It’s a four-letter word that starts with a C and is at the centre of a political and linguistic storm this week.
But why is it still so offensive to so many?
Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden dropped the C-bomb during question time yesterday, in protest over the same slur being used against her and other female ministers in a column on pay equity by Andrea Vance, national affairs editor for the Sunday Star Times and The Post.
It was believed to be the first time the word had been used in the house and has sparked a wider discussion about its impact.
The word is considered to be one of the most offensive in the English language and is considerably more taboo than other misogynistic language used to describe women.
Debate has been sparked after a Government minister responded to the word’s use in a column by quoting it in Parliament. (Source: 1News)
According to the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s offensive language report from 2022, the C word was the second most unacceptable word to use in broadcast, according to survey respondents. Of those who responded to the survey, 57% found it unacceptable to use across all scenarios.
Other misogynistic words, like b***h, wh***, and sl**, were seen as unacceptable by fewer respondents. B***h was unacceptable to 29% of respondents, while wh*** and sl** were unacceptable to 40% of respondents.
Why does it cut so deep compared to other words aimed at women?
According to University of Waikato linguistics professor Andreea Calude, it’s likely because the C-word references a specific female body part, while others reference behaviour.
She told TVNZ’s Breakfast that “as a female speaker, using the C-word to address another woman”, they were denigrating themselves in the process.
She said many of the other words had been reclaimed by feminists. The process of reclaiming is when an oppressed group starts using slurs against them, often for protest or resistance against discrimination. An example of a word being reclaimed is “queer” which was once seen as derogratory but is now used as an umbrella term for the rainbow community.
But the C-word, Calude said, was “a little bit trickier” because of its direct reference to female anatomy.
Calude said, however, that the word could be moving towards becoming more acceptable in New Zealand culture.
She said New Zealand and Australian English were far more “innovative” than other variants.
“We could be seeing a shift in use. Usually when we’re trying to reclaim words… then those kinds of acts need to go hand in hand with changes in ideology in society. Changes in how we think of female sexuality and females as sexual objects – so maybe that is what is going on here.”
Brooke van Velden became the first MP to use the word in the House of Representatives as she quoted a Sunday Star-Times article. (Source: 1News)
The BSA’s report highlighted these changes. Of the top 10 most unacceptable words, seven were slurs used to denigrate members of the black, Asian, Indian, Pasifika and rainbow communities.
The biggest change in perception was among young people. This demographic saw words relating to gender or sexual orientation as far more offensive. Each of these words was seen as fairly or totally unacceptable by more than 60% of respondents aged between 18 and 24.
Traditional swear words were seen as more acceptable by the 18-24 demographic as compared to older generations. Just 25% of young respondents found the F-word fairly or totally unacceptable. For the C-word, it was 46%.
Calude said the more words are used in everyday conversation, the less sting they carry.
“We see it with other offensive words like the word darn and the word damn and hell even. They were very offensive back in the day, and now they’re not quite as offensive, so we do see these shifts. And then we need new words to carry that for us.”
Why was the word allowed to be used in print?
In her column, Vance accused Finance Minister Nicola Willis of partaking in “girl math” with the move to scale back the pay equity process last week.
She referred to six current ministers “united in a historic act of economic backhanding other women”.
Vance wrote: “Turns out you can have it all. So long as you’re prepared to be a c… to the women who birth your kids, school your offspring and wipe the arse of your elderly parents while you stand on their shoulders to earn your six-figure, taxpayer-funded pay packet.”
When asked about the column during question time yesterday, van Velden responded: “I do not agree with the clearly gendered and patronising language that Andrea Vance used to reduce senior Cabinet ministers to girl bosses, hype squads, references to girl math and c****s.
“The women of this Government are hard working, dedicated and strong. No woman in this country, nor in this country, should be subjected to sex-based discrimination.”
Vance and van Velden’s use of the word has sparked debate across both sides of parliament.
ACT Leader David Seymour said van Velden had provided a “very important message”, while Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters said it was some of the worst language he’d heard in his time in Parliament.
“When you go to that sort of standard of language, nothing is beneath you after that, is it?”
Speaker Gerry Brownlee said that while van Velden was quoting directly from the column, “it may have been better to refrain from one word that was fully expressed”.
Joanna Norris, managing director of Stuff Masthead Publishing, which owns the Post and Sunday Star Times, said the column and the C-word were “carefully” considered as part of “robust” debate around the pay equity legislation.
“This is not the first time our editors have allowed the use of this word — it is carefully reviewed by experienced editors and, on this occasion, it was decided it was acceptable usage in the context of this column,” she said.
Norris said Vance, and her editor Tracy Watkins, “have received both strong support for — and criticism of — the column’s views and the manner in which they were expressed”.