Wordslut: A Feminist Guide to Taking Back the English Language

“The link between language and culture is inextricable: language has always been, and continues to be, used to reflect and reinforce power structures and social norms. Because old white dudes have ruled our culture for so long, and language is the medium through which that culture was created and communicated, the time has come to challenge how and why we use language the way we do, and how we think about it in the first place.”

Montell argues that language is politically and culturally significant. This passage suggests that the privileged “old white dudes” had a greater influence on the English lexicon than other people, a claim which contributes to Montell’s theme on The Relationship Between Language and Misogyny. The author’s plea for reflection and social change shifts the tone of her book from one of pure academic analysis to a more activistic approach.

“In English, our negative terms for women, which usually carry sexual connotations, necessarily mirror the status of women in Western society at large—that being the status of treats and filets, at best, and hobags and hellpigs, at worst. It’s a classic case of the virgin/whore dichotomy—according to our inventory of English slang, women are always either one of two types of sexual objects: an innocent hard-to-get peach or a grotesque, too-easy skank.”

In this passage the author analyzes how English language insults for women tend to be sexual in nature, adding depth to her theme on The Relationship Between Language and Misogyny. This quotation adds to Montell’s argument that gendered terms specific to women tend to dehumanize women as sexual objects of desire or revulsion, which reflects and informs sexist behaviors.

“[W]hen English speakers want to insult a woman, they compare her to one of a few things: a food (tart), an animal (bitch), or a sex worker (slut). These are the very same themes Laurel A. Sutton noticed in her study at UC Berkeley in the ‘90s. That we have used language to systematically reduce women to edible, nonhuman, and sexual entities for so many years is no coincidence. Instead, it makes a clear statement about the expectations, hopes, and fears of our society as a whole.”

Laurel A. Sutton’s observations on dehumanizing insults shines a spotlight on how language is used to belittle women. By connecting these insults to the big picture of societal beliefs and expectations, Montell argues that these gendered terms do not only reflect individual behavior, but are indicative of broader trends in English-speaking societies.

“The gender versus sex question is one of the most critical sides of the woman vs. female semantic debate: Is the word woman what we should use to describe gender, which refers to something cultural and conceptual, while female is what we should use to describe sex, which refers to something of the body? Why is sex versus gender an important concept to articulate in the first place? And furthermore, why are the words we currently have to describe it so unclear?”

Montell’s analysis of the sex versus gender debate adds detail to her theme on The Nature of Semantic Change and Gendered Language. This passage shows that as society’s concept of gender has changed, so too has the definition of the word, which now means different things to different people. The author’s conversation on sex and gender reveals the schism that can arise between dictionary definitions and word usage, inviting the reader to consider how they use these terms and how they are used legally.

“Not everyone is empowered by categorization, and it is possible that one day nonnormative genders and sexualities will become so accepted that this spectrum of labels won’t seem necessary. But in the meantime, labels offer validation to many folks who previously felt isolated and unheard.”

Montell argues that people have a deep instinct to label experiences and differences through language. In this passage she expresses sympathy for people of different genders and sexualities who find “validation” by identifying with certain labels. By acknowledging the ever-changing language around gender and sexuality, the author reflects upon The Nature of Semantic Change and Gendered Language.

“The Buginese people of Indonesia recognize five genders: women, men, calalai, calabai, and bissu. Calalai are assigned female at birth (AFAB) and embody a masculine gender identity; calabai are AMAB and embody a feminine gender identity. Bissu are ‘transcendent gender,’ meaning they encompass all of these identities, serving key roles in Buginese traditions, and are sometimes equated with priests.”

This passage highlights another culture’s perceptions of gender, and the language they use to describe people of different genders. By showing how cultural concepts necessitate the invention of words, Montell demonstrates how English culture’s shifting notions of gender have led to the creation of relatively new words in English such as “transgender” and “non-binary.” In doing so the author illustrates The Nature of Semantic Change and Gendered Language.

“Analyze a few hundred transcripts of dude-on-dude chatter and you’ll usually find a dominant speaker who holds the floor, and a subordinate waiting for his turn. It’s a vertical structure. But with women, the conversation is frequently much more horizontal and malleable; everyone is an equal player. While men tend to view conversation as an arena for establishing hierarchies and expressing individual achievement, women’s goals are typically to support the other speakers and emphasize solidarity. Thus, women progressively build on what one another says.”

The author makes sweeping generalizations as she summarizes research on men’s and women’s speaking styles. This passage casts men’s and women’s expression as almost opposites, with men forming a hierarchy while women aim to cooperate. Montell’s assertions here are sometimes modified or contested by some other feminist linguists, such as Deborah Cameron, who question whether men and women really do have different communicative styles or if these are just persistent stereotypes.

“As Fought says, ‘If women do something like uptalk or vocal fry, it’s immediately interpreted as insecure, emotional, or even stupid.’ But the truth is much more interesting: Young women use the linguistic features that they do, not as mindless affectations, but as power tools for establishing and strengthening relationships.”

Montell turns the stereotypes about women’s speech on their head, claiming that linguistic features like hedging, vocal fry, and uptalk are used intentionally for communicating with other women. By calling these traits “power tools,” Montell asks the reader to celebrate, rather than denigrate, typically feminine language features. This passage adds to Montell’s argument that women should not be persuaded to change their self-expression to sound more masculine, but embrace and defend their own speech habits.

“So why is it that young women get the harshest dose of criticism for vocal fry, uptalk, like, and other hedges? According to linguists, the way that these speech qualities are perceived has way less to do with the thing being said and way more to do with who’s saying it. In other words, judgments about linguistic prestige depend a whole lot on how we feel about the speaker.”

Montell shows that men also use vocal fry, uptalk, and hedges, three linguistic traits that young women tend to be criticized for using. In this passage Montell blames sexist bias for the controversy around these linguistic habits, adding to her theme on The Relationship Between Language and Misogyny.

“In the Spanish sentence El nuevo jefe necesita una recepcionista, meaning, ‘The new boss needs a receptionist,’ the noun boss is masculine, as is the adjective new, which describes the boss, while the word for receptionist is feminine. (And if the gender assignments in that Spanish example seem sketchy to you, you’re onto something.) This system of noun classification is called ‘grammatical gender.’”

Montell adds depth to her theme on The Relationship Between Language and Misogyny by investigating how grammatical gender forces speakers to categorize certain nouns as either masculine or feminine. This real-life example shows how such languages permanently conceive of certain roles as “feminine,” adding to Montell’s argument that grammatical gender can influence people’s perceptions of men and women without them realizing it.

“In languages with grammatical gender, there are entire ideas about men and women that cannot be communicated in a way that’s ‘grammatically correct’ by prescriptive standards. In French, for instance, most prestigious jobs are masculine: the French words for police officer, doctor, professor, engineer, politician, lawyer, surgeon, and dozens of others all have masculine gender. (The words for nurse, caretaker, and servant all happen to be feminine, though.)”

Montell’s description of the dilemma of gendered languages helps illuminate how limiting and inherently sexist they are. Without the acceptance of new, feminine words for women of certain professions, speakers must either tolerate the old system or run the risk of being criticized for their “improper” speech or writing.

“In a way, catcalling, interruption, disregarding a woman by telling her she’s crazy, and other forms of silencing are in response to this gradual challenging of the power scales. It’s all a way of rendering what women think and say irrelevant, a justification for keeping them from the authority they’ve begun to reclaim.”

Montell adds to her theme on The Politics of Language by assessing how some men speakers use language to degrade women through catcalling, interrupting, and other forms of “silencing.” By describing these actions as intentional power plays, the author invites the reader to see such behavior as perpetrating harmful power imbalances between men and women.

“I think this empathy issue is also part of what’s going on with interruption, nonresponse, mansplaining, calling women ‘hysterical,’ and many of the other linguistic power moves we’ve identified so far. Because masculinity as we know it discourages men from forming solidarity with women, when a dude ignores or strong-arms a woman’s voice, he’s doing a good job by society’s standards. He’s playing his role well. The fact that the role causes damage is of relatively little importance.”

Montell claims that harmful language features like mansplaining and interrupting are part of how men are socialized. By making this connection the author adds to her theme on The Relationship Between Language and Misogyny. This claim also challenges the reader to consider their own communication habits and how they may relate to their gender and culture.

“Since swearing is largely thought to be intrinsically aggressive, women who do it may be perceived as breaking the traditional rules of femininity, which require them to be sweet, deferential, and constantly attuned to the feelings of others. Naturally, defying this expectation can invite criticism. I, for one, have been told several times that I ‘curse like a man,’ and I can never tell whether this is a compliment or not.”

The author claims that many women are judged negatively for swearing since it violates the “traditional rules” of expectations for women. This passage provides context to Montell’s claim that women receive more criticism for swearing than men do, adding depth to her theme on The Relationship Between Language and Misogyny as women are discouraged from using language that may seem powerful or aggressive.

“A 1997 study of gender and cursing revealed that listeners associated sailor-mouthed women not only with lower socioeconomic status but also with lower moral standing. The implication was that a woman partial to dropping the f-bomb would be more likely to, say, litter or cheat on her spouse than one who wasn’t. (This result was not found in participants’ judgments of men who cursed.)”

Montell’s discussions on swearing depict cursing as a more stigmatized behavior for women than for men. By pointing to academic evidence of such unfair assessments, the author reveals how sexist bias informs people’s reactions to women’s speech. This supports not only her claims about women’s cursing, but about perceptions of women’s speech in general.

“These two women’s voices actually represent a real conundrum that exists for women in the public eye: women who wish to hold power are expected to strike a precarious balance of appearing pleasant and polite, like the sweet-tempered caregivers they’re used to women being, as well as tough and authoritative, like capable leaders, all the while doing their best to convince everyone that they’re neither a bitch (Hillary Clinton) nor a sexual object (Scarlett Johansson).”

Montell clearly lays out the “double bind” women confront as public figures seeking positions of power, reflecting The Politics of Language. In this passage the author aims to persuade the reader that women face a difficult dichotomy and a sexist public who are eager to label them as one extreme or the other.

“Critiques on both sides of the double bind are a means of linguistic objectification. As long as it remains strange for women to fill positions of authority, then we can expect their clothes, bodies, voices, and gender itself to be inevitably ogled. Until then, they will be forced to walk the tightrope of the double bind, careful not to slip and fall into either the box labeled ‘adorable eye candy’ or the one marked ‘abrasive scold.’”

Montell claims that praising women’s voices for being sexy, or on the other hand, too tough or shrill, are both ways of objectifying women. By claiming that women’s visibility and success in leadership positions will decrease this unfair criticism, Montell portrays cultural change as the instigator of language change.

“Our culture wants it to be that simple—to believe so badly that all gay men sound like women—because that makes it easier to size them up and potentially ridicule them. Thus, the stereotype prevails. ‘Why do you think gay men sometimes reject other gay men for sounding gay?’ David Thorpe asks gay media pundit Dan Savage. ‘Misogyny,’ Savage responds. ‘They want to prove to the culture that they’re not not men—that they’re good because they’re not women […] And then they punish gay men who they perceive as being feminine in any way.’”

Montell assesses how some gay men are ostracized for sounding “feminine,” positing that this trend could also be the result of sexist bias. By claiming that misogyny can influence even gay men’s perceptions of each other, Montell portrays it as deeply entrenched in society, adding to her theme on The Relationship Between Language and Misogyny.

“As Green told reporters shortly after his study was published, ‘The penis is often going to be some kind of weapon, the vagina some kind of narrow passage, intercourse some way of saying ‘man hits woman.’”

This quotation summarizes Jonathan Green’s comprehensive study on 500 years’ worth of English slang for genitalia. By focusing on Green’s claim that English speakers have often characterized penises as weapons and sex as a male-centric and violent activity, Montell adds depth to her claim that discourse on sex reflects women’s historical denigration in society, invoking The Relationship Between Language and Misogyny.

“Just think of some of the most common verbs used to illustrate sex: bone, drill, screw. In the world of these words, the person with the erection is both the star and the narrator. If one were to describe sex from the vagina’s standpoint—to say something like, ‘We enveloped all night,’ or ‘I sheathed the living daylights out of him,’ or ‘We clitsmashed’—it would be such an exceptional rebellion against mainstream sex talk that to many listeners, it would be a real head-scratcher.”

Montell comes up with creative alternatives to male-centric descriptions of male-female sex acts, which show how English might be different if it revolved around the woman’s perspective. By showing how English speakers could choose to rethink their descriptions of sex, Montell adds to her theme on The Nature of Semantic Change and Gendered Language.

“Take it from Shonda Rhimes, creator of the hit TV series Grey’s Anatomy, who once told O, The Oprah Magazine that in an early episode of Grey’s, the word penis appeared thirty-two times and nobody blinked an eye, but when they tried to work vagina into the script just twice (and, again, this is a medical term), the higher-ups at broadcast standards objected. This is actually the very reason why the word va-jay-jay was invented in the first place.”

This quotation demonstrates how the stigma around women’s sexuality and bodies is not a thing of the past, but an ongoing cultural phenomenon. By describing the censors’ nonissue with the word “penis” in a medical show, but their rejection of “vagina,” the author adds depth to her claim that terms for women’s bodies are particularly stigmatized. By revealing how this silencing necessitated the invention of the slang term “va-jay-jay” the author provides a real-life example of The Nature of Semantic Change and Gendered Language.

“We could start by using our words of choice just with sexual partners, then move on to using them with our friends in the real world, then bring them to the internet, and eventually, who knows? […] Maybe the idea of naming your own body on your terms will catch on. And maybe when that happens, a rebalancing of the sexual power scales will finally follow.”

Montell encourages the reader to claim their language as their own and generate their own words to describe themselves. This positive and creative approach treats language as an ever-changing resource which speakers can inform and control. By presenting language as a tool for cultural change, the author reflects the chicken-and-egg relationship between language and culture, in which one can influence the other.

“There is a verb doroledim, describing the act of a woman overeating to cope with a lack of ability to care for herself properly while at the same time feeling extreme guilt about overindulging in something as gluttonous as food. There is a noun radiidin, which translates to ‘a non-holiday,’ or an occasion generally thought to be a holiday but is actually a burden due to women having to cook, decorate, and prepare for so many guests single-handedly.”

By providing examples from Suzette Haden Elgin’s women’s language “Láadan” the author shows how Elgin tried to enrich women’s lives with precise words for their common experiences. This unusual and creative approach to resolving misogyny invites the reader to think about which aspects of women’s experiences might be underrepresented in the English lexicon, and why.