The Power of Words

Collin

he still stands wrote:

An interesting theory is that hallucinations, caused by psilocybin (mushrooms), led to the development of spoken language: the ability to form pictures in another person's mind through the use of vocal sounds. (Terence McKenna). If so, how does this influence your thought on what creates the "label" of a word?

I doesn't really. This would have been the beginning of language, I believe language has evolved. I don't think that has anything to do with labels.

Collin

scb wrote:

Agreed. I can't think of anyone who said the meaning of the word wasn't contextual. To the contrary, I believe the point was that you can't remove a word from its context - its historical context. History is fixed. And it takes many, many years of history to overcome the historical context which has already be created. One person's context in one conversation isn't enough to change meaning that a word has carried with it over a significant period of time.

You say you can't remove a word from its historical context, but this constantly happens in language.

By your theory it's not insulting to call a gay dude a faggot, since a word cannot be removed from its historical context. Faggot simply means a bundle of wood (you're a bundle of wood doesn't sound too offensive). And by gay dude I don't mean a happy fastidious dandy, but a homosexual guy, and again by guy I don't mean a "grotesquely or poorly dressed person" nor do I mean the effigy of Guy Fawkes (which are both entered in the etymologic dictionary under "guy")

I'd say - based on etymology dictionaries - that dude historically had a slight negative connotation. So is dude is sexist word too?

If not, I'll ask you too how do you know which words have a "fixed" label and thus meaning and which words don't?

So perhaps the question is how many people/conversations does it take to overcome the historical context of a word? Or, can the historical context of sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. words be overcome as long as there still exists sexism/racism/homophobia/etc.?

I think words don't have a fixed meaning or label, so one conversation would be enough in that specific context. I think the historical context can definitely be overcome while there's still sexism and racism.

Abookamongstthemany

http://youtube.com/watch?v=r6Ee9mW9IG8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jYtMa9Rq5Xs

Collin

angelica wrote:

Given Collin's original example context in the other thread, and knowing as he does how the vast majority takes that word, in that context, he's responsible for that usage, which has a negative and sexist power, imo.

Simple question: why sexist? Where and how did it get that label?

And I'll ask you what I asked other people as well: define sexist.

I would be great if the feminists here could explain to me the difference between a sexist insult and a regular insult.

angelica

Collin wrote:

Simple question: why sexist? Where and how did it get that label?

And I'll ask you what I asked other people as well: define sexist.

I would be great if the feminists here could explain to me the difference between a sexist insult and a regular insult.

I use the term sexist here referring to having a power against the collective group known as women. Just like in other instances, words have a power against the group of those who are mentally ill. Or with power against any other power-minorities who hold wounds.

Collin

angelica wrote:

I use the term sexist here referring to having a power against the collective group known as women. Just like in other instances, words have a power against the group of those who are mentally ill. Or with power against any other power-minorities who hold wounds.

How does a word have power against a collective group?

Helen is a woman, she is not offended by the word bitch and it has no power over her.

Are all insult against women sexist?

Thecure

Collin wrote:

Well, I disagree with that.

I'm not confusing meaning with tone. Tone is context and a clear indicator of one's intention.

You claim a word in itself can be racist or sexist. I'd like to know how that is. Man creates and uses words and gives word meaning. We know the meanings of words shift, that indicates that a word does not have a "fixed" meaning. I'd say the meaning of a word is not only dependent on context in a restricted way but also dependent on context on a larger scale.

How do you apply labels to language if not by the context in which the word is used? Bitch is used in a negative context, thus it developed a negative connotation. The usage of the word determined its label. The word doesn't have a label in itself. We create labels and apply them to words.

My question is for you if you don't agree man makes labels and thus labels are subjective and words cannot have a "fixed" label either (sexist is a label, not a meaning), then how do words get their labels?

Say if I want to call my girlfriend "hinney" as a term of endearment is that okay? What source should I consult to see what label this word has?

wow, is that you Socrates? i feel like i am back in philosophy. what you said in yoru first paragraph is teh same thing i said however you are using different words. instead of tone you use context. let's go back to our disscussion of the N-word. if i remember correctly, you said something to the affect that the N-word is racist but accord to yoru view now you would say that it is not always.

you seem to view words and language as subjective as the meaning of words were created by men and that word shift. if that is correct then i have to say that this debate and all other dabates are useless.

one last thing, if i tell a person to get me 5 apples but for me 5 apples means in common language 4 spoons woudl you say that the meaning of 5 apples has shifted or have i used the term wrong.

sorry i just went back to another post that you wrote and it seems to me that you wrote this already. what you did say was that words in different context can mean different thinsg and i agree with you on that but i again used the term tone.

angelica

Another thing: for me, I don't see most sexism as conscious. (which is why we continue to be insensitive to it) I see men crippling their own "feminine" intelligences...which aren't actually feminine at all because they are inherent to everyone. And yet at this point, they are considered feminine because they are attributed mostly to women. Therefore the widespread bias against these forms of intelligence (due to the exaltation of reason at the expense of other intelligences) cripples men and women alike. And most people, women included, (feminists too) continue to actively squash such intelligences.

What ends up being power used against women in general stems from the much larger picture. Although in the end, women and men end up perpetuating the minimization of the strengths inherent to women at this time. At great cost in the world. And with great imbalance worldwide.

angelica

Collin wrote:

How does a word have power against a collective group?

Helen is a woman, she is not offended by the word bitch and it has no power over her.

Are all insult against women sexist?

Are you aware of collective unconsciousness, or tribal mindsets? There are certain group consciousnesses that exists among groups of people. For example nations have certain collective mindsets.

I think if you took a poll, you'd find the majority of women are consciously offended by that word to varying degrees. You may note that I've agreed with you that this shifts and is not universal. However, this majority wounding with women exists at this time. Even though I know this can be healed in a moment, when people realize this, it has not yet happened, and we can all sense this.

Very, very few women (or those in other groups) individuate and move beyond the collective mindsets at this time. More often people deny what is in their collective unconscious. This is why when people are acting from a place of sensitivity and responsibility towards groups and their woundedness, they act with sensitivity.

Collin

Thecure wrote:

wow, is that you Socrates? i feel like i am back in philosophy. what you said in yoru first paragraph is teh same thing i said however you are using different words. instead of tone you use context. let's go back to our disscussion of the N-word. if i remember correctly, you said something to the affect that the N-word is racist but accord to yoru view now you would say that it is not always.

you seem to view words and language as subjective as the meaning of words were created by men and that word shift. if that is correct then i have to say that this debate and all other dabates are useless.

one last thing, if i tell a person to get me 5 apples but for me 5 apples means in common language 4 spoons woudl you say that the meaning of 5 apples has shifted or have i used the term wrong.

No, it is not always racist. Some black people use it all the time, I don't think that's racist. When I was in Harlem black people addressed me with it too, I don't think that's racist either. In fact, I used to have a black friend and a lot of his white friends called him nigger too, and he called them nigger. He did not consider it to be racist.

I don't think the word 'nigger' is in itself racist. I said society views or labels that word as racist (and that was in comparison with the word bitch which I think society doesn't label as sexist in general, but that's a discussion about sexism and racism).

"Words in a language indeed have objective meanings and definitions, they can be found in the dictionary, for instance. Otherwise any word could be interpreted differently by different people, thus making communication impossible. I believe these words can be used in different contexts to means different things. So I think words do not have a "fixed" meaning (even though they have a objective definition)."

I'd say the meaning of 5 apples has shifted for you.

How do words get their labels?

Say if I want to call my girlfriend "hinney" as a term of endearment is that okay? What source should I consult to see what label this word has?

Collin

angelica wrote:

Are you aware of collective unconsciousness, or tribal mindsets? There are certain group consciousnesses that exists among groups of people. For example nations have certain collective mindsets.

I think if you took a poll, you'd find the majority of women are consciously offended by that word to varying degrees. You may note that I've agreed with you that this shifts and is not universal. However, this majority wounding with women exists at this time. Even though I know this can be healed in a moment, when people realize this, it has not yet happened, and we can all sense this.

Very, very few women (or those in other groups) individuate and move beyond the collective mindsets at this time. More often people deny what is in their collective unconscious. This is why when people are acting from a place of sensitivity and responsibility towards groups and their woundedness, they act with sensitivity.

I never claimed it wasn't offensive. Naturally lots of women will be offended if someone calls them a bitch. That doesn't make it sexist, however, unless you believe any insult towards women is sexist. Because if you were to take a poll, you'd find women are also consciously offended by the word asshole (which was labeled as non-sexist in the other thread).

So, are all insults against women sexist?

angelica

Collin wrote:

I never claimed it wasn't offensive. Naturally lots of women will be offended if someone calls them a bitch. That doesn't make it sexist, however, unless you believe any insult towards women is sexist. Because if you were to take a poll, you'd find women are also consciously offended by the word asshole (which was labeled as non-sexist in the other thread).

So, are all insults against women sexist?

That was explained in the other thread by others (Specifics had an excellent version that I commended there) in ways that made perfect sense for me.

For me, it takes a holistic blend of emotional understanding, intuitive understanding and logical understanding in order to understand the situation. The explanations in the other thread won't "make sense" unless we also listen and hear emotionally and intuitively.

As was said...if we are looking to use reason outside of the context of the whole, or if we are looking to justify what cannot be justified, we're somewhere else I opt not to go.

decides2dream

Collin wrote:

You say you can't remove a word from its historical context, but this constantly happens in language.

By your theory it's not insulting to call a gay dude a faggot, since a word cannot be removed from its historical context. Faggot simply means a bundle of wood (you're a bundle of wood doesn't sound too offensive). And by gay dude I don't mean a happy fastidious dandy, but a homosexual guy, and again by guy I don't mean a "grotesquely or poorly dressed person" nor do I mean the effigy of Guy Fawkes (which are both entered in the etymologic dictionary under "guy")

I'd say - based on etymology dictionaries - that dude historically had a slight negative connotation. So is dude is sexist word too?

If not, I'll ask you too how do you know which words have a "fixed" label and thus meaning and which words don't?



I think words don't have a fixed meaning or label, so one conversation would be enough in that specific context. I think the historical context can definitely be overcome while there's still sexism and racism.

really, really well stated!
tis true....the 'meaning' of words evolve over time, some quite rapidly, and even within the same time period....different meanings in different parts of the world. the 'power' of words lies within the culture it is used, the context...and most importantly, the audience. none of this is 'fixed' nor is everyone's reaction. sure, one can guage the possible reaction based on time/place/context/audience...but it by no means guarantees the majority of the audience may/may not respond to such words as thought necessarily. i think context AND tone play a large role in if a word is offensive to some.

angelica

Here is the gist as I see it, Collin:

If you use a word, it has a certain generally accepted meaning. That meaning can be altered by your usuage of it. So when you are calling a woman the b-word, that word itself doesn't have universal power. It is also connected with your intent using the word. Also, the power of the word is connected to the way it is perceived by those who perceive it. That is three aspects: 1)objective meaning 2)intended meaning 3)perceived meaning.

When you seek to offend, that intent directed towards a human being makes you offensive. When you seek to offend, using a word that knowingly hooks another dimension, being the feminine wounding that exists in women consciously and unconsciously, you are also adding sexism to the equation.

The problem is, that one can have a decent intent with a word, and still given human wounds, it can still have a detrimental, or sexist effect.

The b-word wielded towards women can offend those who are merely viewing the situation. This is the same with abuse..those who witness the abuse also are affected by the abuse, even when the abuser feels they are only abusing one person.

So, Collin, Helen could be impervious to you calling her the b-word. You may also call her that jokingly, and yet you might still offend bystanders. You would therefore be responsible for choosing words that are known to have a sexist connotation.

Sure, you can use the word with different power. However, as one person, you cannot overcome the other variables that you exist interactively with.

angelica

When one is putting forth an argument for their purposes and hoping to get others on board, such as regarding altering "sexist" wording, if they are doing so at the expense of the views of those they hope to influence rather than in harmony with those views, it remains a political or personal power struggle.

Often generally accepted schools of thought marginalise other groups, perpetuating power imbalances. Feminism does so, for example. Anti-racist thought fuels backlashes, too. This is because these schools of thought continue to perpetuate the underlying power imbalance problem themselves, all in the name of being "right".

All humans can sense when others have an agenda of power struggle, and when contrarily others seek the truth. The energy difference is palpable. The words are mere symbols.

_

angelica wrote:

Often generally accepted schools of thought marginalise other groups, perpetuating power imbalances. Feminism does so, for example.

That's a bold generalization.

angelica

scb wrote:

That's a bold generalization.

Yes it is.

Collin

angelica wrote:

Here is the gist as I see it, Collin:

If you use a word, it has a certain generally accepted meaning. That meaning can be altered by your usuage of it. So when you are calling a woman the b-word, that word itself doesn't have universal power. It is also connected with your intent using the word. Also, the power of the word is connected to the way it is perceived by those who perceive it. That is three aspects: 1)objective meaning 2)intended meaning 3)perceived meaning.

When you seek to offend, that intent directed towards a human being makes you offensive. When you seek to offend, using a word that knowingly hooks another dimension, being the feminine wounding that exists in women consciously and unconsciously, you are also adding sexism to the equation.

I like your first paragraph, but I disagree with your second paragraph. I've been thinking about this and maybe we disagree on this because we do not have the same native language. In my language there are plenty feminine words, in English I see this a lot less. We acknowledge gender in a lot of words. An example of this in English would be waiter and waitress. But you don't have this female form (at least not that I'm aware of) for a lot of other words such as worker, employee, friend, artist, driver, teacher... etc. for all these words we have a feminine form and a masculine form. So to me acknowledgement of gender is very natural. It's not only natural in 'regular' words but also in insults. To me, it doesn't add anything.

So perhaps we can say my understand of the English language isn't optimal and thus I'm not qualified to make judgements about the usage of it.

The problem is, that one can have a decent intent with a word, and still given human wounds, it can still have a detrimental, or sexist effect.

The b-word wielded towards women can offend those who are merely viewing the situation. This is the same with abuse..those who witness the abuse also are affected by the abuse, even when the abuser feels they are only abusing one person.

So, Collin, Helen could be impervious to you calling her the b-word. You may also call her that jokingly, and yet you might still offend bystanders. You would therefore be responsible for choosing words that are known to have a sexist connotation.

That would be number 3, the perceived meaning, right?

But if four women are called a bitch (I'm already feeling sorry for all these fictional women who are repeatedly being called a bitch ), and two of them say the perceive it as sexist and two of them don't perceive it as sexist. That that word is only sexist in the mind of some women, while to others it is not. That would mean the word doesn't have a universal sexist meaning.

By saying it is sexist, you're giving more validity to one perceived meaning.

There is no way I can know how other people perceive certain words, so any word becomes potentially offensive.

angelica

Collin wrote:

I like your first paragraph, but I disagree with your second paragraph. I've been thinking about this and maybe we disagree on this because we do not have the same native language. In my language there are plenty feminine words, in English I see this a lot less. We acknowledge gender in a lot of words. An example of this in English would be waiter and waitress. But you don't have this female form (at least not that I'm aware of) for a lot of other words such as worker, employee, friend, artist, driver, teacher... etc. for all these words we have a feminine form and a masculine form. So to me acknowledgement of gender is very natural. It's not only natural in 'regular' words but also in insults. To me, it doesn't add anything.

So perhaps we can say my understand of the English language isn't optimal and thus I'm not qualified to make judgements about the usage of it.

That's a very good point, Collin. In Canada and the US, I think the average person has had enough exposure to our "second" languages being French and Spanish, and therefore have a taste of that zany feminine/masculine thing in language. I can say with certainty that to me it's a weird concept!! I don't fathom words having feminine masculine slants at all! I know you are FAR more language educated in far-reaching ways than I am, for sure!

That would be number 3, the perceived meaning, right?

But if four women are called a bitch (I'm already feeling sorry for all these fictional women who are repeatedly being called a bitch ), and two of them say the perceive it as sexist and two of them don't perceive it as sexist. That that word is only sexist in the mind of some women, while to others it is not. That would mean the word doesn't have a universal sexist meaning.

By saying it is sexist, you're giving more validity to one perceived meaning.

There is no way I can know how other people perceive certain words, so any word becomes potentially offensive.

I agree, it's entirely contextual. I do believe, though, that when someone truly resolves this issue, one is at a point of understanding and sensitivity and therefore this argument is no longer an issue for that person. meaning, they would have no desire to use the word at all.

What I say is sexist, in your original example, is your use of it, as an aware, awake person, who well knows the potential for offense or wounding that the word holds, based on the general perceived meaning. In that specific context, I believe it universally has a sexist element, even if you don't intend to demean women.

Years ago, my sister and myself used to call each other "sluts" a lot.... it was empowering to us to take the word and to use it in a funny way, as a term of endearment between sisters! And it made a statement to others. I thought it was horrible how women were degraded for their natural sex drive, and I consciously used the word in order to diminish the negative power it generally wielded. I wouldn't dream of giving that word power in such a way anymore. But I'm not against the principle of the matter. There is potential fallout for doing so, though, such as the ownership for risking offending others in order to make a point. Anytime we sacrifice others for self, we're missing something.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

Define 'meaning'

:P