History of Feminism
Related: About this forumI've deleted my other OP but wanted to explain why (language warning)
And why I generally think doing so is a bad idea.
The OP was deleted because I had received multiple requests to either edit it or delete it entirely. Instead of making anything anymore confusing, I decided it was best to wipe the slate clean and then clarify my actions.
From what I've seen so far there are two competing ideas regarding the discussion of epithets in HoF. The first is that we should use some word other than the literal word to imply the literal word in discussion. Thus we have the C-word or the N-word and so on. The second is that the epithets themselves only carry a vulgarity when used in a specific context. And when discussing them academically, which is what I would like to do in here, it is best not to veil them at all. I favor the latter. Here is why...
By veiling the word I feel as though I am maintaining the insincerity and visciousness of the original offensive usage. This ambiguity creates a void where the actual word should exist and this void allows for the maintenance and furtherance of the negative power of the epithet.
Epithets are a form of passive aggression. They feed off their enigmatic nature and the murkiness of their construction helps them resist intellectual examination and, thus, disarmament. In order to intellectually address the issue of words like cunt or bitch or, as I made another OP on, nigger, we have to resist the urge to avert our gaze or create proxies. Precisely because a proxy, by nature, isn't the word we are discussing.
You cannot deconstruct the many layers and histories and you cannot harness the visceral emotions of a word without referencing it directly.
That is my position. But what do you think?
House of Roberts
(5,829 posts)as long as you aren't addressing anyone with the intention to offend or 'push buttons'. (If I call Karl Rove a 'b-word', or 'c-word', using the full expression, should I be alerted against?)
BainsBane
(55,404 posts)When I see it. I interpret such uses of those words as insulting to all women. Jurors almost always hide c... but not always b.....
Warpy
(113,131 posts)and forced into little minority groups of like minded bigots.
However, the occasional use should stand. I'd rather wince once in a while rather than let censors and Bowdlerizers take over.
They've utterly wrecked more than one forum.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)However, I think in HoF (especially in HoF due to Trigger Words/Warnings) we should avoid using the word in The Subject Line.
The words don't bother me but, I don't use them here out of respect for other people's feelings.
TDale313
(7,822 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)And thanks much to GravityCollapse for the thoughtful post and explanation.
boston bean
(36,650 posts)Just because I host this group does not mean the my opinion means more than anyone elses.
If members in this group decide with a consensus (a majority) to avoid spelling out the word within the context of discussing the word itself, I am fine with that.
It's just that personally, I don't think it is helpful, and again, that is just my personal opinion.
Squinch
(53,798 posts)with Tuesday that it should not be in the subject line. I would also caution men about the use of that specific word.
Women only ever hear that word in the context of greater or lesser abuse.
In most circles it is not used lightly, as say, b*** is. There is no humor or ambiguity with c***. When we have heard it outside of these very rare academic conversations, it has been hurled, and it has been hurled with the express purpose of letting us know that we are nothing more than meat. It is meant to cut, to hurt, to say, "this is all you are and all you are good for."
This is not a word I have heard often aimed at me. I have never been called this by anyone who is in any way close to me. But the word brings up memories of horrible experiences with people who meant to dehumanize me.
ismnotwasm
(42,533 posts)I don't like hiding ugliness.
But I do it, because I also don't like to offend unnessisarily, (don't mind one bit when I feel it's nessisary)and since I'm not the most sensitive person in the world I try to be careful.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)It's just an alias, and there's implied equivalence to the full offensive word.
I'm not advocating offending people, but speaking only for myself, the edited version doesn't fool me for a millisecond. It has the exact same emotional and cognizant impact as the offensive word.
I guess I'm saying that there's no need to use even the sugar-coated version, except perhaps in the context of a discussion (such as this), because the meaning is still perfectly clear. So-and-so is a c*** is just as rude as spelling it out.
BainsBane
(55,404 posts)So that people who don't want to deal with it at that moment can have the option of not reading it.