On "cunt," "bitch," and other bad words

I should have been a Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies major in undergrad.

The other night, I got into a (rather exhausting and time-consuming) debate with a friend of mine on Skype. Although my (white, male, Catholic) friend, whom I will refer to henceforth as Mr X, tried to make many arguments to the point of "why people should not be offended by the language I use and the [racist and sexist] jokes I make," the real debate centered around whether or not "cunt" was an insult. While there is an obvious answer to this question (It's an insult if it's used like an insult!), the ethicist, linguist, and advocate inside of me attempted to tease out the subtleties of privilege and misogyny in the use of such a word.

One of Mr X's favorite points, and one I see bandied about quite a bit on the internet, is the fact that "cunt" refers to female genitalia, much in the same way that "dick" refers to male genitalia and therefore, "cunt" is no more insulting than "dick." What Mr X understood to be important was how the word was intended, and not how it was understood by the interlocutor. This argument sets up a false understanding of the dichotomy of insults. Melissa McEwan, who runs a blog series called Feminism 101 over at Shakesville, summarizes the counterpoint beautifully in her article "On 'Bitch' and Other Misogynistic Language":

Intent: If you're turning part of a woman's body into a slur to insult someone, the implication is necessarily that cunts are bad, nasty, less than, in some way something that a person wouldn't want to be or be associated with. That's how insults work. When cunt is used as a slur, it is dependent on construing a woman's body part negatively—and it thusly misogynistic, because it inexorably insults women in the process. Specifically using a misogynistic slur against a man can't be anything but intentionally misogynistic. If you don't intend to demean women, then don't use misogynistic slurs. It's really as simple as that.

While Melissa's reasoning might suggest that calling a man a "dick" implies that dicks are bad, nasty, less than, and in some way something that a person would not want to be or to be associated with, calling a man a dick is not demeaning. Calling a man a dick is not demeaning because a dick is not understood to be an unfavorable possession; having a dick is a sign of male privilege. In minority studies, privilege means that opportunities and status are awarded to a group of people on the basis of normalcy. Privilege is socially constructed, and an individual may have privilege or not have privilege depending on the society he or she is in. Unfortunately, men are almost universally recipients of privilege, and women are not. Because of this power relationship, using an insult that demeans a man does not carry the same weight as one that demeans a woman because of the history of oppression that is linked to demeaning and marginalizing women (and other minority groups who suffer). The argument can be applied to slurs against other minority groups as well.

Another point made by Mr X is that "cunt" cannot be an insult because women use it themselves to describe themselves (or similarly, Chris Rock makes fun of black people; why can't I?). The problem here is that a woman using the word in a reclamatory fashion is fundamentally different from a man using it as an insult. Not recognizing that there is a difference is what August Pollack calls a fabricated belief. The fact that women feel the need to reclaim the words "cunt" and "bitch" is proof enough of their derogatory nature; they would not need to be reclaimed if they were not an insult from the beginning. Or, as Derailing for Dummies puts it:

What this enables you to ignore is the reality of the power dynamic involved. Language reclaimation is a means by which Marginalised People™ gain back some power they are traditionally denied by taking control of words used to demean and discriminate against them. When these words come from Privileged People®, there is a long and very serious negative history behind them that cannot be divorced from the words themselves. Thus, when Privileged People® employ these words, they are perpetuating that history and the psychology behind the word. They are exercising oppressive power that have become inherent to those words - a power Marginalised People™ seek to subvert and dismantle when they use them. 

This is why I refuse to listen if I hear someone referring to others by hateful language. Don't be calling other people "cunt" and "bitch" while I'm around, even if you "don't mean it that way." Using misogynist language and attempting to divorce it from its context perpetuates the problem of gender inequality, and I won't stand for it.

And no, I'm not being oversensitive.