<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is &#8216;dyke&#8217; offensive?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bojates.com/words/2004/08/11/is-dyke-offensive/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bojates.com/words/2004/08/11/is-dyke-offensive?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=is-dyke-offensive</link>
	<description>'bo-ja-t-z int., n. 1. a friendly greeting. orig.: London circa 1980.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Nov 2011 12:17:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: introspect</title>
		<link>http://www.bojates.com/words/2004/08/11/is-dyke-offensive/comment-page-1#comment-178</link>
		<dc:creator>introspect</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bojates.com/?p=157#comment-178</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are you saying that if someone calls you a ‘dyke’ without malice or anger, but as a statement of fact or an adjective to describe you, then you don’t find it offensive? In which case, if I were to say, for example: ‘I think you’re dull’ without malice or anger, but as a statement of fact, wouldn’t that be offensive?</p>
<p>There are a number of things here to take into consideration:<br />
1)	The implication for the person on the receiving end.<br />
2)	The perception of the person on the receiving end AND the perception of others around them.<br />
3)	Whether words can be ‘reclaimed’.<br />
4)	Who words might be reclaimed for.<br />
5)	Who has ‘permission’ (by the individual, group or society overall) to use reclaimed words.<br />
6)	The motivation behind the words used.</p>
<p>Given this list, whether something is offensive or not is subject to a sliding scale dependent on, say, circumstances (see above list!)</p>
<p>I would argue that some words cannot be reclaimed, regardless of intent, or motivation, or permission – by dint of the fact that there is such a breadth of history behind them, this can’t be eradicated. Oh, and then there’s the issue of power.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jemima</title>
		<link>http://www.bojates.com/words/2004/08/11/is-dyke-offensive/comment-page-1#comment-179</link>
		<dc:creator>Jemima</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bojates.com/?p=157#comment-179</guid>
		<description>I agree with your list and think you have expressed the factors far better than I did. However, I&#039;m not sure about the &#039;dyke&#039; / &#039;dull&#039; thing. Dull is obviously a negative thing to say about me (however true), while dyke can be either positive or negative, depending on some of the points you mention. Thinking about it, even dull, I suppose, could be a positive in the right context. 

I also agree that there are words that cannot be effectively reclaimed, but I&#039;m having difficulty thinking of any that people haven&#039;t tried to reclaim.

Power of course plays a huge part and I&#039;m glad you raised it. I think part of the politics of language and reclaiming words is to do with groups trying to reclaim some power along with the words. If I call myself a dyke, it goes some way to remove the power that someone else has when they use it in anger. 

&quot;Hey, dyke!&quot;

&quot;Um, yes?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with your list and think you have expressed the factors far better than I did. However, I&#8217;m not sure about the &#8216;dyke&#8217; / &#8216;dull&#8217; thing. Dull is obviously a negative thing to say about me (however true), while dyke can be either positive or negative, depending on some of the points you mention. Thinking about it, even dull, I suppose, could be a positive in the right context. </p>
<p>I also agree that there are words that cannot be effectively reclaimed, but I&#8217;m having difficulty thinking of any that people haven&#8217;t tried to reclaim.</p>
<p>Power of course plays a huge part and I&#8217;m glad you raised it. I think part of the politics of language and reclaiming words is to do with groups trying to reclaim some power along with the words. If I call myself a dyke, it goes some way to remove the power that someone else has when they use it in anger. </p>
<p>&#8220;Hey, dyke!&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Um, yes?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Introspect</title>
		<link>http://www.bojates.com/words/2004/08/11/is-dyke-offensive/comment-page-1#comment-180</link>
		<dc:creator>Introspect</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bojates.com/?p=157#comment-180</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whether words can be effectively claimed and whether people have tried to reclaim words or not are two different points entirely? What I find interesting is that within communities, the reclaiming of words is contentious.<br />
Some members of a community for which an ‘offensive’ word is being ‘reclaimed’ don’t  agree with reclaiming that word. I think this is important. If reclamation is not considered effective or legitimate by a member of a community, and is subjected to such reclamation from other members of the same community, perhaps this becomes a secondhand form of abuse? For example, the power shifts from one individual within one community, to another individual in another community, but the victim still remains. An own goal maybe?<br />
The crucial distinction here lies in the fact that ‘you’ choose to call ‘yourself’ by this expression.<br />
However, doing so can also be a signal of permission to whoever’s listening to you. I once used an expression of myself which, out of context would be considered offensive. My good friend saw this as a valid term for me and used the same expression. Result – offense because power can be momentary and dissipates, after all. I think this is where the reclaiming of words to regain power and take the sting out of the term comes a cropper.<br />
In addition, treating an individual who has a particular history and identity as uniformly part of his/her community is naïve at best, makes gross assumptions and is open to inaccuracies (hence Mr Madeley’s blunder)  Far better, I think, to consider alternatives as expressions of identity than to wrestle away the tools of an oppressor for one’s own use.<br />
Incidentally, words are positive or negative because culturally we invest this in them. A concept  all rather zen in my opinion. I think that one of the first points I made, about other people’s perception of words is immensely important. After all, none of us exist in a vacuum and no one is an island. ;oP</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

