The F-word
Dan Savage was on Talk of the Nation recently to talk about the word "faggot" in connection with the Isaiah Washington incident (more details follow). The show's producers? host? funders? decided that they weren't going to have epithets said aloud during the show (also discussed was "nigger"), so instead of "faggot," people had to say "the F word" and then clarify that they meant the one referring to gay men, and not the more versatile (pun intended) and ubiquitous "fuck." This actually caused some confusion early in the show, when John McWhorter began an exposition on the history of "fuck," when the host wanted a bit of background on "faggot."
Before this episode of Talk of the Nation, I must say that I have never heard "the F word" used to refer to "faggot." I just don't think "faggot" is that kind of word.
Dan Savage himself noted that it was odd to be talking about how it was ok to use the word "faggot" while having to avoid using the word, even as a referent. If only people could hear quote marks on the radio. Savage's point, from what I gathered, was that it was all about context. Hostile use is scary. Affectionate use is not.
I pretty much agree with Savage's position, which seems more accurate than fellow guest McWhorter's rather Pollyanna-ish view that those words can't hurt us if we don't let them (I mean, come on).
I'm a fan of the word "faggot" when used in a friendly manner, in case you hadn't guessed.
What's interesting to me, and what I hadn't realized just listening to coverage about this incident on the radio, is that Washington (hot ambitious black doctor) apparently used "faggot" in a confrontation not with his gay colleage T.R. Knight (boyish cute intern), but with married and ostensibly straight Patrick Dempsey (McDreamy). According to People:
Like "that's so gay," Washington's statement was a callous devaluing of gay men, equating gayness (faggotry, rather) with negative qualities (in this case submissiveness, I assume). Also, with that statement, Washington distanced himself, quite enthusiastically, from any connection with gayness/faggotry.
Yet, Washington's statement shared a lot with the "fuck you faggot" group of slurs. Washington used "faggot" to refer to a person whom he actually knew to be gay (I think), and he thus at least had notice that the word could be hurtful in a direct way.
To understand what I mean by "hurtful in a direct way," put yourself in the position of a gay person hearing each type of slur. For some of us, this is less a leap of the imagination than an exercise in remembering. Oh fuck it. Put yourself in my position. Are you ready? I'm a size 10 shoe, by the way, if that helps.
When I hear "that's so gay!" I go through a multiple step process on the way to being hurt (supposing, for argument's sake that I am hurt, rather than just annoyed and/or secretly amused by this ubiquitous youthful affect that I did not grow up with). First I get the wealth of information conveyed more or less from the statement itself, its "objective" meaning, in context, of course. This would include the idea that "gay is bad." Second, I would need to then apply that to myself, to add information that the speaker may or may not have, but that is certainly not required for his statement to make sense. I need to recognize myself as a subject included in the referred-to group. I am gay. Finally, I have to deduce that therefore the speaker is saying that I am bad.
On the other hand, when I hear "fuck you, faggot," (or something like it), it's immediately obvious that what the speaker is saying is that I am a faggot, and that is bad. Not that some abstract group of faggots is bad, but that I am the faggot included in the group of faggots that is bad. Pretty direct, huh. Also frightening. Almost never amusing (perhaps from a random tiny child wearing some kind of floppy hat and with no weapons or pets, but not from a large co-worker in his forties).
Humble questions for your consideration:
1) Is there a point in reclaiming or rehabilitating words like "gay," "faggot," and "queer" when people can still use them in hurtful ways?
2) What's the function of the in-group/out-group distinction in acceptable use? This is an important rule for "nigger" and somewhat less intensely important for "faggot" (though in general everything about "faggot" is less intense than "nigger." There's a reason this blog isn't called "Nattering in Nigger." Actually, there are so many reasons. Anyway.) Should there be this in/out distinction?
3) Should we have an alternative "affectionate" pronunciation for "faggot" (as in "niggER" with a rolled "R" vs. "niggA/UH" without the R) and what should it be?
4) "Dyke" rules and dykes rule. Comments? Questions?
Before this episode of Talk of the Nation, I must say that I have never heard "the F word" used to refer to "faggot." I just don't think "faggot" is that kind of word.
Dan Savage himself noted that it was odd to be talking about how it was ok to use the word "faggot" while having to avoid using the word, even as a referent. If only people could hear quote marks on the radio. Savage's point, from what I gathered, was that it was all about context. Hostile use is scary. Affectionate use is not.
I pretty much agree with Savage's position, which seems more accurate than fellow guest McWhorter's rather Pollyanna-ish view that those words can't hurt us if we don't let them (I mean, come on).
I'm a fan of the word "faggot" when used in a friendly manner, in case you hadn't guessed.
What's interesting to me, and what I hadn't realized just listening to coverage about this incident on the radio, is that Washington (hot ambitious black doctor) apparently used "faggot" in a confrontation not with his gay colleage T.R. Knight (boyish cute intern), but with married and ostensibly straight Patrick Dempsey (McDreamy). According to People:
After Washington and Dempsey, 40, clashed on Oct. 9, reports surfaced that Washington had used a homophobic slur during the fracas.Specifically, Washington had used the word "faggot" in the following manner (according to Billy Masters over on PrideSource):
Isaiah Washington allegedly told Patrick Dempsey, "I'm not your little faggot like T.R. [Knight]" - a statement that was overheard by T.R. and other cast members.This statement falls somewhere in between "that's so gay" (thoughtless, undirected, non-threatening, middle-school-flavored) and "fuck you, faggot" (directed, immediately threatening, good for all ages).
Like "that's so gay," Washington's statement was a callous devaluing of gay men, equating gayness (faggotry, rather) with negative qualities (in this case submissiveness, I assume). Also, with that statement, Washington distanced himself, quite enthusiastically, from any connection with gayness/faggotry.
Yet, Washington's statement shared a lot with the "fuck you faggot" group of slurs. Washington used "faggot" to refer to a person whom he actually knew to be gay (I think), and he thus at least had notice that the word could be hurtful in a direct way.
To understand what I mean by "hurtful in a direct way," put yourself in the position of a gay person hearing each type of slur. For some of us, this is less a leap of the imagination than an exercise in remembering. Oh fuck it. Put yourself in my position. Are you ready? I'm a size 10 shoe, by the way, if that helps.
When I hear "that's so gay!" I go through a multiple step process on the way to being hurt (supposing, for argument's sake that I am hurt, rather than just annoyed and/or secretly amused by this ubiquitous youthful affect that I did not grow up with). First I get the wealth of information conveyed more or less from the statement itself, its "objective" meaning, in context, of course. This would include the idea that "gay is bad." Second, I would need to then apply that to myself, to add information that the speaker may or may not have, but that is certainly not required for his statement to make sense. I need to recognize myself as a subject included in the referred-to group. I am gay. Finally, I have to deduce that therefore the speaker is saying that I am bad.
On the other hand, when I hear "fuck you, faggot," (or something like it), it's immediately obvious that what the speaker is saying is that I am a faggot, and that is bad. Not that some abstract group of faggots is bad, but that I am the faggot included in the group of faggots that is bad. Pretty direct, huh. Also frightening. Almost never amusing (perhaps from a random tiny child wearing some kind of floppy hat and with no weapons or pets, but not from a large co-worker in his forties).
Humble questions for your consideration:
1) Is there a point in reclaiming or rehabilitating words like "gay," "faggot," and "queer" when people can still use them in hurtful ways?
2) What's the function of the in-group/out-group distinction in acceptable use? This is an important rule for "nigger" and somewhat less intensely important for "faggot" (though in general everything about "faggot" is less intense than "nigger." There's a reason this blog isn't called "Nattering in Nigger." Actually, there are so many reasons. Anyway.) Should there be this in/out distinction?
3) Should we have an alternative "affectionate" pronunciation for "faggot" (as in "niggER" with a rolled "R" vs. "niggA/UH" without the R) and what should it be?
4) "Dyke" rules and dykes rule. Comments? Questions?
posted by manoverbored at
1:07 AM
1 Comments:
i don't know anything about in groups or out groups, but i, for one, am a fan of reclamation, because i am of the savage school of thought that it's all about context (remember our conversation about bolshevEd?). and yes, dykes rule.
blogger says "fpkzly." and i say "i find that offensive and bigoted, blogger. fuck you."
By
kommishonerjenny, at 11:45 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home