just about stuff I like and stuff I'm thinking about and it's been good to write just for me, not for work. Thank you, Figleaf.
[Like maybe a lot of people it actually feels a lot more natural for me to listen carefully to criticism than to encouragement. But I do listen carefully to, and even appreciate, both. So thanks for your support, Mag. It means a lot. --fl]
Submitted by 1918 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-02-12 14:30.
I'd like to add my views following on from both Anastasia's and sugar mag's comments.
I'd agree with sugar mag that yours is a great blog. I know I've said it before: it's thoughful and thought provoking, and you can be sure I wouldn't still be reading it 18 or more months since I first found it if not.
I don't think it's unusual that people don't follow through with links. When you consider the initial fuss and discussion over the Papillon blog translations, the number of referrals was relatively small. Until, that is, one blog referred them via a post I did called "The incredible melting condom". They arrived in their thousands then, but they'll have been bitterly disappointed.
I think what I'm trying to say is that it's nearly as bad that people arrive and bounce away almost immediately as it is that they don't bother to look at all. Actually it may be worse. And even when they do stay a while, commenting is pretty much out of the question :) You can lead a horse to water and so on.
Je me permets un bisou :)
[Oh yeah, I don't mind visitors who don't comment -- if it's anything like my reason for not commenting more often on posts and other content I read is that, for the most part, I usually agree, and sometimes don't, but also usually don't have anything substantive to add. And I sort of assume others who don't comment here feel the same way. And as for the substance of your comment, A, I'm so lucky, and thankful to have readers like you. Thank you. --fl]