x-rated linguistics

I think Azzam has provided an interesting video clip that shows the swap in stereotypical gender roles. This clip shows how the character that Grace Jones was acting did not conform to the typical feminine way of speaking where it is subtle. Instead, she was straightforward and daring in expressing her thoughts and desires. On the other hand, the character that Eddie Murphy plays changed from a dominative speech to a subtle speech when facing a strong-headed lady. This shows how speeches can be adopted and changed in different situations. A male does not only have to speak to establish dominance, likewise a female should not speak to express compliance only. In fact, speeches should not even be categorized using genders. Instead, it is more related to who has more authority. However, in most cases, males would have more speaking authority. Thus, their speech would be more of the dominating kind.

It is also interesting to see how a word has very different meanings in this clip. Jones’ character has repeatedly said the word “pussy” to imply different things in the clip. Initially, she was referring to her own female private part, which is the vagina. Then, she used it to call Murphy a coward instead. This change in meaning is more significant since Jones considered her “pussy” to be amazing, that no one could ever turn down. Yet, Murphy turned it down and that makes him a coward.

I think Min Jun has showed interesting examples of how people are judgmental and quick into labelling through these two video clips. Humans usually learn through visuals and audios. Hence, using what we observe and what we listen, we construct an idea. This is like how we judge people. As seen from the videos, we do so based on how they look, dress, sound and behave. I agree with one of the queers from the video, Xandrie, that it is an unfortunate nature of humans to judge quickly based on these external factors. It is unfair to a person to be immediately labelled, without seeing internally who they really are. Yet, this is a practice that is hard to change since animals, not just humans, would always discriminate “others” who are different from “us”.

The videos also highlighted the fact that labels are technically limiting. Common words used in our various languages are official and have a standard definition in dictionaries. However, labels are not official terms and people do not get educated on them in general together. Thus, it is unavoidable that different people would have different understanding of how these labels are defined. Yet, sometimes I wonder if creating so many labels for various communities to identify with would be helpful. Or would it be better to just use a uniform and neutral word such as “humans” to label all of us?

I think that how fraternities look upon and treat people outside their fraternities, exists at every level. I mean that this exists in organisations and even families. Although I feel that one should not decide masculinity based on people’s ability to drink or get girls or drive a muscle car, I feel that the existence of such structures of belonging to groups somehow helps people. The danger here is that this allows, if these groups get big and influential enough, to perpetuate their ideologies and eventually negatively affect society. Clearly I’m confused.

I agree to a large extend on the opinions of the author as I can relate to them to a large extend. In Singapore, the context of pussification would be males before entering the National Service. After the completion of National service, males would be regarded as a “grown man” most of the time.

I feel that the article gave quite valid points regarding life lessons although it was presented in a really crude manner. If pledge-ship is equivalent to National service, NS definitely did put my ego in check, strengthen my physical and mental endurance but most importantly, NS teaches boys about the importance of accountability towards oneself and the others.

However, I do feel uncomfortable with the use of the word “pussification” as I feel that even without going through fraternity/national service, it does not makes males less “masculine” than the norm. These life lessons can also be learned even without going through pledgeship/national service.

As such, I feel that the idea of a less muscular man or terms like “pussification” might probably be created by misconception from social norms.

The article talks about the importance of masculinity by not being a pussy. That being said, pussy is associated with women. Hence, pussy is used derogatorily to denote when men are not conforming to their gender roles. However, if pussy is used by women, it is not an issue or it does not have a negative impact because it does not affect women femininity. Thus, man’s desire to not be a pussy is an important aspect to show their masculinity and to do that, Madison Wickham suggests joining a fraternity: Pledgeship.

The fraternity members’ fear of being labelled as a pussy seems to be key in their decision-making in life. The writer himself portrays himself as masculine through his choice of major, car and even coffee and talks about important lessons that he learned from being in a fraternity. This fear might have helped him personally, but this may do more harm than good for those who unable to deal with the pressure of having to be seen as masculine in all situations. 

The article aims to defend fraternities and it was mentioned that ‘pussification is killing the concept of accountability’, however I don’t understand why the need to have a fraternity just so they can practice accountability? With or without fraternity, one can practice accountability. Also, the word ‘pussy’ seem to carry a derogatory term as it reduces a man to a reproductive organ - if you don’t conform, then you are a pussy. But the question to me here is, what is wrong with being a pussy? 

After reading the article, I feel unjust that women’s genitals or “pussies” are being used as a negative term or representation of weak or coward. I think that both sexes’ genitals should be treated at equal status since both are essentially required for reproduction. Not to forget that it is through a woman’s womb or vagina that a baby is conceived. Can men imagine how much tolerance or courage is needed for a woman to go through a painful childbirth process? Thus, why are women or their pussies being considered as weak or cowardly?

Moving on deeper into the context of the article and video, I think that there are advantages and disadvantages of fraternities. As seen, fraternities, much like sororities, give a sense of belonging and identification to individuals, making them feel that they are part of a group. I believe that it is in human’s nature to seek acceptance or recognition from others since most of us are born and raised in a community. Thus, I do agree with the saying that the environment sculpts how living beings grow.

Yet, the video mentioned about “better be safe than sorry” and “social cues”. Is our environment or society being too inflexible or restricted such that individuals feel pressured to grow and shine from their inner selves? There should be a balance between being independent and taking in opinions. I feel that we should be sensible, responsible and accountable for ourselves ultimately, not to others. The author of the article seems to be overly-reliant on his fraternity that he may have forgotten his true self. He believed that his fraternity did sculpt him into a “better man”. However, who was the one who set the expectation or definition of this “better man”? Is it his fraternity or himself?

From what I see, this “better man” is merely a more disciplined man, someone who can take control of his life. Any individual could achieve that, either through self help or help from peers and family. This has nothing to do with being in a fraternity or being a “pussy”.