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

Mon Jun 15 21:14:53 UTC 2015

It's "semantic tribalism."

By golly.

JL

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:01 PM, David Daniel <dad at coarsecourses.com> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> 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
>

-- 
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

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