Carey would be appalled that you’ve mischaracterized his article by implying that what he acknowledged is his conclusion. He acknowledges that while “for some speakers,” it’s an ordinary element of their speech, but he concludes that its usage is indicative of the misogyny in your culture.
The paragraph I quoted is the both the author’s conclusion of the piece and the structural conclusion:
“ The shift from feminine to masculine in [British English] (British English - Wikipedia) is part of a more general tendency to use words for women (or our parts) as the ultimate way to put down a man. Which sums up the status of womanhood in our culture rather neatly.”
That’s where you claimed the disagreement was. That is saying that the woman you are arguing with does not understand how words work. And it fits a lot of your other arguments as well, as the overarching theme.
I did take the time to address one such argument–the one about it just being a body part name and not misogynist. I pointed out that the fact that people treat “cunt” as worse than body parts like “dick” is actually an argument that it is misogynist.
You also brought up an article, so I discussed that article briefly and why it did not agree with your claim.
The only other thing of note I see in your arguments was the other thing I mentioned. It is the best argument you made:
That is an argument that women you know (like your wife) are okay with the term, which is directly arguing against @Spice_Weasel’s claim. That’s good.
However, since it’s just an anecdote about people you know, it’s unlikely to be convincing. Of course people who don’t find a word offensive will more likely hang out with other people who don’t find the word offensive. Hence why I said you’d need something more like a survey, or stuff from people like feminists who would be experts on what is and is not misogynists.
I do not believe I was being disingenuous, and even avoided using some words I thought might offend. I wish that you would go back and read my entire post.
Well, that’s a stretch. I didn’t feel he was being condescending. I think he’s genuinely trying to understand why we can’t just accept that ‘‘cunt’’ isn’t sexist in the UK.
I think the main reason I find that hard to accept is that a significant number of people in the UK do think it’s sexist.
No, it’s not good, and it’s not persuasive. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were women who believed women were too emotional to be entrusted with the vote. Just because those women had bought into the stereotypes of the day didn’t make those stereotypes any more credible. Just because someone is a member of a group doesn’t necessarily make them an authority on that group.
I’ve read and respected many of your posts, so I’m assuming you simply didn’t think this one through.
I don’t think it is at all. I think Spice Weasel (who’s gender was unknown to me and irrelevant to the points being made) knows absolutely that words have different meanings and connotations in different parts of the world and in different cultures, but that for some reason is reluctant to accept it for this word in particular. That’s what I am surprised by.
And by extension, the fact (and it is a fact) that some cultural groups treat it as the equal of other words like “dick” is an argument that (for them at least) it is not misogynist.
I don’t see that denying that someone negates the equally true fact that it also has a very wide misogynistic usage. Both can be true.
It read like you were treating the worst possible interpretation of my words as the only possible interpretation. If that was not your intention then I’ll accept that.
I would never want to give the impression that I think it is a perfectly acceptable word always and everywhere in the UK. That is not the case.
A significant number in the UK can think it is a sexist and horrible word whilst at the same time another significant number think it is not. Both can be right. I’d say that both are right and that fact is more true in the UK than it is in the USA.
People can certainly disagree about how horrible a swear word is - that has been shown (with pretty much all swear words) to be a matter of how commonly the word is used in the area they’re in.
However I have yet to see anything even approaching a decent argument that the slur ‘cunt’ is not sexist.
If you wish to sidestep the issue of regional variance of swear intensity, we could instead talk about the word “bitch” which is analogous to “cunt” in pretty much every way other than swear intensity. Both of them derive their meaning from a combination of “something bad” (genitalia/a dog) and “female”. The ‘female’ part of the slur is a defining part of the slur - just calling somebody a dog or genitals (we’ll get back to this) is a different and less potent slur.
You bringing up “dick” as an attempt to analogize it with “cunt” has got me thinking about it, and I’ve realized, that with “dick”, the masculinity of the organ itself isn’t actually part of the slur! Aspects of the organ itself are - the inclination towards base, selfish impulses is built into the definition of the slur “dick”. But being masculine isn’t really built into the slur. Which isn’t really a surprise, because in the culture where the slur originated, it’s not an insult to be called a male.
Which means that “dick” isn’t actually a sexist slur! It’s not calling you “male genitals”, it’s just calling you “genitals”, and since masculinity is the presumed default the term for male genitalia is used.
Regardless of origins, I seriously doubt anyone calling someone a pussy (as an insult) is drawing a comparison between them and a cat. Intent matters imho.
I don’t know if anyone’s mentioned this already, but “The History of Swear Words” on Netflix is, at least, pretty entertaining.
No, they can’t both be right. You don’t seem to understand that some terms are offensive regardless of whether or not the speaker intends it to be offensive.
Not all that long ago, there were two troubling slang terms that were in popular usage: “That’s gay!” and “That’s retarded!” Regardless of whether the speakers thought about gay or developmentally disabled people when using those terms, the terms were still offensive. Gradually, as more people came to recognize the offensiveness, the terms dropped out of common usage.
As more people in the UK become enlightened about the offensiveness of c—, it will drop out of popular usage there. Maybe then you’ll stop defending its use.
Yes, they are both right.
Are you familiar with how swearing is used in all parts of the UK?
If not I don’t know on what authority you speak.
Have you spent much time in the UK?
Have you spent any time with culutral groups that use profane language differently to you?
That you find it offensive comes as no surprise and is of absolutely no interest to me. To quote Stephen Fry “you’re offended? so fucking what?”
I’m reminded of the story in a local paper that had a prudish outraged letter writer complaining to the editor that a naturist resort had opened near their house and when they climbed into their loft, stood on a footstool and looked out of their skylight they could see naked people swimming in the distance.
For the record, I’m not particularly offended by the fact that you personally use sexist swear words. If I got bothered every time somebody did something sexist I wouldn’t have time left over to sleep.
I simply am maintaining that it is a sexist swear word, and I’m mentioning that my personal morality (which I don’t expect anyone else to share) takes a rather hard line on slurs and swears that slander or diminish classes of people.
It’s not a stretch at all. It’s what he literally said. He argued that you didn’t know that words could mean different things in different regions, and incredulity that you could possibly think that way. This was not anything you had actually claimed.
Whether you found it condescending or not, it was not a good counterargument to your claim. That’s what I said. I deliberately did not accuse him of being disingenuous or saying he used a strawman, as I did not want to imply intent, just that the argument was unconvincing. Nor did I argue he was uninterested in understanding. (I actually believe he is just reluctant to accept the possibility that a word he does not mean in a sexist way might be interpreted by other UKers as sexist. This is a pretty normal reaction, and says nothing bad about him.)
I do not see the point in saying that someone is being disingenuous or stretching without then arguing what part they may have misunderstood. Obviously they do not think they were stretching, or they would not have made the claim in the first place. If I knew it was a stretch but said it anyways, I would be lying, and I do not do that.
Finally, I continue to point out that this claim was not my main point. Even if you disagree with my summary of his posts, he still was arguing something other than your claim, and such was not convincing.
My argument stands that his arguments are unconvincing for the reasons I have stated. I have argued against every point I saw the poster make. And I continue to argue that only statistics or arguments from an expert on misogyny would counter your original claim.
Having to spell out so much is frustrating and exhausting. People get offended when I do so, but then if I include a small line without explaining every single nuance, people take me to task over it.
I also find it frustrating and exhausting. I was trying to point out that I think he’s arguing in good faith, not out of some latent sexism (i.e. condescending to women), but given his last post, I feel that less.
I don’t need to be an authority on swearing in all parts of the UK to make a logical argument. After all, you’re not an authority on swearing in all parts of the UK, but that in and of itself doesn’t invalidate your arguments. You’re certainly not representative of everyone in the UK.
Your claim that one has to be an authority on swearing in all parts of your country in order to argue the topic smacks of desperation. And you seem awfully worked up for someone who doesn’t care what I think.
You think that people who object to sexist terms are prudes? That’s pretty funny.
There’s no sense arguing with someone who’s down to using this kind of reasoning, so I’m on to more productive enterprises.
you haven’t made a logical argument, you’ve made a circular one.
You start with the premise that the word is mysoginistic in every and all circumstances and so your conclusion naturally follows that any use of it cannot be anything other other than mysoginistic. That’s circular reasoning.
No, but I clearly know more about the usage in the UK than you do. I know the word is used in a sexist and mysoginistic way, I also know that it is used in an affectionate and inoffensive way and that context and culture matters. Both those points were clearly stated in the article you selected your quotes from.
If you are going to make claims about the usage of a word by a cultural group you know nothing about then you’d best either do your research and present a sound argument or, and here’s radical thought, entertain the possibility that your uninformed assertion might be wrong.
no, I think that people who are offended by nudity are prudes. That was clearly in the context of the story about nudity and the person so desperate to be offended by it that they went out of their way to see it. That you went out of your way to put that spin on it is rather wonderfully apt.
I’m reminded of the argument that certain terms viewed by many as denigrating to Native Americans and Jews don’t have to be avoided because a “significant number” of people don’t view them as offensive, including some members of those groups. It’s (as Brits might say) a non-starter.
As long as a substantial number of people find a word offensive and have good reason to feel that way (or even if one doesn’t find their reasoning compelling), it’s best to stop using the word instead of making lame excuses about a slur being part of one’s cultural heritage.
I’d agree, you should stop using it in a shared space and in the presence of those who may be potentially offended as a matter of general courtesy.
Within the cultural group who use it in a completely different way? No. That usage is absolutely fine. It is a massive presumption to tell them otherwise.