Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!

[Juana]

The following is a rationalization that my brain came up with. I know it's not right in spite of there being a little truth to it, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example of a way that patriarchal ideas can manifest. I'm also depositing it here for the sake of dissection.

Women tend to be physically smaller and have less upper body strength than men, so why is it such a no-no to link femininity to weakness? On one hand I hear women saying that men don't understand how inequality in strength and size fuels feelings of vulnerability around men, yet women seem to not want womanhood or femininity otherwise linked with weakness.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for women to be concerned about being physically overpowered as it's basic fact that most men are stronger than most women. For the average man, such a concern is less warranted as he's likely to have a more even match when push comes to shove. So when guys disparage one another using words conceptually linked to women it seems less about putting women down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a woman is often not an appropriate concern for man.

What Phoxxy and Nigel said. Also, it's not physical weakness that comes up in debates like this (ime, that only comes up after all other forms have been proven wrong and is sometimes by accompanied implied violence in order to shut you up), it's weakness of character. For example, "quit being a pussy" and "man up" imply cowardice or emotional weaknesses.

[Phox]

I am actually unconvinced, as I saw the Webster's 1913 citation and found it very odd that there are absolutely no supporting citations other than a quote that is impossible to find elsewhere, nor has any other dictionary ever used that origin. I was hoping you would have something a little more substantive, especially since dictionary editors of that era were notorious for simply making shit up in order to claim to have better/different information than other dictionaries.

Not that it's particularly relevant to modern usage and understanding, but I just find that a bit sketchy.

Which part seems unconvincing?

Pursy can be found in several historical quotes. Pussy as an endearing term can be found in several historical quotes. Pussy as a vulgar insult to a man seems defined in the 1828 and 1913 Websters and most other references I can find either directly source that dictionary, or make statements that appear very similar.

It could be made up. I have not, however, found any other dictionaries or reference material online that disagrees with it (and I originally remembered it from a lecture 20 years ago, but I'd guess the teacher probably got her source from Webster) . Maybe they're all just cribbing from Webster. I will go wander over to the library this weekend and see if I can find any older references.

And yeah, I'm looking for the origin of the word. The argument has been made that the word as vulgar slang for a guy exists because of the misogynistic culture they developed in. IF (and we must assume IF) the "weak man" is actually from 'pursy', rather than 'pussy' than the origin is no more misogynistic than 'niggardly' is racist.

When I think about how 'pussy' gets used in slang...

Pussy can mean vagina, or sex "Baby, I love to eat your pussy". That's not particularly misogynistic, any more than cock or dick.
Pussy can be denigrating to a woman "Look at that pussy that just walked in" and is obviously misogynistic in that usage.
Pussy can mean a weak guy, and that's the bit that I am trying to dig into. Is it "weak guy" because he's like a woman, or is it "weak guy" because he's "pursy"?

IF (and I'm trying to stress that here) the answer is that it does indeed come from pursy... then the word isn't particularly misogynistic except in a case where the usage is reducing the value of the woman to her sexual value, even in today's usage. 

Rat, the problem:

Then: "Pussy" as a term for women, cats, pussy willows, whatever.... meant "soft, fluffy, cuddly, etc."

Today: "Pussy" as an insult means "soft, weak, vagina, etc."

Do you see where there is overlap, regardless of actual origins?

Well, IF the Websters entry is right then "Then" (early 20the century) Pussy meant soft/fluffy/cuddly/cat/rabbit/fur (Saxon) from one root source. It meant 'endearing term for a girl' (French) from another root source and it meant 'weak' ('pursy') from a completely different root source.

Yes, today we might conflate them all together and it makes a good argument for people who want to be careful not to offend women to eschew its usage. However, the 'root' of the issue is if the term came about because of a misogynistic culture that saw women as weak, or if it came about from two completely different sources.

There are people that dislike the word niggardly because it overlaps the slur for a race and negative traits of being stingy or miserly. The word though has nothing, at all, to do with race, it just happens to sound like it. IF Websters is right, then 'pussy' suffers from the same issue.

Err, as we keep trying to tell you. NONE OF THAT IS ACTUALLY FUCKING RELEVANT.

Regardless of what the usage of the word meant in decades past, or where it came from, when people use it today, they do not think of it in such terms.

This reminds me of that holist character (you remember, the homeopath dude). He was trying to make an argument that modern science was intentionally corrupt and untruthful, based on the fact that scio the Latin word that science ostensibly comes from is possibly related to the Indo-European root [iskie-[/i] which prbably meant something like "to cut". So, his argument ran that science is the art of cutting up facts or... something, I don't know....

But anyway, the point is what you are you doing is arguing from the same fallacy, that the origin of a word, regardless of how pertinent it is to current usage, trumps any connotation or understanding of its definition.

[The Johnny]

Maybe im oversimplifying but, it all boils down to context and intent, alongside the current general representation of the word?

A) "He is a homosexual. He is gay." versus "He is a homosexual. He is a faggot."

B) "Why didn't you sneak into that building with us? You are so gay." versus idem

Regardless of etymology ("happy" or whatever), the current significance of "gay" tends to be "homosexual" or "unmanly".

Regarding "faggot", its an agressive way to call someone "gay".

[The Johnny]

Language is a convention that we use to communicate with others in as efficient manner as we can do.

When you scream at someone "FAGGOT" this is an attempt to infuriate or insult the other person.

This word is used as an insult, because its general meaning pertains to homosexuality, with the implicit reasoning that being homosexual is an insult and degrading.

How do we distinguish or know that the person is a homophobe or merely trying to anger us? We dont know.

What we do know, is that by using it as an insult (although very efficient), it perpetuates negative representations of homosexuals as something that is degrading.

[The Johnny]

In conclusion, being cost-efficient in insulting someone, usually has the drawback of propagating stereotypes and prejudice.

[Placid Dingo]

Maybe im oversimplifying but, it all boils down to context and intent, alongside the current general representation of the word?

A) "He is a homosexual. He is gay." versus "He is a homosexual. He is a faggot."

B) "Why didn't you sneak into that building with us? You are so gay." versus idem

Regardless of etymology ("happy" or whatever), the current significance of "gay" tends to be "homosexual" or "unmanly".

Regarding "faggot", its an agressive way to call someone "gay".

the general term for this is connotation vs denotation.

Denotation is the literal meaning, where connotation is the implied meaning.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah, I think you're nailing it.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

OK... I think things have gotten pretty sidetracked from my original point. So I'm gonna try to clarify what I'm talking about.

FIRST:

I don't disagree with what you're saying Nigel, Phox, Garbo.

To your previous point with the example of blacks and poverty, I agree completely with you. If a woman is worried that she will be discriminated against as weak, then she would want nothing to do with slang that can reference soft furry bunnies, cats or weak 'out of breath' men.

I agree completely with that point.

Earlier we talked about how women get CEO jobs today, or titles that are equal to men's, but still make less money. The upshot is that people can look at the surface and say "Equality!" while the real problem persists. If we were to eschew all slur/slang terms for a woman's sex organs and the guys at the bar still had the same conversation, still reduced the woman walking in to a sexual object and nothing more... then wouldn't we be in an identical situation?

You made an excellent statement that words change as culture changes and that its culture that needs to change. With that, I couldn't agree more.

If we're talking only about "Look at the pussy that just walked into the bar", then of course its misogynistic. It would be equally misogynistic if they used any other term for a woman's sex organs. That usage and more importantly that whole fucking line of thinking needs to be wiped from our culture, if such a thing is possible.

BUT (and this is the ONLY point I was trying to make regarding the etymology)

The source of the word is important if we are going to substantiate the claim that pussy as slang exists because of a misogynistic culture. If (just for this bit of the argument) we assume Webster is right, then pussy the slur had nothing at all to do with women and its current usage is an artifact that has been confused and mangled with other meanings of the word.

Usage in some contexts are definitely misogynistic today. Usage in other contexts are obviously not... as to what it says about the history of our culture well I think that bears more research.

Ironically I ran across this on a blog... again, something that would be interesting to research further:

Well before "vagina" or "vulva" entered English as a stilted medical term, there was the Middle English "cunte." Why did this become crude? It became crude for all the reasons feminists would like to think that "vagina" is uncomfortable for people to say: because it is a frank term referring to female sexuality; it also was used by the lower classes, and used in a common way, not a medical or detached academic way. (See also "womb" instead of "uterus.") Like "uterus," "vagina" is a pretentious, specific, non-vernacular word. The very process of trying to incorporate it into the vernacular and to edge out anything else as being obscene is to endorse the domination of patriarchal Latin over frank Anglo-Saxon. It's classist and sexist and exclusionary—everything feminists claim not to be.

And Nigel, I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate here... I'm not advocating for the usage of pussy as a derogatory term. I don't use it myself.

Also, I think Placid Dingo and Joh'Nyx are riding the correct motorcycle (too many posts while I'm posting!!!)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Forgot the link to the blog I mentioned: http://higharka.blogspot.com/2012/07/vaginas-cunts.html

I am totally going to do more research on that...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There are also cases where the connotation is derived from the context: ie. "You have a sweet pussy" vs. "Don't be such a pussy", and "You've got some balls to talk to me like that" vs. "Wow, it took real balls to stand up to them like that!" vs. "It's all ballsed up".

Of course, it really takes looking at the bigger picture to try to figure out what the overall connotation of a word really is at any point in time. And it's subject to change over time. That's why it's so important to look at things like language use from a wide perspective. If you're coming into a culture and you don't know that, say, "persimmon" is a euphemism for people with pale hair, and you hear "persimmon" used as a slur, it can't be placed contextually within the culture unless you also know what it relates to and whether pale-haired people have higher or lower status than others in that culture.

[Placid Dingo]

Also context matters.

I know I will sometimes crap on about doing particularly manly things. "I'm such a man today, I'm gonna go home and punch a koala." It all buys into the existing patriarchal ideology but the truth is that it can be fun to party along with fucked up cultural values, as a joke or parody, when you're with people who share the joke.

I mean, thats why PD throws off at the Welsh and Australians. Because it's fun to use the language of racism to mock people, when the context allows people to not get hurt.

And that context is important. There was a recent controversy here about an Aboriginal Memes page on Facebook that made 'controvercial jokes' about how all Australian Aborigines are dole bludging petrol sniffers who never achieved anything. It was completely repulsive, because the context was of a group of racist dickheads attacking a minority group.

Compare that to me copping a good natured insult here for being an "upside downer". The people making the comments are people who are tolerant decent people, and as a white middle class first world male it's not like I'm deprived of a voice with which to express myself.

I do wonder a little... Cain posted an article that discussed Shrek for a while to make a point; it's sold as a film that mocks the structure of fairy tales. But really, it is a fairy tale. So, the prince is fat and the princess knows self defence, but in the end, the prince saves a princess from a dragon and marries her. Mocking the culture one is steeped in does not mean you're not buying into it.

No particular point I'm trying to make, just some thoughts.

[Placid Dingo]

Dammit Nigel beat me to the context post.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

BUT (and this is the ONLY point I was trying to make regarding the etymology)

The source of the word is important if we are going to substantiate the claim that pussy as slang exists because of a misogynistic culture. If (just for this bit of the argument) we assume Webster is right, then pussy the slur had nothing at all to do with women and its current usage is an artifact that has been confused and mangled with other meanings of the word.

Are we trying to substantiate that claim? Or just arguing that the current use of pussy is reflective of a misogynistic culture (which would be part of its etymology, regardless of the fact that it once meant "cat" and possibly also joined with another root that meant "purse", because, if that is its origin, the words have become intertwined?)

Are you arguing that somehow the confusion and mangling into what it's generally perceived as today is somehow indicative of a culture that is NOT devaluing of women?

I guess I am having a hard time seeing your point, if your point was anything other than introducing a tidbit of (potential) etymological trivia.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Dammit Nigel beat me to the context post.

Yeah but yours made some really good points!

[The Johnny]

Shrek plays off on novelty, novelty always sells, and dont forget the CONTEXT of that movie, its a comedy, its entertainment

the princess knowing martial arts or whatever is supposed to be funny (temporary cognitive dissonance?), in the sense of "haha, no way a princess can do THAT"