If words are so powerful...
How important are words? 'Gay' apparently now means 'rubbish' and, according to the BBC Board of Governors, it doesn’t have a homophobic connotation when used on air by DJ Chris Moyles.
Most people know that 'gay' used to mean 'happy' and 'carefree', although what most people who remind you of this don't realise is that it had connotations to do with sex from the late 17th century on. At one time, a 'gay house' was a euphemism for a brothel and a 'gay woman' was a prostitute.
It could a whole new meaning to 'when I was young and gay'!
So does it matter if it changes again now?
'The pen is mightier than the sword' is a cliché for a reason. How much violence has been inspired at first by words?
And if you want to see how British society has attempted to control female sexuality over the centuries, then you only need to think of the number of censorious words available to describe a sexually active woman – 'tart', 'slapper', 'slut', 'whore', 'floozy' etc – and compare those with similar words and phrases for men – 'he's just sowing his wild oats', a 'lady's man', a 'womaniser', 'a gigalo', a 'Casanova'; 'cad' or 'rotter' are about as strong as it gets.
None of those words, hurtful as they might be when flung at a woman in this day and age, would be as damaging today as they might have been in the past, but they still serve to illustrate how language serves society as a way of reinforcing the cultural status quo.
So, is using 'gay' as a synonym of 'rubbish' homophobic. Yes. Can anything be done about it? Who knows? Should anything be done about it? Decide for yourself.
Perhaps now gay men will have to start reclaiming the word, as they have done with 'queers', as some lesbians have with 'dyke' and as some black men have attempted to do with 'nigger'.
Now in such a spirit of reclamation, where is that 'slut' badge hiding?
Most people know that 'gay' used to mean 'happy' and 'carefree', although what most people who remind you of this don't realise is that it had connotations to do with sex from the late 17th century on. At one time, a 'gay house' was a euphemism for a brothel and a 'gay woman' was a prostitute.
It could a whole new meaning to 'when I was young and gay'!
So does it matter if it changes again now?
'The pen is mightier than the sword' is a cliché for a reason. How much violence has been inspired at first by words?
And if you want to see how British society has attempted to control female sexuality over the centuries, then you only need to think of the number of censorious words available to describe a sexually active woman – 'tart', 'slapper', 'slut', 'whore', 'floozy' etc – and compare those with similar words and phrases for men – 'he's just sowing his wild oats', a 'lady's man', a 'womaniser', 'a gigalo', a 'Casanova'; 'cad' or 'rotter' are about as strong as it gets.
None of those words, hurtful as they might be when flung at a woman in this day and age, would be as damaging today as they might have been in the past, but they still serve to illustrate how language serves society as a way of reinforcing the cultural status quo.
So, is using 'gay' as a synonym of 'rubbish' homophobic. Yes. Can anything be done about it? Who knows? Should anything be done about it? Decide for yourself.
Perhaps now gay men will have to start reclaiming the word, as they have done with 'queers', as some lesbians have with 'dyke' and as some black men have attempted to do with 'nigger'.
Now in such a spirit of reclamation, where is that 'slut' badge hiding?
posted by Amanda Kendal at 12:15 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home