# Language Deconstruction refuted for all mankind (misogyny) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 7, 2001, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-deconstruction-refuted-for-all-mankind-misogyny/97342 "2001-12-07T01:13:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2001, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-deconstruction-refuted-for-all-mankind-misogyny/97342/21 "2001-12-07T04:26:37Z")
> [@](#): > > “Whipping boy,” and “scapegoat” have their origins in slavery and mean much the same as “nigger,” but don’t carry the same connotations merely because of random convention. Just for the hell of it: Scapegoat: > [@](#): > > App. invented by Tindale (1530) to express what he believed was the literal meaning of Heb. _dzazel_ [sorry can’t do the special characters --G] occuring only in Lev.xvi 8, 10, 16 (in verse 10 he renders: ‘the goote on which the lot fell to scape.’) The same interpretation is expressed by the Vulgate _caper emissarius_, and by Coverdale’s (1535) rendering ‘the fre goate’, but is now regarded as unteneable… Whipping-boy: > [@](#): > > A boy educated together with a young prince or royal personage, and flogged in his stead when he committed a fault that was considered to deserve flogging. > > **1647** TRAPP _Comm. I Tim vol 20_ Rebuke before all: yet not as they were whipping boyes… I find it mildly amusing that someone who decries that words can have a meaning perceived only by the reader, apparently perceived–all by himself–a pre-war southern origin that made these words synonyms to “nigger”. 🙂 [sub]Cites provided courtesy of the OED, second edition[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Demosthenesian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Demosthenesian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demosthenesian)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2001, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-deconstruction-refuted-for-all-mankind-misogyny/97342/22 "2001-12-07T05:39:14Z")
Personally, I’m fascinated by this: > [@](#): > > One of my friends admits that it’s easier to give orders in English, conduct business in German, and seduce women in French, but that’s hardly a panopticon. I’ve heard variations on this for years, and have always wondered about it. What is it about French that makes it useful for seduction, German for conducting business, and English for giving orders? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2001, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-deconstruction-refuted-for-all-mankind-misogyny/97342/23 "2001-12-07T05:46:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Demosthenesian \* > \*\*Personally, I’m fascinated by this: > > > [@](#): > > > > One of my friends admits that it’s easier to give orders in English, conduct business in German, and seduce women in French, but that’s hardly a panopticon. > > I’ve heard variations on this for years, and have always wondered about it. What is it about French that makes it useful for seduction, German for conducting business, and English for giving orders? \*\* I think the German and English should be switched. French is sexy. German is gruff sounding. English is understood by the widest variety of otherwise non-Endlish speaking persons, making it useful for conducting business throughout the world. My guesses. ---
**Author:** ![someone\_else](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/77aa72/32.png) [@someone\_else](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/someone_else)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2001, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-deconstruction-refuted-for-all-mankind-misogyny/97342/24 "2001-12-07T08:45:55Z")
From John Ralston Saul, _The Doubter’s Companion_, quoted frequently by **matt\_mcl** : > [@](#): > > **Deconstructionism** : A generalized denial of civilization can’t help but be a voice of evil. > > To insist that language is in contradiction with itself or nothing more than a system of self-serving formulae or essentially meaningless is to argue that human communications have no ethical, creative or social value. Fortunately deconstructionism can also be seen as a school of light comedy. After all, to argue that language has no meaning is to eliminate your own argument. The deconstructionists may after all be simply suffering from an acute lack of irony. > > Jacques Derrida and his disciples protest that what they actually mean is that language never means exactly what it says. If so, they have come rather late in life to what always been a given between writers and readers. > […] > _Note:_ Deconstructionists tend to insist that the proper term is deconstruction, not deconstructionism. That is, they do not want to be treated as an ism. They hate being deconstructed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-deconstruction-refuted-for-all-mankind-misogyny/97342.md?page=1)