Nope. This is news to me. Which kind of undermines his argument, don't you think?

I agree. In fact, when I think of a "stereotypical" asshole, I think of someone who's more homophobic than homosexual.

I think the main reason it's directed primarily at men is becase it's ended up the companion word to "bitch." Both seem like they're supposed to embody everything stereotypically wrong with angry members of their respective genders.

I liked this part in his article: "You'd be amazed how few understand that 'suck' is derived from 'cocksucker', and thus to say something or someone 'sucks' is to use anti-gay/anti-woman language."

If you don't know a word is anti-gay/anti-woman and neither do the people you say it around, does it in any way demean homosexuals or women? ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT. (sorry, couldn't help it)

I've heard these arguments before:

Swear words aimed at women usually either focused solely on a woman's sexual capacity (cunt, etc.) or put women on the level of animals (bitch) -- either way, demeaning her. Similarly, swear words aimed at men were an attempt at comparison to women -- who were already viewed as "the weaker sex" -- by using words believed to be sexually demeaning to men.

And, you have to admit that these arguments have merit. I mean, when in history has "fuck" ever meant anything other than what we use it to mean now -- i.e., to have sex? And, that being so, what other meaning could you derive from an angry phrase like "fuck you!" besides sexual degradation?

We may not use these terms with the same intent now, but the phrases had to start somewhere and for a reason -- that's just the nature of linguistic evolution.

Just my two cents.

Zito,
The words just take on a life of their own at some point. While I use the F word from time to time, I almost never use it in corrolation to sex (no matter how superficial and/or carnal in nature). Same with the S word. It's almost entirely for exclaimation. Of course, many do use these words in their more original capacities, but it's gotten to the point where they are just words that have multiple meanings without connection to one another (except, of course, for bad puns).

Linus,
I thought about the male-equivalent-to-bitch angle before, and there may be some merit to it. But interestingly after thinking about it we really have a host of words aimed at men that we don't use at women and many used at women that aren't use at men. Interestingly, I found more gender-specific insults than I did gender-specific ones. Not sure what that means.

I appreciate your input, Heidi,

There's definitely something to the broader argument. I didn't mention the "suck" portion because I actually did have a vague idea of where it came from and why it might be considered offensive (though the transformation of cocksucker to suck makes me wonder if 'bite' came from the same origin -- ouch).

Thinking over epithets, it's considerably more uniform for women than for men. Just about everything insult that I can think of involves sex with the exception of "bitch" and "witch."

For men, though, it's more broad. Some involve women and/or sex, but some involve excretory body parts or excrement itself, others take aim at insulting someone by way of their mother (SOB), which is not sexual in nature but there is an implied guilt-by-association with a female. Not sure whether that one counts.

Regardless, I found the supposed origins of "asshole" particularly noteworthy since for me, it's a much closer connection to another common linguistic bludgeon (feces) than homosexual activity.

Heidi, just in case it's unclear - I mean no offense. I don't swear much at all, and I certainly try to avoid demeaning anyone in any way (never using 'gay' as an insult, for example).

I'm annoyed at people who seem to fight the use of certain words simply because they imply things they're uncomfortable with, and 'suck' seemed like a good example. I drew no connection between the word and homosexuals or women, and got the impression that others don't either. In my opinion, if that assessment is correct, there's nothing wrong with it.

That said, if anyone told me they were offended, I would certainly stop saying such things.

It's just basic courtesy not to say unnecessary things (and all epithets apply here) that offend people until they are important to the idea being presented. I've dealt with people that object to the word "suck" and tried to adjust my verbage accordingly in their presence. Stoner objects to the Lord's name being said in vain and I do what I can to respect that.

On the other hand, I think it's important to the easily offended and/or those with a particular push-button to be patient with people who aren't used to being around people offended by such language. In other words, if someone goes off at me because I used the word "suck" and didn't know if offended them, I'll be more angry than apologetic. If they politely ask me to refrain, I'll try.

For instance, there is a particular word that sets me off. It's not even a curseword and it's something that people use unknowingly. I've become patient with people that use the word, though I've told those closest to me when they've used it that I would really, really prefer they didn't. Most of them have obliged and when it's slipped out I've been patient about it.

Similarly, Stoner's been patient with me and I've tried to accomodate him, with mixed success.

Linus et al,

I take no offense at these things. At times, I swear like a sailor myself. I was merely presenting the other side and acknowledging that (IMHO) there is some merit to the argument of misogynistic undertones when looking at how the phrases came into being in the first place. I do not believe, however, that these phrases are always (or even mostly) used for those same reasons today.

Slightly off-topic but at least tangentially related: There was a political official here in New Orleans who, soon after being elected, looked at the overwhelming job facing him and, without thinking (or maybe knowing full well -- I don't know), said "We'll just have to take that tar baby by the ears." Not a very sensitive thing to say in a city that is predominantly African-American, particularly if you're one of the few Caucasians on your committee or council. Needless to say, the political pressure mounted, and he was booted out. Very controversial.

Again, just throwing in a couple pennies when I can...