Rothfeld: The Impact of Our Words
By Becca Rothfeld, Guest Columnist
Published on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Infamously offensive comedian Daniel Tosh sparked nationwide controversy when he defended rape jokes at a recent Laugh Factory performance. During his routine, Tosh apparently made the claim that rape jokes are always funny. When an audience member vocally objected, Tosh quipped in response, “Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by five guys right now? Like, right now? What if a bunch of guys just raped her?”
Laugh Factory owner Jamie Masada excused Tosh’s behavior on the grounds that the entertainer “had no intentions of hurting anyone.” In keeping with a culture of victim-blaming, Masada added, “If you are a member of the audience and you start dishing out something to a comic and try to be funny, you better be able to take it.”
Masada’s statements represent a familiar and insidious misconception. Wielders of verbal weapons plead the purity of intention in the face of criticism. Users of words such as “faggot” and “slut” resort to similar exculpatory tactics to rationalize their behavior. The popularization and widespread usage of chauvinistic terminology — “he whored himself out to Wall Street!” — have provided proponents of bigotry with new venues of exoneration. Recurrent excuses range from the implausible “I didn’t know” to the crafty “I didn’t mean it that way.” Whether borne of heedlessness, malice or merely ignorance, such paltry defenses fail to vindicate the champions of oppressive language.
What apologists for sexist rhetoric fail to grasp is that language is social. What an individual speaker means by a word is entirely distinct from the word’s actual meaning. As noted philosopher of language Hilary Putnam famously remarked, “Meaning just ain’t in the head!” Language is social — not personal — and expecting listeners to interpret the words “whore” or “faggot” charitably, or to understand rape jokes as all in good fun, is akin to expecting them to understand the word “shoe” as referring to a tree, simply because we wish it did. Audiences can read texts, not minds.
Slurs and derogatory terms have social meanings, and their meanings are damaging ones. Associating certain genders and sexual characteristics with negativity reinforces patriarchal norms, which in turn reinforce oppressive structures. Each time we use the word “whore” to denote a sell-out, we reaffirm the link between female promiscuity and general despicability. Each time we use the word “bitchiness” to describe weakness or whininess, we implicitly confirm that these undesirable traits are essentially feminine. And each time we make a rape joke, we trivialize the sexual violence that is all too prevalent in our culture — even on our campus. Whether we reinforce oppressive social structures intentionally is immaterial: The harm we cause is real because the language we use to describe our world also shapes and sustains our world.
We construct the social landscape that we inhabit, and the prejudices therein are neither natural nor inevitable. They are the product of human choices, human descriptions and human conceptualization. Homophobia and sexism are the result of social understandings, and we have the power to amend them.
Obliviousness is no longer a satisfactory excuse for our oppressive actions. We have a responsibility to consider the implications of our actions, statements and behaviors. Assertions of ignorance are the refuge of the thoughtless. How we change our deleterious discourse is up for debate. Perhaps we should eliminate misogynistic and homophobic slurs altogether. Perhaps we should strive to endow the notion of a sexual woman or a gay man with positive connotations. What is certain is that we can no longer turn a blind eye to the social problems our language has helped to create and continues to perpetuate.
If you don’t like someone using a word in a certain way, stop interacting with them. It’s really as simple as that.
By Anon on Jul 31 | 10:40 am
Don’t put “faggot” and “whore” in the same category. They are completely different. “Faggot” and “retard” are so much more offensive than “whore” and “slut.” The former refer to one’s nature, while the latter refer to one’s actions. The former are derogatory terms that refer to specific groups of people much like the N-word does, whereas the latter does not even approach that sort of degradation.
By Anonnn on Jul 31 | 5:19 pm
@Anonnn
I can’t believe your only comment is to try to create a hierarchy of unacceptable words so we can all compare who is more hurt. If you honestly think the word “slut” is used only to describe a person’s actions, you’ve clearly never been called one. And actually, “whore” DOES refer to a “specific group of people”.
Let’s not waste time trying to find out which terrible things are less terrible to say to people.
By Alum on Aug 1 | 3:50 pm
@Annonnn – Where does “white trash” fit? Easy labels not only get more attention, they get more free passes.
By Anonepl on Aug 1 | 9:19 pm
In response to “Anon” at 10:40 AM, Jul 31: I think you miss the point — or choose to ignore it, perhaps? The fact that words like “whore” and “faggot” are used to mean something other than “a woman who has sex for money” and “a derogatory term for a gay man” by some speakers of our language does not change the fact that those are their PRIMARY definitions. Those are the connotations English speakers will universally associate with those words. Do you really believe that a word means to others what you wish it to mean to others, rather than what the commonly accepted definition of the word is? Hypothetically, let’s say that you and your friend call each other faggots. It’s an inside joke between just you two, and pretty much just means “lame person” the way you guys are using it. Neither of you are at all homophobic, of course. But the moment you yell “hey, faggot!” to your friend across a crowded courtyard — the moment your actions affect those around you — it’s no longer just between you guys; your original intent is irrelevant. Do you think that because you do not associate calling someone a faggot an attack on homosexuality, the majority of those who hear you speak won’t, either? This is delusional.
If your language makes me uncomfortable, should it be my responsibility to remove myself from the hostile environment you create for me? No, it should be your job not to say hurtful shit to begin with.
In response to “Anonnn” at 5:19 PM, Jul 31: I don’t really understand your “nature vs. action” point, as “whore” and “slut” apply exclusively to women (unless you consider “being a woman” to be an action?). I find surprising your dismissal of how degrading gendered insults like “whore” and “slut” can be. These words disparage women for embracing their sexuality. I can’t compare exactly HOW degrading they are compared to other insults, but I don’t think that’s relevant. There’s no need to play the “which word is worse” game here — none of these words are acceptable!
In response to the column itself: well said.
By mouse on Aug 2 | 12:29 am
@ Mouse:
Yeah, it’s your responsibility to remove yourself or grit your teeth and bear it. I have a right to say whatever I want, when I want. Don’t like it? Move away or shut your ears.
By Anon on Aug 2 | 6:57 pm
attaboy Anon, forget this pc nonsense. and by the way, go chik fil a.
By Mickey on Aug 4 | 11:04 am
also, i support a comedian’s right to use anything and everything in their routines. If it offends me, I dont go to that particular comedians show. But its idiotic to demand a comedian censor himself or avoid certain topics, comedy must always be free.
By Mickey on Aug 4 | 11:05 am