More thoughts on words and women

Thinking about how I felt bad that I didn't explain comments certain friends of mine have jokingly made in this post got me to thinking about how complex all of this is. For one thing, if I were in a different situation, those comments probably would have upset me, but since I've seen the reverse happen a few times (male friend in an otherwise all-female group get jokingly, and flatteringly called, "one of the girls"), but I decided to use it anyway because even though it was made amongst people who don't separate out by sex or any other status, the attendent connotations lingered in the air. And so a decision has to be made--should one take the tossed-off comment how it was originally meant, as a fairly harmless joke about how I often seem to be the only girl hanging around? After all, most of the time it's because other female friends who would be there have to work funky schedules. Or should I respond to the unavoidable connotation, that it's somehow complimentary to be, as mythago put it, an honorary guy? Is the comment meant to compliment me and everyone else on the fact that we don't discriminate against sex when hanging out, or is it a subtle way to exclude while including by drawing attention to my femininity? The last question I definitely know the answer to--the former choice--the comment mostly functions to convey the message that despite the fact that I'm a little different it doesn't matter.

So it makes me wonder, how much does context count when using a word? Well, in one sense, it counts for everything. I can't think of a single word that des femmes is calling guys out for using that wouldn't be acceptable under the right circumstances. (Nonetheless, there are some words that are best to avoid altogether, an infamous racial slur being top of the list.) Except that some of these guys have such a rotten track record that they couldn't create a proper circumstance if they tried, one suspects. That entire list of slurs against women are words that I use all the time. But in very different ways. Like in the post below I use the word "bitch", but I use it specifically to refer to the way that women are disparaged in everyday life, and everyone gets that I doubt that anyone is offended.

And I use the word "pussy" all the time, but either like I use "bitch" in the example above, or to actually describe the thing itself. (The latter being more common in my spoken speech. Yes, I'm vulgar. Enjoy.) Can guys get away with saying the word "pussy", ever? Sometimes I doubt it, as they pretty much always use it as synecdoche, which is where a part stands for the whole, and therefore "pussy" refers to an entire woman. Synecdoche is not always a way to insult somebody by reducing him/her. For instance, you can say, "These feet have seen many a mile," without implying that the most important part of you is your feet. Or calling a car "a set of wheels" doesn't mean that the rest of the car is for shit. In my experience, if men do use "pussy" to describe the thing itself, they still tend to do so by insulting women, like the joke, "Women have half the money and all of the pussy."

It seems like the rule of thumb in this case is the old-fashioned rule that you can say it about your own, but it's hands off for everyone else.

But still I find myself thinking about why it is that I, who likes to think a lot about language and how it's used (despite the awful grammar), have pretty much ignored the way that certain anti-female words are bandied around in a way that if they were racial slurs would be really upsetting. And the ugly truth is that since most of them come out of people I know don't actually think that way, and because they are fluid and change meaning from person to person and context to context, they kind of fall off the radar. That's why I'm grateful that des femmes is doing this, because one of the most important issues right now in the political world of this country is who controls the language. Outside of the issues of who is insulting who, etc., the sloppiness and thoughtless that characterizes the use of these slurs by liberal men who are otherwise respectful towards women means that our side isn't showing the sufficient effort necessary to reclaim the debate.

I'm going to drag George Lakoff into this, because his theory that liberals need to replace strict father metaphors with nuturing parent metaphors depends on putting forward non-sexist language. Every time a man uses exclusionary language, he is metaphorically cutting women and femaleness out of the debate. And every time he does so, he is bolstering the idea that politics is men's business and therefore letting the right and their male-centered strict father worldview, set the terms of the debate.

A good example if the way that the word "pussy" is getting bandied around in regards to who is the bigger coward--John Kerry or George Bush? By saying that cowardliness is a feminine trait, you are saying that bravery is a masculine trait and allowing the right to therefore substitute masculine imagery in place of genuine shows of bravery. That's how George Bush is able to be perceived as more brave for putting on a flight suit to greet a bunch of soliders he sends to do his dirty work for him, while the more laid-back John Kerry can be portrayed as a coward. It's gotten to the point where the right has effectively convinced huge numbers of voters that showing genuine respect for a woman is weak in a politician. The best way to knock the legs off this pissing contest is to completely refuse to equate cowardliness with women and bravery with men. Force them to discuss these traits for themselves instead of using an easy-to-manipulate shorthand.