venta | Parental Advisory

Does anyone know anything about The Vagina Monologues ?

I'd been told, by people who I'd regard as reliable, that they were extremely funny. Last night, I accidentally found a performance on the telly. The 2 minutes I watched seemed to consist entirely of a woman explaining how she'd "reclaimed" the word cunt, and then repeatedly saying it in different silly voices.

Which the audience seemed to find hilarious. Which I found incomprehensible. It's not like I found it offensive, it just... wasn't funny.

[One Notional Kudos Point to anyone who realises why I suddenly remembered about this :) ]

Current Music: Anti-Nowhere League - So What?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

condign.livejournal.com

I know what it means to 'reclaim' a word, that was a rhetorical question, trying to highlight the silliness of the idea. Believe it or not, I've heard 'cunt' used as a perjorative by people who you would not describe as 'hate-filled bigots,' purely because they wanted a derogatory word. But I do protest that 'cunt' long ago lost most of its literal meaning, being very rarely used outside of a very limited set of situations to actually refer to genitalia, and rather holds most of its meaning in an emotive context. At which point I have to think, 'who cares, and who wants the word back?'

'Why not call a spade a spade?'
If that's what's desired, I'd rather have thought that The Vagina Monologues had managed to do so already by virtue of its title, no philological reclamation work required. :)

You are right that we are unlikely to see eye-to-eye on this, but in general I disapprove of much that is 'neo', most of what's 'feminist', and find silly anything calling itself 'empowerment' in that it rarely involves the exercise of anything that's charitably understood as power. I'd be just as mocking if some group of white American southerners were to sit down one day and decide to 'reclaim' the term 'cracker.'

From:

venta.livejournal.com

But I do protest that 'cunt' long ago lost most of its literal meaning, being very rarely used outside of a very limited set of situations to actually refer to genitalia, and rather holds most of its meaning in an emotive context.

Which is precisely why people think it wants reclaiming :)

I wonder, if it did become sanitised and literal again, whether some other word would take its place. I wonder if a language needs some word which translates as "the most insulting thing you can call someone" (in general terms, of course, there may be things you personally would rather not be called :)

From:

condign.livejournal.com

Which is precisely why people think it wants reclaiming :)

But as pointed out, 'vagina' already fills the role, and is hardly necessary.

And I'd say that languages do need words that allow one to express serious (and taboo) disapproval of someone. Which is why, though I think it's silly, I sometimes feel the need to argue this point.

There's a concept that a word like 'cunt,' because it relates to female genitalia, is both degrading to the person so named and to women in general. And yet, at least in the modern era, it's lost most of that sense: Americans who have never heard the term (or 'twat', a term used more often in the US) will know that it's offensive, if by nothing more than the reaction and the context in which it's used--they won't relate to it as having anything to do with genitalia. It's the fact that it's forbidden that give it its strength--you object to something so much that you're willing to cross the line of a social taboo.

Given that, I think the language is richer to leave the word and its taboo, and merely take the meaning away from it, which is what is gradually happening anyway. The reason to 'reclaim' it is to tie to it the idea that the word is degrading to women specifically, hence my comment about 'neo-feminist celebratory empowerment.' Such reclamation movements never happen outside of a feminist, and usually highly politically feminist, environment--the rest of the world is not screaming for a word to fill a void of meaning with a emotively-neutral alternative for 'cunt.'

[In an odd twist of fate, the woman behind me in the internet cafe I'm in just turned towards a friend of her that was looking over her shoulder and told him, 'You're such a cunt.' Now, if the point of the exercise is to remove the word from the arsenal of hate-filled bigots, is this woman a hate-filled bigot, or are we merely unilaterally disarming everyone out of deference to them? In which case, is it not the emotion behind the word, rather than the meaning, that we object to anyway?]

From:

venta.livejournal.com

It's the fact that it's forbidden that give it its strength--you object to something so much that you're willing to cross the line of a social taboo.

In theory I'm with you on that one, however in practice I think most people either use "taboo" words all the time, without a thought, or not at all...

From:

condign.livejournal.com

Depends on the strength of the taboo: over here there's still a stronger taboo on 'cunt' than in a lot of places. Reminds me of one time I was having dinner with my high school girlfriend's family. They were from South Africa, having left the country in disapproval of apartheid. (You can imagine those dinnertime conversations, they being politically active and I being even more right-wing than I am now.)

I burnt my hand while cooking for them, and let out a startled, 'Oh BUGGER.' I'd only heard the word twice, in a movie, and had no idea the concept to which the word was related. (Indeed, I think I'd concluded it had something to do with insects.) They both looked at me like I'd done something horrible to the food.

On the other hand, in the US 'cunt' wouldn't have half so derogatory value (or indeed, reclamtory value) as 'pussy,' which is used in similar situations. Call a Chicago gang-banger a 'cunt' and he might look at you quizzically (though thanks to the internet and MTV, perhaps not), but call him a pussy and you'll get a reaction.

From:

floralaetifica.livejournal.com

Call a Chicago gang-banger a 'cunt' and he might look at you quizzically (though thanks to the internet and MTV, perhaps not), but call him a pussy and you'll get a reaction.
But that's because in recent years 'pussy' has come to have overtones of homosexuality, which Chicago gang-bangers want to avoid at all costs. It's not because pussy is generally a more offensive word. Interestingly I would say that it demonstrates contempt for women on two levels - the obvious one to do with the secondary meaning of the word, and a less obvious one because to call someone a 'pussy' (in Chicago) is to imply that they are a bit feminine, that they fill a stereotypically feminine role, and if the worst thing that one man can think of to say to another is that he is like a woman then I'd say that's about as sexist as you can get!

From:

condign.livejournal.com

(in general terms, of course, there may be things you personally would rather not be called :)

Yes. 'Democrat', for one. :)

From:

floralaetifica.livejournal.com

I know what it means to 'reclaim' a word, that was a rhetorical question, trying to highlight the silliness of the idea.
Yes, I know. I was trying to point out that it wasn't as silly an idea as you seem to think.

Believe it or not, I've heard 'cunt' used as a perjorative by people who you would not describe as 'hate-filled bigots,' purely because they wanted a derogatory word.
Me too. Some of my best friends, in fact. But that makes me feel the need to reclaim it is more important, not less. That word should not be derogatory, and the fact that it is still seen that way continues and encourages prejudices which we should be past by now.

But I do protest that 'cunt' long ago lost most of its literal meaning, being very rarely used outside of a very limited set of situations to actually refer to genitalia, and rather holds most of its meaning in an emotive context. At which point I have to think, 'who cares, and who wants the word back?'
I do! Am I right in thinking that you're male? Perhaps if you had nothing to call your groin that wasn't offensive, you'd feel the same way! Or if 'cock' (or indeed any other word) was generally used to describe men and so heavily laden with contempt, perhaps you'd want to want to do something about it.

'If that's what's desired, I'd rather have thought that The Vagina Monologues had managed to do so already by virtue of its title, no philological reclamation work required. :)'
Vagina, I would say, refers to the internal parts. There is no usable word that includes the external parts except cunt. Besides, I don't want a latin word, with all its scientific overtones. I want an English word, for plain speaking.

You are right that we are unlikely to see eye-to-eye on this, but in general I disapprove of much that is 'neo', most of what's 'feminist', and find silly anything calling itself 'empowerment' in that it rarely involves the exercise of anything that's charitably understood as power.
OK, leaving aside your feelings about feminism, for the sake of keeping this relatively short, you must have ideas about power that are very different from my own. To stick to the subject at hand (though I feel just as strongly about several parallels) I would say that anything that makes a woman feel that her thoughts and feelings about her body are normal and nothing to be ashamed of is empowering, because it helps dispel ideas which have held her back and made her unhappy. A play which celebrates womanhood is empowering because it makes us feel powerful in the sense of not impotent, it reminds us of our value. I would like to see a male equivalent. In my opinion men are now more in need of that kind of empowerment than women.

I suppose I should probably draw a line under this soon before I start to get upset or angry. As far as I know, we've never met, and I have no desire to offend you. And venta might prefer us not to do this in her livejournal. But one last question:

I'd be just as mocking if some group of white American southerners were to sit down one day and decide to 'reclaim' the term 'cracker.'
'Cracker'?

From:

condign.livejournal.com

Me too. Some of my best friends, in fact. But that makes me feel the need to reclaim it is more important, not less. That word should not be derogatory, and the fact that it is still seen that way continues and encourages prejudices which we should be past by now.

I know. I was thinking of one of your best friends in particular. ;) But again, I would say that the word being used in a derogatory fashion encourages no prejudices whatsoever, except perhaps in the mind of those who wish to reclaim it, and only then because of what I would consider a gender-obsession. Think about your friends who use the term: do you think, when they say 'he's a cunt', there flashes in their mind an image of female genitalia? It certainly doesn't for me--the word no longer has that meaning when used in that way.

See, I've rather a fondness for strong women, and always have, which is why I react to this sort of 'we shall do this to empower ourselves' malarkey. Strong women truly have no need of this stuff anymore, and if the feminist/women's rights movement has so little to do that its idea of empowerment is cleaning up a dirty word, it can pack in the towels and go home--it's done.

Perhaps if you had nothing to call your groin that wasn't offensive, you'd feel the same way! Or if 'cock' (or indeed any other word) was generally used to describe men and so heavily laden with contempt, perhaps you'd want to want to do something about it.

'Cock' is not laden with contempt? And, incidentally, 'cunt' has been used to describe men more than women in my experience. At least I've heard it used that way more often (not always at me ;)). But again, it prompts me to do nothing about it at all. Like you, I think that men have some need to bring honour back to the idea of their sex (what you might call 'empowerment') but to do that by 'reclaiming a swear word' is... words fail.

Vagina, I would say, refers to the internal parts. There is no usable word that includes the external parts except cunt. Besides, I don't want a latin word, with all its scientific overtones. I want an English word, for plain speaking.

See, that's just it. "Cunt" is a word that holds much of its power because it's emotive. 'Reclaim' it and you've sterilised it. I can't say that I have common need for a neutral word for a women's genitals, and if I were so worried, there's always vulva. (I shall report your anti-latinate prejudices to

verlaine.) Take away its purpose, and the word loses its power.

I would say that anything that makes a woman feel that her thoughts and feelings about her body are normal and nothing to be ashamed of is empowering, because it helps dispel ideas which have held her back and made her unhappy. A play which celebrates womanhood is empowering because it makes us feel powerful in the sense of not impotent, it reminds us of our value.

Yes, your idea of power and mine are obviously wholly different. If the word 'cunt' and its emotional load are ideas that hold back a woman and make them unhappy.... no, we've just hit one of those things I don't understand. A man using that word abusively is a nuisance because he's abusive--not because of the word. I don't get concerned if someone uses 'prick' as a derogatory term--or at least it doesn't cause me to feel 'unempowered'.

'Cracker'?
A term to refer to a white person, generally from the South, implying stupidity, generally poverty, and often inbreeding. "The Cracker Monologues", or a man standing on stage saying, proudly, 'Yep, I'm a cracker,' would be equally baffling to me. Equally, I don't think the world's been made a better place because rap artists have 'reclaimed' the word nigger.

From:

floralaetifica.livejournal.com

Think about your friends who use the term: do you think, when they say 'he's a cunt', there flashes in their mind an image of female genitalia? It certainly doesn't for me--the word no longer has that meaning when used in that way.
No, I don't think that image pops into their head. But I do think their use of that word in that way affects their attitude towards women, and in some cases is an indicator of a hidden sexism that they're not even aware of.

Strong women truly have no need of this stuff anymore
Perhaps that's true, but not every woman is 'strong'. I myself went through quite a revelation at about the age of 19 when I suddenly realised that I had buried negative feelings about female sexuality. In my case it was 'My secret garden' that helped me work through that and reclaim my own sex life, and I'd be a very different person today were it not for that book. But for some women perhaps it's saying 'cunt' in silly voices. And if that helps even one woman, who are you to say it's silly, or meaningless? That kind of thing really does change lives.

'Cock' is not laden with contempt? And, incidentally, 'cunt' has been used to describe men more than women in my experience.
You're missing the point, but venta has more than covered this issue, so I won't bother to repeat it!

I can't say that I have common need for a neutral word for a women's genitals, and if I were so worried, there's always vulva. (I shall report your anti-latinate prejudices to verlaine.)
Vulva, again, is latin, and therefore feels technical and medical. And refers only to a part, not to the whole. And verlaine well knows that I adore latin and everything about it! That's not the issue.

Yes, your idea of power and mine are obviously wholly different. If the word 'cunt' and its emotional load are ideas that hold back a woman and make them unhappy.... no, we've just hit one of those things I don't understand.
I can't understand how you can't understand. These feelings do hold people back. That's life. Perhaps you're blessed (though some might say cursed) with excessive, unconsidered self-confidence and acceptance, but that's true of very few people. If you don't understand that a feeling that your own body is shameful can ruin your life, I would say that's a failing in you, and you could do with a lot more understanding and compassion for other people's problems.

A man using that word abusively is a nuisance because he's abusive--not because of the word. I don't get concerned if someone uses 'prick' as a derogatory term--or at least it doesn't cause me to feel 'unempowered'.
Again, missing the point. Prick does not carry the same weight as cunt. It's not even a question of degree: it's qualitatively different.

Equally, I don't think the world's been made a better place because rap artists have 'reclaimed' the word nigger.
Well, they haven't done a very good job of it. But that's another story.

From:

onebyone.livejournal.com

But I do think their use of that word in that way affects their attitude towards women

I think that's a controversial statement - language affects thought to some extent, and there are any number of psychologists who've studied the easiest example, colour, and come up with conclusions which vary from "yes, it matters" to "no detectable effect". I've not studied this deeply, but I've somehow got the impression that the consensus leans towards "little or no difference".

and in some cases is an indicator of a hidden sexism that they're not even aware of.

There's a problem with things that are "sometimes an indicator", though, that in the majority of cases, where it *isn't* an indicator, political correctness dictates that in order to avoid suspicion you must avoid the behaviour anyway. This is often unhelpful. If someone is sexist, then either you can detect it through more direct indicators, or else you can't detect it and therefore it is such slight sexism as to not matter.

Vulva, again, is latin, and therefore feels technical and medical.

I'd be interested to know how many people think it's technical and medical because it's Latin, and how many people think that it's technical because it's not commonly used other than by anatomists - your aesthetic sense here might not be all that relevant to the population as a whole ;-)

Equally, I don't think the world's been made a better place because rap artists have 'reclaimed' the word nigger.
Well, they haven't done a very good job of it. But that's another story

They (well, not just rap artists, those in general who care about the issue) have achieved something. Specifically, they've established that they are not afraid of the word, and they do not consider it intrinsically an insult, but that they are not prepared for other people to pin it on them as a label, because they are aware that the only white people who wish to use it are those who wish to make it perjorative.

In particular, this means that those people no longer have a dismissive or perjorative term in their arsenal which is not a deadly social gaffe that will turn the majority of all races immediately against them. Despite my misgivings about political correctness, that isn't an unhealthy situation.

The downside, I suppose, is that those who are still uncomfortable with the term have no choice but to be subjected to it by the rappers.

From:

floralaetifica.livejournal.com

There's a problem with things that are "sometimes an indicator", though, that in the majority of cases, where it *isn't* an indicator, political correctness dictates that in order to avoid suspicion you must avoid the behaviour anyway. This is often unhelpful. If someone is sexist, then either you can detect it through more direct indicators, or else you can't detect it and therefore it is such slight sexism as to not matter.
Possibly. But in the case of my friends, there are several of those I know well who I would say are sexist, even though they don't believe themselves to be.

I'd be interested to know how many people think it's technical and medical because it's Latin, and how many people think that it's technical because it's not commonly used other than by anatomists - your aesthetic sense here might not be all that relevant to the population as a whole ;-)
I don't think it's really the point whether it feels technical because it's latin - the point is that it does!

In particular, this means that those people no longer have a dismissive or perjorative term in their arsenal which is not a deadly social gaffe that will turn the majority of all races immediately against them.
A good point. But would it not be better if we didn't have the divisive situation where black people can use a word without offense but nobody else can? I suppose it's a slightly different situation from 'cunt' because 'nigger' was coined as a derogatory term, wheras 'cunt' used to be a perfectly ordinary functional word.

From:

onebyone.livejournal.com

there are several of those I know well who I would say are sexist,

Would say, or have said? I think that most people (both male and female) are prejudiced by sex to some extent. If someone is unknowingly more prejudiced than they would feel comfortable with if they realised about it, it might be helpful to tell them. But if they'd refuse to listen to you, of course it isn't.

I don't think it's really the point whether it feels technical because it's latin - the point is that it does!

Ah, well, it does matter. We're talking about reclaiming a word, i.e. changing the way that it feels. So if the reason for the way the word feels is just that only your gynaecologist ever uses it, that can be altered by saying it repeatedly on stage in various silly voices (or whatever). If the word intrinsically is, and always will be, technical-sounding because it is Latin, that can't ever happen.

But would it not be better if we didn't have the divisive situation where black people can use a word without offense but nobody else can?

Yes it would be better, and some time down the line that might be the case (or, more likely, that the word will barely be used at all because race won't be a primary determinant of identity, the same way I don't greet you in the street with a cry of "yo, my brunette").

However, for as long as racism is common I think it's unlikely that whites will be able to use "nigger" carelessly without it being offensive. With people you know and know won't be offended, yes, but not in an unknown situation. That being the case, the current stuation is better than some of the alternatives.

because 'nigger' was coined as a derogatory term,

Was it coined as derogatory? For some reason I imagined that it was originally merely dismissive, in the same way that the terms "boy" and "uncle" are dismissive.

From:

lathany.livejournal.com

"there are several of those I know well who I would say are sexist,

Would say, or have said? I think that most people (both male and female) are prejudiced by sex to some extent. If someone is unknowingly more prejudiced than they would feel comfortable with if they realised about it, it might be helpful to tell them. But if they'd refuse to listen to you, of course it isn't."

How do you tell someone that they are too sexist ? Usually the comment is met with denial, and then a request for proof. The last is often hard to give and I have always found that it involves quoting the person - which upsets them more when they claim "out of context".

The trouble is, being sexist is a much greater crime than pretty much most other faults (compare it to "messy", "lazy", etc.). Consequently I always find it difficult to raise without totally upsetting the person in question.

Re: Next time I shall have to be more clear...

From:

onebyone.livejournal.com - Date: 2003-03-07 03:36 am (UTC) - Expand

From:

condign.livejournal.com

I can't understand how you can't understand. These feelings do hold people back. That's life. Perhaps you're blessed (though some might say cursed) with excessive, unconsidered self-confidence and acceptance, but that's true of very few people. If you don't understand that a feeling that your own body is shameful can ruin your life, I would say that's a failing in you, and you could do with a lot more understanding and compassion for other people's problems.

I think there is a somewhat substantial gap between 'feeling that your own body is shameful' and how it can ruin one's life, and the need to redefine the emotional load of a relatively uncommon expletive. There is no cognitive dissonance involved in believing a) women should not feel ashamed of their bodies and b) a woman standing on stage muttering a swear word in strange voices is both offensive and silly.

Perhaps there is someone out there that might be helped by it--I can't prove otherwise. I doubt its up there on any top-ten list of things to improve, even if that list is filtered for gender issues. And reclaiming the word does lose something pretty valuable--all of its power. You mention that 'vulva' or 'vagina' don't cover the entire issue (and I'll admit to lack of knowledge of the anatomical borders of 'cunt'), and are 'clinical', but there are very few situations, particularly in polite society, where one needs a word to describe sex organs--take away its emotional load and cunt will become dry and clinical, it having nothing else it needs to carry.

(And, incidentally, it's amusing how often a the world sees a lack of compassion in the insistence that something be effective to be important.)

Again, missing the point. Prick does not carry the same weight as cunt. It's not even a question of degree: it's qualitatively different.

How so? I will admit here to what seems to be a lack of knowledge as to the precise usages of curse-words, though I'll also point out that I've always believed such words, and their power, came from not having precise definitions--that wonderful webpage about how 'fuck' can be used in every part of speech...

From:

floralaetifica.livejournal.com

Oh hang on... I do know you, don't I? Gloves off, then. :)

From:

condign.livejournal.com

I was confused by that. And that was gloves on? :)

From:

floralaetifica.livejournal.com

Relatively! I'm trying to stay calm, so as not to say things I may regret... I don't cope very well with debate, I tend to get upset and go too far.

From:

condign.livejournal.com

That's OK. After all these years, I've got skin thicker than an elephant's when it comes to debate. (About that attractive, too, but what the heck.)

From:

floralaetifica.livejournal.com

One more good reason to reclaim the word cunt. If cunt or pussy is the worst thing that most people can think of to call someone, then what message does that give confused kids? It tells them that cunts are bad and filthy and something to be ashamed of. Which, of course, is why we need projects like the Vagina Monologues in the first place. We shouldn't, but we do, because people still grow up thinking their bodies are bad, and in view of the way these words are used I'd say that's not surprising.

From:

condign.livejournal.com

It tells them that cunts are bad and filthy and something to be ashamed of.

That is rather my point: it doesn't. When used as an insult, the word has very little to do with any sexual organs, it's load being more emotive than descriptive. Relating the two in my mind is baffling, like saying that someone who calls someone a 'cracker' has just made reference to how undesirable a snack food is. People do have body issues, but I really can't tie the one into the other...

From:

floralaetifica.livejournal.com

Then I think you're failing to appreciate the normal workings of the human mind! Associations do matter. The mind works on associations. It's how we learn the meaning of words.

From:

condign.livejournal.com

In which case, the debate has boiled down to disagreement over three facts subject to empirical verification, which means we only need to test them:

a) Is 'cunt' a more emotively-loaded word than 'cock' or 'prick'? I would still maintain that it isn't, or that certainly it's something that varies by location. But I'm certain there's some way to verify this, and break down the results by location.

b) We can then move further to test whether this is the kind of thing that, in general, is holding women back. (True, it may hold back an individual woman, but that does not require the neutering of an entire word.) We simply find some proxy or proxies we like for discrimination (gender gap in pay rates, or whatever) and verify those by location, and see if there's any correlation.

I'm almost tempted to write for the grant application to the National Insitute for the Humanities. :) Of course, there's always (c) 'Do northern Americans have an extreme dislike of unleavened snack foods?' which needs investigating as well...

From:

cardinalsin.livejournal.com

You're right, this is something which we can entirely subject to scientific validation and is not at all about how individual people think and feel.

From:

condign.livejournal.com

Admittedly, my tongue was somewhat in its cheek, but I was pointing out that there have been several assertions on both sides as to what particular insults and curse words mean, and the strength that they have, both individually and relative to one another. There has to be some way to verify that, or they're just particularly raw assertions.

But tongue-in-cheek though it may have been, 'reclaiming a word' from being a swear word is a social act that requires social concensus, my dear Cardinal--in which case if we are to discuss whether it's appropriate, we're talking about the feelings of many people, not just individuals. I'd think that would make it a proper subject for socialogical examination?