(no subject)
Jul. 13th, 2006 11:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenRead. This.
It's an interesting and devastating and funny article all at the same time. "The Taming of the Slur." The slur in particular here is "slut." There are good points to the reclaiming of the word, and there are the expected bad points. Can we reclaim such a word? Among less serious recent comebacks, we've taken back the word "geek," taking pride even when it's hurled at us unflatteringly. "Queer" is another--it got to be an ugly word then came around again to one of pride, one of common address. As you would say "I am a geek," you can now saw "I am queer."
But what about "slut"? Queer made a comeback, sure, but I doubt something as hateful as "faggot" will ever be bandied about as cheerfully. And make not mistake but that "slut" is a hateful term. "Slut" is making inroads--like the article says, we call ourselves sluts when we mean we overindulge, obsess, or crave (I, most definitely, am a Diet Pepsi slut).
That's changing usage, however. What about actually calling someone a slut and meaning it's more traditional defintion--that of an unforgiveably (because such behavior in women is unforgiveable, clearly) promiscuous woman? Teenagers doing that one to the other in play or as a new way of saying "You're cool" while actually disliking anyone who ventures into the behaviors we commonly associate with a slut? The double standard is that it's cool to have people think you're a slut, but if they know it, you are a slut and therefore less than human, disgusting, dirty. Instead of "You're so queer," you are, in essence, "a fucking fag."
That's the difference. Pardon the offensive language, but that's it. In one word, you're trying to praise a girl (it's rarely directed at boys) for her sexiness and then condemning her if she has expressed any enjoyment in sex. When there's only one word to define both, where do you figure out the boundary? While the word "slut" is a two-edged sword, how can you use it to slap and not cut at the same time?
The lack of such words thrown at boys is especially glaring in this search for a positive or negative definition of "slut." It reminds me, of all things, of an Ally McBeal episode, where a male colleague called Ally a bitch, and the only thing she could throw back at him was "You....man." As we have no handy shorthand for a domineering man (like we do for a domineering woman in "bitch"), what equivalent do we have for an unacceptably promiscuous man? "Player" doesn't quite cut it. A "player" is a man on the prowl for sex, he isn't the type you'd want to marry, just like one man in the article says about a slut, except that you wouldn't really want to date a player either, whereas apparently men do want to date sluts. It scratches the itch, she won't be needy (a Very. Bad. Thing. and a compromise of masculinity, apparently, having to deal with your partner's emotions), then you can trash her for the lady in white, the feminine ideal: a woman who hasn't had as much sex as you have so she won't know if you're bad at it or not. That's harsh, but that's the worst this comes down to, and the worst a word comes down to is the stigma still attached to it. A slut is still a woman men want to use, women are self-trained to denigrate because they are still trained to make for a goal of getting a man, and, ultimately, a pariah in this sexually moribund society.
That's a long way of saying I think we're a long way from reclaming this particular slur, and I find it incredibly disturbing that we should encourage anyone to try. Or that we celebrate people who embody the definition (Paris Hilton, I'm looking in your direction).
It's an interesting and devastating and funny article all at the same time. "The Taming of the Slur." The slur in particular here is "slut." There are good points to the reclaiming of the word, and there are the expected bad points. Can we reclaim such a word? Among less serious recent comebacks, we've taken back the word "geek," taking pride even when it's hurled at us unflatteringly. "Queer" is another--it got to be an ugly word then came around again to one of pride, one of common address. As you would say "I am a geek," you can now saw "I am queer."
But what about "slut"? Queer made a comeback, sure, but I doubt something as hateful as "faggot" will ever be bandied about as cheerfully. And make not mistake but that "slut" is a hateful term. "Slut" is making inroads--like the article says, we call ourselves sluts when we mean we overindulge, obsess, or crave (I, most definitely, am a Diet Pepsi slut).
That's changing usage, however. What about actually calling someone a slut and meaning it's more traditional defintion--that of an unforgiveably (because such behavior in women is unforgiveable, clearly) promiscuous woman? Teenagers doing that one to the other in play or as a new way of saying "You're cool" while actually disliking anyone who ventures into the behaviors we commonly associate with a slut? The double standard is that it's cool to have people think you're a slut, but if they know it, you are a slut and therefore less than human, disgusting, dirty. Instead of "You're so queer," you are, in essence, "a fucking fag."
That's the difference. Pardon the offensive language, but that's it. In one word, you're trying to praise a girl (it's rarely directed at boys) for her sexiness and then condemning her if she has expressed any enjoyment in sex. When there's only one word to define both, where do you figure out the boundary? While the word "slut" is a two-edged sword, how can you use it to slap and not cut at the same time?
The lack of such words thrown at boys is especially glaring in this search for a positive or negative definition of "slut." It reminds me, of all things, of an Ally McBeal episode, where a male colleague called Ally a bitch, and the only thing she could throw back at him was "You....man." As we have no handy shorthand for a domineering man (like we do for a domineering woman in "bitch"), what equivalent do we have for an unacceptably promiscuous man? "Player" doesn't quite cut it. A "player" is a man on the prowl for sex, he isn't the type you'd want to marry, just like one man in the article says about a slut, except that you wouldn't really want to date a player either, whereas apparently men do want to date sluts. It scratches the itch, she won't be needy (a Very. Bad. Thing. and a compromise of masculinity, apparently, having to deal with your partner's emotions), then you can trash her for the lady in white, the feminine ideal: a woman who hasn't had as much sex as you have so she won't know if you're bad at it or not. That's harsh, but that's the worst this comes down to, and the worst a word comes down to is the stigma still attached to it. A slut is still a woman men want to use, women are self-trained to denigrate because they are still trained to make for a goal of getting a man, and, ultimately, a pariah in this sexually moribund society.
That's a long way of saying I think we're a long way from reclaming this particular slur, and I find it incredibly disturbing that we should encourage anyone to try. Or that we celebrate people who embody the definition (Paris Hilton, I'm looking in your direction).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-13 03:57 pm (UTC)It's like nymphomaniac. That, too, referred specifically to women only who were obsessed with sex to an unhealthy degree. If it's changed since, I've not heard. The point is that you can add "male" or "man-" to any number of words to make them apply to men, but that no one slang term was originated to denigrate a man for extreme sexual appetite. Because it was never deemed that such a thing was unusual (in our Judeo-Christian Western society, man was forgiven for having multiple wives, concubines, seeing prostitutes, etc because his appetite wasn't deemed extraordinary).
no subject
Date: 2006-07-13 04:16 pm (UTC)True, but in the case of "man-ho" you have elements in pop culture currently in place that increase both recognition and acceptance of the meaning of the term. In addition the term "man-ho" has underpinnings of a particular connotation by which you challenge the individuals so called "manhood" in much the same way that the term "slut" challenges a women's "lady-like" reputation.
Funny how you bring up nymphomania since that has started to give way to the term "Sexual Addiction" given its presence in males as well as females. On some levels the male form of sexual addiction is cast in a far more negative light since his "perversion" puts him in the same category as rapists and child molesters even when he has done no harm (in thought or in body) to another human being. Despite any negative social implications of being labeled a nymphomaniac, the person so labeled still has a place in society. The male equivalent however is often labeled and treated as a pre-criminal who will at some point need to be put behind bars.