[Ads-l] RES: RES: fines for saying "you guys" to mixed groups?

David Daniel dad at COARSECOURSES.COM
Mon Jun 15 21:20:35 UTC 2015


Heheh. "anal after anal" I just saw that, rereading. Pretty funny. I Wonder
if that's anal...
DAD



Enviada em: segunda-feira, 15 de junho de 2015 18:01
Para: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Assunto: RES: RES: fines for saying "you guys" to mixed groups?

Poster:       David Daniel <dad at COARSECOURSES.COM>
Subject:      RES: RES: fines for saying "you guys" to mixed groups?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

That's pretty thorough, and complex. I find it hard to believe that a woman=

would go through anal after anal of gender memories upon hearing one little=

word, involving the entire history of the gender and its relationship with
the universe, itself and, apparently, men thinking women are there solely t=
o
have sex and reproduce with. I'll give it some thought. (...) (...) Nope,
still seems irrational to me. But I shall try to comply and stick to the
modern, apparently acceptable, forms of address: Bitch and Ho. 
DAD

Enviada em: domingo, 14 de junho de 2015 22:20
Para: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Assunto: Re: RES: fines for saying "you guys" to mixed groups?

Poster:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: RES: fines for saying "you guys" to mixed groups?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
---

> On Jun 14, 2015, at 8:15 PM, David Daniel <dad at COARSECOURSES.COM> =3D
wrote:
>=3D20
> I've only ever heard men being called cunts in British English, in =3D
which it
> has (or at least used to have) approximately the same impact/severity =3D=

as
> asshole in US English.

Agreed, as noted in my previous message.

> Back in the 80's, when I was living in England, there
> was a joke: What's red and dangles from a cunt? Answer: Arthur =3D
Scargill's
> tie. You can see that asshole would have worked just as well (though =3D
perhaps
> there is greater potential for having things dangle from a cunt), but =3D=

the
> Brits didn't say asshole - or even arsehole - back then; they said =3D
cunt. I
> have only ever heard cunt used in US English - insultingly, that is - =3D=

in
> reference to women. Prick or dick for guys, cunt for women, twat for =3D
both,
> though, when used to insult a man, twat has always meant more like =3D
"stupid"
> or "useless" (perhaps a variation on twit?). BTAIM, going back as far =3D=

as the
> 70's, I have always been intrigued by the reaction of total outrage =3D
from
> women when calling them cunts. I have asked many women: Wait a minute. =
=3D
If I
> call a guy a prick I'm being mildly vulgar but if I call a woman a =3D
cunt I'm
> committing a beheadable offense? I never got any rational answers, =3D
which
> convinced me it was an irrational issue, as most things are.

Argument that it's not irrational (I'll leave "moist" to the experts):

"Cunt", as used to derogate (all) women, reduces women to a sexual =3D
object (which reduction often happens independently in the culture).  =3D
Here's HDAS, s.v. CUNT, 1c:

a woman or women considered solely as objects of copulation; *occ. a =3D
woman or women--usu. considered vulgar--usu. considered contemptuously*
[emphasis mine]

And here the OED, (2a):
A woman as a source of sexual gratification; a promiscuous woman; a =3D
slut. *Also as a general term of abuse for a woman.*=3D20

That is, for someone (typically although not always a male) using the =3D
word contemptuously, (all) women are cunts, and are essentially reduced =3D=

to their role as "source of sexual gratification" etc.  One of Jon's =3D
cites is a lexicon from 1916 that has it

'Female pudendum. The word is also generic for women'

This kind of metonymy (or is synecdoche?  I can never remember which is =3D=

which) doesn't apply to "prick", and significantly I think applies =3D
elsewhere in gender-marking: compare "skirt" =3D3D 'woman' as in =3D
skirt-chaser with no obvious male equivalent.  And of course applying =3D
"cunt" to men (OED 3), in the U.K. or elsewhere, takes the generalized =3D
insult one step further (and is of course analogous to sergeants or =3D
sports team coaches calling their male players girls or ladies). =3D20

Now for "prick":  since Random House in its wisdom--that pack of .... =3D
OK, sorry--didn't see fit to allow Jon to proceed to P, we'll content =3D
ourselves with the OED:

12c. coarse slang. A stupid, contemptible, or annoying person (esp. a =3D
man or boy). Also used as a general term of abuse. rare before 20th =3D
cent.

Neither "prick" nor any of its cross-linguistic analogues ("schmuck", =3D
"putz", etc.), I wager, really denote 'a man' or 'a male' per se, =3D
although they may be constrained to apply mostly to males. (But not =3D
always, which is why one's overbearing female boss might qualify as "a =3D
prick", although perhaps also as "a bitch"; see below.)  But "cunt" in =3D
its metonymic use really does denote 'woman' (the way any ethnic =3D
slur/epithet denotes an individual *as* a member of a class (racial =3D
group, religious group, nationality,...). =3D20

One can of course make the claim that all men are pricks but that =3D
generally means something like 'all men are overbearing, Let's take some =
=3D
of the OED cites under CUNT 2a (easier to cut and paste than the more =3D
plentiful HDAS cites, which would make the same point):

1918   in K. White First Sexual Revol. (1993) v. 88   Twenty cunts =3D
hanging around here.
1934   H. Roth Call it Sleep 414,   I sees a pretty cunt come walkin' up =
=3D
de street..wit' a mean shaft an' a sweet pair o' knockers.
1947   J. Jones Let. Nov. in To reach Eternity (1989) 113   Dan..was at =3D=

Condon's last night with two gorgeously decked out cunts.

In all these examples, "cunt(s)" seems to function as a simple =3D
(insulting) metonymy/synecdoche, very much in the manner of an ethnic =3D
slur.  My claim is that "prick" doesn't function that way, because a =3D
prick isn't just *any man (by definition)* but only a person with =3D
certain relevant (unpleasant) personality traits that are taken as =3D
especially prevalent among males--'a stupid, contemptible, or annoying =3D
person (esp. a man or boy)'.

So if we tried replacing "cunt(s)" with "prick(s)" in the OED cites =3D
above we'd get

1918   in K. White First Sexual Revol. (1993) v. 88   Twenty pricks =3D
hanging around here.
1934   H. Roth Call it Sleep 414,   I sees a handsome prick come walkin' =
=3D
up de street..wit' a mean shaft an' a sweet pair o' knockers.
1947   J. Jones Let. Nov. in To reach Eternity (1989) 113   Diana..was =3D
at Condon's last night with two splendid decked out pricks.

Doesn't quite work, does it?  (Although I find the shift in =3D
interpretation for those other nouns in the Henry Roth cite intriguing).

In fact, I would argue that "prick" is closer to "bitch" than to "cunt". =
=3D
 Granted, certain current uses of "bitch" (or at least uses I've only =3D
recently become familiar with) tend to efface the difference, as with =3D
certain current uses of "ho" as opposed to what I think of as the =3D
traditional force of "whore") but to me there's a real difference here =3D
if one considers only the "traditional" use of "bitch" ('a malicious, =3D
spiteful, promiscuous, or otherwise despicable woman': HDAS 1a).  =3D20

I suspect that for some discriminating anti-Semites, "kike" (an epithet =3D=

for any Jew by virtue of being a Jew) and "shyster" (an epithet for a =3D
disreputable, dishonest, sleazy person who takes advantage of you in the =
=3D
way you believe Jews tend to do) differ along the same lines as "cunt" =3D
vs. "prick".  But I won't push the analogy, having done enough pushing =3D
here.

> Kind of like
> the modern outrage surrounding "moist". I mean, half the cake-mix =3D
boxes in
> the world have "moist" on them. What's the deal with that? Jeeez.
> DAD
>=3D20
>=3D20
> Para: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Assunto: Re: fines for saying "you guys" to mixed groups?
>=3D20
> Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: fines for saying "you guys" to mixed groups?
> =3D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
=3D
--
> ---
>=3D20
> Getting back to insults, why should men be insultable as "cunts," but =3D=

women
> can/are never vilified as "pricks"?
>=3D20
> It's so "taboo" (to use an overworked term) that it nobody does it. =3D
(Or do
> women say it covertly, beyond the ears of the guys?)
>=3D20
> Moreover, according to a certain strand of feminist sociolinguistics, =3D=

men
> should be/secretly are pleased to be called "pricks" (and "dicks"),
> especially by women, but women are rightly enraged to be called =3D
"cunts,"
> especially by men.
>=3D20
> The only practical solution to these glaring and unsupportable =3D
asymmetries
> is a thorough overhaul of the language. You know, chopping things out =3D=

and
> retrofitting and so on.
>=3D20
> I have occasionally heard an enraged woman call another both "bitch" =3D
and
> "son of a bitch." But if "son of a bitch" flies (in a way that "prick"
> doesn't), what about "mofo"?
>=3D20
> JL
>=3D20
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:26 PM, W Brewer <brewerwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>=3D20
>> Poster:       W Brewer <brewerwa at GMAIL.COM>
>> Subject:      Re: fines for saying "you guys" to mixed groups?
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
> =3D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
=3D
--
> ---
>>=3D20
>> Rodney Dangerfield: <<When I drink, I don't know what I'm doin'. I =3D
was
>> loaded one night, I went into a gay bar. Whew, it was ridiculous. It =3D=

was
>> fifteen guys for every guy.>>
>>=3D20
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>=3D20
>=3D20
> ---
> Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antiv=3DC3=3DADrus.
> =3D
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3D3Dhttps-3A__www.avast.com_anti=
v=3D
irus&d=3D3DAwIFaQ&c=3D3D-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=3D3DwFp3X4Mu39hB2bf13gtz0Z=
pW1Ts=3D
SxPIWYiZRsMFFaLQ&m=3D3Dh71eudEBc8oILgxoq5Fh2yq4TSqKnYezMUMLByNhvu0&s=3D3DDy=
WAL=3D
bbX2TPnV-wmlX04aBJv-Ha8N2hZwSuSWZ0hK6s&e=3D3D=3D20
>=3D20
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - =3D
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3D3Dhttp-3A__www.americandialect=
=2E=3D
org&d=3D3DAwIFaQ&c=3D3D-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=3D3DwFp3X4Mu39hB2bf13gtz0Zp=
W1TsS=3D
xPIWYiZRsMFFaLQ&m=3D3Dh71eudEBc8oILgxoq5Fh2yq4TSqKnYezMUMLByNhvu0&s=3D3DubH=
gKH=3D
doe8toLSKBjkKeAt-lXhxFd9EWvtSTW5ZBkZY&e=3D3D=3D20

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org


---
Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antiv=C3=ADrus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org


---
Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivĂ­rus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org


More information about the Ads-l mailing list