Feminism

[Ben X]

No one has reclaimed "nigger", unless, well, you're talking about racist people, so you're heavily misinformed there. "Nigga" on the other hand is something the Black community appropriated and transformed in meaning.

 

You're right, that's a bad example; it hasn't been fully reclaimed, as the word hasn't been stripped of perjorativity in the way "gay" has.

 

I was just interested in why Argobot doesn't think it's worth reclaiming, but having thought more about it, I see the point is that it's not a perjorative term for a section of society; the problem lies in its hypocritical application to women only, not in the term itself.

[Nachimir]

the word hasn't been stripped of perjorativity in the way "gay" has.

 

Though neither has that, entirely. There are still plenty of people who use it in the sense of "That's so fucking gay" etc. Reclaiming a term forks its meaning, then ideally the bad fork dies off. The exact opposite happened to instil "gay" as pejorative and kill off "gay as in happy".

[Faegbeard]

I could be a stupid person, but what is the value of intentionally "reclaiming" a word or attempting to do so?

 

Language's primary function is communication.  People will find ways to express ideas, both ones you agree or disagree with, no matter how language changes. When I was a kid, people would use gay to say something was homosexual with a pejorative implication. At this point, gay can easily be used as a non-pejorative way to inform someone of homosexuality, or at the very least it isn't a strong enough pejorative, so they say faggot. If faggot or slut somehow lose their negative connotations, people will use a different word instead, but one that has the exact same meaning and communicates the exact same hated or distaste.

 

All this seems to accomplish is the homogenization of an otherwise diverse set of words.

[Thrik]

I can't say that I see the value in it either. People still use the term 'nigger' in a highly pejorative way, and when they do it still causes great hurt and/or anger. All that normalising its identical-sounding offshoot has accomplished is introducing it into the day-to-day vocabulary of countless people around the world, including kids who've been brought up in an environment relatively devoid of racism and who only use the term because they've seen the older dudes using it as a fraternal term.

 

It is a noteworthy aside that this is largely a US phenomenon. The word isn't really heard in the UK unless it is indeed the racist version, at least not in any town or city I've lived in. As such, it's very uncommon to hear it in either form — which is just fine with me.

[Nachimir]

It's not quite true that people will just use new words to state the same prejudices. Prejudice can wane and die; reclaiming terms is one way of giving it a shove. It robs prejudice of any normalcy it once had.

[Faegbeard]

Ideas, including prejudice, exist independent of language. A person who hates homosexuals will do so regardless of his ability to express it. I fail to see how it would be at all possible to "give it a shove" by changing language in any meaningful way outside of outright restricting speech, which would be terrible.

[prettyunsmart]

Ideas, including prejudice, exist independent of language. A person who hates homosexuals will do so regardless of his ability to express it. I fail to see how it would be at all possible to "give it a shove" by changing language in any meaningful way outside of outright restricting speech, which would be terrible.

 

Outright, deeply-rooted hate is hard to change, and reclaiming a term likely wouldn't do much for someone who hold extremely strong prejudices against women, racial minorities, LGBTQ people, or any other group. On the other hand, altering the connotations of a term from undeniably negative to a more mixed or positive association could do some good for other people. To me, it seems like reclaiming words is powerful more for combating the casual kinds of discrimination that happen just through daily acts of language by people who wouldn't otherwise think of themselves as prejudiced in a particular way.

[TychoCelchuuu]

I could be a stupid person, but what is the value of intentionally "reclaiming" a word or attempting to do so?

 

Language's primary function is communication.  People will find ways to express ideas, both ones you agree or disagree with, no matter how language changes. When I was a kid, people would use gay to say something was homosexual with a pejorative implication. At this point, gay can easily be used as a non-pejorative way to inform someone of homosexuality, or at the very least it isn't a strong enough pejorative, so they say faggot. If faggot or slut somehow lose their negative connotations, people will use a different word instead, but one that has the exact same meaning and communicates the exact same hated or distaste.

 

All this seems to accomplish is the homogenization of an otherwise diverse set of words.

What's the point of taking away the weapon someone is using to attack you if they can go find another weapon? Why bother disarming attackers, ever? They'll just go find another baseball bat or whatever.

[Patrick R]

I can't say that I see the value in it either. People still use the term 'nigger' in a highly pejorative way, and when they do it still causes great hurt and/or anger. All that normalising its identical-sounding offshoot has accomplished is introducing it into the day-to-day vocabulary of countless people around the world, including kids who've been brought up in an environment relatively devoid of racism and who only use the term because they've seen the older dudes using it as a fraternal term.

 

It is a noteworthy aside that this is largely a US phenomenon. The word isn't really heard in the UK unless it is indeed the racist version, at least not in any town or city I've lived in. As such, it's very uncommon to hear it in either form — which is just fine with me.

 

This is absolutely 100% not true. N***** is a really complicated thing that means a lot of things to a lot of people, but I think this viewpoint is really reductive. I think it's understandable, given that you don't live in America and deal with the legacy of slavery day to day, but in the progression of the black community and identity, reclaiming that word has meant a ton.

 

In 2014 it's almost as much about class as race. It's not at all uncommon for latinos in low-income areas to use the word casually and familially the way that black people do. Which is possibly problematic, possibly progressive. It really depends how you look at it because, like I said, it's a really complicated issue.

[Faegbeard]

What's the point of taking away the weapon someone is using to attack you if they can go find another weapon? Why bother disarming attackers, ever? They'll just go find another baseball bat or whatever.

 

When words themselves have the intrinsic ability to inflict physical harm, I might understand your analogy.  My point was that changing the meaning of a word does not disarm anyone nor does it change anyone's intent. Additionally, words and weapons are not comparable in any sense, but that is a different discussion entirely.

 

Outright, deeply-rooted hate is hard to change, and reclaiming a term likely wouldn't do much for someone who hold extremely strong prejudices against women, racial minorities, LGBTQ people, or any other group. On the other hand, altering the connotations of a term from undeniably negative to a more mixed or positive association could do some good for other people. To me, it seems like reclaiming words is powerful more for combating the casual kinds of discrimination that happen just through daily acts of language by people who wouldn't otherwise think of themselves as prejudiced in a particular way.

 

Some good for the person feeling discriminated against you mean? If a slight change in understanding of the connotation of a word can stop casual discrimination, I would argue that said discrimination was so casual as to be non-existent.

 

I may have misunderstood what you meant, but that seems like reclaiming a word in that context is simply comfort food for the person who feels slighted, while changing nothing of any underlying problem.

[Thrik]

This is absolutely 100% not true. N***** is a really complicated thing that means a lot of things to a lot of people, but I think this viewpoint is really reductive. I think it's understandable, given that you don't live in America and deal with the legacy of slavery day to day, but in the progression of the black community and identity, reclaiming that word has meant a ton.

 

In 2014 it's almost as much about class as race. It's not at all uncommon for latinos in low-income areas to use the word casually and familially the way that black people do. Which is possibly problematic, possibly progressive. It really depends how you look at it because, like I said, it's a really complicated issue.

 

I think it is hard for me to understand it fully, but I do wonder what it'd be like in the US if the term were never 'retaken'. In the face of increasing intolerance for racism — which I believe is an entirely different phenomenon to any usage of that specific term — would it still be widely used, or would it be more like the UK where its usage has fallen out of favour without being supplanted by a re-purposed version?

 

It seems to me like you're saying that the word has been an integral part of moving away from racism, blacks feeling empowered to embrace their culture, live a normal life, etc. But would that have not happened anyway, allowing the word to just fade away apart from occasional use by truly racist arse holes (who still use it in such a way anyway)?

 

I do appreciate that there are historical differences between the countries, so I'm not suggesting that things would go the same way — just pondering the possibility.

[clyde]

This article claims that the is a scientific study that examines the relationship between reclamation of slurs and perceived power.

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/were-only-human/how-to-defuse-a-hateful-slur.html

I'd like to read the study. I may be being a bit entitled here, but I fucking HATE the idea that I have to pay a fortune to read things from an academic journal. How is this possible in 2014. I hate it. It makes me angry.

[Twig]

The last 20ish years, at a minimum.  Embracing slut as a positive descriptor of sexuality is not that radically new. 

 

Why does it bother you so much that some people wish to use it in neutral or positive ways?  What's a good slang term for someone who is promiscuous, and safe, healthy and happy with that decision? 

I never said it bothered me, so please don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.

 

All I'm saying is I don't think it's a positive word, and no amount of "I don't care, I'm using it positively anyway" has changed that, even if it's lasted the "last 20ish years", because it's still a hugely negative word.

[Patrick R]

I think it is hard for me to understand it fully, but I do wonder what it'd be like in the US if the term were never 'retaken'. In the face of increasing intolerance for racism — which I believe is an entirely different phenomenon to any usage of that specific term — would it still be widely used, or would it be more like the UK where its usage has fallen out of favour without being supplanted by a re-purposed version?

 

It seems to me like you're saying that the word has been an integral part of moving away from racism, blacks feeling empowered to embrace their culture, live a normal life, etc. But would that have not happened anyway, allowing the word to just fade away apart from occasional use by truly racist arse holes (who still use it in such a way anyway)?

 

I do appreciate that there are historical differences between the countries, so I'm not suggesting that things would go the same way — just pondering the possibility.

 

It's not really about moving away with racism. People cannot control whether racism against them exists. It's about having community, which is a tool for dealing with racism. Which is why these days it's a class issue. You won't really hear that word thrown around in middle-class black communities, except maybe by kids.

 

But most importantly, as people who aren't members of the group in question, it's not our place to question how they deal with racism or identity or language. The way it happened was through subverting that slur, so that's how it happened. And reclaiming language isn't unusual for many kinds of groups and sub-cultures, of all different levels of oppression. "Punk" and "punk rock" is, in part, a reaction to adults and their fear of juvenile delinquency. "Oh, you think I'm a lazy punk with no respect? I'll show you a lazy punk with no respect!" Same with a word like "thug" or "gangster".

 

I'm not trying to claim that all reclaimed words are positive steps (there is considerable debate in the modern black community about the place of the word "n****" in the 21st century), just that it's usually way more complex than you make it sound in the post I was responding to.

[SecretAsianMan]

When words themselves have the intrinsic ability to inflict physical harm, I might understand your analogy. My point was that changing the meaning of a word does not disarm anyone nor does it change anyone's intent. Additionally, words and weapons are not comparable in any sense, but that is a different discussion entirely.

Some good for the person feeling discriminated against you mean? If a slight change in understanding of the connotation of a word can stop casual discrimination, I would argue that said discrimination was so casual as to be non-existent.

I may have misunderstood what you meant, but that seems like reclaiming a word in that context is simply comfort food for the person who feels slighted, while changing nothing of any underlying problem.

Changing the meaning of a word can disarm a person. If someone were to say something to me with the intent of causing harm, but they used a word that they consider harmful and I don't, then their power has been stripped away. True, they can (and probably would) invent or try to co-opt a new word to replace it. But the act of reclaiming one word undermines the power of any future words that may be used. It's a way to fight back without stooping to their level. You won't change their way of thinking by doing so, but you can take away the ability to cause harm which is a thing worth doing.

I disagree that words and weapons are not comparable, but as you said that's a different discussion.

[Bjorn]

For the people who oppose retaking slut (or who don't understand why that would be a thing you would want to do), I'd like to see someone address the geek/nerd comment I had on the previous page.   Here are two words that were used as pejoratives for OUR community.  I don't think they were as bad as slut or racial slurs, but they were words used to bully generations of kids, to cast them as the other, to ostracize them. 

 

So why is it so hard to imagine another group retaking a pejorative used against them when our community did it with 2 different words, and in very short order? 

 

Do you think the redefining of these two words is ultimately a negative development that shouldn't have happened?

 

And one other question no one has addressed:

 

What positive slang word should sexually promiscuous people use to describe themselves?  Should we make up a new one, or just change the connotation of an existing one? 

 

There may be one point of confusion here in regards to what people have done to change slut.  There are kind of two separate movements.  One is related to the Slutwalk stuff, which is really about trying to stop slut shaming, victim blaming, rape culture and sexual abuse.  The other comes out of various non-traditional sexual communities and is about having a self-identifier that informs others about your attitude towards sex and promiscuity.  While I understand both, I'm predominantly coming from a frame of reference related to the second one.

[Bjorn]

I never said it bothered me, so please don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.

 

All I'm saying is I don't think it's a positive word, and no amount of "I don't care, I'm using it positively anyway" has changed that, even if it's lasted the "last 20ish years", because it's still a hugely negative word.

 

From the tone of yours and others posts, it certainly feels like it bothers some of you that this is a movement that has been happening.  It wasn't my goal to put words in your mouth, but to show how the overall tone was coming off. 

[brkl]

Ideas, including prejudice, exist independent of language. A person who hates homosexuals will do so regardless of his ability to express it. I fail to see how it would be at all possible to "give it a shove" by changing language in any meaningful way outside of outright restricting speech, which would be terrible.

 

Language is how ideas are formed, transformed and spread. Feelings of revulsion and fear can exist independent of language, but it's problematic to say any idea even could exist somehow apart from language. 

 

Don't just think about individuals. Language and culture are completely intertwined. Change one, you change them both. Gay has been almost completely removed from pejorative use, which forces homophobes to use another term, which could ostensibly be appropriated later. That forces them to use words which have less power. Additionally, appropriating words doesn't just change how language is used and perceived afterwards. It also changes how earlier use of that word is perceived. Something said with the purpose of being the most vehement insult imaginable twenty years ago can just appear a bit sad and funny now. We can change history! Or at least the power history has on us. 

 

So, it's like 1984, but for good.

[Thrik]

It's not really about moving away with racism. People cannot control whether racism against them exists. It's about having community, which is a tool for deal with racism. Which is why these days it's a class issue. You won't really hear that word thrown around in middle-class black communities, except maybe by kids.

 

But most importantly, as people who aren't members of the group in question, it's not our place to question how they deal with racism or identity or language. The way it happened was through subverting that slur, so that's how it happened. And reclaiming language isn't unusual for many kinds of groups and sub-cultures, of all different levels of oppression. "Punk" and "punk rock" is, in part, a reaction to adults and their fear of juvenile delinquency. "Oh, you think I'm a lazy punk with no respect? I'll show you a lazy punk with no respect!" Same with a word like "thug" or "gangster".

 

I'm not trying to claim that all reclaimed words are positive steps (there is considerable debate in the modern black community about the place of the word "n****" in the 21st century), just that it's usually way more complex than you make it sound in the post I was responding to.

 

I don't feel I'm any closer to knowing whether the word not being reclaimed would have had a significant effect on racism and black culture as a whole, which is the question that I was throwing into the air. I don't lean either way, it's just an academic curiosity. I guess this is just something I should look into more by myself, learn some history and such.

 

It's definitely of note that the US isn't the only country where racism was once rampant but has become much less so with time, yet it's basically the only one where 'nigger' has become widely used in a different form. It's important to emphasise that this is a US phenomenon, not a worldwide one (although globalisation of media and entertainment has started causing the word to seep out in recent years).

 

I'm not sure I like your implication that we (white guys) shouldn't be getting involved with the debate, though — racism at any level affects us all. While in a relationship with a black girl for a number of years I experienced racial hostilities at times from both blacks and whites. If I were to have mixed kids, I think that it would very much be my place to debate topics concerning racism, identity, and language. No group should be excluded from discussion of such things with the world becoming increasingly multi-cultural.

[Patrick R]

I don't feel I'm any closer to knowing whether the word not being reclaimed would have had a significant effect on racism and black culture as a whole, which is the question that I was throwing into the air. I don't lean either way, it's just an academic curiosity. I guess this is just something I should look into more by myself, learn some history and such.

 

There are certainly enough books about the subject!

 

 

 

It's definitely of note that the US isn't the only country where racism was once rampant but has become much less so with time, yet it's basically the only one where 'nigger' has become widely used in a different form. It's important to emphasise that this is a US phenomenon, not a worldwide one (although globalisation of media and entertainment has started causing the word to seep out in recent years).

 

 

I think it's important to note we aren't talking about "n****r", we're talking about "n***a". You can claim they're identical, but they really aren't and haven't been for a really long time. In 2014, those are different words that mean drastically different things.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure I like your implication that we (white guys) shouldn't be getting involved with the debate, though — racism at any level affects us all. While in a relationship with a black girl for a number of years I experienced racial hostilities at times from both blacks and whites. If I were to have mixed kids, I think that it would very much be my place to debate topics concerning racism, identity, and language. No group should be excluded from discussion of such things with the world becoming increasingly multi-cultural.

 

 

I guess we just fundamentally disagree, then. To bring this back to feminism, I am glad there are male feminists (I try to be one!), but I don't for a second think that they should have equal voice in the movement. If you had mixed kids it would behoove you to learn about the history of that word and oppression, but it would be a word that would never be directed at you the way it's directed at them (or their other parent), and ultimately it would be their problem to deal with. Empathy for the pain of others is important, but it will never be the same as actually feeling that pain.

[Zeusthecat]

For the people who oppose retaking slut (or who don't understand why that would be a thing you would want to do), I'd like to see someone address the geek/nerd comment I had on the previous page.   Here are two words that were used as pejoratives for OUR community.  I don't think they were as bad as slut or racial slurs, but they were words used to bully generations of kids, to cast them as the other, to ostracize them. 

 

So why is it so hard to imagine another group retaking a pejorative used against them when our community did it with 2 different words, and in very short order? 

 

Do you think the redefining of these two words is ultimately a negative development that shouldn't have happened?

 

Bjorn, that was an excellent post and I think the geek/nerd example is a perfect illustration of the benefits of reclaiming a word.

[Faegbeard]

Changing the meaning of a word can disarm a person. If someone were to say something to me with the intent of causing harm, but they used a word that they consider harmful and I don't, then their power has been stripped away. True, they can (and probably would) invent or try to co-opt a new word to replace it. But the act of reclaiming one word undermines the power of any future words that may be used. It's a way to fight back without stooping to their level. You won't change their way of thinking by doing so, but you can take away the ability to cause harm which is a thing worth doing.

 

The thing is, words do not have the ability to harm in and of themselves. What causes harm is your understanding of what the person is communicating to you. If you recognize the venom in a persons words they can hurt your feelings regardless of the specifics words used; Even words that can otherwise be considered polite can carry a huge amount of hate in them. The most harrowing insult I have ever received did not contain a single racial epithet, slur, swear word or anything of the sort. The only thing that could affect a persons "power" when it comes to verbal communication would be for verbal communication on the whole to be significantly less meaningful.

 

 

Language is how ideas are formed, transformed and spread. Feelings of revulsion and fear can exist independent of language, but it's problematic to say any idea even could exist somehow apart from language. 

 

I put it to you that any idea that does not deal with language itself could exist without language. The expression of that idea would certainly prove difficult however.

 

Don't just think about individuals. Language and culture are completely intertwined. Change one, you change them both. Gay has been almost completely removed from pejorative use, which forces homophobes to use another term, which could ostensibly be appropriated later. That forces them to use words which have less power. Additionally, appropriating words doesn't just change how language is used and perceived afterwards. It also changes how earlier use of that word is perceived. Something said with the purpose of being the most vehement insult imaginable twenty years ago can just appear a bit sad and funny now. We can change history! Or at least the power history has on us. 

 

I think you are doing nothing but proving my original point with this. Gay has been mostly removed from pejorative use, but faggot now exists in it's sted. If faggot becomes a bit less of a pejorative

people will say fucking faggot, to really hammer the point home of what they are trying to convey. The word is different, but it has no less power and there is no less venom in it.

 

So, it's like 1984, but for good.

 

I don't think it's for good, even if the intention behind it is good. Maybe I am alone in this, but I think losing negative words and the ability to express negative thoughts, no matter how vile and depraved, would be a terrible thing indeed.

 

It's 2am here so I might be derailing a bit.

 

For the people who oppose retaking slut (or who don't understand why that would be a thing you would want to do), I'd like to see someone address the geek/nerd comment I had on the previous page.   Here are two words that were used as pejoratives for OUR community.  I don't think they were as bad as slut or racial slurs, but they were words used to bully generations of kids, to cast them as the other, to ostracize them. 

 

So why is it so hard to imagine another group retaking a pejorative used against them when our community did it with 2 different words, and in very short order? 

 

Do you think the redefining of these two words is ultimately a negative development that shouldn't have happened?

 

I don't think the words "geek" and "nerd" ever got redefined, they are simply descriptive terms. Just because they were the catalyst used to communicate the feelings of the less academically inclined towards me means nothing. I can't speak for the "community" though.

 

And one other question no one has addressed:

 

What positive slang word should sexually promiscuous people use to describe themselves?  Should we make up a new one, or just change the connotation of an existing one?

 

Whatever they wish to describe themselves as, of course. But I don't think the dislike in society at large of sexual promiscuity among women has anything to do with any perceived connotations to the word "slut". I think the dislike of sexual promiscuity among women as everything to do with the connotations of sexual promiscuity among women.

[prettyunsmart]

Some good for the person feeling discriminated against you mean? If a slight change in understanding of the connotation of a word can stop casual discrimination, I would argue that said discrimination was so casual as to be non-existent.

 

I may have misunderstood what you meant, but that seems like reclaiming a word in that context is simply comfort food for the person who feels slighted, while changing nothing of any underlying problem.

 

brkl's response to your original comment covers part of what I was going to say about the interconnection of language and culture as well as the example of the word "gay" (I was going to say specifically that it seems like the association more recently that people would have with the word would be a friend, family member, co-worker, or other actual person rather than an amorphous idea of something inferior and different). As I'm typing this, I saw your response to his response, and I'm not sure if I can agree with the idea that without language these ideas would still exist. That gets into an ontological problem that is probably over the head of anyone with dual PhDs in linguistics and philosophy. I take your point that slurs that get appropriated just get replaced with new slurs, but even these new slurs can get appropriated too. What I'd suggest is that any new slur will lack the power of the old because it doesn't have the same history. You bring up the term "faggot" which isn't new, but has been around for quite some time. However, if that were to get re-appropriated and replaced by some new invented term, it wouldn't carry the same historical weight as its predecessor. 

[Zeusthecat]

The thing is, words do not have the ability to harm in and of themselves.

 

This is absolutely not true. I have inadvertently used words in the past that have caused emotional harm to another person even though I used them with no malicious intent. Certain words can be trigger words regardless of how they are being used.

[Faegbeard]

This is absolutely not true. I have inadvertently used words in the past that have caused emotional harm to another person even though I used them with no malicious intent. Certain words are trigger words regardless of how they are being used.

 

The word itself is not what does harm, it is the understanding of what that word means to a person that can do harm.

 

Words, devoid of subjectivity, are completely harmless.