Some Words on Words

[tpdncr4christ]

This is a spin off of the "Breeders" (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=51208#post51208) thread. I've been following that thread and it got me thinking about names that we use for people. What makes certain words acceptable and others not? How is it ok that some people can use these words, but others can't?

I just don't understand how someone can be so offended by a word. Now, I don't condone the use of any derogatory words, I won't say them, but my question is what makes those words so powerful? Isn't a more effective deterrent to using a negative word a positive out look on it?

Let's say my friend, Susy Squirrelly (a brown squirrel), and I are hanging out. I make a joke about her busy tail and its ok, but some guy walking down the street makes the same joke about her busy tail and she gets offended. What gives the words that we say so much meaning?

Is it the stereotyping? Like the term "breeders," seems to stereotype all straight couples into a purpose, but it is just a word. It seems to me that the word gives us an opportunity to be insulted, it doesn't insult us directly. You have the choice to take offense when someone uses a derogatory term, and you have the choice to laugh at it. Why do we, as a society, chose to let ourselves get so hurt by these words? What makes it so difficult to just laugh off the ignorance and the stupidity? Does anyone really know? Any thoughts?

[Zerbie]

Is it the stereotyping? Like the term "breeders," seems to stereotype all straight couples into a purpose, but it is just a word. It seems to me that the word gives us an opportunity to be insulted, it doesn't insult us directly. You have the choice to take offense when someone uses a derogatory term, and you have the choice to laugh at it. Why do we, as a society, chose to let ourselves get so hurt by these words? What makes it so difficult to just laugh off the ignorance and the stupidity? Does anyone really know? Any thoughts?

Important discussion to have, which I'm jumping into afore-thought (as usual) while all tired on a Friday afternoon. At a fresher moment, I might have more to offer than this bit that follows.

In my case with the breeder term so recently discussed, the term itself left only a vague sense of not-all-at-ease. Imagined context does the rest. The word does not offend me. It bothers me some, because its genesis seems to come from a place of less-than-love. But offend? No.

So why did I object to what Antony described? Let's imagine I'm at that meeting and someone says that in my presence. By 'breeders,' I deduce that opposite-sex couples are meant. I'm part of such a couple. Dismay is expressed that opposite sex couples are now living in the neighborhood. I add the equation and compute that I am not wanted by at least one member of this group. If I'm at a community meeting with the person stating this, I must have attended because I see myself as belonging in that community, and wanting to be more involved and a greater part of it. The remark tells me I'm not wanted there, that my friendship, my love, my me-ness, is not wanted. None of us wants to hear that message from any group we love and identify with.

[Daniel]

It's not simply the words one uses, but how one uses them, that is, tone of voice and body language.

As I mentioned in a post on the thread referred too, the nastiest things can be said between two people when there is an agreement- conscious or not- between the parties.

One can say the word 'breeders' with the facial expression of distain, which is entirely different than - say- a conversation among gay men at a party who all know each other and are joking around and actually mean no offense and are resorting to camp. The point here is that the parties in question speak a common language.

I think that this matter is not unlike how one should view scripture.

Context is everything.

[antonyh]

So why did I object to what Antony described? Let's imagine I'm at that meeting and someone says that in my presence...

You mean Revtj, not Antony...I think?

[Zerbie]

You mean Revtj, not Antony...I think?

:love:
Ah, no. I refer to what you describe at the retreat when someone expressed disappointment at the straight people moving in to his neighborhood.

[Alecto]

As I've said in the other discussion: I'll get offended by some words, yeah, but there's really only one that I'll insist on no one ever calling me ever. And the reason for that, I think, is the association is has with a pure hatred and a history of physical violence. The word is associated with a very real fear, and always will be. Put simply, I'm not ok with someone making me feel like that.

[Jennifer5]

I just don't understand how someone can be so offended by a word. Now, I don't condone the use of any derogatory words, I won't say them, but my question is what makes those words so powerful? Isn't a more effective deterrent to using a negative word a positive out look on it?

.....It seems to me that the word gives us an opportunity to be insulted, it doesn't insult us directly. You have the choice to take offense when someone uses a derogatory term, and you have the choice to laugh at it. Why do we, as a society, chose to let ourselves get so hurt by these words? What makes it so difficult to just laugh off the ignorance and the stupidity? Does anyone really know? Any thoughts?

I agree with you, it doesn't make sense.

I think that partially it's just a generational thing in the sense that we haven't have to deal with the pain related with some certain kinds of language, while our parents or grandparents did. The same way that something like women's rights seems like nothing to us, some older women are still incredibly sensitive about the topic.

I think that our age group has much more commonly used 'inappropriate language' in play, so it's just easier for us to not take offense.

I also think that it really is simply about people getting too caught up in things and not knowing how to distance themselves from negative and unhealthy things, because really, in any situation, you have the choice to take someone’s words with a grain of salt or to take them to heart.

[BenL]

It's important to remember that words contain power. They are the symbolic representations of our experience. That makes them somehow a distillation of that experience, and, as such, powerful totems of it.

I think the term breeders is the gay community's way of turning scorn back on those who heap it on us. The core issue anti-gay people have with us is our sexuality. It's the fact that we are attracted to the same sex ... and act on that physical attraction. The argument against gay sex is that sex is principally for procreation. The fact that we enjoy it is secondary. Can we say denial?

So when some clever gay wag wanted to turn the tables, he chose a word that epitomizes the baby-making function of sex. Where "breeders" is demeaning is that it comes principally from the world of animal husbandry.

We have had words heaped upon us over the centuries. Some of us are trying to reclaim the words in an effort to divest them of their negative power. The word "queer" comes to mind. Many people find it a convenient shorthand for the alphabet soup of the LGBTIIQ variety. Others are still shocked and hurt by queer as a self-descriptor. The national group of motorcycle-riding lesbians, Dykes on Bikes, have coopted dyke with all its power and thrown it back at their detractors.

The power a word has comes from the way it has been used for or against people. Faggot was once a stick or piece of wood. A fag was a cigarette in the beat era. F**k was a legal acronymn "for unlawful carnal knowledge" ... or is that just urban legend?

Daniel's right: tone of voice and body language can invest any word, even the most positive, with negative conotations.

[Daniel]

I think that partially it's just a generational thing in the sense that we haven't have to deal with the pain related with some certain kinds of language, while our parents or grandparents did. The same way that something like women's rights seems like nothing to us, some older women are still incredibly sensitive about the topic. .

This should probably have it's own thread, but despite the fact that a woman is running for President, women, as a class, still do not have 'equal rights'. To put it simply, there is still a glass ceiling for women in our country: only a minority of Congress is of the female gender and ERA failed to pass in 1982.

My dear Jen- you write as though ERA was a reality. Sadly, it is not. Those older women you refer to: they have every right to be upset. Congress let them down big time. A woman's earning power is still a great deal less than a mans.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is the name of a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution intended to guarantee equal rights under the law for Americans regardless of gender. Amendments can only be a part of the Constitution when approved according to the process in Article V of the Constitution. The final deadline for approving the ERA passed in either 1979 or 1982—depending upon one's view of a controversial extension of the ratification time constraint. In the intervening years, public discussion on the ERA has been greatly reduced, though the proposal has been reintroduced in every Congress since 1982.

Why is this so? I believe that one answer may be the conservative turn our country has taken since the late 1960's. Yes- young women today have it much better than their mothers and grandmothers, but as a matter of law? That's something else entirely.

[Zerbie]

This should probably have it's own thread, but despite the fact that a woman is running for President, women, as a class, still do not have 'equal rights'. To put it simply, there is still a glass ceiling for women in our country: only a minority of Congress is of the female gender and ERA failed to pass in 1982.

My dear Jen- you write as though ERA was a reality. Sadly, it is not. Those older women you refer to: they have every right to be upset. Congress let them down big time. A woman's earning power is still a great deal less than a mans.



Why is this so? I believe that one answer may be the conservative turn our country has taken since the late 1960's. Yes- young women today have it much better than their mothers and grandmothers, but as a matter of law? That's something else entirely.


Thank you, Daniel, for making this very important point. I believe the earning statistic is that women earn approx. 70 cents to each dollar earned by a man for the same work.

DH has on various occasions told me he heard poll reports citing that many Americans do not believe a female should be US President, and despite the insidious racism in our culture, women take a back seat to men of color in political contests, generally. I was told that the main reason George W. Bush defeated - what was her name, Ann Richards?? - the incumbent female governor of Texas for that title was that Texans felt no woman should be doing a man's job.

There is a lot of gender stereotyping in this society, and that's not necessarily a good thing. I was once told by a man in a position of authority that he viewed me negatively for behaving in a professional manner AT WORK. He wanted me to be "feminine, fragile, and needy."

Oh - that was NOT very long ago.

[Daniel]

DH has on various occasions told me he heard poll reports citing that many Americans do not believe a female should be US President, and despite the insidious racism in our culture, women take a back seat to men of color in political contests, generally. I was told that the main reason George W. Bush defeated - what was her name, Ann Richards?? - the incumbent female governor of Texas for that title was that Texans felt no woman should be doing a man's job.

What the Bush/Rove camp did was make the suggestion that Ann Richards was -gasp- a lesbian.

I remember this clearly.

[Zerbie]

What the Bush/Rove camp did was make the suggestion that Ann Richards was -gasp- a lesbian.

I remember this clearly.

Yes, they did. I believe it was in some of the man-or-woman on the streets interviews that Texas voters expressed the opinion that being governor was a job for a male, not a female. Though I know the insinuation of lesbianism worked in TX too.

DH said that before I moved here, they tried it in AZ too, wanting to unseat Janet Napolitano. It backfired here.

[Vanessa White]

I have spoken about this issue several times on here. I agree with much of what has been said. It is true, that words are just that: words. However, words, in addition to our tone and body language, send our messages to others. Depending on the situation, or the context and intent of the message, it can either be funny, self-deprecating, or down right insulting and vulgar. So, even though I don't have to melt into a puddle of emotion if someone were to call me a dyke, for example, depending on what the intent or presentation of the word was, in addition to how well I know the person, it could either hit me as hurtful, plain old truth, or downright amusing.

I also think the impact that the words have on us have to do with how confident we are as people. On days when I am not at my best, or particularly down on myself, even the most innocuous words, from those I trust, can sound devastating if I believe them to be true in some derogatory way. If anything, I find that the older and more self-assured that I become, the less hurt I am by words, however, the more angry I get at the use of them.

Like, "gay lifestyle", for instance. The subject of another thread here.....

Great topic, Austin. :love: