Gender in Swearing

Gender in swearing covers three basic aspects: the gender of the swearer, that of the terms themselves, and the application or “target.” Traditionally it has been assumed, and is commonly evident, that swearing is predominantly a male domain and that even swearing in the presence of women is a severe breach of good manners. As the entry women, swearing in shows, this is generally, but not absolutely, true, since notable female swearers have a long tradition in both literature and history. Studies by Timothy Jay into swearing among American college students showed that women were ahead in certain categories, but did lag significantly behind men in using terms for the genitalia, such as pussy, cunt, tits , and cock (1992, 143-53).

The gender of swearing terms has become part of a wider debate in recent decades centered on the assumption that language is a male-controlled construct exhibiting chauvinist prejudices. The general feminist view argues that since language is generated in a “patriarchal” or “phallocratic” dispensation, there has developed, especially in male swearing, a preponderance of the terms derived from the female anatomy, notably tit and cunt . This dynamic has been identified as “the semantic derogation of women” (Schultz 1975) and explored by linguists such as Dale Spender, Casey Miller and Kate Swift. There seems definitely to be a prima facie case for such a view.

However, some closer examination is needed to analyze the distribution of terms of vehement personal abuse. These should include, not only female terms derived from various fields, anatomical and natural (e.g., cow and bitch ), but also general neutral terms, such as moron and bastard . Accordingly, a study of the distribution of terms is a useful starting-point for such an investigation. The field is set out below in the table “Gender in Swearing.”

The field reveals the interesting and somewhat surprising distributional dynamic in that virtually all the terms, from whatever provenance, are applied exclusively to the male sex. As has been stated, it has been argued that this concentration has arisen because the field of swearing has been dominated by men. This dynamic is, however, particularly paradoxical in the genital area, where the gender of origin and application do not match at all. It emerges that it is only in the animal category that origin and application follow each other logically. It is also notable that the pig is the only animal to feature in all categories, in the forms pig, sow , and swine . In the “general” category, obviously bugger, motherfucker , and sod[omite] are deter- mined by sexual role, but against this, there is no reason why devil, bastard , and fucker should be exclusively male in application. The same is true of idiot, moron , and cretin .

It is also noteworthy that virtually all the terms in the genital, anatomical, and excretory categories have developed the sense of “a worthless person” or “fool.” (The British slang term prat , which now has the same sense, had older meanings of “buttocks” or “arse.”) The other curious feature is that there is no term that can be used freely of both sexes. In recent decades bitch has started to be used more of men (though this currency is predominantly among homosexuals) and in the generalized sense of a difficult situation, as in “This is a real bitch.”

While the general distribution or application of terms is revealing, it perhaps lacks discrimination, since the impact of insults is equally important. This assessment is also problematic, being affected by variables such as context, tone, social codes, and degree of deliberation. While most would regard cunt, motherfucker , and bastard as deeply wounding, others would claim rightly that these terms are not always powerful and provocative, but can convey, variously, hatred and contempt, but also sympathy and affection. (Incidentally, of these three terms, one is masculine, one is feminine, and one is neutral.)

The issues are complex, since there are conflicting criteria. There is a need to balance intensity of insult against range. Thus the feminine-derived terms cunt, tit , and bitch are obviously more potent than the male derived prick or pig . On the other hand, all the indetermi- nate terms, such as bastard, idiot , and shit , which should logically be “bisexual” in application, are invariably applied only to males. Consequently, the “levels of injury” inflicted or sustained by these words would vary greatly from speaker to speaker and from hearer to hearer. However, the historical perspective shows one significant trend, namely that several of the terms like bitch and sow , were first used of males (or of both sexes) and only later applied exclusively to women, a point discussed further under feminization of opprobrious terms.