tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post3635988996740360511..comments2024-03-16T00:21:43.240+00:00Comments on Separated by a Common Language: the c-word and gendering mansplaininglynneguisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-60219267844330879372022-03-18T07:48:08.980+00:002022-03-18T07:48:08.980+00:00I can relate to some of your points, and I agree t...I can relate to some of your points, and I agree that the act of explaining things to people who don't need explanations can be performed by either gender to any other gender. Anyway, thank you for bringing this up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-29108390162392982812019-07-27T19:05:40.065+01:002019-07-27T19:05:40.065+01:00BrE, Scot, mid 60s. I grew up in a mining village,...BrE, Scot, mid 60s. I grew up in a mining village, and was used to men using the f- and c-words casually, although less usually in front of women. I do remember a particularly upsetting family dispute, when a distant uncle was referred to as a “pure swine”, in such vitriolic tones as to leave no doubt that this was regarded as a particularly strong form of “swearing”.<br /><br />I also remember several men being referred to as “old blurts”, because of a tendency for sleazy and inappropriate (even creepy) comments towards women and girls. Many years later, I was surprised to hear this word in the lyrics of a Christie Moore song. As a result of reading this post, I,ve just Googled the word. It appears to be Belfast slang, with the same anatomical meaning as the c-word.<br /><br />Lynne, I do not regard the e-mail you received as acceptable or defensible under any circumstances.Shy-replyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891566073375322808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-54128230290280444052016-12-15T18:14:01.312+00:002016-12-15T18:14:01.312+00:00If that's true (and it may very well be, as yo...If that's true (and it may very well be, as younger people in some circles in the UK do seem to have decided it's not as powerful an insult as all that, as happened to "twat" before it and "con" in French) - then it raises the question, what words will carry the emotional force and social impact that will do the same job? Because, sure as eggs is eggs, people (oh, all right, men) will still want to have graded levels of insult to apply to each other. Autolycushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17642868944400656922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-72758808828796921242016-12-02T22:28:34.382+00:002016-12-02T22:28:34.382+00:00Are you saying that, in your linguistic community,...Are you saying that, in your linguistic community, the C-word is completely disconnected from the female genitalia? Remarkable!vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-14762143527738649572016-12-02T05:19:37.085+00:002016-12-02T05:19:37.085+00:00As a young Scot, cunt is used by everyone my age. ...As a young Scot, cunt is used by everyone my age. It just means person now. I also had absolutely no idea it was a gendered thing. Never heard anyone refer to a vagina as a cunt either, that seems unusual to me. In fact, it is so neutral people need to prefix it with sound-cunt for a good person or shit-cunt for a bad one. If a male or female mate walked in and asked "anycunt up for the pub?" no one would bat an eyelid. Probably wouldn't say it around my parents though. Like KeithD said above, its the tone/context in which you say it that makes it offensive. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-46644026942150683682016-11-25T17:09:09.727+00:002016-11-25T17:09:09.727+00:00Re mansplaining I find myself largely in agreement...Re mansplaining I find myself largely in agreement with Doug Sandeth. I hope my next paragraph doesn't seem to Lynne like a fourth "man explaining her joke to her", because frankly I know Lynne is an expert so I wouldn't dare condescend, and regardless of that I don't give a toss what sex she happens to be; I just want to record my point of view, for what it's worth, in the hope that I can maybe shine a different light on things, even two months late.<br /><br />Lynne picked up some imprecise English and, seeing the humour, pointed it out as being wrong in what it literally said rather than what it meant (so a bit like the 'mental health' blog item). Jason, a linguist so not an ignorant know-all, knew the subject matter. He surely read the offending subhead as it was meant without focusing on what it literally said, thought from Lynne's comment that she had not understood and, not identifying her sarcasm, responded with a brief explanation. Lynne, offended by what she interpreted as Jason's mansplaining, was provoked into posting a provocative response. This provoked Jason into overreacting with an utterly unacceptable outburst, presumably made privately because Jason didn't dare do it publicly.<br /><br />What I feel I see here is misunderstanding and over-readiness to be offended on both sides, culminating in Jason offendedly and so offensively spitting the dummy. I suspect that at the time neither took any steps to discover more about the other (well you don't, do you, when dashing off a 30-second comment).<br /><br />I don't think it helps to hang the mansplaining label on such a weak example when there is so much about that clearly qualifies. I just don't see enough evidence in "For decades there has been a chorus of researchers who speak about other benefits: supposed improvement in cognitive functions, better memory, better social skills, etc. That's what they mean. Of course, fluency in a second language is its own reward" (thanks for the quote, David). As the PM makes clear, Jason didn't know Lynne was a linguist so condescension is hard to prove, and any gender element has to be inferred from the fact that it was a male speaking to a female, which, without evidence of condescension, just isn't enough for me.<br /><br />Nice word and useful concept, mansplaining. I just hope my comment isn't an example of it.KeithDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451059429340892054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-91974482233128078742016-11-25T16:05:53.754+00:002016-11-25T16:05:53.754+00:00I should have said that I would not call an unknow...I should have said that I would not call an unknown male a cunt because of the certainty that he would take it as a provocation, no matter how much I might smile while saying it. And I would not say it to a woman who I don't know or who I know does not like swearing because I have no desire to cause offence. In fact I don't swear at all before women I don't know and seldom before those I do know who have communicated their distaste for it. I also rarely swear at all before unknown males because I cannot gauge what effect it will have on their opinion of me. Which demonstrates that I am conscious of my audience and the effect swearing might have on them. I suppose this boils down to what so many others have said: that it's only fine in a (mostly) male environment when people know each other, although for me that applies to all swearing, not just 'cunt'.<br /><br />But I think we are getting to where I hope we will end up: people of my son's generation (he's 23) appear not to have been sensitised to find swearing offensive and the males swear quite freely and the females are not offended. The females swear much less because double standards. It takes offensive delivery to deliver offence, which is to my mind how it should be, whichever words are used.KeithDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451059429340892054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-9591019220671344402016-11-25T15:47:46.883+00:002016-11-25T15:47:46.883+00:00As background, I'm 72, British, Londoner, and ...As background, I'm 72, British, Londoner, and spent nine years in the army, where I quickly learnt to swear proficiently. I had to give someone a short lift in my car part-way through reading this item, and with heightened sensitivity I noticed that I used 'cunt' twice when commenting on other road users. I meant it very mildly: no stronger than 'idiot' and possibly less so. They couldn't hear me (although my passenger could), but the swearing got rid of the frustration they had engendered and allowed me to carry on driving calmly and safely.<br /><br />I recently read someone, maybe Lynne in another post, regretting that certain words could shock and offend while other words with the same meaning would not. So: in the list vagina, vulva, pussy, minnie (BrE childish, prob from French 'minet'; Disney sell(s) girls' items proudly declaring "I love Minnie" ;-p ), muff, twat, cunt, it is surely only the last two that retain any force, and twat is becoming less offensive. The force of swearing ought to be related to the intention of the person swearing but clearly isn't, for an American hearing me call my brother a dozy cunt would be very shocked, judging by this post and comments, while I and my brother would smile at each other. These two points taken together seem to mean it is the sound alone that is offensive, not the meaning, not the intent. People are conditioned to react to the sound, regardless of context or meaning - a bit like Facebook's algorithm blocking people who live in Scunthorpe. And to my mind it is a shame that certain sounds in this almost magic thing that we call language have - purely in the sounds themselves, stripped of all meaning - the power to shock or outrage. I'm not putting down the shocked, the outraged, merely regretting their conditioning, which ought to be as relevant today as Victorians' supposed shock at the sight of uncovered piano legs.<br /><br />The force of swearwords wears off with more frequent use, desensitising the conditioning referred to above, which is why the taboo words of my mother's day such as bloody, bugger, bum, sod, are now just about innocuous. As someone who swears often and without thought, I have long hoped for a time when all swearwords have become mild intensifiers, terms of endearment or merely descriptive, and when the intent of a speaker to insult, provoke or denigrate will have to be carried by more than a random phoneme or group of them.<br /><br />And swearing does not indicate a limited vocabulary or intelligence - far from it.KeithDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451059429340892054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-63203175317082586712016-11-25T14:04:34.682+00:002016-11-25T14:04:34.682+00:00I believe 'bitch' is a term for the passiv...I believe 'bitch' is a term for the passive person in male homosexual anal intercourse. (Might that be Elton John's use?) It can therefore be extremely offensive to men. Coincidentally, yesterday evening I was watching a program about US prisons, which made it very clear indeed that 'bitch' was the absolute worst thing one male prisoner could call another, and would guarantee a fight.KeithDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451059429340892054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-82062066362491474792016-11-25T13:51:14.953+00:002016-11-25T13:51:14.953+00:00Kenny Everett was astounded that the BBC accepted ...Kenny Everett was astounded that the BBC accepted Cupid Stunt but turned down another character called Mary Hinge. (In case it's BrE, Minge: female genitalia.)KeithDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451059429340892054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-73554668420739007652016-09-16T14:17:05.732+01:002016-09-16T14:17:05.732+01:00Those responses to being accused of mansplaining a...Those responses to being accused of mansplaining are fair enough if it's true, but they assume that your accuser is correct and that you WERE mansplaining. There's also the case of what happens when you weren't. <br /><br />The example in this post may have been a genuine example of mansplaining, but that doesn't mean that every instance of someone saying something is mansplaining actually is.<br /><br />For example, if i, as a man, correct someone or explain something to someone online, and don't know their gender/sex, (and depending on the site/ community, i often assume they're male because a lot of sites are skewed male), i don't see how i could have been mansplaining, since mansplaining is specifically about a man condescendingly explaining something to a woman he assumes knows less than he does when she in fact knows more. <br /><br />Or, when i do in fact know a lot about a subject, and i have spotted someone spreading misinformation which proves they do in fact not know as much as they think they do about that subject. (also usually without me actually knowing their gender before they bring it up to accuse me of mansplaining).<br /><br />Personally i haven't been accused of mansplaining many times, but i've seen various people being accused of it in such cases, and often the topic at hand is something i know about so i am able to determine who actually knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.<br /><br />I've also seen women accused of mansplaining (again because the 'mansplainer' doesn't mention their gender and the 'mansplainee' assumes it must be a woman doing it).<br /><br />I've also experienced 'femsplaining' by women who assume men don't know anything about a subject when they in fact do. usually it's about different topics that have different stereotypes about who is expected to know about them. But i've definitely seen it happen and had it happen to me.rashnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-68683678726619293962016-06-30T16:32:06.050+01:002016-06-30T16:32:06.050+01:00A propos the use of terms referring to male and fe...A propos the use of terms referring to male and female genitalia; in at least some of the (male-dominated, I guess) BrE circles in which I rotate, "cunt" is quite frequently used affectionately between friends (and more between quite close friends), but dick/prick would (hardly?) never be used that way, only with clear hostility or at best dismissiveness. <br />In terms of qualitative difference, to me dick and prick have a primary connotation of stupidity which unmodified cunt does not (premodifiers like "stupid" make a lot of difference, though - you could probably find material for another article or two on those...); as a straightforward term of abuse, cunt carries instead a connotation of innate or wilful malice. Twat however carries a bit of both, while being a bit less forceful than cunt. <br /><br />Trying to examine my own idiolect, I (male, 50s, southern English) think I'd be very unlikely to use it as a vocative to a woman, but slightly more likely to use it as a descriptor, although I think I'd still set a higher threshold of dislike - say, only politicians and road users who seem actively likely to kill me - than I would for a man (or for an inanimate object. I think that I swear at inanimate objects a couple of orders of magnitude more often than I swear at people). It doesn't actually "feel" like a gendered form of abuse to me (although it clearly is in terms of both referent and usage patterns) - the literal meaning feels wholly detached from its use as a swearword. Albert Herringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195446593237255598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-16534785318104791622016-06-27T22:11:42.383+01:002016-06-27T22:11:42.383+01:00Typhon said...
Here's a shining example of th...Typhon said...<br /><strong><br />Here's a shining example of the BrE use of the word.<br /></strong><br /><br />I've seen that movie a few times and for the longest time I thought Brick Top was saying "a audible c*nt", which made no sense to me (it seems that someone in the comment section of that video thought the same thing). That's probably because his H-dropping, R-tapping Cockney accent makes "horrible" sound very similar to "audible" in an American accent. I know this isn't a phonetics blog, but I just found that interesting. <br /><br />But more on topic: the C-word is _clearly_ not being used to disparage women in that clip. The AmEng equivalent of what he said there would be, "I'm an evil f**ker/bastard/SOB." As Lynne said, that's very different from how you'd usually hear "c*nt" used in the US, if you ever heard it used. Although I have heard some Bostonians and New Yorkers use it to describe men or mixed-gender groups. But they're a bit closer to England than most of America, both linguistically and geographically.Tim Riversnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-66984573640819207092016-06-22T17:29:12.815+01:002016-06-22T17:29:12.815+01:00When you get round to the "Cow" post Lyn...When you get round to the "Cow" post Lynne, can you refer to this range of toiletries (http://www.cowshedonline.com/bath-and-body). (Does anyone else channel Fungus the Bogeyman's response to toilet water whenever they see the word in that context?)Rachel Ganzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16512329333010333925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-12647257660250630072016-06-22T10:08:49.343+01:002016-06-22T10:08:49.343+01:00Reminds me of the transitions of fanny and bitch, ...Reminds me of the transitions of fanny and bitch, which I still grapple with (AmE speaker). Fanny is utterly innocuous to me (and most yanks) and using bitch toward a male is utterly meaningless and inexplicable (and simply should not be used at all, except by dog breeders). I'll just never use the c-word, ever, toward anyone, anywhere. n0aaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08020996948408839877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-501637420742820332016-06-21T09:54:01.341+01:002016-06-21T09:54:01.341+01:00Brilliant article! One of my friends has (female &...Brilliant article! One of my friends has (female & British & English Language student) has said she has really become find of the c-word and will use it in sone cases endearingly and other cases...hmm not. 😃Katkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452730645818169886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-73897965761784399052016-06-20T12:02:38.076+01:002016-06-20T12:02:38.076+01:00Browning, of course, has a fine example of the usa...Browning, of course, has a fine example of the usage of the word twat in Pippa Passes<br />But at night, brother Howlet, far over the woods,<br />Toll the world to thy chantry;<br />Sing to the bats’ sleek sisterhoods<br />Full complines with gallantry:<br />Then, owls and bats, cowls and twats,<br />Monks and nuns, in a cloister’s moods,<br />Adjourn to the oak-stump pantry!<br /><br />I'm female mid-fifties, British. I would not use cunt (normally) in any public discussion and find it very offensive when applied to women. But I think that is because it is used with such viciousness, rather than any objection to the thing itself (as shown by the mild offensiveness of calling people twats and berks (Cockney rhyming slang). I would be very happy if it became a term of affection. I've never understood why it (the anatomical object) was considered offensive. "Cow" used in the UK, can also have a nasty tone to it; implying a combination of fat, stupid and uncooperative. ("She was a right cow" implies someone who was extremely unhelpful.)Rachel Ganzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16512329333010333925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-37959334375912988672016-06-20T11:24:49.523+01:002016-06-20T11:24:49.523+01:00Aha, thanks David. I did the blocking/looking in t...Aha, thanks David. I did the blocking/looking in the wrong order, then. Will cross out that statement in the post.<br /><br />Now, if I'd seen his reply, I would have been far more tempted to post the screenshot of his private message to me as a response to his response there. (I won't now.) Facebook has done little or nothing with my complaint about the private messaging. I was rather annoyed with what FB allows you to report. (There doesn't seem to be a way to privately report it to the admin of the LSA page.) You can report abuse based on ethnic background or sexual orientation, but not on gender, unless it involves threats of violence. I just had to tick the box that said "he insulted me". But using the word he used in in the context that he used it, I would say it's gender-based abuse. Some might say the same about my use of the word 'mansplaining' (I wouldn't, for reasons outlined in the post). I think there are basic differences between questioning a behavio(u)r in public and disparaging a stranger's intelligence and gender in private. <br /><br />But this means that if any of you want to know who this pillar of the community is, the information is available on the LSA page on Facebook, my blocking of his identity notwithstanding. lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-45237151288105677052016-06-20T06:40:35.158+01:002016-06-20T06:40:35.158+01:00Jason did not delete the response. Rather, facebo...Jason did not delete the response. Rather, facebook hides all posts by people you have blocked. The post says:<br />"For decades there has been a chorus of researchers who speak about other benefits: supposed improvement in cognitive functions, better memory, better social skills, etc. That's what they mean. Of course, fluency in a second language is its own reward."<br /><br />Jason also posted the following response to the comment about mansplaining:<br />"Lynne Murphy No, it's not. Apparently you had nothing to say as well."David Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541913115867224397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-87814765777440215402016-06-20T06:35:18.491+01:002016-06-20T06:35:18.491+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541913115867224397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-26968700269138937602016-06-19T14:46:48.982+01:002016-06-19T14:46:48.982+01:00For reasons of word-cout, I also omitted this disc...For reasons of word-cout, I also omitted this discussion of the <b>paired-together</b> functions of<br />1 expressing anger etc<br />2 expressing bravura at breaking a taboo...<br /><br />Biographically, it's the second function, the bravura function that we exercise first, brilliantly encapsulated by Michael Flanders<br /><br /><i>Ma's out, Pa's out. Let's talk rude<br />Pee po belly bum drawers!</i><br /><br />In later childhood and adolescence we acquire a more adult vocabulary and start applying it to the expression of anger etc. Personally, I never properly overcame infant inhibitions, so I grew up to be inept as a swearer. I just can't do it.<br /><br />Historically too, I think the bravura came first. People often quote Chaucer use of <i>queynte</i>, but he limited it to the bawdy <i>Miller's Tale</i> and the salty speech of the Wife of Bath. The word wasn't as shocking, but it must have shocked a little bit. <br /><br />Shakespeare seems to have had fun in a mildly shocking way:<br /><br /><i>By my life, this is my lady's hand. These be her very C's, her U's and her T's; and thus makes she her great P's. It is, in contempt of question, her hand.<br /><br />Lady, shall I lie in your lap?<br />No, my lord. <br />I mean, my head upon your lap?<br />Ay, my lord.<br />Do you think I meant country matters?<br /></i>David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-6715611711180282332016-06-19T14:41:26.047+01:002016-06-19T14:41:26.047+01:00For reasons of word-count, I had to omit this conc...For reasons of word-count, I had to omit this conclusion...<br /><br />So (for me) <i>cow</i> is an <b>insult</b> when used insultingly. Occasionally it can be <b>derogatory</b> if that is supported by the context. What make the word either of these things is the surrounding tone of voice or context or combination with words like <i>stupid</i>.<br /><br />Unusually, the word can't normally be addressed to or refer to a man or a boy. (The same can be said for <i>bitch</i>.) So it <b>can</b> be used to <b> add </b>a note of msogyny, but that is surely not its defining function.<br /><br />In British English at least, the c-word <b>can</b> be addressed to or refer to a man or boy, so any link with misogyny is relatively sporadic, certainly not a defining function. The extreme degree of taboo compared to other <b>swear words</b> presumably reflects some underlying misogyynistic strain in our cultural history. But that doesn't prove that there' <b>always</b> a <b>direct, here-and-now</b> meaning.<br /><br /> ... and the final paragraph in the posting above actually belongs here in the conclusion:<br /><br />A skilled speaker can use either word playfully in such a way that the anger element is removed. The difference is that <i>c*nt</i> has such a strong taboo that it's so much more difficult to use than a word like <i> cow </i>without provoking a strong reaction.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-47674396268602770652016-06-19T14:33:26.632+01:002016-06-19T14:33:26.632+01:00I've been away from my computer for three days...I've been away from my computer for three days, but this topic has been playing on my mind.<br /><br />Other category terms seem to be gaining ground, but I'm still attached to the popular category of <b>SWEAR WORDS</b> — because it's so firmly based on <b>how the words are used</b>. This I take to be a two-fold <b>expressive power</b>:<br /><br />1 They express extremes of anger or frustration (or, more rarely, of disapointment).<br />2 They express bravura at breaking a verbal taboo.<br /><br />The anger etc may be <b> feigned </b>or <b> exaggerated</b>, or the bravura may be playful but (for me at least) these two <b>possibilities</b> of expression are defining.<br /><br />These paired-together functions are (in our culture) timeless, so the category has survived while the contents have changed. The name <i>swearing</i> recalls the original content: oath-taking formulae that broke the Third-Commandment. The subsequent inclusion of non-religious use of <i>God</i> or <i>Jesus</i> or <i>Christ</i> is something one rarely encounters now. Most of the current contents are 'Anglo-Saxon' words referring to execratory and sexual organs and functions.<br /><br /><i>C*nt</i> is a <b>swear word</b>; <i>cow</i> isn't.<br /><br />I find it confusing to conflate swear words with other taboo words performing other functions.<br /><br /><b>INSULTS</b> are uttered not so much to <b>express</b> anger as to <b> provoke </b> anger in the person they're addressed to. Insulting <b>words</b> are unacceptable <b>in context</b> but not necessarily so when not addressed to anybody. Uttering an insult need not involve breaking a verbal taboo. Yes, there <b>can be</b> an association because speakers often want to add anger to insult.<br /><br />It's unacceptable to call someone a <b>cow</b> in the same way as it's unacceptable to call them a <i>berk</i> or a <i> pillock</i> or a non-slang term such as <i>idiot</i>.<br /><br /><b>DEROGATORY WORDS</b> convey a contempt or lack of respect. They <b>can</b> be used as insults, of course, but it's not the primary function. However something strange (strange to me, anyway) has happened in recent years. Derogatory words have acquired enormous taboo. The n-word has become far more offensive than most swear words. This is a little bit strange, but what I find really weird is that words that <b>just might</b> be used as paraphrases of insults are subjected <b>by some people</b> to the same degree of hostility. This is what I think is behind the <i>political correctness</i> argument.<br /><br />Personally, I have two seemingly contradictory reactions to the PC phenomenon<br /><br />1. I respect the consensus not to use terms like <i>spastic</i> or <i>Paki</i>.<br />2. I have no respect whatsoever for the argument that the use of words in a <b>non-insulting, non-derogatory</b> context gives comfort to those who use them in anger. Allegedly, it <b>normalises</b> <i>'hate-words'.</i> To me that's the opposite of the truth: the words <b> were</b> perfectly normal; this new verbal sub-culture has first redesignated them as <i>'hate-words'</i>and then <b>de-normailsed</b> them.<br /><br />A skilled speaker can use either word playfully in such a way that the anger element is removed. The difference is that <i>c*nt</i> has such a strong taboo that it's so much more difficult to use than a word like <i>cow</i> without provoking a strong reaction.<br /><br />(Conclusion to follow)David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-8019276654643859312016-06-16T17:55:51.322+01:002016-06-16T17:55:51.322+01:00Is the insult "tool" derived from the bo...Is the insult "tool" derived from the body part name? I always thought it was derived from the "object used by others, without a mind of its own" meaning.<br /><br />Also, speaking of insulting men by calling them female, is calling a man a "bitch" a British thing or is it just Elton John? I think the verb "to bitch" can be applied to a man, but I've never heard the noun, except in the song.Boris Zakharinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16560756640621720539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-84003638361635544172016-06-16T13:37:28.587+01:002016-06-16T13:37:28.587+01:00The primest of all prime examples of the British E...The primest of all prime examples of the British English use of the c-word is surely one of the recordings of Derek and Clive (Dudley Moore and Peter Cook) from the early seventies... there's a lot going on here to get - which I daren't mansplain! So here's the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTifRi3qDkU<br /><br />Also, I remember hearing once that in parts of Wales the word cunt's used as an honestly friendly nickname, because it's a lovely thing. I don't know whether it's true or not, perhaps such propaganda says more about the relationship between England and Wales than anything else.<br /><br />MattMatt Lnoreply@blogger.com