Is reclamation of the word "douche" possible?
I've been reading and participating in discussions over the word "douche" or "douchebag" used as an insult.
The original use of the word as an insult goes back to the days when douching was something nice ladies did because their lady parts were dirty and needed to be cleaned. The douche or douchebag was considered contaminated by its association with the dirty vagina and its indelicate secretions.
The word, I am told, is now used by feminists and allies to mean a useless thing that is harmful to women. While this is actually true of vaginal douching in general, this explanation has never really quite convinced me. It seemed facile, and it seemed possible that many who use this explanation actually still have a bit of a revulsion for female genitalia and secretions, especially menses, something that douches were often marketed as an antidote to.
When I've challenged this use as not easily discernible from the original "ew icky vagina" use, I either get the internet equivalent of a blank stare (because they don't know the original use) or "it's being reclaimed like other words, what's your problem with it, sister?"
I had a nagging sense that there was something about reclaiming the word that wasn't like other reclamations, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it.
After all, many words that have been used to insult women have been reclaimed. These include bitch, cunt, slut, and one of my faves, <a href="http://viv.id.au/blog">Hoyden</a>. Witch, queer, dyke, liberal...they're all defiantly used now by the former targets of those terms, alchemically transformed into a glorious reverse of their former ugly, half-hidden selves.
But I don't think it's going to work so easily for "douche," and I just figured out why.
We're not reclaiming the word as a positive, we're keeping it as a negative. Continuing to use the word as an insult gives no clue as to whether the user intends it in the reclaimed feminist sense or the older, woman-hating sense. Those negative echoes are still there. The word would have to go through a double alchemy — first, washed of the negative associations it was born from, then dirtied with new recobbled negative associations, all in full public view without ambiguity. This seems rather a big order.
I can't think of any really successful reclamation of an insulting word that remains an insult. The closest attempt I can think of is in a standup piece by Chris Rock about "Black people and N*s," where he characterizes a Black person as doing socially responsible thing X, and the N* doing socially irresponsible thing Y. I might have found it funnier had I not heard the same thing from White people in the 60s when I was growing up, especially when these paragons of equality were "caught" by Black people using that word. The explanation may have been sincere, but it doesn't acquit a White person of racism. Of course, there's also the difference that this is a Black man using the word versus a White person using it, so the parallel isn't exact. But I wonder just how successful such a reclamation can be.
The original use of the word as an insult goes back to the days when douching was something nice ladies did because their lady parts were dirty and needed to be cleaned. The douche or douchebag was considered contaminated by its association with the dirty vagina and its indelicate secretions.
The word, I am told, is now used by feminists and allies to mean a useless thing that is harmful to women. While this is actually true of vaginal douching in general, this explanation has never really quite convinced me. It seemed facile, and it seemed possible that many who use this explanation actually still have a bit of a revulsion for female genitalia and secretions, especially menses, something that douches were often marketed as an antidote to.
When I've challenged this use as not easily discernible from the original "ew icky vagina" use, I either get the internet equivalent of a blank stare (because they don't know the original use) or "it's being reclaimed like other words, what's your problem with it, sister?"
I had a nagging sense that there was something about reclaiming the word that wasn't like other reclamations, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it.
After all, many words that have been used to insult women have been reclaimed. These include bitch, cunt, slut, and one of my faves, <a href="http://viv.id.au/blog">Hoyden</a>. Witch, queer, dyke, liberal...they're all defiantly used now by the former targets of those terms, alchemically transformed into a glorious reverse of their former ugly, half-hidden selves.
But I don't think it's going to work so easily for "douche," and I just figured out why.
We're not reclaiming the word as a positive, we're keeping it as a negative. Continuing to use the word as an insult gives no clue as to whether the user intends it in the reclaimed feminist sense or the older, woman-hating sense. Those negative echoes are still there. The word would have to go through a double alchemy — first, washed of the negative associations it was born from, then dirtied with new recobbled negative associations, all in full public view without ambiguity. This seems rather a big order.
I can't think of any really successful reclamation of an insulting word that remains an insult. The closest attempt I can think of is in a standup piece by Chris Rock about "Black people and N*s," where he characterizes a Black person as doing socially responsible thing X, and the N* doing socially irresponsible thing Y. I might have found it funnier had I not heard the same thing from White people in the 60s when I was growing up, especially when these paragons of equality were "caught" by Black people using that word. The explanation may have been sincere, but it doesn't acquit a White person of racism. Of course, there's also the difference that this is a Black man using the word versus a White person using it, so the parallel isn't exact. But I wonder just how successful such a reclamation can be.
I don't see the use of "douche" as reclamatory, partly for the reasons you identify - but I don't have a problem with it.
Is there good historical/linguistic evidence that the "original" use was inextricably entwined with "ew girl parts icky"?
Reply to this
I've never considered it to be reclaiming, although I do use it as an insult with the interpretation you give. That's... not "reclaiming", though.
Reply to this
lauredhel: "Is there good historical/linguistic evidence that the "original" use was inextricably entwined with "ew girl parts icky"?"
Its use began in the 1960s:
http://www.drbilllong.com/SpellersDiary/Interlude.html
"By 1967, according to the OED, the term came into its more prominent contemporary usage: "Douche bag, an unattractive co-ed. By extension, any individual whom the speaker desires to deprecate." By the time I made it to the university in 1970, the language of "douche bag" was in the air, but it was almost universally applied to males."
Offhand, I can't think of a reasonable alternative hypothesis for why a douche or a douchebag would be a derogatory term aside from an association with stinky vagina. If it originated among college students, the implication might be that the woman so deprecated uses a douche bag a lot because she's a slut.
I'll do some more research.
Reply to this
How is Body Language important in life?
Reply to this
I've thought about this one a lot in the past, and I have to admit I can't totally let go of if (though I don't recall ever personally calling anyone a douchebag) and I've wondered if part of it is not just because of the fact that the phrase itself just phonetically sounds funny?
I'm not trying to belittle concerns over its use or argue that it doesn't have a sexist component (that may have originally been the ONLY component) or anything, I'm just thinking of the discussion I've heard from many comedians that some words just inherently sound funny.
The hard d followed by the soft che, then the second syllable with a hard b, ending in a hard g... it even feels interesting to say.
Obviously it was a sexist insult, I'm just wondering if the "feel" of the word makes its use in this way harder to change. Also I have sort of an obsession with words and slang, so sorry if this is like way off base.
(and re: the "n" word, the argument Chris Rock makes doesn't win me over mainly because I've heard the same thing used as an excuse for using the word by white racists, along with the tired old "well that's what they call each other" crap.)
Reply to this
Hi Jafafa! No, this isn't off-base at all.
There is an inherent funny sound to the word, which is I think also related to the onomatopoeic similarity to a flush of water ("DOOSH!"). That does make it more tempting to use. The "oo" noise does seem to be associated with stupidity, viz. doofus.
For people who are younger than I am, who don't even know what a douche really is or how the word evolved, it's understandable that they keep using it, but it also kind of reminds me of when people call Black people "well spoken." Even if they're not aware of the history, the history is still there, and it still sticks in the craw of people who grew up knowing that historical association.
Reply to this
Agree it would be nice to return the original meaning. Doubt it can be done though, shame.
(Nice to go back to the original meaning of "douche"? Do you know what "agree" means? Sometimes it's worth keeping the spam comments just to see how stupid they really are. -oldfeminist)
Reply to this
Maybe when Michael Phelps is involved. I'm from the school of slur reclamation.
Reply to this