Reclaiming Words

[Quail]

I get the impression that there are a variety of opinions about this on here, so I was wondering...

What are your opinions on reclaiming slurs, and why?

Personally I suppose I have mixed feelings. There was a thread recently where many users said they were uncomfortable with the word "queer" as it only held negative connotations to them. I suppose perhaps I'm either too young to have heard it used as a slur a lot, or it just wasn't the homophobic insult of choice for the people in the town where I grew up. I like it as an identity which doesn't require me to put myself into a box, and I guess if someone did call me queer as an insult I wouldn't feel hurt because well... It's true. But then I realised that I have reservations about the word "dyke." I know a few lesbians who are happy to use that word, but for me I can't help but associate it with homophobic bullying. I remember at school I was afraid to tell anyone but the other queer kids that I wasn't straight because I didn't want people to call me stuff like dyke. But perhaps that in itself is an argument for reclaiming the word.

I kind of like the idea of reclaiming stuff like "slut" and "c*nt" as well, to be honest. Yeah, when I was younger I slept with a lot of people and it wasn't always healthy and I'm sure people did call me a slut. But that word has lost all power over me now because hey, if enjoying sex with whoever I want to fuck makes me a slut then yes, I am a slut and I'm kind of proud of that. If someone calls me a slut then they're not insulting me, even if they intend to. Because there's nothing wrong with being a slut.

Eh... This is a little rambly and incoherent, sorry, but I am interested in other people's thoughts. I'm hungover, that's my excuse.

[Thirsty Crow]

What are your opinions on reclaiming slurs, and why?

I honestly think this is a secondary issue, secondary to the fight against diffuse domination and attitudes supportive of it.

Whether reclaiming language makes sense is also entirely up to specific communities in question. Thus, for instance, one group within a common community might do so only to find themselves at the receiving end of the criticism of another group; but what I find really objectionable is the idea that words are inherently so-and-so; they are not and the meaning (which is rooted in the practice of the larger, linguistic community) can change - but the question is how: through propaganda aiming at language use or through struggle against entrenched domination itself? I think my answer to the question is clear. Reclaiming words may or may not work as an element of the latter.

[PhoenixAsh]

Hmm. It is kind of a mixed bag to be honest. I don't have any well formulated opinion on it either way.

Personally I feel it is one thing to reclaim a slur by an oppressed group and another if it is done by the oppressing group. Reclaiming words kind of blurs the lines imo. And I think context and intent is really important here.

edit: There is by the way a difference between reclaiming the word and using it. So I think there is a difference between feminists reclaiming the word b* and women using it among each other who seem to have no idea the word is sexist.

[Thirsty Crow]

H
Personally I feel it is one thing to reclaim a slur by an oppressed group and another if it is done by the oppressing group.

The lines aren't blurred at all if it is clear that reclaiming a slur is what's really going on.

[PhoenixAsh]

The lines aren't blurred at all if it is clear that reclaiming a slur is what's really going on.

To clarify. When groups reclaim words it signals other groups it is ok to use the word as well. So when feminists started to claim the word b* it also signaled a trend in men calling each other b*....or worse...men calling women b* with the active defense that since the word is reclaimed it is no longer sexist.

[Thirsty Crow]

To clarify. When groups reclaim words it signals other groups it is ok to use the word as well. So when feminists started to claim the word b* it also signaled a trend in men calling each other b*....or worse...men calling women b* with the active defense that since the word is reclaimed it is no longer sexist.

I don't know how men were justified in that move; that was in fact to subvert the intention behind the practice of reclaiming the word. Anyway, I get how some people might find the lines here blurred, but I can't perceive them as such and I don't think they are really; it's just a kind of a weak justification for continued sexism and corresponding language use.

[Quail]

I honestly think this is a secondary issue, secondary to the fight against diffuse domination and attitudes supportive of it.

Whether reclaiming language makes sense is also entirely up to specific communities in question. Thus, for instance, one group within a common community might do so only to find themselves at the receiving end of the criticism of another group; but what I find really objectionable is the idea that words are inherently so-and-so; they are not and the meaning (which is rooted in the practice of the larger, linguistic community) can change - but the question is how: through propaganda aiming at language use or through struggle against entrenched domination itself? I think my answer to the question is clear. Reclaiming words may or may not work as an element of the latter.

I guess reclaiming words is a way of fighting back against the negative connotations they hold. If we use "slut" as an example again... It is a direct challenge to the view that there is something wrong with women having promiscuous sex if someone calls a woman a slut only to receive the response, "Yeah I am, what of it?" Or if a group of people are talking about a woman and call her a slut, and someone says, "And what if she is?" and explains why being a slut is actually not a bad thing.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't know how men were justified in that move; that was in fact to subvert the intention behind the practice of reclaiming the word. Anyway, I get how some people might find the lines here blurred, but I can't perceive them as such and I don't think they are really; it's just a kind of a weak justification for continued sexism and corresponding language use.

Generally true. But we are also dealing with a society where a lot of men, and women, aren't actually aware, at least politically, of sexism or do not perceive sexism as such.

It is hard enough to explain people, men and women btw, that the word b* is used as a sexist slur. This gets harder when words are reclaimed...and people are generally surprised when you start explaining this to them. Kind of like: "but that is not true because they are using it too."

[Thirsty Crow]

I guess reclaiming words is a way of fighting back against the negative connotations they hold. If we use "slut" as an example again... It is a direct challenge to the view that there is something wrong with women having promiscuous sex if someone calls a woman a slut only to receive the response, "Yeah I am, what of it?" Or if a group of people are talking about a woman and call her a slut, and someone says, "And what if she is?" and explains why being a slut is actually not a bad thing.

Yeah, this might be so. I actually understand the point about reclaiming words as you put it - fighting against negative connotations, among other possibilities. Although, I'd be wary of men in this specific example doing this reclaiming; though that might be my personal rule and not at all indicative automatically of sexist attitudes.

[Quail]

Just to be clear, I'm talking about marginalised groups of people reclaiming slurs for themselves. I think the context of me calling myself a slut and a man casually referring to women as sluts is totally different.

[Thirsty Crow]

Just to be clear, I'm talking about marginalised groups of people reclaiming slurs for themselves. I think the context of me calling myself a slut and a man casually referring to women as sluts is totally different.

I'd say it's subtly different even if I as a male, for instance, were the person in your example of "so what if she's a slut as if that's bad" as not at all meant as derogatory on gendered lines.

[Rosa Partizan]

I used to be kinda opposed to reclaiming words like b!tch or slut, I just wanted them to not be used, but changed my mind when in Germany, a female rapper called Lady B!tch Ray gained massive media attention. She was of turkish origin, which caused just more uproar. On the one hand, she used very explicit language, wore sexy outfits and seemed a bit "ghetto" (although she received her PhD in linguistics), but on the other hand she was totally self-determined with her sexuality, not a dumb object to be used. And yeah, she called herself a b!tch and was like "I'm gonna take this word and turn it into something positive. Some guy calls me b!tch? Well that's great, cause that means to me that I'm confident about my sexuality." She wrote a book named *****ism (which, of course I had to buy ) and she described two types of promiscuous women:

The ones that she called "groupies", sleeping with guys for attention, getting used by them etc, which she said was no b!tch for her, but just someone that had to gain confidence, because this lifestyle wouldn't make you happy. The other type was the kind of woman that gets what she wants in bed, that no one can use, that has sex or not whenever she wants with whomever she wants, someone that makes the rules. And this type of woman she called b!tch, which I found a very fitting distinction.

[Quail]

I'd say it's subtly different even if I as a male, for instance, were the person in your example of "so what if she's a slut as if that's bad" as not at all meant as derogatory on gendered lines.

I think you're right. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable doing that for slurs that don't apply to me.

[Queen Mab]

but the question is how: through propaganda aiming at language use or through struggle against entrenched domination itself? I think my answer to the question is clear. Reclaiming words may or may not work as an element of the latter.

I don't think anyone here would be under the illusion that changing the meaning of words would actually affect structural oppression. But if oppressed groups find empowerment in the reclaiming of a certain word, then I don't see how anyone could oppose that.

[Art Vandelay]

I guess it really depends on how the group which is affected by the slur feels about it. Obviously it is a decision that is up to the group in question (we don't want a 'clerks 2' type situation) but if it can play a small role in helping combat negative stereotypes and perceptions then surely its a good idea. Personally I can think of a few derogatory slurs I could be called and wouldn't feel comfortable 'reclaiming' them, but I think that says more about me than the validity of the idea. If groups were going to atart taking that course of action as a strategy, I think it would be somewhat important to ensure it's done in a way as to not negatively impact individuals who are unaware/not on board with the idea, although I'm not sure exactly how that could be done. I can certainly see how it could have a positive effect in helping challenge the ways in which certain words impact and have a hold over folks.

[Thirsty Crow]

Generally true. But we are also dealing with a society where a lot of men, and women, aren't actually aware, at least politically, of sexism or do not perceive sexism as such.

It is hard enough to explain people, men and women btw, that the word b* is used as a sexist slur. This gets harder when words are reclaimed...and people are generally surprised when you start explaining this to them. Kind of like: "but that is not true because they are using it too."

That's an interesting point, and of course it is generally true that many people don't think of sexist practices as sexism as you say. This might be a valueable argument in discussing the sense in reclaiming words, but as I said that's not up to me at all to decide.

[PhoenixAsh]

The point is that reclamation of words start in the oppressed group. But language is fluid and evolves and the words will start to be used outside that group.

There are a whole lot of reclaimed words these days that we find perfectly normal which actually once were slurs and were reclaimed. Jesuit for example, was a slur and derogatory term. Bastard as well...now it is a general use curse word nobody really knows what it refers to (which could also happen). Gay was one as well.

Before that happens there is an overlap where the word still has its original meaning in use and the other meaning will be new meaning through its reclamation.

What we see happening for example with the word b*. Women start to use it among themselves. Men use it among men. And men and women use it against each other. Given the discussions in years past on this website...there is a huge array of view points regarding the word's sexism. Mostly these are a result from lack of knowledge and awareness. But that is just where I mean lines get blurred.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

As a gay person, I want to refer people to a particular South Park episode, whose premise I really agreed with. (I usually don't like the show that much but this episode was spot-on)

Basically, kids were calling people faggots, so the adults talked to them about it and said it wasn't cool to be homophobic. And the kids got really confused and were like "why would we call a gay person a faggot? We're calling those guys who wear leather jackets and ride on motorcycles and try to be tough…they are the ones we're calling faggots." And so the town basically formally changed the word to mean overly tough guys on motorcycles. (I love motorcycles and have no problem with motorcycle riders, that wasn't my point)

So, it isn't reclaiming the word, but perhaps shifting its meaning. I have, on rare occasions called someone that, and in every instance they were a straight male. I called them that because they were being the typical overly-masculine tough guy sexist type. And those people get VERY offended at the word. Was I justified or no? If someone ever called any of my fellow gay comrades a faggot, I would knock their fucking teeth out.

Thoughts? Am I wrong, or what?

[Rosa Partizan]

As a gay person, I want to refer people to a particular South Park episode, whose premise I really agreed with. (I usually don't like the show that much but this episode was spot-on)

Basically, kids were calling people faggots, so the adults talked to them about it and said it wasn't cool to be homophobic. And the kids got really confused and were like "why would we call a gay person a faggot? We're calling those guys who wear leather jackets and ride on motorcycles and try to be tough…they are the ones we're calling faggots." And so the town basically formally changed the word to mean overly tough guys on motorcycles. (I love motorcycles and have no problem with motorcycle riders, that wasn't my point)

So, it isn't reclaiming the word, but perhaps shifting its meaning. I have, on rare occasions called someone that, and in every instance they were a straight male. I called them that because they were being the typical overly-masculine tough guy sexist type. And those people get VERY offended at the word. Was I justified or no? If someone ever called any of my fellow gay comrades a faggot, I would knock their fucking teeth out.

Thoughts? Am I wrong, or what?

"so what are homosexuals on loud motorcycles? - gay fags"

yeah that episode was great. This only works out if a whole language community agrees on such usage and this takes a lot of time. But yeah, words can lose its original meanings. Gay was used as a synonym of happy (once I had to read some older text in a seminar that was like "they were gay all the time" and I couldn't stop giggling) and nowadays, this meaning got lost.

[Thirsty Crow]

Thoughts? Am I wrong, or what?

So, what you basically did was insult guys knowing what will get their teeth grinding.

The point about slurs is that they manifest, but can also reinforce the underlying attitudes supportive of one kind of oppression or another and relate a perceived lack with the quality/ies, most often stereotyped, of the oppressed group in question. The two effects - manifest and reinforce - are really separate I think.

About you being wrong, eh who am I to say. But really. Obviously you didn't yourself manifest such underlying attitudes, but you exploited these held by another person. I can get down with insulting such guys. As for sexism and homophobia at large, it remained unaffected by you insulting them.

(once I had to read some older text in a seminar that was like "they were gay all the time" and I couldn't stop giggling)

The title of one of Friedrich Nietzsche's books is The Gay Science.