(no subject)
So, this is a post about profanity! In case you couldn't guess, that means I will be USING profanity. So, uh, be warned.
Anyway, I wanted to talk about the word "fuck". Now, I don't have a problem with the word itself, nor do I have a problem with either of the two meanings which which we, as a culture, have endowed it. No, my problem is with the juxtaposition of those two meanings! And I am going to explain why, right now.
Consider, if you will, what we mean when we call someone a "fucker". There are, in fact, two meanings! First is the colloquial one, which boils down to "person x is an asshole/meanie/TERRIBLE HUMAN BEING". And you know what? Cool. It is useful to have a word that means that, especially one that (let's be frank) is fairly satisfying to say. It's so plosive and consonant-y!
The problem is, "fucker" means something differently if you look at it literally. It means "one who fucks", or has sex. And I don't know about you, but the implicit equation of sexual activity with moral decay that is going on when you combine those two meanings is something that really makes me uncomfortable. It's kind of...regressive and shaming. It's more like something you'd see coming out of the Catholic church than out of the kind of person who is likely to call someone a fucker. (NOTE: There are probably Catholics who call people fuckers. But I have a hard time imagining, like, a Papal bull to that effect. YET THE SUBTEXT IS THE SAME, FOLKS).
Now, I could see an argument being made for a feminist use of "fucker" as an insult! In my head, it goes a little like this: Being a fucker could be interpreted as being one who performs the act of fucking upon someone else, rather than it being a collaborative effort. That is to say, there would be a fucker and a fuckee, rather than just two (or more! I am not judging/proscribing relationships here!) people fucking. This suggests sexual coercion, which is generally a pretty unlikeable trait. So it could be an effective feminist insult! HOWEVER. I have two problems with this approach:
1) My justification there is pretty flimsy. I think it's a tenuous argument.
2) More seriously, it is a problem of interpretation. It doesn't matter if your intent is to reclaim the word in that feminist context, unless you are using it around people who think the same way you do. Otherwise, those in earshot will just interpret the insult as being used the way it more usually is--to indemnify those who have sex (and no, I am not saying this is a conscious association. But the association is there, because both meanings of 'fuck' are pretty familiar to anyone you would care to ask). What's more, if they are aware the person using the insult holds feminist values, they can interpret its use by that person as an affirmation of the same fucked-up (ahem) values conveyed by the insult in popular discourse. Syllogismism phrases the problem here well [though she's talking about another word, 'douchebag']. What she says is:
"All of us here [Dorian says: 'Here' being on a feminist blog] know what a douchebag represents. Yes, it’s a tool of the patriarchy in every sense of the word. But getting comfortable with the douche insult and its derivatives in the feminist sphere inevitably results in comfort with it in the non-feminist world, and people generally aren’t privy to the whole feminist take on the term. Calling an Australian politician a douchebag in the comments of IBTP [Dorian says: I Blame The Patriarchy is also a feminist blog, a radical one] is one thing, but out-feminists calling people douchebags in the company of folks who haven’t come around yet isn’t exactly going to do anything to bring the world closer to treating women as the human beings that we are.
I would bet that it makes those folks think that, holy crap, even feminists don’t have a problem with insulting someone by connecting them to a soiled vagina. Unless the feminist name-caller can fully stop and explain the douchebag-tool connection and why other feminists have embraced it - which is, let’s face it, not typically an appropriate turn to a conversation - then she has only further contributed, perhaps even more significantly, to the mysgony [sic] that we battle against."
And now that this post has gone on way too long already, I'm basically done. THOUGHTS?
Anyway, I wanted to talk about the word "fuck". Now, I don't have a problem with the word itself, nor do I have a problem with either of the two meanings which which we, as a culture, have endowed it. No, my problem is with the juxtaposition of those two meanings! And I am going to explain why, right now.
Consider, if you will, what we mean when we call someone a "fucker". There are, in fact, two meanings! First is the colloquial one, which boils down to "person x is an asshole/meanie/TERRIBLE HUMAN BEING". And you know what? Cool. It is useful to have a word that means that, especially one that (let's be frank) is fairly satisfying to say. It's so plosive and consonant-y!
The problem is, "fucker" means something differently if you look at it literally. It means "one who fucks", or has sex. And I don't know about you, but the implicit equation of sexual activity with moral decay that is going on when you combine those two meanings is something that really makes me uncomfortable. It's kind of...regressive and shaming. It's more like something you'd see coming out of the Catholic church than out of the kind of person who is likely to call someone a fucker. (NOTE: There are probably Catholics who call people fuckers. But I have a hard time imagining, like, a Papal bull to that effect. YET THE SUBTEXT IS THE SAME, FOLKS).
Now, I could see an argument being made for a feminist use of "fucker" as an insult! In my head, it goes a little like this: Being a fucker could be interpreted as being one who performs the act of fucking upon someone else, rather than it being a collaborative effort. That is to say, there would be a fucker and a fuckee, rather than just two (or more! I am not judging/proscribing relationships here!) people fucking. This suggests sexual coercion, which is generally a pretty unlikeable trait. So it could be an effective feminist insult! HOWEVER. I have two problems with this approach:
1) My justification there is pretty flimsy. I think it's a tenuous argument.
2) More seriously, it is a problem of interpretation. It doesn't matter if your intent is to reclaim the word in that feminist context, unless you are using it around people who think the same way you do. Otherwise, those in earshot will just interpret the insult as being used the way it more usually is--to indemnify those who have sex (and no, I am not saying this is a conscious association. But the association is there, because both meanings of 'fuck' are pretty familiar to anyone you would care to ask). What's more, if they are aware the person using the insult holds feminist values, they can interpret its use by that person as an affirmation of the same fucked-up (ahem) values conveyed by the insult in popular discourse. Syllogismism phrases the problem here well [though she's talking about another word, 'douchebag']. What she says is:
"All of us here [Dorian says: 'Here' being on a feminist blog] know what a douchebag represents. Yes, it’s a tool of the patriarchy in every sense of the word. But getting comfortable with the douche insult and its derivatives in the feminist sphere inevitably results in comfort with it in the non-feminist world, and people generally aren’t privy to the whole feminist take on the term. Calling an Australian politician a douchebag in the comments of IBTP [Dorian says: I Blame The Patriarchy is also a feminist blog, a radical one] is one thing, but out-feminists calling people douchebags in the company of folks who haven’t come around yet isn’t exactly going to do anything to bring the world closer to treating women as the human beings that we are.
I would bet that it makes those folks think that, holy crap, even feminists don’t have a problem with insulting someone by connecting them to a soiled vagina. Unless the feminist name-caller can fully stop and explain the douchebag-tool connection and why other feminists have embraced it - which is, let’s face it, not typically an appropriate turn to a conversation - then she has only further contributed, perhaps even more significantly, to the mysgony [sic] that we battle against."
And now that this post has gone on way too long already, I'm basically done. THOUGHTS?