Ophelia Benson is pondering the word “pussy” and its connotations. In response to this Jesus and Mo cartoon on protecting deities from ridicule, a commenter writes,
I’ve always wondered [why] the gods of today, especially the god of Islam, is such a pussy. He is unable to do a thing to protect himself or his reputation and must rely on his minions to do his dirty work.
Ophelia takes exception and replies,
The god of Islam “is such a pussy. He is unable to do a thing to protect himself or his reputation and must rely on his minions to do his dirty work” – meaning women are weak cowardly parasites.
Oh. What happened there? How did we get from this:
I’ve always wondered [why] the gods of today, especially the god of Islam, is such a pussy. He is unable to do a thing to protect himself or his reputation and must rely on his minions to do his dirty work.
To this?
meaning women are weak cowardly parasites.
I realise the ambiguities of the word “pussy” may vary on the other side of the Atlantic, where the dubious sexual connotations are perhaps more often emphasised and have a less whimsical air. (Maybe it’s a generational thing, or a gay man thing, or a trash sitcom thing, but when I hear “pussy” in a sexual context, if anything at all comes to mind it could well be Mrs Slocombe from Are You Being Served?) On the very rare occasions I’ve used the word – ironically and with a terrible American accent – I’ve used it to denote a kind of feebleness. Naïve soul that I am, I took the intended meaning here to be that Allah appears to be a sissy, coward or weakling, perhaps rather pampered, like a house cat; not that Allah in some way resembles the female genitals, or that the aforementioned body parts are contemptible, or that all women are contemptible. (Conceivably, some female non-Muslims may take exception to the suggestion – if one were made – that their ladygarden is in any way similar to the befuddled deity of Islam.)
But Ophelia – who is, I think, American and perhaps more accustomed to hearing the vulgar, sexual usage – remains unconvinced:
Here’s a thought experiment. Suppose you were talking to the barmaid [who often appears in the cartoon] – would you say to the barmaid, “The god of Islam is such a pussy. He is unable to do a thing to protect himself or his reputation and must rely on his minions to do his dirty work”? Maybe you would, maybe you would. But I wonder. I don’t think it’s accidental that none of my male friends and correspondents ever use “pussy” or “twat” or “cunt” that way in conversation or correspondence with me. If there’s a reason for that… then perhaps there’s something wrong with the terminology; perhaps that something is that it’s sexist.
Well, I don’t regard myself as particularly sexist and I understood the intended meaning as unobjectionable – unless, that is, one believes Allah is the creator of the universe and a top-notch guy. I’ve heard at least two women use the word “twat” with pejorative gusto to describe a man, and I’ve talked to women who used the word “dick” in its derogatory sense without taking umbrage personally or on behalf of menfolk everywhere. (I was, of course, assuming they weren’t talking about me.) And though I’d be mindful that the word “pussy” has other, very different, meanings from the ones I mentioned above, I’m not sure one can assume that its usage, as above, necessarily signifies some objectionable intent or basis for indignation.
Over at B&W, the discussion rumbles on.
Update: The Thin Man just reminded me of a stirring moment from Team America:
Sexual references? Certainly. Though readers searching for intimations of misogyny may have to look long and hard.
Ad Astra (may I call you Per Ardua? ha!)
Yeh, fair points. I suppose I am content just to be briefly snotty and then go away again, in that context. Maybe I’m unconsciously mimicking the barmaid.
David – okay! Thanks!
“the fact that women are seemingly free to use sexual references, however pejorative, while men may not, regardless of their actual motives.”
That’s exactly why I’ve given up prick & dick (the trendy new eating spot in Ruislip). I admit I miss them, especially when driving, but since I don’t like the female versions…
Epithets are difficult territory. Several of your commenters think I’m incoherent for saying that criticism of religion should be wide open but objecting to epithets – but I disagree. I don’t use epithets in order to criticize religion. (Tailgating drivers, yes; religion, no.) Epithets are very tempting in moments of fury, but in public discourse…they are terribly loaded, and I think they are generally best avoided – except ones that are too generic to draw blood.
@ David:
If by non-reciprocal you mean the “dick” issue, as I’ve said, I disagree with that as well, so I don’t see much of a reciprocality issue there. If you mean instead the “projection of someone else’s baggage” issue, then I think you’re carrying it too far. While I’ll admit nigger analogy is charged, I’m not sure it’s so unreasonable to imagine someone not being uncomfortable with it; my grandmother, who so far as I know bore no ill-will towards black people, called brazil nuts “nigger-toes”. When my parents asked her about it, she was confused why there was such an objection – to her, it was just the name of the nut. Should she have kept on calling them nigger-toes?
As for the gay analogy, I still think that one’s pretty apt, and you haven’t presented much of an argument against it.
Regarding the dick/bitch thing, I think you’re putting way too much weight on the “but there *are* dicks and bitches in the world” thing. Are there really dicks and bitches in the world? There are penises and female dogs, there are men and women we dislike, but are we under any particular obligation to call the latter the names of the former? I’d rather call them something more facially descriptive that doesn’t make pointless connections between genitalia and things we don’t like.
@ OB:
If you like :-). I think it’s better to see this comment thread as being a lot of work, rather than a hardship, which would be the other popular way to end the phrase.
Just don’t call me a dick!
“That doesn’t change my argument that there isn’t any good reason to use a word when many people have a not-unjustified belief that the word carries a lot of misogynistic baggage. Once you know that’s the case, why do you defend the use of the word?”
Why do I defend it’s use? Because it’s a power struggle over the definition of words, and who gets to define them. The baggage you describe is the baggage of someone else (real or imagined), not me or my intended audience. Offence recieved by the hearer that is not intended by the speaker is the hearer’s personal problem. Not using the word infantilizes the offended by saying, “yes, you are too weak to hear this word”. This is especially the case for group protected words, wherein only people who are part of that group are allowed to use those words freely. Ad astra’s examples of gay and nigger being great examples. These words are not universally offensive, but become offensive soley by the nature of the speaker regardless of speakers intent.
If I cede my ability to use the term pussy to descibe weak individuals because someone ancillary might be offended, what other words do I cede as well? Is there some centralized dictionary of words that I can reference that can show me all the “correct” terms that I am currently allowed to use? Is this dictionary properly localized so that each protected group has their own version of words that are ok?
The individual case and argument for each word seems logical and resonable and makes sense in a polite society, but when you add them all up it starts to become impossible to keep track of.
Only the most banal of communicators will be inoffensive to everyone. And they get the bonus of not communicating anything of interest or value.
@ Chris S:
Please, you’re being alarmist. I’m pretty familiar with the etymology of a lot of English words, and I’ve thought seriously about what words my political and philosophical commitments argue against using, yet somehow I’m still able to speak. I disagree with “PC” as a rule, because it tends to seek to establish such a centralized regime of what’s acceptable and what isn’t based on groups, not individuals. My objections here are personal, based on my assessment of what makes my life and beliefs more consistent. I’m trying to ask other people, who I believe share many of my philosophical commitments, to look at whether they’re acting consistently as well. It’s about personal development, and about not causing unnecessary harm to others.
Whether you believe any particular word has sexist connotations is, to some degree, irrelevant, because the purpose of words is to convey information to others. If the information you’re conveying is different from the information you intended to convey, I would think you’d like to know that.
I’m not asking people to be constantly afraid of offending everyone they meet. All I’m saying is that we should try to live our lives consistently with what we believe.
Ophelia,
“Epithets are very tempting in moments of fury, but in public discourse… they are terribly loaded, and I think they are generally best avoided.”
Well, there’s the problem, or one of them, anyway. You can choose what you say and you can choose what kind of language to permit on your website. I’ve no grumble at all with that, obviously. That’s your territory. My broader concern – one that animates me quite a bit – is the urge among some to extend that inhibition to the public arena and the territory of others. Somewhat related are efforts by Designated Victim Groups to decide unilaterally what constitutes “hatred” and “intolerance,” a manoeuvre that reduces injustice (and grounds for compensation, flattery, etc) to whatever the Designated Victim Group says they are. (See my examples above, April 7, 7:16)
Ad Astra,
“As for the gay analogy, I still think that one’s pretty apt, and you haven’t presented much of an argument against it.”
A few months ago, my partner’s good-natured 12-year-old nephew made some passing reference to something on TV being “a bit gay.” (I forget what it was he was referring to, but I vaguely recall sharing the general sentiment.) Almost immediately, he got really upset that he’d offended the two of us and he took some convincing that no offence had been taken. Presumably, he’d imagined we would be outraged by the association of the word “gay” with something cheesy or unflattering. I was much more bothered by his upset and what it took to reassure him. I just don’t feel an urge to proscribe certain words, even if they’re notionally at my expense.
“Are there really dicks and bitches in the world? There are penises and female dogs, there are men and women we dislike, but are we under any particular obligation to call the latter the names of the former?”
I don’t see where “obligation” comes into it. I don’t feel “obliged” to use those words – when I use them, I choose to. I like them phonetically, as I imagine others do. And I don’t follow this “we” business. You can call unpleasant people whatever you wish. I’ll do the same.
@ David:
That’s fine if you’re not offended by the use of the word gay to mean “stupid” or “bad”. I’m glad that you’re so easygoing. From my perspective, though, it’s not entirely about whether you’re offended or not. I look at the word gay, and I know that the reason people started using it to mean “stupid” or “bad” is because they thought homosexuality to be bad, and considered associating someone or something with homosexuality to be a severe insult. I find that sort of behavior distasteful, because I don’t think homosexuals are bad. Therefore, why would I reinforce the use of a word in a sense I believe to be wrong? Even if I didn’t know gay meant homosexual, as soon as I found out, my prior philosophical commitments would strongly militate against my continued use of the word in that sense, even if it didn’t provoke any gut-level offense for me.
Ad Astra,
“I’m glad that you’re so easygoing.”
I’m a wonderful guy.
But I don’t see why I would take umbrage. It seems to me preposterous. My partner’s nephew wasn’t comparing the cheesy programme with *me* and he certainly wasn’t saying all gay people are cheesy. His intention was benign. I don’t live in the 1950s. I don’t feel slighted or threatened by such things. And, as I said, I just don’t have urges to outlaw certain words. I am, though, somewhat suspicious of people who do have such urges and the license to indulge them. By all means avoid whatever words you wish, but please don’t feel obliged to do so on my behalf.
I realize that I’m being a bit alarmist, but I’ve been thinking a fair amount about the use of words and the power of others to subvert them to their own devices. More specifically in the realm of speech codes and the supposed “right to not be offended”.
Our current discussion about the specifics of the term pussy is exactly how you get from A to B. You start with a pretty straight forward statment. Someone takes offence to a word used in the statment (it may or may not be relevent to the argument being made by the original speaker). Other parties get involved, with lots of tut-tutting, references to polite society, debates on intent and modern useage vs etymology. Words like “baggage”, “loaded terms” or “code words” get thrown around. And the next thing you know you’ve got “facilitators” in the university monitoring conversations for offence. Or government agencies writing ordinances about the term manhole.
Alarmist? Sure, but there’s good reason for it.
@ David:
And that’s fine. I was objecting because I thought there were universalizable issues involved, which I was surprised you did not share. If you don’t, that’s ok – there’s something to be said for taking language as it comes, and not being concerned with the political implications that may be floating around behind them. It’s certainly easier. In the end, a lot of it comes down to what the group you’re with finds acceptable and amusing – I’ll admit to saying all sorts of horrible things about my friends, because we all found it funny. Anyway, I don’t mean to be a horrible priggish bore. This was a somewhat unusual situation, with misunderstandings on all sides, and it’s been interesting to talk about. As I said, I’m avoiding such words on my own behalf as much as yours, so we’re in agreement there. My only issue at this point is to get across that one can be concerned with such things without necessarily falling into the trap of PC-ness and victimhood.
@ Chris S:
As I’ve said before, I put next to zero (.0000001?) credence in slippery-slope arguments. I don’t think it’s incompatible to say what I’ve said, and then turn around and oppose campus speech codes with everything I have. What’s the alternative? Use words I find distasteful just to hold back the horde of slavering PC zombies? I guess I could just take the use of such words by others in stride, and say nothing, but to me that would seem a betrayal of ethics. Are we not obligated to engage people in discussion where we think they are doing something wrong, and by doing so we think we might change their behavior? Not outlaw it, not shout them down, just discuss.
Ad Astra,
“There’s something to be said for taking language as it comes, and not being concerned with the political implications that may be floating around behind them.”
There’s a great deal to be said for that. I am, however, outraged that you’ve used the word “universalizable.” I’m aghast and need a snifter to steady my nerves.
@ David:
Aghast at the philosophical implications, or at what it says about my grammar skills?
Ad Astra,
It’s just a wee bit clunky.
Some music, perhaps…. http://fp.ignatz.plus.com/blackcoffee.mp3
“What’s the alternative? Use words I find distasteful just to hold back the horde of slavering PC zombies?”
I would say no. To thine own self be true. But, be sure to examine your distaste to see if it is truely yours and not a byproduct of being around the slavering PC zombies. Are you actually offended, or are you “supposed” to be offended?
It’s not the most elegant of words, I’ll admit. It’s not even the most apt for the meaning I was trying to get across, but hey, I was in a hurry and it was what came to mind.
I’m sorry that it’s affected you so – in future, I’ll use words that aren’t so offensive, even though I didn’t detect such offense myself. 🙂
Right, I’m off to bed. Please feel free to poke around the place and help yourself to snacks and liquor. Just don’t spill anything on the rug.
@ Chris S:
I recognize the fear you’re raising, but I’m pretty sure the problem is my own, to the extent that any moral belief can be my own. Also, it’s not exactly taking offense that I’m concerned with here; I’m not all that offended on a gut level by the word “dick”. I just thought about it one day, looked at the course the word’s taken to be used the way it is today, and decided that I like my genitals too much to associate them with people I dislike. I have similar feelings regarding pussy. As far as I can tell, that’s the main source of it.
I should add here that, yes, I think other people should like their genitals too much to make such invidious comparisons as well, because when everybody starts making such comparisons then my ability not to have to be ashamed of my and others’ genitalia is reduced. Hence my feeling that I should try to convince others not to use such words.
Ad Astra,
“I like my genitals too much to associate them with people I dislike […] when everybody starts making such comparisons then my ability not to have to be ashamed of my and others’ genitalia is reduced.”
See, *that’s* where you’re inviting mockery. It doesn’t ring true; it sounds like a contrivance. I think that’s what Chris means about the feeling one is *supposed* to be offended – i.e., ideologically, theoretically, vicariously. It sounds like borrowed indignation. Likewise, if someone takes exception to sexual epithets because, say, children are present that’s pretty easy to comprehend and I suspect most people would defer. But the further one ventures into sociological or theoretical justifications and claims of what the epithet “really” signifies or what shame and/or hatred it supposedly induces, the more mockery is invited.
I don’t see how it doesn’t ring true – while I admit I was being a bit rhetorical about my feelings toward my genitals, I genuinely think that that’s a good reason to refrain from using sexual words as pejorative epithets. You keep bringing in the word “offense”, but I’m not so sure that’s the issue. Why can’t I rationally assess the connotations of words, decide I don’t agree with the sentiments that brought them into their present usage, and on that basis refrain from using them? I want to live my life as consistently with my beliefs as I can. All things considered, refraining from using certain words is pretty easy for me. Therefore, I’ll do so. Is it the attempt to discourage others from using sexual epithets too that you have a problem with? I think that it’s reasonable to discuss the issue with others, since if they shared some of my premises they might come to the same conclusion. If they don’t share those premises, though, they won’t. If you don’t think that the origins and connotations of words have a significant enough effect on society to bother worrying about, then my argument doesn’t have much force. That’s not an unreasonable choice, I just disagree with it.
I’m not sure where the mockery comes from, though; why is it so ridiculous to choose as I do? Would my feelings be more valid if I was personally, emotionally offended, rather than making an intellectual assessment? For that matter, why should concern over the exposure of children to sexual language be somehow more valid? What evidence do we have that children are harmed more by sexual epithets than adults?
Ad Astra,
“Why can’t I rationally assess the connotations of words, decide I don’t agree with the sentiments that brought them into their present usage, and on that basis refrain from using them?”
I didn’t suggest you couldn’t; quite the opposite. How you decide what *you* do or don’t say is none of my business. The rationale only becomes an issue when someone starts making claims on what others may say.
“I’m not sure where the mockery comes from, though; why is it so ridiculous to choose as I do?”
Again, your choice (for you) is none of my business, so I’m not moved to mockery. I think you’d risk amusing people, though, if you were to suggest others should do the same for similar reasons – i.e., because their ability not to be ashamed of their genitals is diminished or whatever.
“Would my feelings be more valid if I was personally, emotionally offended, rather than making an intellectual assessment?”
I think they’d be taken more seriously by a broader range of people. (This is part of the “taking language as it comes” thing for me. If it bugs you personally, I most likely won’t do it. If someone starts making grand sociological or theoretical claims, it all seems a bit abstract and ideological – and, perhaps, suspect.)
“For that matter, why should concern over the exposure of children to sexual language be somehow more valid? What evidence do we have that children are harmed more by sexual epithets than adults?”
I’ve no idea. But I suspect a larger number of people would find that objection credible without much fuss. I suppose it’s more than just an arbitrary custom, though I’m not quite sure why. I don’t do it, do you?
Ad Astra,
Sorry, missed out this:
“Would my feelings be more valid if I was personally, emotionally offended, rather than making an intellectual assessment?”
I think it’s the difference between causing someone immediate emotional hurt (which I tend to avoid) and causing ideological irritation, which isn’t quite the same thing and doesn’t involve the same instinctive inhibitions. A person’s emotions are generally treated differently from their political ideas.
“I think it’s the difference between causing someone immediate emotional hurt (which I tend to avoid) and causing ideological irritation, which isn’t quite the same thing”
OB blew it with the “meaning women are weak cowardly parasites” line. Making it a big song and dance number just sounds like a lecture and a challenge. You’re expected to agree that what you’re really saying is “women are weak and cowardly parasites” and I don’t think anyone was.
@ David:
I think we’ve sort of boiled this down to the major difference. I put more social importance on the choice of words we use than you do. That’s a valid question of fact to differ on.
I can understand how, from that perspective, trying to change others’ minds might seem ridiculous. Of course, I disagree, because I think that it’s always at least worth talking about these things, since peoples’ minds might change, or they might not have thought through the consequences of their beliefs, but when there’s a principled difference, I’m content. I had a conversation about this last night with some of my friends, and one of them took a position quite similar to yours, so I think I understand a little better where you’re coming from. I think that you should be more concerned, but I know why you aren’t, and that’s something.
Ad Astra,
“I had a conversation about this last night with some of my friends, and one of them took a position quite similar to yours, so I think I understand a little better where you’re coming from.”
Good-oh. And by the way I’ve enjoyed our exchange. You’re always welcome to drop by and tell me why I’m wrong. 🙂
I may just take you up on that. If nothing else, I’ve learned all sorts of interesting things about UK attitudes toward various vulgarities, which is always fun.
“I should add here that, yes, I think other people should like their genitals too much to make such invidious comparisons as well, because when everybody starts making such comparisons then my ability not to have to be ashamed of my and others’ genitalia is reduced…. I genuinely think that that’s a good reason to refrain from using sexual words as pejorative epithets.”
Lost in all this is the derogatory use of the word “asshole.”
For, much as we love our genitals, should we not also “like our assholes too much to make such invidious comparisons”?
If not, why not? Do our rectums and anal sphincters not deserve every bit as much love and respect as our “Dicks and Janes”?
I, for one, am not ashamed of my anus! I trust you can say the same, Ad Astra.
More to the point, while both men and women have anal sphincters (so that “asshole” can’t be a sexist term) … how are gay men supposed to feel, when we so callously insult their “portals of ecstasy,” turning that delicious source of male intimacy into a term of abuse?
Indeed, suppose that the J&M commenter had called Mo an “asshole” instead of a “pussy.” How would that be viewed by the gay “community” and its (non-elected) leaders? Could they not reasonably see it as “meaning gays are stupid, incompetent and detestable people”?
More importantly, would the vigilent Ms Benson have lept, cat-like (as it were), to the defense of that oft-oppressed group?
I trust she would have. Because if I have learned one thing from this discussion, it is that the very least we can do is to avoid using the “a-word” around male homosexuals. At least I, for one, would not wish to reduce their ability not to have to be ashamed of their and others’ anuses. Or anii. Or whatever.
“Hence my feeling that I should try to convince others not to use such words.”
Precisely. To paraphrase, “Are there really assholes in the world? There are rectums and anal sphincters, there are straights and gays we dislike, but are we under any particular obligation to call the latter the names of the former? I’d rather call them something more facially descriptive that doesn’t make pointless connections between gay sex and things we don’t like.”
Also, I, for one, could use a really good enema right now. I think my butt deserves at least that much “love.”
It is quite tragic that the ‘bastardisation’ of language in general has resulted in entire swathes of social intercourse (not ‘fucking’ please note) becoming fraught with an undercurrent of fear at committing some gaff or other. There was a time when one could have a ‘gay’ day and enjoy some ‘gay’ activity or other without the obvious connotation. I’m now off to have some rampant gay sex so thank you for listening.
OB said: “. . .to say the god of Islam is “such a pussy. He is unable to do a thing to protect himself or his reputation and must rely on his minions to do his dirty work” is to say that women are weak cowardly parasites.”
Well no. If the god of Islam must rely on his minions to do his dirty work, it does not mean that he is a weak cowardly parasite. The quote may be a non-sequitur or objectionable for other reasons, but I don’t see how it conveys thoughts about women.
The problem is that OB assumes that her interpretation is the only reasonable one. I suspect that very few men believe that all women are weak cowardly parasites, so most men would not interpret the comment in the way she assumes they would, and if they don’t then OB’s complaint is based on a false assumption.
OB then says: “Several of your commenters think I’m incoherent for saying that criticism of religion should be wide open but objecting to epithets – but I disagree”
But it’s not that she’s objecting to epithets– she’s objecting to the expresion of the ideas or attitudes behind them. She’s not objecting to the vulgarity of the “P” word but to the attitude toward women that she thinks the word reflects. So arguing that this is an epithet and she doesn’t use epithets toward religion (although as I recall she used them toward Bush) doesn’t clear her from the charge of being incoherent (or inconsistent).
Good post and discussion. I spent two days wondering why it was called “Tuppence”. I just got it.
Thank God no-one said “chuff”…
For what it’s worth the Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy is informative.
It starts “Pussy is an English word meaning cat. It may also refer to the female genitalia in slang, among other definitions.”
It gives other examples of double entendre than Mrs Slocombe: Arrested Development (“where the word was censored if used as an insult, but not censored if used to mean sweet or gentle (as in pussycat) “) and Steve Martin in particular. These American examples show that hearing “pussy” and thinking only of weakness is an error even in the US.
It seems to me wrong-headed to want to change the world by having people stop using the weakness meaning. Surely it would be much better to forget the reference to female anatomy ?
Damn, I missed all the fun -great thread though. And I love the Team America clip.
“Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn’t appropriate – and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves…”
Karen,
It’s something I meant to point out earlier – overt sexual usage doesn’t necessarily denote contempt for the organ in question or for the half of humanity that happens to possess one. It *can* do, of course, as any number of dreary posturing rap tracks testify. (This may explain why the American ear is more likely to find it much more loaded and disagreeable, even when used in the phrase “X is such a pussy,” which many of us take to mean something quite innocuous.) But to be doctrinaire about the word itself, as some commenters have been, is to overlook the scope for context, tone and intent. Which is wider than most of us probably realised.
Ophelia’s unfortunately a bit of a moron. She’s the sort of person who I’m sure is well-meaning, but is completely and utterly wrong.
I’m a gay guy, but I don’t break down into tears, or throw a hissy fit any time someone uses the word ‘faggot’ or ‘fag’. It’s sometimes slang for a cigarette, sometimes it’s used in a bad derogatory way, and sometimes gay guys use it to poke fun at themselves (usually when we we’re describing a particularly flamboyant moment) in a way to sort of take back the word. That’s how language works – it changes in societies sometimes, and takes on new meanings. I can be a delightfully huge fag sometimes, and I don’t mind saying so, because I know it’s all about the intended usage of the word.
Besides, being a raging, oversensitive bitch doesn’t do a thing except make you look bad.
Muslim = pussy = misogyny = feminist umbrage ?
I knew I should have taken that man-hating new age feminist empowerment course being offered at the women’s shelter. I’m so confused….