Next people will be using titles like “Nigger”.
I’m not particularly offended by the word, but I think using any generally offensive word for a book title is silly. Even though it may get my attention, you’ve got to follow it up with something pretty amazing. There seem to be even more “fuck” titles at Amazon, where one can find the first few pages of the book. Looks like a lot of unsubstatiated claptrap to me, but if you like it, go for it. Most of the Amazon-ians liked it.
already been done. Ten Little Niggers by Agatha Christie.
Look, I didn’t want to start a debate about the word cunt. It probably isn’t a word you’d want to use in your daily routine. I just wanted to know if anyone had read the book and what they thought about the author’s points.
I read the book several years ago and enjoyed it, but I did have a problem with the author’s view on oral contraceptives. As I recall, she thought that they were a bad idea, because they involved chemically messing with your hormones and because women who took OCPs didn’t have to touch their own genitalia. Well, yeah, but that does not outweigh the fact that it’s one of the safest, simplest ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Other than that, I thought the book wsa pretty interesting.
If I recall correctly the author also had 2 medical abortions, and a third spontaneous miscarriage (all described in great detail), which she induced herself by ingesting Pennyroyal. Oh yeah, that’s much better than PREVENTING the pregnancy in the first place! :rolleyes:
Sorry, she just doesn’t speak for me. The word “cunt” doesn’t offend me, as I’m a “sticks & stones” sort of person, but I hardly think it a term of honor or endearment.
I agree with that… but I thought her frank discussion on her abortion experiences was very good. I think the point about the oral contraceptives was made because it isn’t a natural way to deal with preventing pregnancies. But I think in this day and age it is better to be a little unnatural rather than run the risk of getting pregnant.
Yes, of course. Only the self-centered “enlightened ones” can rise above the day to day courtesies to true intentioned offensive speech.
You are indeed wise. I applaud your marvelous grasp on the nuances of American sensibilities. I’m in awe.
And who indeed are the ignorant here? You’ve now tarred and feathered an entire cross-section of Americans because you’re exasperated. I sympathize. I really do.
Seems he gave an off the cuff opinion on this book, which is every bit as valid as yours, believe it or not. When I can spend only a limited amount of time(and money) at a bookstore, time and circumstance force me to make selections based on a number of factors. If one is title, a particularly offensive title, I’m less inclined to grant that author any portion of my time. That’s the author’s loss, and a calculated one to boot. Don’t criticize the reader for the author’s failings. And take your name-calling with it.
No, I have not read the book. But I have a question. I’ve never heard of a word with roots in India, China, Ireland, Rome and Egypt. Then you add that pesky word “priestesses” and it all sounds like bulls*** to me. Did the author provide references to back up this theory?
Jill
I must have missed the episode of Oprah where she featured this book in Oprah’s Book Club. 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JillGat *
**
You’d have to exclude Chinese- and actually the inclusion of China does make me doubt the author’s scholorship on the matter- but most of the words you’ve heard in English are related to Indian, Irish, Latin and Egyptian words. We’re all part of the big, happy, Indo-European family of languages.
They all go back to Sanskrit. Or maybe it would be better to say Sanskrit is the best surviving example of what the older root language was like. But I have heard, and not from that book, that there is a root in Sanskrit from which words for both “woman” and “wisdom” are derived. And from which “cunt” is derived.
Which means what? Not much. It’s true all that ultimately matters is what it means now, and now it means a woman’s genitals. And I wouldn’t refer to a woman by one of her body parts because that’s rude and denies her her full humanity (well, isn’t the call “All hands on deck” somewhat neglectful of the inbdividual sailor’s deeper character?) But there doesn’t seem to be anything inherently derogatory about it. No reason I shouldn’t refer to my cunt as a “cunt”.
I have to reject the idea, mentioned several time here, that she is calling her book “Cunt” for the sake of being shocking. I haven’t read it (sorry tramp. But I get the impression that the use of the word is one of the ideas the author was dealing with) but I think she was being shocking for the sake of pointing out this should not be shocking. Why, exactly, is “cunt” an inherently offensive word?
betenoir writes:
> You’d have to exclude Chinese- and actually the inclusion
> of China does make me doubt the author’s scholorship on
> the matter- but most of the words you’ve heard in English
> are related to Indian, Irish, Latin and Egyptian words.
> We’re all part of the big, happy, Indo-European family of
> languages.
>
> They all go back to Sanskrit. Or maybe it would be better
> to say Sanskrit is the best surviving example of what the
> older root language was like. But I have heard, and not
> from that book, that there is a root in Sanskrit from
> which words for both “woman” and “wisdom” are derived.
> And from which “cunt” is derived.
No, this is all just amateur etymology. The word “cunt” is clearly related to very similar words in other languages in the Germanic branch of the Indo-European family. There’s not the slightest reason to derive it from words spoken in “India, China, Ireland, Rome and Egypt” which were the names of goddesses or priestesses. “Cunt” is a name for the female genitalia which was used as an insulting term for women. That’s unfortunate, but it doesn’t help things in the least to make up an etymology deriving it from the names of some goddesses.
Incidentally, no Indo-European language was spoken in Egypt or in China. Except for a small number of words derived (in the past couple of centuries) from modern Indian languages which are descended from Sanskrit, there are no words in English derived from Sanskrit. There are words which can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European such that there are words in Sanskrit which can also be traced back to that same root word. But that doesn’t mean that the word in English is derived from the Sanskrit word. The usual term for this is that the English word is cognate to the Sanskrit word. It may also, for instance, be true that there’s a word in modern Russian or Albanian or Welsh or Pashto that’s also derived from the same Indo-European word, so these words are also cognate to the English one. Being cognate isn’t the same thing as being derived from.
As I said, the supposed derivation of “cunt” from the name of a goddess is amateur etymology. Get a book on historical linguistics and learn how etymology is really done.
I’m no expert on how words originate. I just wanted to discuss a book that I read which I though was pretty good. If the word “cunt” is offensive to you, no matter how it came to originate or how it got its current connotation, then don’t read the book. The author makes the point of calling her book “Cunt” because she is seeking to reclaim this offensive word so that it can no longer hurt women. This is her reasoning for using the word. Whether it is effective or not, well that is up for debate. But if you could get past the title and get to the meat of the book, you might find it very interesting.
Alright tramp, try amazon.com, search books for ‘cunt’ youll find the book, cover photo, exerpts & writings from 46 people who wrote their opinion of the book. Odd, but that search also turned up these books:
Cunt Coloring Book
by Tee Corinne (Illustrator) (Paperback - January 1989)
Avg. Customer Rating: [3.2 out of 5 stars]
Usually ships in 5 to 6 days
&
Irene’s Cunt
by Louis Aragon, Alexis Lykiard (Translator)
Avg. Customer Rating: [3.5 out of 5 stars]
Out of Print–Limited Availability
You gotta see it to believe it.
vivablur wrote
Oh geez. Do we who appreciate respect, language and common decency really “exasperate” you? You’re quite the delicate flower, aren’t you vivablur?
Unexamined ideas and Milquetoast sensibilities, indeed. Forgive me for thinking that a name like “Cunt” could possibly be designed to shock.
Oh, that’s deep. If your idea of debate is personal insult, I suspect your opinion of literature isn’t worth much either.
tramp wrote
Same comment about personal insults.
Perhaps I could. But that wasn’t what my post was about. My post was specifically related to the perception of the book that was deliberately built by the publishers. A perception that was built by a title with no other goal than to shock, titilate and disgust. A perception that was built on a vain attempt to change the meaning of a word accepted as insulting. A perception that was built on a nonsensical idea that this word actually was respectful.
If you have something of value to sell, you don’t need to send emails with subjects like “!!! SEX !!!”. And as a direct result, most emails that contain subjects like “!!! SEX !!!” are not worth reading. The fact that there are exceptions doesn’t change that point.
Bill H. weakly responded…
“Oh geez. Do we who appreciate respect, language and common decency really “exasperate” you? You’re quite the delicate flower, aren’t you ?”
For a person who who goes out of his way to respond to the title of a book he hasn’t read merely because a word gets his panties a little twisted, you a have lot of gall to talk about anyone being a “delicate little flower.” And, please, save your sanctimonious bullshit for Sunday school. You “respect” decency as you define it…typical Puritanical drivel. And your comments on the lack of the evolution of language makes sense from someone who is frightened, or apalled by mere words. Grow up. All you did here was to made an extensive commentary about a book you have never read and somehow portrayed this is as some kind of virtue. That is lame.
Oh, that’s deep. If your idea of debate is personal insult, I suspect your opinion of literature isn’t worth much either.
Why would I would bother debating someone who has nothing to debate? I don’t go pick fights with the blind, either. I’ll tell you this: my opinion of literature usually involves knowing what the fuck I am talking about before giving out a lecture. Bill, you may want to investigate this mode of discourse the next time you deign to converse with the unwashed masses.
Okay, off to the Pit with this,I think we’ve seen enough here.
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
This actually was supposed to be a discussion about the book Cunt but morons like Bill H. turned it into a flame. Jerks.
LOL… Actually Tramp, you and vivablur made it a flame by attacking BillH’s opinion. It made sense to me… and tho’ I don’t nessecarily agree with his opinion, it is a sound one nonetheless.
The adage “Don’t judge a book by it’s cover.” could come into play here, but to let BillH rile you up so much by doing just that seems a bit immature.
If you want to discuss your book… that’s fine with me… I haven’t read it so I have nothing to say on that point, but you can’t get mad at others for taking your OP someplace you didn’t expect it to go. I wouldn’t nessecarily call them hijacks either.
My $0.02.
Also, and I forgot to make this point. What you’ve said here is what my father calls, “Showing Your Ass”. You come off sounding very juvenile using words like moron and jerk just 'cause your thread didn’t do what you wanted.
Easy Solution: Start a new thread with a less ambiguous title.
Showing your ass, indeed. This could not be more simple: the reason poor little Bill’s opinions were “attacked” was because he commented about something he has never read and admittedly knows NOTHING about. Extensively. If some yokel walked into a meeting at NASA and disputed a report about say, the possibility of mission to Mars, at great length without having read it, or having any experience with mathematics, mechanics, astromony, politics or quantum physics he would rightly be scorned. On a far less grander scale, Bill basically did the same thing in this case. His opinion is simply not as valid if he has not read the book, or has no basic grasp of the ideas within. Read his original post. It wasn’t like he merely said that the title is offensive to him. No, Bill felt the need to give a critique of what the book, may, or may not contain and address its relevancy. This was without reading it! He went on to glibly give a discourse on the irrelevency of evolutionary linguisitics just to forestall the mere possibility that an offensive word (to him) as the right to appear as a title of the book. So, no, Bill was not merely stating an opinion…he was making erroneous statements about the parameters of an argument that he simply does not know. Simetra, you may ask your father…he may know this particular term as it applies to Bill H…it’s called talking out of your ass.