You cunt! I mean, you dick! I mean...

[Audley Strange]

You don't think that that sort is weakness is seen as feminine? I'm trying to get this to jibe with your statements about "pussy" a while back...

No I don't. I think there is a nuance, though I may be wrong. I think to call a guy a pussy is to suggest he's just a bit of a wimp or a bit emotional. Now you could have an interesting discussion about how demeaning a man as a woman automatically sets up a binary system where men are perceived as better than women and installs a state where men are conditioned to behave in a certain way because of such comparison. However I suspect that it's meant more as "man up". Faggot has different variant meanings as you pointed out Louis C.K and others have noticed. However it still has negative connotations towards homosexual males nevertheless. This is where you get into problems, because I don't think you can reasonably claim (as Richard Carrier did) that because you are using it in a different context it is okay if you're major protest about other people's use of words and claiming context doesn't matter.

Anyway faggot in the sense of homosexual can be somewhat contextualised too, but swerving back from an imminent digression about that I don't think the mentality behind it refers specifically to supposed feminine aspects of homosexuality rather than a general fear and disgust of a dick up the arse. Which is essentially what I think homophobia boils down too. I could go on about how in a prison setting someone who might endure being raped night after night until they are conditioned to accept it along with being told they are a faggot might even eventually be turned into a bitch. Another use of that word which is not often considered. In that sense they've been alchemically transformed from object of revulsion to sex toy.

Grim stuff.

Not a threat. Yes, I think you might be on to something here. Which is probably why the nastier slang for lesbians is aimed at the less traditionally feminine among them-- bull dykes, butch dykes, diesel dykes-- there is so much more contempt bottled up in those words than we see for "femmes" or "lipstick lesbians." Now, doesn't a lot of this contempt for the butch women and the bottom men stem from discomfort/hate for people who don't conform to traditional gender roles?

[added] I'd imagine within female prison communities the same sub/dom relationships would play out though perhaps not as such a scale, I don't recall seeing anything specifically alarming about the extent of it, but I'd imagine it goes on and wonder if that would not be the best place to find such lesbian feminine negative idioms. There must be some.

[hadespussercats]

I'm intrigued by the references to prison rape/power structure. I get the sense you're not going into it as much as you could.

You don't think it's telling somehow that the man who's trained through rape and abuse to become a sex toy is called a bitch? I mean, you don't think that says something deep about our sense of women and their place, and about sex as a tool of control?

[rasetsu]

Gay slurs are general worst for the receiver-- the one being buggered, as opposed to the buggerer. "Taking it up the ass"-- we say this all the time-- in the US, it's most often a reference to paying too much for a service or product and not being able to do anything about it, or being cheated. But it's clearly a rape comment, etymologically. And It think it's pretty clearly a man on man type rape comment, too-- like a prison rape joke. What's interesting it that this is used so much, and so often in far-removed ways like talking about money, that I wonder if people even think about it as either a gay slur or a prison-rape slur.

But going back to the idea of being buggered-- I've read that the man who fucks, it doesn't really matter who he fucks-- if he's in charge, he's straight. (Obviously, this theory doesn't really hold water, but I'm curious what you all think.) He's the Alpha, he's in the position of power, so he gets respect, even if he's fucking guys.

I'm procrastinating on a task I should have begun hours ago, so I only have time to drop in a quick comment.

This is consistent of what I know of the first and second century Hellenic world as well, it was better to give than to receive. This probably also extended to the ancient near east of the time as well. I've written at greater length on this topic elsewhere, and won't at this time, but this was a time before the idea of a "sexual orientation" even really existed (although I've recently had the existence of a passage in the Pauline epistles condemning lesbianism brought to my attention, and this passsage may cast some doubt on this). Regardless, the sin was not the homosexual act itself so much as it was abdicating your role as a male and adopting the position of the female, the inferior, willingly. (This is reflected not only in the specifically religious cultures of Judaism and Christianity, but also reflected civic mores common among pagans who practiced pederastic mentoring.)

Anyway. I'm still not caught up here and must depart.

[JimC]

"Arseholes" is nicely gender neutral...

[Pappa]

"Arseholes" is nicely gender neutral...

And "Fuckwit". I like "Fuckwit".

[Audley Strange]

I'm intrigued by the references to prison rape/power structure. I get the sense you're not going into it as much as you could.

You don't think it's telling somehow that the man who's trained through rape and abuse to become a sex toy is called a bitch? I mean, you don't think that says something deep about our sense of women and their place, and about sex as a tool of control?

No. I think it says something about the perception of a small part of humanity who are a subset of, for want of a better term, alphas. It is a dominant sadistic mindset which is why so many of them are in prison because in a domestic and civilised setting they are anathema. To them anything below them is female. If there is any inherent sexism displayed it is that the represent all of masculinity which is clearly erroneous and insulting.

If anything our entire civilization has been a struggle to excise these maniacs from our midst, in order to protect ourselves (both men and women) from them. However whereas we vilify men for bad behaviour (well some for any behaviour) we ignore, to a great extent that such behaviour, while more prominent within males is not exclusive to males.

We cannot discount that women are equally as capable of being atrocious fuckers but we do, often and when we look around to see what man caused them to be like that. This is turning into a derail.

Suffice to say there may be a sexual aspect to power dynamics and there may be a power aspect to sexual dynamics but they are not necessarily the same thing.

[hadespussercats]

I'm intrigued by the references to prison rape/power structure. I get the sense you're not going into it as much as you could.

You don't think it's telling somehow that the man who's trained through rape and abuse to become a sex toy is called a bitch? I mean, you don't think that says something deep about our sense of women and their place, and about sex as a tool of control?

No. I think it says something about the perception of a small part of humanity who are a subset of, for want of a better term, alphas. It is a dominant sadistic mindset which is why so many of them are in prison because in a domestic and civilised setting they are anathema. To them anything below them is female. If there is any inherent sexism displayed it is that the represent all of masculinity which is clearly erroneous and insulting.

If anything our entire civilization has been a struggle to excise these maniacs from our midst, in order to protect ourselves (both men and women) from them. However whereas we vilify men for bad behaviour (well some for any behaviour) we ignore, to a great extent that such behaviour, while more prominent within males is not exclusive to males.

We cannot discount that women are equally as capable of being atrocious fuckers but we do, often and when we look around to see what man caused them to be like that. This is turning into a derail.

Suffice to say there may be a sexual aspect to power dynamics and there may be a power aspect to sexual dynamics but they are not necessarily the same thing.

?

I never said anything to the effect that women are morally superior to men. I also didn't suggest that all men view women the way prison rapists view their bitches.

All I'm wondering about is where the language comes from-- why do these criminals believe that " to them anything below them is female" ? And why are their victims called bitches?

I think it'd be helpful for the discussion if you took my examples as individual points, not items for stacking a case towards a globalized view about sex relations. My recognition that old ways of thinking and being live on in our language in no way translates to me thinking men are by nature aggressive, hateful, or dominating.

[surreptitious57]

All I'm wondering about is where the language comes from - why do these criminals believe that to them anything below them is female ? And why are their victims called bitches?

Is this not symptomatic of a certain demographic of male society, which includes criminals, but not exclusively so? And is that in itself not symptomatic of general misogyny in society as a whole? Although you specifically ask about the language, that is incidental to the view it represents, do you not think? Although there are variations on it you may be interested to know. For example over here, it is not unusual for males from the capital to refer to other men as slags, which is a derogatory term implying stupidity, so is different from when it is applied to women. It is ironic however to use bitch as a derogatory man to man term because a bitch is a derogatory term for a strong woman, not a weak one. Unless the implication here is that if you can dominate one, them you are really at the very top of the food chain and demonstrably so. To be quite honest I think that it is used for no other reason than the fact that it is the most common term of abuse for a woman, from both men and women in society as a whole, regardless of other factors.

[Audley Strange]

?

I never said anything to the effect that women are morally superior to men. I also didn't suggest that all men view women the way prison rapists view their bitches.

I didn't think you did and I'm not sure how you come to infer I was suggesting you did. Miscommunication somewhere? I was simply meaning I don't see that it tells us something deep about society's view on women and their place, which is what I assumed you meant by "our sense."

All I'm wondering about is where the language comes from-- why do these criminals believe that " to them anything below them is female" ? And why are their victims called bitches?

Well I'd suggest that certain criminals are a subset of the kind of alpha dominant personality type and I don't think they are the type to ruminate deeply about what they call people. The language comes from the common and is made ideomatic by the culture, so it seems to me. I mean, to me, the word bitch is most associated with women calling other women it when they are being spiteful or conniving. Also I'm not sure I think they believe anything below them is female as such, rather that being dominant everyone is seen as submissive and that, in the commons, is characterised by feminine.

I think it'd be helpful for the discussion if you took my examples as individual points, not items for stacking a case towards a globalized view about sex relations. My recognition that old ways of thinking and being live on in our language in no way translates to me thinking men are by nature aggressive, hateful, or dominating.

I never thought you were saying anything close to that. I was trying to suggest (and failed obviously) that although the words are gendered, they are used in different ways by different communities and thus transcend the gender specifications of a single group's usage. Thus the words themselves may be gendered but it the power dynamic within groups that sets their meaning. So in the sense of bitch it could be a demeaning submissive word in a prison atmosphere but like some feminists attempted it could be used as a dominant word where it applies to a no nonsense women who is in your face and challenging. It is how it is used within a power dynamic of a group that gives it its notoriety.

That was the point I was attempting to make before veering off topic and clearly failed to elucidate.

Also. I did say most of my post was a derail.

[Audley Strange]

Is this not symptomatic of a certain demographic of male society, which includes criminals, but not exclusively so?

Hope you don't mind me answering.


No it is not. It is symptomatic of a certain demographic of humanity.

And is that in itself not symptomatic of general misogyny in society as a whole?

No. You need to get rid of that term. Society does not hate women. It might be evidence of underlying issues of perceived gender differences or values, it is not symptomatic of a society which is generally misogynist. A society that was generally misogynist would have no reason to make rape against women a crime nor see any reason to allow them to work or vote. Western Democracies are not misogynistic societies.

Although you specifically ask about the language, that is incidental to the view it represents, do you not think? Although there are variations on it you may be interested to know. For example over here, it is not unusual for males from the capital to refer to other men as slags, which is a derogatory term implying stupidity, so is different from when it is applied to women. It is ironic however to use bitch as a derogatory man to man term because a bitch is a derogatory term for a strong woman, not a weak one. Unless the implication here is that if you can dominate one, them you are really at the very top of the food chain and demonstrably so. To be quite honest I think that it is used for no other reason than the fact that it is the most common term of abuse for a woman, from both men and women in society as a whole, regardless of other factors.

This is why I'm trying to get away from the gender of them being important as comparison to the power relationship in which they are used. Since it seems all power relationships are based on a binary submissive/dominant dialogue it would seem reasonable to infer that in such a case that other common binary systems would be analogous such as positive or negative or male or female or black or white.

[hadespussercats]

I think I get what you're saying, Audley. But I need to think a bit on my response.

[Audley Strange]

Cool. Let me know what you think. I'm saying we use them as swear words are tools but our motivations are not defined by the tools themselves, if that makes it clearer.

[hadespussercats]

Is this not symptomatic of a certain demographic of male society, which includes criminals, but not exclusively so?

Hope you don't mind me answering.


No it is not. It is symptomatic of a certain demographic of humanity.

And is that in itself not symptomatic of general misogyny in society as a whole?

No. You need to get rid of that term. Society does not hate women. It might be evidence of underlying issues of perceived gender differences or values, it is not symptomatic of a society which is generally misogynist. A society that was generally misogynist would have no reason to make rape against women a crime nor see any reason to allow them to work or vote. Western Democracies are not misogynistic societies.

Although you specifically ask about the language, that is incidental to the view it represents, do you not think? Although there are variations on it you may be interested to know. For example over here, it is not unusual for males from the capital to refer to other men as slags, which is a derogatory term implying stupidity, so is different from when it is applied to women. It is ironic however to use bitch as a derogatory man to man term because a bitch is a derogatory term for a strong woman, not a weak one. Unless the implication here is that if you can dominate one, them you are really at the very top of the food chain and demonstrably so. To be quite honest I think that it is used for no other reason than the fact that it is the most common term of abuse for a woman, from both men and women in society as a whole, regardless of other factors.

This is why I'm trying to get away from the gender of them being important as comparison to the power relationship in which they are used. Since it seems all power relationships are based on a binary submissive/dominant dialogue it would seem reasonable to infer that in such a case that other common binary systems would be analogous such as positive or negative or male or female or black or white.

I'm looking at the last sentence here, as well as this quote of yours from earlier: "I think to call a guy a pussy is to suggest he's just a bit of a wimp or a bit emotional. Now you could have an interesting discussion about how demeaning a man as a woman automatically sets up a binary system where men are perceived as better than women and installs a state where men are conditioned to behave in a certain way because of such comparison. "

My sense is that you're likening male and female to suits of cards in a two suit deck (my own analogy.) The suit "male" has the qualities of being strong, domineering, authoritative, violent, controlling, but also in control in a positive sense-- re managing pain and emotions. It's the trump suit.

The suit "female" is associated with weakness, submission, being out-of-control both in terms of managing emotions and in general power dynamics, also caring, sweet, but weak on the facts. You open with the female suit-- "ladies first." (heh)

We have these two suits, and we play them as a shorthand for conversational or societal dynamics. But the suits don't have anything to do with how we actually view/live with the sexes in real life.

So, when you say that calling a guy a pussy simply means "he's a bit of a wimp or a bit emotional," you don't think that in any way indicates that a significant portion of our society thinks that women are wimpy or too emotional-- it's just that those are the qualities we associate with the feminine suit?

[Audley Strange]

Is this not symptomatic of a certain demographic of male society, which includes criminals, but not exclusively so?

Hope you don't mind me answering.


No it is not. It is symptomatic of a certain demographic of humanity.

And is that in itself not symptomatic of general misogyny in society as a whole?

No. You need to get rid of that term. Society does not hate women. It might be evidence of underlying issues of perceived gender differences or values, it is not symptomatic of a society which is generally misogynist. A society that was generally misogynist would have no reason to make rape against women a crime nor see any reason to allow them to work or vote. Western Democracies are not misogynistic societies.

Although you specifically ask about the language, that is incidental to the view it represents, do you not think? Although there are variations on it you may be interested to know. For example over here, it is not unusual for males from the capital to refer to other men as slags, which is a derogatory term implying stupidity, so is different from when it is applied to women. It is ironic however to use bitch as a derogatory man to man term because a bitch is a derogatory term for a strong woman, not a weak one. Unless the implication here is that if you can dominate one, them you are really at the very top of the food chain and demonstrably so. To be quite honest I think that it is used for no other reason than the fact that it is the most common term of abuse for a woman, from both men and women in society as a whole, regardless of other factors.

This is why I'm trying to get away from the gender of them being important as comparison to the power relationship in which they are used. Since it seems all power relationships are based on a binary submissive/dominant dialogue it would seem reasonable to infer that in such a case that other common binary systems would be analogous such as positive or negative or male or female or black or white.

I'm looking at the last sentence here, as well as this quote of yours from earlier: "I think to call a guy a pussy is to suggest he's just a bit of a wimp or a bit emotional. Now you could have an interesting discussion about how demeaning a man as a woman automatically sets up a binary system where men are perceived as better than women and installs a state where men are conditioned to behave in a certain way because of such comparison. "

My sense is that you're likening male and female to suits of cards in a two suit deck (my own analogy.) The suit "male" has the qualities of being strong, domineering, authoritative, violent, controlling, but also in control in a positive sense-- re managing pain and emotions. It's the trump suit.

The suit "female" is associated with weakness, submission, being out-of-control both in terms of managing emotions and in general power dynamics, also caring, sweet, but weak on the facts. You open with the female suit-- "ladies first." (heh)

We have these two suits, and we play them as a shorthand for conversational or societal dynamics. But the suits don't have anything to do with how we actually view/live with the sexes in real life.

So, when you say that calling a guy a pussy simply means "he's a bit of a wimp or a bit emotional," you don't think that in any way indicates that a significant portion of our society thinks that women are wimpy or too emotional-- it's just that those are the qualities we associate with the feminine suit?

Essentially yes though both stereotype suits have their own strengths and weaknesses depending on what rules are in place in the game you are using them for.
So words that can be used to make you a loser in one game can be used to win another.

I should point out that I'm not saying they are accurate assumptions. Men are not all unfeeling psychotics that think with their dicks and women and not all emotionally unstable neurotics. This is caricature, exaggeration, which is essentially the point of using a taboo word as a transgressive. We don't say don't be a woman, we say don't be a "pussy".

[hadespussercats]

Well, I need to think some more.

In the meantime-- hey, everyone-- what do you think of Audley's sense of things?
Also:
Pappa, why were you in a position to look at Spanish customs of cursing? You wrote a detailed, interesting post, and I'm surprised no one has followed up with questions. ( I have more, but I'm distracted ATM-- hopefully I'll be able to pursue them.)
And:
What are your point no plus words?
I think for John fi Skye it's "flid." (Based on a previous post.)
I don't use N----- (see?) but I'm not sure it qualifies, since there are many people who do use it and it doesn't bug me.
If you have one, why that one?