Men, Women and Derogatory Terms

Looking at the evolution of the English language, it is possible to see disproportion in certain semantic fields. One of the key areas is the use of degrading terms for men and women. Overall, the main pattern to be found is the increase of insults relating to females and originally offensive terms for males passing into a positive light. According to Suzanne Romaine in Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (1994) this is because “it is men who make the dictionaries and define meanings, they persistently reserve the positive semantic space for themselves and relegate women to a negative one.” This could very likely be one argument as to why there are so many ways to insult women in Modern English, or at least so many more than there are for men. Philip M. Smith in his research printed in Language, the Sexes and Society (1985) stated that “masculine words of prestige (skill or power over others) were six times as frequent in the dictionary as feminine prestige words. However, feminine words with negative connotations outnumbered the masculine by about 20%, in spite of the predominance of male words overall.” This could explain why feminists have said that “language is made by men for men”, and the following will explore how they could be correct.

Standing most notably are the degradations of titles given to women, over time these have descended into references given to lower-class jobs or having sexual connotations. It can be seen where the male ‘baronet’ has maintained its original meaning but ‘dame’ tends to refer to a woman in a non-respectful way. The title of ‘sir’ is also still used respectfully, however, ‘madam’ became a woman who ran a brothel. More recently it is found in the phrase “a right madam” where it can hold sexual reference or not, but degrades a woman of strong character. The same situation is apparent in ‘master’ which has not lost its original meaning but ‘mistress’ “has come to have sexual connotations and no longer refers to a woman who has control over the household” (Romaine). All of these have been proved not to be just semantic shifts prone to evolution over time, but changes that have consciously and forcefully been made.

Something similar has happened with terms that originally were of no harm to women, but now have taken on stronger meanings. This is true of the terms that were originally made to refer to ‘housewife’. As Romaine continues “both ‘housewife’ and ‘hussy’ had their origin in the Old English ‘huswife’ but hussy has undergone semantic degradation”. It now stands that ‘hussy’ officially means “a woman adulterer,” which likewise for the term ‘tart’ that was originally a term of endearment meaning “a sweet woman”, has undergone the change into “a woman of the street”. Supposedly these terms found their semantic change, according to Hugh Rawson, when these women were sexually enticing through no fault of their own, and their use by men ceased to be innocent.

On another note, not all words have changed to find sexual reference but some have simply been altered to represent, almost through metaphor, negative aspects of female personality and appearance. For example, the word ‘wizard’ originally meant “a man who has magical powers” and is now used as a compliment meaning “a person who is very skilled in a particular field or activity” both definitions taken from The Oxford Dictionary. However, when the female counterpart is used, ‘witch’, only evil connotations are provoked in the mind. According to the same dictionary a ‘witch’ is defined as “a woman thought to have evil magic powers” and primarily means “an ugly or unpleasant old woman”, showing how just one word can be used not only on appearance but also for inner qualities. Strangely though, where this is of great importance for women, a wizard is “wise-looking”, and even though this is essentially a polite way of saying old and ugly, it is of no apparent importance for men. Another example is the term ‘bachelor’ and its female counterpart ‘spinster’, where they both imply the same age and marital state but not the same meaning. The male ‘bachelor’ is positive and automatically gets to be preceded by “eligible” meaning “desirable or suitable as a partner in marriage” whilst ‘spinster’ implies a woman who is “beyond the usual age for marriage”. As Romaine points out, this distinction between corresponding terms highlights the importance of society’s expectations of marriage. Women, even in present day conditions, are still expected to look for marriage as an important factor in life, whether they are actually in need of financial support or not.

In mixed gender terms, that can be presumed for one sex but used on the other, there is a noticeable difference between the two. The use of ‘old man’, commonly used as a term of authority or of affection, on a woman does not imply insult. Generally speaking it is never used, but the use of ‘old woman’ on a man is meant to be offensive. Here gender inequality can be seen clearly as an ‘old woman’ means “a fussy or timid person, especially a man”. Furthermore it implies that not only is it not acceptable for men to act like women, but a woman is never likely to act like a man. This also coincides with the fact that in the dictionary it is possible to find “to man up” but there is no equivalent verb “to woman up”.

To continue with the section of feminine references used to offend men, a large proportion of masculine insults come from terms which in the process, insult women. Aside from this, the following will also show vocabulary used on men with dainty and elegant connotations. Here is a selection from the dictionary published in 1991 called A dictionary of invective: a treasury of curses, insults, put-downs, and other formally unprintable terms from Anglo-Saxon times to the present that are still recognized in the English language today: ‘whoremonger’, ‘whoreson’, ‘son of a bitch’, ‘bastard’, ‘pansy’, ‘prima donna’, ‘fairy’, ‘nancy’, ‘tit’, ‘queen’. The first two, probably the strongest of the lot, show a necessity for their mothers to have been prostitutes and thereby degrade them within the same insult. The following two notions also refer to a woman’s inferiority as a mother and promiscuousness as a woman outside of marriage. A term such as ‘bastard’ however, insinuates the absence of a father and role-model in the son’s life, and is thereby one of the few that could possibly insult two male figures at the same time. The following four words from the list are those that refer to genteel terms and are applied to men to show their unmanliness: ‘pansy’ (flower), ‘prima donna’ (leading lady), ‘fairy’ (usually female), and ‘nancy’ (a woman’s name). By extension, now-a-days, at least the last three of these can be used to refer to a homosexual man. ‘Tit’ is an insult given that refers to the nurturing part of the female anatomy that men lack, to be one is to be considered useless. And the last word here, ‘Queen’, is used to degrade the title of highest rank that a woman can achieve. For a man to be one he must be lacking in masculinity which is most likely why this is currently a term also used on homosexuals and transgenders.

On the list of insults there were also the following two words ‘dude’ and ‘geezer’ which are two of the most interesting cases. During the 1880s ‘dude’ was used as an insult to refer to an overdressed ‘dandy’ (also a reference to woman-like behavior). It is now, in the present day, a friendly way to greet someone or talk about another male. As is the case of ‘geezer’, which in 1885 originally meant ‘old male person’ and was originally used on women. This makes the term the only known word here to insult females by means of a masculine reference. But, inevitably, its use changed to target men and eventually the term took on the same positive meaning as ‘dude’.

Of all the other insults taken from this dictionary and then placed into group type, this was the outcome (examples are limited to a maximum of three):

sexual incompetence/ homosexuality (‘fag’, ‘weenie’, ‘queer’)
when a father abandons his child (‘deadbeat’, ‘git’, ‘dirtball’)
sexually strange (‘sicko’, ‘sleaze’, ‘swine’)
idiot or inhuman (‘jerk’, ‘mongrel’, ‘moron’)
intellect (‘egghead’)
leading a bad way of life (‘cowboy’, ‘a bum’, ‘thug’).

However, when placing the remaining insults found for women into groups this is what was found (showing no need for the limit of three except in the first group):

woman of the street (‘slut’, ‘chippie’, ‘cow’),
female body parts (‘piece of ass’, ‘pussy’, ‘twat’),
evil and ugly (‘frump’, ‘hag’),
intellectually inadequate (‘bimbo’).
There was also a case that could account for more than one group: ‘bag’ which can refer to being ugly or being a prostitute.

Reflecting upon this, none of the male groups represent sexual promiscuousness like the females’ do, which is ironical given the prominence presented in the female groups, and presumably they were advantageous towards men. The two do coincide though, by both having an intellectual insult that consists of just one word. Firstly, ‘bimbo’ which simply indicates an absence of female intellect, and secondly, the male ‘egghead’ which could not be applied to women as they were not allowed to study when it came into use, or considered in need of a reference to a highly intellectual state. These two words, therefore, are another example of inequality throughout history as neither can be used on the opposite sex. Through these groups, it is possible to see how men have more rounded lives as they have more areas that can be insulted, where women work on the basis of only two posibilities: being promiscuous or being old and ugly, neither of which appear as male groups.

On a more even note there were also terms present for the male anatomy being used as an insult: ‘dick’, ‘prick’, ‘cock’. All of which fall into the group of “idiot”, thereby leaving open to interpretation that to possess one allows you to be subject to stupidity. There was also a word that although dictionaries state it as unisex, it is only used negatively on males and has no counterpart for females which is the word ‘chauvinist’.

Finally, it is also worth mentioning that the harshest word in the English language actually refers to women’s genitalia. This word fits in with the traditional four-letter-words but will not be reproduced in writing here. As was the case with the previous male example, this word most certainly has no counterpart on the male side of the language.

In all, it is obvious that there is bias in the English language but as raised in Women and Language in Literature and Society (1980) by Sally McConnell-Ginet, “do such phenomena reflect present day attitudes, or are they simply the residue of a sexist past?” As Romaine indicates, a solution to this problem by means of the feminists’ appeal to remove all sexist words from the language, would be impractical, as they not only need the removal of feminine insults but male ones too. There is also the extra complication of neutral terms such as ‘professional’ that for a man is harmless but for a woman implies prostitution. On this level it is safe to say that no abrupt changes can be made, and sexist terminology will have to die a natural death. Yet there are no guaranties of this happening or of currently degrading male terms not continuing to pass into a positive light. But as things stand, it would be hard for the feminine semantic area of English to fall any further into oblivion, so there is always the hope that it will one day pass back into its original state. Although as time goes by, some terms are losing their original harshness and while they are still insulting some humor can be connected to them, which could be considered the first stage of change. Such is the case of ‘bat’ which now leans more towards a soft meaning of “crazy woman” than a prostitute, as it is losing its original connection with “creature of the night”. As previously stated, this area of semantics demonstrates the limitations given to the female role throughout history. The fact that there is little reference to women outside of sex or appearances proves that although sexism may never be eliminated, if the insults were to broaden it would at least show some progress in the role of the female in society.

McConnell-Ginet, Sally. “Linguistics and the Feminist Challenge.” Women and Language in Literature and Society, edited by Salley McConnell-Ginet, Ruth Barker, and Nelly Furman, Praeger Publishers, 1980, pp. 3-25.

Rawson, Hugh. A Dictionary of Invective: A treasury of curses, insults, put-downs, and other formally unprintable terms from Anglo-Saxon times to the present. London, Robert Hale, 1991.

Romaine, Suzanne. Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford, University Press, 1994.

Smith, Philip M. Language, the Sexes and Society. Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1985.

“Witch.” The New Oxford Dictionary of English. 1^st ed. 1998.

“Wizard.” The New Oxford Dictionary of English. 1^st ed. 1998.