Wordslut: A Feminist Guide to Taking Back the English Language

Language analyst and copywriter Laurel A. Sutton researched gendered language while in graduate school at UC Berkeley. Her project findings revealed that over 90% of slang terms for women were negative, while only about 46% of slang terms for men were insults. The more positive slang terms for women tended to describe their sexual attractiveness. Montell observes that most slang terms for women in English are sexual in nature, categorizing women as desirable or undesirable.

In the 1970s linguist Muriel Schulz wrote a paper entitled “The Semantic Derogation of Women” which showed that, over time, words which began with neutral meanings became insults specific to women. This process of semantic change is called “pejoration.” The process of pejoration is common for terms referring to women, but extremely rare for terms that refer to men: Montell offers “dick” as an example of a masculine term which is now a common insult.

Montell offers numerous examples of terms for women becoming pejoratives. For instance, “sir” and “madam” used to be equivalent terms for both genders. While “sir” has remained a respectful title, “madam” changed to mean a precocious girl, and now refers to a female brothel owner. Similarly, “master” is a dignified title, while “mistress” has a negative meaning. Other insults for women, such as hussy, pussy, slut, tart, bitch and cunt, all had neutral beginnings but became gendered insults over the generations. 

Montell argues that as society developed into sedentary, agriculture-based communities, they became more male-dominated and patriarchal. This cultural shift prompted the demonization of women’s sexuality, which, Montell argues, is why so many insults for women are sexual in nature. She notes that these dehumanizing terms tend to fall into three categories: Food (like the term “tart”); animals (such as “bitch” or “cow”); and sex workers (like “slut”). Montell believes that the long tradition of dehumanizing women in this way is not random, but is instead indicative of misogynistic trends and beliefs in society. Montell maintains that men invented insulting terms for women, but recognizes that women also use these terms to describe each other. She claims that this is because women have a tendency to listen to others’ views and give them tacit support.

Montell considers other reasons for why gendered insults tend to survive in the English lexicon. She believes many of these terms are fun to say due to their phonetics. She celebrates that many gendered insults have been “reclaimed” by speakers and are used as terms of endearment or affection. For instance, the word “queer” was once an insult for gay people but is now a “self-affirming umbrella term for nonnormative gender and sexual identities” (39). Similarly, words like “bitch” and “cunt” are still insults in many contexts, but are used by some women as terms of endearment.

Montell credits speakers of African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) with reclaiming many previously insulting words by using them differently, including “bitch” and “ho.” Some activists have made organized efforts to reclaim certain words. For instance, an annual lesbian pride event is called the “Dyke March.” The author argues that some words are harder to reclaim than others, and there is often controversy around word meanings and usage. She points to “slut” as a particularly contentious word. Montell argues that as English culture changes and female sexuality is less stigmatized, words such as “slut” should lose their power, much the same way as words like “spinster” or “old maid” are not used frequently anymore. 

Montell believes that people should carefully consider how their own speech is gendered and try to undo any negative habits. Her personal solution is to reclaim certain words that she enjoys using and finds empowering, and using gender-neutral insults when she wants to insult someone.

Linguist Robin Lakoff argues that using the term “woman” as a qualifier, such as a “woman journalist” or “woman doctor,” suggests that women working in those roles is somehow unnatural or unusual. She explores how people use the term “female,” arguing that it is often used with a negative association, referring to examples from the British National Corpus. Deborah Cameron theorizes that by using the term “female” rather than “woman,” people imply that their traits or flaws are due to their sex.

Montell addresses the confusion of whether “female” and “woman” are even interchangeable words. She notes that “female” refers to a sex, while “woman” typically refers to a gender. She laments that modern dictionaries offer a jumble of definitions for “woman,” with some specifying that women are females who possess female reproductive parts, like ova, while some also point to social roles and relationships such as wife, mother, or girlfriend to define “woman.” While dictionaries tend to create definitions based on how people use words, their definitions have cultural and legal ramifications.

Montell tackles the divide between the terms “sex” and “gender.” In the early 20th century, academics referred to “gender” as one’s expression of being male or female. This expression would be influenced by one’s culture and was not dependent on biology. Montell points to typically “feminine” activities such as sewing, cooking, or curtseying as expressions of gender.

Second-wave feminists in the 1960s questioned the relationship between biological sex and learned gender roles to emphasize that women did not have to accept all of the behaviors they had been socialized to perform. Since then, the term “gender” has continued to change as its usage has become more common. Today, there is still no one accepted definition of the term, and many linguists acknowledge its complexity. In everyday usage many people use it interchangeable with the term “sex,” while others define it as a “set of culturally learned behaviors” or a certain “social status” associated with their sex, or an “inherent sense of identity” (64).

Montell believes that humans have a powerful instinct to assign word labels to different types, and that this is why our verbal expression about gender and sexuality continues to evolve. Indeed, people have been grappling with how to describe people of different sexes, genders, and sexualities for ages. She points to the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee, a 19th-century German organization which researched and categorized different sexes, genders and sexualities, not as the disorders which they were believed to be at the time, but as valid categories. Other cultures hold vastly different concepts of gender which have no equivalent in American society. Montell refers to examples from India, Indonesia, the Dominican Republic, and Papua New Guinea.

She concludes her chapter by reflecting on how speakers can use English in a more inclusive way. Montell tries to refrain from using the term “guys” to refer to mixed gender groups, preferring the gender-neutral “folks” instead. She wonders whether these linguistic “tweaks” can change people’s perspectives on gender and equality, and promises to explore this topic in the next chapter.