Matthew Dicks

You can’t take back slut.

This week’s Slate DoubleX Gabfest discussed how Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law Student who was called a “slut” by Rush Limbaugh, might be “the new standard bearer for sex-positive feminism.”

In the podcast, the notion of taking back the word slut is mentioned, much the same way the homosexual community has taken back the word queer or parts of the African American community have taken back the N word.

But this line of reasoning is flawed and stupid. I can’t tell you how much it annoyed me.  

The homosexual community was able to take back queer because at worst, queer means “odd or different.” The definition of the word is not a problem for the gay community because it does not possess any strong negative connotations. In many ways, the actual definition of the word has ceased to matter to the gay community. The word queer had become a signifier for gay (this definition can actually be found in the dictionary), so taking it back merely meant stripping the word of its negativity without any need to change the word’s actual meaning.   

Taking back the N word was similar. Though it is so vile that I hesitate to use it on this blog, the word, by pure definition, is a derogatory signifier for a specific race of race of people. It is hateful and offensive, but it has no other meaning other than to signify African Americans.  Taking back the word did not require the African American community to change the definition of the word. They only needed to strip the word of its negative connotation.

But the word slut has a definition, and it is not a good one.  A slut is “a slovenly or promiscuous woman.”

Synonyms for the word include trollop, strumpet, harlot and streetwalker.

This is not a mere signifier of the word woman, nor does it describe a woman who uses birth control regularly (as Limbaugh implied) or engages in regular sex. Instead, it describes a person (usually a woman but not always) who lacks discrimination and/or judgment when choosing sexual partners. It speaks to a person’s standards for choosing a sexual partner and the number of sexual partners. Taking back the word slut not only means stripping the word of a negative connotation but also changing the definition as well.

Doing so would be akin to bald men taking back the word bald or short women taking back the word short. These words have have actual definitions. They describe a specific type of person in the same way that the word slut describes a specific type of behavior.

Slut is a word that possesses negative connotations because it describes behavior that is generally considered less than admirable. No one stole the word for nefarious purposes. It is and always has been a signifier for a person who has sex with a large number of people absent any thought or consideration.

In this way, it is actually a rather useful word. It effectively describes a type of person. Though it is often used pejoratively, that does not make the word vile or offensive, unless you are an idiot like Rush Limbaugh.    

As the father of a three-year old girl, I would prefer that she grow up in a world where slut has not been taken back for the sake of feminism.

Seriously. We don’t need it.

Jessica Gross, one of the podcast hosts, describes a time in middle school when she and her friends would jokingly refer to one another as sluts, unaware of what the word even meant.

I’d prefer that my daughter grow up without anyone calling her a slut, in jest or otherwise.

That does suck.

We’re not quite sure where she learned this, but we’re not happy.

I showed my daughter a photo of her Uncle Jeremy’s cat, Mr. Woo Woo, drinking from the toilet, and I asked you what she thought of the idea of drinking toilet water.

“It’s gross!” she said. “Yucky.”

And then, “That sucks.”

Then she repeated the word again and again. Enough for me to capture the tail end of her diatribe on video.

She also added that an octopus has suction cups, which was a well stated scientific fact but did not mitigate the use of this language. 

When we explained that those were not nice words, she seemed suitably chastened. We hope.

Why learning to write well matters.

There is a policy in my classroom that requests submitted in writing receive greater consideration than those that are not.  Also, the quality of the writing has a direct impact on the likelihood of a request being granted.

As a result, I receive some very serious letters from very serious students with  very serious requests, and in most cases, I try to at least meet these students halfway. 

I have adopted this policy for several reasons, but primarily, I want my students to understand that regardless of the future that they envision for themselves, they will need to be able to write effectively, and that writing effectively can be a tremendous asset to a person regardless of his or her career choice.

Conversely, the inability to write effectively can be a great determent to a person and his or her career.

Case in point:

Here is a response that my wife received from a local museum that recently changed its policy in regards to member benefits.

__________________________________________

Mrs. Dicks,

My apologies for the email response to your phone call.  As you can imagine, you’re not the only member with questions, and responding by email gives me the opportunity to give you more details.

Of all the problems with this response, this paragraph annoys me the most because it makes no sense. Why is responding via email any more conducive to providing a customer with details than a phone conversation? Is the writer implying that the mere act of writing confers special powers of information dissemination that a phone call cannot?

Thank your for valuing your membership with The Children’s Museum, apart from of the additional benefits.  We will automatically place you in our new membership program, at the level for your family size (the Scientist $125 level), and send a new card and materials in approximate six weeks.  In the meantime, you can use your current card to visit the museum.  We are also adding a benefit package of vouchers and discounts with the new membership program, a $35 value which is the same amount you paid for the Plus upgrade.  I would be happy to send that to you, if you like.

I had to read this paragraph three times in order to understand what was being said, and I’m still not entirely sure. There are obvious problems with the words your and approximate (which I have highlighted), and I am not sure what “apart from of the additional benefits” is supposed to mean, even if I remove the word of. It makes no sense. Regardless, three typos in a single paragraph are not acceptable.

You can still use the reciprocal admission at science centers and museums that participate in the ASTC program. (As always, call ahead if you are visiting an organization within 90 miles of The Children’s Museum, to see if they will accept your membership.)  We are enforcing the 90 mile rule, which, for the most part, we hadn’t previously, but the decision on whether or not to enforce the rule is optional, and it is made by each organization.

I’m not a fan of the clunky way that the writer uses parenthesis when they really aren’t necessary, but it’s the last sentence that is the worst.  It contains a total of 35 words and five commas. FIVE.

We understand the confusion and concern this is causing, but it was a necessary financial decision, and one that was made very recently.

I have more confusion and concern over the quality of the writing in this email than any change made to the museum’s benefit package. If the museum is actually receiving as many inquires in regards to this policy change as they claim (and I believe they probably are, since the changes are considerable), you would expect them to have some kind of form letter ready that could be tweaked if needed. Or even better, perhaps someone with a modicum of writing ability could be placed in charge of responding to the flurry of inquiries that this change has generated, because this response is unprofessional and reprehensible.

I’ll be showing it to my students next week.  They’ll do a little editing and hopefully receive some reinforcement regarding the importance of writing well.

Jesus Christ and these capital letters do not belong

This card has become the source of amusement for many because of Rick Santorum’s decision to quote Jesus Christ and the New Testament on a Hanukkah message designed for Jews. 

Then again, only about 0.3 percent of the South Carolinian population is Jewish, so maybe he was hoping that no one would notice. 

Yes, this was a strange and fairly stupid decision.

And yes, I acknowledge that it is highly unlikely that Santorum played a hands-on role in the design of the actual card. But gaffs like this serve as an indication as to the quality of the organization that the candidate has built and is leading.

But I think an even more egregious error exists in the message at the bottom of the card:

May Your Hanukkah be bright.
Peace to you this Holiday Season

Nothing annoys me more than random and improper capitalization.

While the words May, Hanukkah and Peace should be capitalized for obvious reasons, there is no reason to capitalize You, Holiday and Season.  These words are seemingly capitalized at random, with no identifiable reason or purpose. 

Furthermore, the first sentence ends with a period but the second does not.

More inconsistency.  

Yes, it’s true that the use of a quote by Jesus Christ on a card directed to Jews makes no sense and is especially stupid in light of the Christian tone that Santorum strikes in his campaign, but the absence of basic copyediting demonstrates, at least to me, a lack of attention to detail that I find even more disturbing.

Then again, I am an author and not very religious, so perhaps I am sensitive in ways different than most. 

A tickle. Not a tissue.

Clara had been in her crib for about fifteen minutes when she began calling for Mommy.  Elysha thought that she was asking for a tissue, so she went upstairs to give her one.

It wasn’t a tissue that she was requesting.

It was a tickle.

Much cuter but considerably less okay since it was well past her bedtime.

I am an upright, though occasionally marginalized, Pacific Islander.

When I am asked to indicate my race on an official form, I almost always check Samoan, or if not available, Other Pacific Islander.

If none of these are available, I usually go with Other.

When asked for my position on an official form (the intent being to  determine my occupation), I usually write Upright, though I have used Marginalized in the past as well.

I’d like to say that I’m taking a stand against artificial attempts to codify or classify me, but in truth, I just like being a pest.

An instigator, my mother used to call me. 

And the best thing about these answers is that I have been doing this for years and no one has ever commented on any of my responses.

Twitter goodness

There are a lot of reasons that I use Twitter. One small but no less significant reason is the wisdom that I find amongst the people I follow. 

I read two especially insightful commentsthis weekend that I thought I would share.  Following their actual name is their Twitter handle in the event you would like to follow these people as well. 

All I want is for someone to look at me the way my dog looks at my sandwich. 

- Mark Peters @wordlust

People who don't volunteer often interfere.

- Kathleen Schmidt @Bookgirl96

Best umbrella ever.

My wife and I are a little obsessed with the way our daughter says umbrella.

We’re probably a little biased, but we find it unspeakably cute.   

Toddler definition’s are the best

Clara placed some of her little people on a pillow and referred to it as an iceberg.

Surprised that she might know what an iceberg is, I asked, “Clara, what’s an iceberg?”   

Her response:

“It’s kind of beautiful, but you need a boat to go there, and you should wear a coat.”

Copacetic

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. - Herm Albright

Very little is known about Herm Albright, the man credited for this quote.  He may have been a painter and lithographer, born on January 29, 1876 in Mannheim, Germany.  If so, Albright emigrated to the United States and settled in San Francisco in 1905. He held a job with the Paul Elder Book Company for twenty-five years and died on September 21, 1944.

Regardless of the sketchy detail surrounding his life, I can tell you one thing for certain about Herm Albright:

Based upon this quote, we would have gotten along famously.