The Power of Words

Collin

angelica wrote:

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.

Do you mean that because I know some perceive it as sexist, that my usage of it is sexist because it could potentially hurt someone.

That's an interesting theory, Angelica, one I don't necessarily disagree with. But do note, it's only since that other thread that I have known that some perceive it as sexist.

One could turn the argument around too, I guess.

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.

We have a very similar word (slet). When I was a little bit younger (16-17) I'd hear it every week when we went to parties. Guys refering to girls who were sexually active. I always told these guys that if these girls were sluts, then I was a slut too and most of them as well. They all knew I was right (not that we were all sluts, but that it's rather silly to give someone a derogatory name for their behaviour if you exhibit the exact same behaviour), but some of them would always come up with reasons why it was different :rolleyes:

Collin

Saturnal wrote:

Define 'meaning'

:P

Define 'define' first

angelica

Collin wrote:

Do you mean that because I know some perceive it as sexist, that my usage of it is sexist because it could potentially hurt someone.

That's an interesting theory, Angelica, one I don't necessarily disagree with. But do note, it's only since that other thread that I have known that some perceive it as sexist.

One could turn the argument around too, I guess.

What I mean is you know there is the potential that using that word will wound someone, as a woman.

We have a very similar word (slet). When I was a little bit younger (16-17) I'd hear it every week when we went to parties. Guys refering to girls who were sexually active. I always told these guys that if these girls were sluts, then I was a slut too and most of them as well. They all knew I was right (not that we were all sluts, but that it's rather silly to give someone a derogatory name for their behaviour if you exhibit the exact same behaviour), but some of them would always come up with reasons why it was different :rolleyes:

I became a mom when I was 18. I was unmarried, but I lived with my boyfriend who was my daughter's father. Another girl I knew was considered the town "slut" because she was a single mother at 18, and she slept with lots of guys. I thought it was silly: I had sex with my boyfriend all the time, and she met her sexual needs as well. She was the town "slut", while I was respected among our peers. And it was ironic to me when I'd call my sister a "slut" considering she was a virgin. Then we started calling guys sluts, too, and it was interesting how many were offended by that! edit: At one point, among our group of friends, my sister, my friend and I were known affectionately as "sleazy, easy and teasy". I was "easy" because I was in a relationship with one of our friends, and had sex all the time. My one friend was "sleazy" because she had lots of sex and was single. and my sister, was much more prudish and was therefore "teasy"....yikes....it was all in good fun! Although I've come to change my view on perpetuating that type of thing and calling it "fun".

I've talked about my friend, Cindy, out here before - the town "slut" - in the context that she lost her child, became a drug-addicted prostitute and was murdered by Canada's notorious pig farm serial-killer of prostitutes, Robert Picton. RIP Cindy.

angelica

oh, Collin, about your not being aware that word was considered sexist...this is where I say most people are unconscious of their accountability. They have not come to understand the gravity of what they do. When people truly understand, they act understanding, and no longer do it. On one level, you realized it was agressive and in anger to wield such words, which is where you had justified that behaviour. We can't justify going against life, as much as we try. It doesn't work. Life has a gazillion natural checks and balances in place. When we give ourselves willful license to do so, we open the door the unconsciously hook ourselves into negative backlash.

You also, on some level, as do most, know that the b-word has been related more to women as a group, I'm assuming.

And finally, even when we don't have an intent, or knowledge, we are still accountable for the consequence of our actions: ie: they hurt another. Or hurt them in their collective womanhood wounds.

Collin

angelica wrote:

oh, Collin, about your not being aware that word was considered sexist...this is where I say most people are unconscious of their accountability. They have not come to understand the gravity of what they do. When people truly understand, they act understanding, and no longer do it. On one level, you realized it was agressive and in anger to wield such words, which is where you had justified that behaviour. We can't justify going against life, as much as we try. It doesn't work. Life has a gazillion natural checks and balances in place. When we give ourselves willful license to do so, we open the door the unconsciously hook ourselves into negative backlash.

I understand this, but isn't that an endless cycle? Any word could be considered sexist, offensive, racist... if it is perceived by a person as such.

I rarely insult people, though. And if I insult people I don't try to justify it. I know how much insults can hurt, I used to be an expert in hurting people through words. When I punch someone I also don't try to justify it. Aggression goes against my own principles, but principle are not chains, you can try to apply them, but they won't always hold. Ultimately, I am responsible. I try to keep to my principles and I can honestly say I've been succesful in this for quite a while. I've been in quite a few fight, mostly when I was 15 - 16. The last time I acted aggressively (physically) and not according to my own principles was two years ago. I lost control when someone hurt a person I cared deeply about. I won't try to justify my actions.

You also, on some level, as do most, know that the b-word has been related more to women as a group, I'm assuming.

No. I never view the word bitch as related to women as a group. To me bitch has always been an individual insult, that is a applied to one woman, much like asshole doesn't relate to a group.

And finally, even when we don't have an intent, or knowledge, we are still accountable for the consequence of our actions: ie: they hurt another. Or hurt them in their collective womanhood wounds.

Yes, we are always responsible. You won't here me say otherwise.

I'd like to add another point, though. We've talked about the word bitch and its meanings and so on. But the word bitch has a meaning, I think, which is generally accepted; the objective meaning you might say. And that meaning is a unpleasant, rude, arrogant, mean, selfish woman (give or take a few adjectives).

Now, if someone knows a woman who is unpleasant, rude, arrogant, mean, selfish and so on and he want to describe her to another person and he says:

A: "I don't know her all that well personally, but during the work hours here she's always a mean, selfish, rude, arrogant, unpleasant woman."

or he says:

A: "I don't know her all that well personally, but during the work hours here she's always a bitch."

In this situation a person merely applies the objective meaning, without any intention of insulting, just describing her characteristics. How much difference is there in these two sentences according to you? There are no bystanders.

angelica

Collin wrote:

I understand this, but isn't that an endless cycle? Any word could be considered sexist, offensive, racist... if it is perceived by a person as such.

That's why when we go against life, we'll get consequences. Whether we are harsh to others, or to ourselves, etc. There are "endless" cycles all over that we're all caught up in all the time! They can be ended. It took me years and years to end my big painful cycles, and to clear up the consequences from past actions.

I rarely insult people, though. And if I insult people I don't try to justify it. I know how much insults can hurt, I used to be an expert in hurting people through words. When I punch someone I also don't try to justify it. Aggression goes against my own principles, but principle are not chains, you can try to apply them, but they won't always hold. Ultimately, I am responsible. I try to keep to my principles and I can honestly say I've been succesful in this for quite a while. I've been in quite a few fight, mostly when I was 15 - 16. The last time I acted aggressively (physically) and not according to my own principles was two years ago. I lost control when someone hurt a person I cared deeply about. I won't try to justify my actions.

I still have two sisters that haven't been speaking to me for years regarding the viscious words I've used against them in the past. I received my consequences, and figured out how to end the cycles for msyelf. They are still in the cycles. I am free.

No. I never view the word bitch as related to women as a group. To me bitch has always been an individual insult, that is a applied to one woman, much like asshole doesn't relate to a group.

ok

Yes, we are always responsible. You won't here me say otherwise.

I'd like to add another point, though. We've talked about the word bitch and its meanings and so on. But the word bitch has a meaning, I think, which is generally accepted; the objective meaning you might say. And that meaning is a unpleasant, rude, arrogant, mean, selfish woman (give or take a few adjectives).

Now, if someone knows a woman who is unpleasant, rude, arrogant, mean, selfish and so on and he want to describe her to another person and he says:

A: "I don't know her all that well personally, but during the work hours here she's always a mean, selfish, rude, arrogant, unpleasant woman."

or he says:

A: "I don't know her all that well personally, but during the work hours here she's always a bitch."

In this situation a person merely applies the objective meaning, without any intention of insulting, just describing her characteristics. How much difference is there in these two sentences according to you? There are no bystanders.

The difference I hear in these two descriptions is that one describes a person in a way that is not loaded with anger/resentments. The other shows a demeaning slant, which indicates inner unresolved and sometimes unconscious emotions. For example, since as people in general, we've been taught to repress our emotions, when we feel strongly, we don't recognize the emotion is entirely about us.. we try to instead give away those emotions, and we convince ourselves it's about the "bitch" out there. When we are balanced, and attuned and responsible for our inner feedback, we don't use demeaning terminology.

This objective meaning of "bitch" is slang. And when we slip off from objective meanings, into misconstrued ones (slang), that's where our unconscious emotions slip out and give us away. It is a "colourful" word, and goes beyond a reasoned, adult-level description. I use the word "adult" here, in terms of the psychological ideal where we are balanced, and operate on the even playing field with all others. Once we use that colourful slang, we begin to degrade the person and we reveal we've stepped off of the even playing field into imbalance. Again, it's the holistic use, within the context given all the variables, from dictionary meaning, to intent, to perception, to agenda, psychology, history, etc. Then add in intuitive and emotional perspectives...

Collin

angelica wrote:

The difference I hear in these two descriptions is that one describes a person in a way that is not loaded with anger/resentments. The other shows a demeaning slant, which indicates inner unresolved and sometimes unconscious emotions. For example, since as people in general, we've been taught to repress our emotions, when we feel strongly, we don't recognize the emotion is entirely about us.. we try to instead give away those emotions, and we convince ourselves it's about the "bitch" out there. When we are balanced, and attuned and responsible for our inner feedback, we don't use demeaning terminology.

This objective meaning of "bitch" is slang. And when we slip off from objective meanings, into misconstrued ones (slang), that's where our unconscious emotions slip out and give us away. It is a "colourful" word, and goes beyond a reasoned, adult-level description. I use the word "adult" here, in terms of the psychological ideal where we are balanced, and operate on the even playing field with all others. Once we use that colourful slang, we begin to degrade the person and we reveal we've stepped off of the even playing field into imbalance. Again, it's the holistic use, within the context given all the variables, from dictionary meaning, to intent, to perception, to agenda, psychology, history, etc. Then add in intuitive and emotional perspectives...

I think I see your point. I just looked up bitch in two dictionaries and neither label bitch as slang. One labels it as offensive, the other as derogatory. But I guess your theory works just as well with a label as derogatory - then we don't slip into misconstructed meaning (because the meaning is 'right') but rather we slip into negative emotionally charged language.

Although, I do think "mean, rude, selfish, unpleasant, arrogant' expresses resentment too.

angelica

Collin wrote:

I think I see your point. I just looked up bitch in two dictionaries and neither label bitch as slang. One labels it as offensive, the other as derogatory. But I guess your theory works just as well with a label as derogatory - then we don't slip into misconstructed meaning (because the meaning is 'right') but rather we slip into negative emotionally charged language.

Although, I do think "mean, rude, selfish, unpleasant, arrogant' expresses resentment too.

Dictionary.com is where it said it was slang. But, yes, your terms illustrate what I mean sufficiently.

I totally agree, there are issues calling someone those other names, too. I found the further I go in working through issues, more present themselves.

that's why ultimately, to get to a responsible place is like going through the eye of a needle. It ends up being a straight and narrow path.