Skip to main content

The value of reclaiming a slur

Kleinman's text analyzes the link between increased use of the word bitch and the proportionally increasing obscurity of the link between the word's patriarchal origins and its modern context. The word's origins as an insult against women, specifically one with a connotation of sexual impurity, date back to the middle ages. Bitch was also used to reinforce the European Christian idea of difference between the sexes with regard to an entirely-male divinity, it was used for "...suppressing images of women as powerful and divine," negating past cultures' images of women as goddesses. With such a long and complicated history behind the word, feminist efforts to reclaim it have encountered difficulty in finding universal support (as they should). Kleinman's article sheds light onto the ways that feminist reclamation of the word bitch is problematic, and in fact leads to reinforcement of the very stereotypes and power structures that it is meant to break down.

When women say 'bitch,' they typically fall into the trap of using the word as they grew up hearing it, as a word that splits the female population into two distinct parts: those who are bitches, and those who are not. This is the real danger of reclaiming words that have widely been used to dehumanize in the past--often the connotations of the word are taught through socialization and even when reclaimers strive to use the word bitch in a context that emphasizes the positive traits they seek to reinforce, the casual listener hears only a slur that brings along with it a working memory of other negative experiences and traits that "bitches" all have in common. I won't argue that reclamation is always unsuccessful, for example, "queer" has (I believe) been reclaimed and realigned within society to take on a positive and inclusive connotation, completely shedding its discriminatory origins. Bitch, however, has not been successfully transformed, and I would argue that is because the misogynistic roots of the word are simply dug in too deep. Changing hundreds of years of socially constructed sexism just so Tina Fey can call herself a bitch seems like kind of a waste of time when that same effort could be applied to more pressing women's issues like stalking, domestic violence, and rape.

Kleinman, Sherryl et al. "Reclaiming Critical Analysis: The Social Harms of 'Bitch.'" Sociological Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp. 47-68.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...