Sarah Peart's Argument Against Racism

By Sarah Peart

When I heard someone yell out "Hey chick!", I calmly turned around prepared to explain to this juvenile male that I don't appreciate being referred to as a fluffy baby chicken. To my shock, I found that it was a feminist woman.

The idea that women can "reclaim" words that have always been sexist is virtually received wisdom in student feminist circles. A quick flick through many magazines and a glance at some TV shows show that it is "geek girls", "riot girls" and "cyber-chicks" who are presented as the strong assertive women of the "post-feminist" era.

Words that have previously been rejected by feminists as sexist are now being promoted by the billionaire makers of pop culture, sold to women as their "road to liberation".
For example, a growing number of feminists argue that the consequences for women of a man on a building site calling a woman "chick" are different (i.e., negative) from those of a lesbian woman calling her partner "chick" (i.e., endearing).

While not denying that language is used in different contexts with different intents, we should also recognise the overarching context of the sexist society we live in. Words don't exist in neutral space, from where we grab them as we choose and inject our own meaning into them. The meaning of words — how and why they are generally used by the majority of people — is determined by the social setting.

Even in one's "personal context", the bigger societal context has an impact. For example, in a relationship between an Asian and an Anglo, the latter calling the former "slanty eyes" is unlikely to be understood by the many people as particularly
But in general society, these words are still used overwhelmingly to denigrate or trivialise women. That's why women who are perceived to have power in society are not labelled in this way.

Are feminists empowering themselves and undermining the sexist nature of these words by using them? Far from it. Rather, such usage undermines feminists' efforts to convince more and more people that sexist language reflects gender inequality and should be rejected.

Last year, the women's edition of the Sydney University student newspaper, Honi Soit, was renamed Honi Slut. The issue, which was produced by feminist women, contained a photograph of the campus women's officers topless and with "slut" written across their breasts.

This did absolutely nothing to challenge the use of sexist language on campus. On the contrary, it legitimised the use of the word slut in reference to women, making it harder for women to challenge men who call them