Is Wigger derogatory?

[bitchpigbottom]

A FB recently started calling me a Wigger during sex.  Usually when we've gotten rather ruff and nasty.  Doesn't bother me one way or the other but wondering what y'all think, is it derogatory?  I'm fine being the bitch bottom I am, just curious what other think.  I'm pretty much the average guy next door and don't really meet the normal qualities of the term.

[BlackDude]

It gets a little complicated with sex, because there are situations where is can be used as a term of endearment.

But most of the time, it is said with a smear or smirk: as in we acknowledge what you’re trying to be, but we don’t fully respect it. Not saying that’s the case with you, I’m just saying how most people use/view the word.

 

[evilqueerpig]

To me it's a variation of the 'n' word and definitely derogatory

[BootmanLA]

I think, based on the history of the word, that it's most definitely derogatory.

As I have understood it since the first time I heard it, it originated as a way to create an equivalent to the 'n' word for white people - conveying the venom usually included with the original epithet, suggesting low social status, poor behavior, and all the other stereotypes embedded in the original but directed at whites. I saw (and still see) several problems with this. First, the original word was used indiscriminately against all black people, from the slums to the pulpit, from janitors to lawyers, as though race itself rendered the person unfit for white people to associate with. No matter what else, that race-wide opprobrium was never embedded in "wigger".

Secondly, it seems to suggest that the white person it's aimed at is so low, so disreputable, that he might as well be black. In other words, it's STILL a racial slur against black people, this time by reference. 

[ErosWired]

For the love of God. We’ve been trying to stamp out the use of the original word since fucking Reconstruction, and some imbecile thinks coining a new one was a good idea? Society needs fewer words like this, not more. Kill it with fire.

[BlackDude]

On 3/10/2021 at 12:27 PM, BootmanLA said:

I think, based on the history of the word, that it's most definitely derogatory.

As I have understood it since the first time I heard it, it originated as a way to create an equivalent to the 'n' word for white people - conveying the venom usually included with the original epithet, suggesting low social status, poor behavior, and all the other stereotypes embedded in the original but directed at whites. I saw (and still see) several problems with this. First, the original word was used indiscriminately against all black people, from the slums to the pulpit, from janitors to lawyers, as though race itself rendered the person unfit for white people to associate with. No matter what else, that race-wide opprobrium was never embedded in "wigger".

Secondly, it seems to suggest that the white person it's aimed at is so low, so disreputable, that he might as well be black. In other words, it's STILL a racial slur against black people, this time by reference. 

That’s not 100%. It was also used as a word for folks who at times seem to identify, associate or appropriate black culture, especially when society deems the behavior a negative stereotype (I.e.Justin Bieber, Eminem, John Cena, etc.) 

It’s not equivalent from the N Word,  because as soon as a white guy decides to stop Associating or appropriating black culture they were no longer be called a “wigger.” White trash, trailer trash maybe, but not a wigger. A black person will be called the N-word regardless of how much money they have.

[BootmanLA]

17 hours ago, BlackDude said:

That’s not 100%. It was also used as a word for folks who at times seem to identify, associate or appropriate black culture, especially when society deems the behavior a negative stereotype (I.e.Justin Bieber, Eminem, John Cena, etc.) 

It’s not equivalent from the N Word,  because as soon as a white guy decides to stop Associating or appropriating black culture they were no longer be called a “wigger.” White trash, trailer trash maybe, but not a wigger. A black person will be called the N-word regardless of how much money they have.

FWIW, I'm not saying it's equivalent to the N-word by any means. I'm saying it's a slur against black people - whether it's saying that the white person so called is trashy enough that he might as well be black, or whether it's saying he's appropriating a culture that's beneath him (which is a knock against black culture as allegedly inferior). Either way, to me, it's an insult to black people as much as an insult to the white guy being called one. I'll admit that I overlooked the usage of that word as applied to cultural appropriators, but that's not the only usage (I can remember it being used as essentially "white n-words" in the mid-70's, when Eminem was about four years old, so it long predates the phenomenon of whites appropriating hip-hop/rap culture.)

It's conceptually like how straight people will call a gay man "pussy boy" not because they want to fuck him, but because they consider pussies (ie women) something lower than themselves. Sadly, I see a lot of gay men on this board adopting that attitude that because they "service" tops or alphas or whatever, they're inferior beings, just like the women that otherwise take care of these men's needs. It's misogynistic, and "wigger" is racist.

[BlackDude]

13 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

FWIW, I'm not saying it's equivalent to the N-word by any means. I'm saying it's a slur against black people - whether it's saying that the white person so called is trashy enough that he might as well be black, or whether it's saying he's appropriating a culture that's beneath him (which is a knock against black culture as allegedly inferior). Either way, to me, it's an insult to black people as much as an insult to the white guy being called one. I'll admit that I overlooked the usage of that word as applied to cultural appropriators, but that's not the only usage (I can remember it being used as essentially "white n-words" in the mid-70's, when Eminem was about four years old, so it long predates the phenomenon of whites appropriating hip-hop/rap culture.)

It's conceptually like how straight people will call a gay man "pussy boy" not because they want to fuck him, but because they consider pussies (ie women) something lower than themselves. Sadly, I see a lot of gay men on this board adopting that attitude that because they "service" tops or alphas or whatever, they're inferior beings, just like the women that otherwise take care of these men's needs. It's misogynistic, and "wigger" is racist.

Insulting, demeaning? Probably so. But I’m not seeing racist unless you are saying the use of “wigger” is meant imply that a person is appropriating and inferior (black) culture or not living up to a certain standard. Which I can really argue since I’m not white so I really don’t know how that word may be used by white people amongst each other.  

I just know the prospective of how I see the word, and among blacks it’s prob 50/50: it can be used as a term of endearment or to identify someone who is fake and an “outsider”
 

 

[ErosWired]

4 hours ago, BlackDude said:

But I’m not seeing racist

Racism, I need hardly point out to a man of Color, is predicated on the classification of human beings on the basis of physical appearances, most notably among them skin color. The term in question, regardless of the nuances of its application, is applied only to individuals who fit the classification corresponding to the W - White. It is difficult to see how, by definition, there would be such thing as a Black “wigger”. Were there no distinction between races, the race-related issues that give rise to the term would not exist, therefore the term would not exist. And if it were not specifically targeted at members of the White race, it would not begin with a W - absent that association, the word would be nonsensical, or simply conjure some notion about false hairpieces. The truly nasty thing about racism is that once a division is made, the people on each side of the divide look at each other in terms of race - which forces everyone to define everything in those terms.

 

5 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Sadly, I see a lot of gay men on this board adopting that attitude that because they "service" tops or alphas or whatever, they're inferior beings, just like the women that otherwise take care of these men's needs. It's misogynistic

I think it’s a bit of a reach to state that a man who feels that he occupies a lower rung in the masculine hierarchy automatically a) equates himself to a female, and b) devalues female roles. I’m a sexual service submissive for males. I submit to dominant men, and freely acknowledge their entitlement to the use of my body. I recognize this is not something universally accepted by any means, but for me it is a way of life, fully realized and quite genuine. In no way, however, do I consider myself female, or draw any equivalency between my service and women’s roles in society. I assure you that there is nothing sad about the attitude I take toward the superiority of other men; superiority is a relative measure in any case, but as I seem to be perfectly suited to fulfilling the role in an inferior position, I take pride in it as a man.

[BlackDude]

3 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Racism, I need hardly point out to a man of Color, is predicated on the classification of human beings on the basis of physical appearances, most notably among them skin color. The term in question, regardless of the nuances of its application, is applied only to individuals who fit the classification corresponding to the W - White. It is difficult to see how, by definition, there would be such thing as a Black “wigger”. Were there no distinction between races, the race-related issues that give rise to the term would not exist, therefore the term would not exist. And if it were not specifically targeted at members of the White race, it would not begin with a W - absent that association, the word would be nonsensical, or simply conjure some notion about false hairpieces. The truly nasty thing about racism is that once a division is made, the people on each side of the divide look at each other in terms of race - which forces everyone to define everything in those terms.

I’m not denying the racial aspect of the word. I’m only explaining how black people use the word. 
 

At the word may be used based on race, again it’s not racist just by it’s existence.  No one is using “wigger” as a term that identifies a group of people targeted to deny resources or access to resources. 
Use of the word is harmless unless it is determined by certain people that those classified “wigga” should be denied resources because of their kinship or affinity to black people. 

Again, I have to blame a lot of this on black people for spending too much time on words, emotions and classification instead of the purpose behind those words and classifications: To discriminate and deny access to resources and power. 

[ErosWired]

6 hours ago, BlackDude said:

I’m not denying the racial aspect of the word. I’m only explaining how black people use the word. 

It’s all about how words are used, and I don’t think people of Color can be blamed for focusing closely on words and classifications. Words are the primary drivers of odious ideas, and their power cannot be underestimated. Take a simple two-word phrase that carries a Mount Everest of implications: “whites only”. At one time, this could be found prominently displayed on signs across America - now, the phrase is justly reviled for what it is, means, and does, and yet it is simply a pair of words, three syllables. 

I write professionally, and think a lot about the significance of how people use words. In recent times I have found myself frustrated by the insistence of highly vocal segments of the population insisting that words have taken on a new meaning and now have that meaning and that meaning alone because that is the word’s significance to that group. It’s a power play, but a particularly ineffective one, because language doesn’t work like that. Language is code, and people adapt the code to their purpose rather fluidly.

 I have no doubt whatever that you are absolutely right in your description of how wigger is perceived and used in the Black community. With respect to the OP’s question, however, I still maintain that the word is derogatory in that the association is negative, i.e., that the white person described is one who appropriates culture in an inauthentic manner. You say that the word isn’t racist because it doesn’t result in the denial of resources, but I would suggest that that relies on an overly narrow definition of racism - I consider racism to be any adverse judgment with race as a determinant. A resource can be as subtle yet crucial as the respect of those in one’s community.

Please do not think that I would presume to understand the effects of racism on those affected by it better than you. I stand among those in Privilege (though as an Autistic, gay-leaning intellectual in Appalachia that concept makes me laugh bitterly) and can only take your interpretation as a true report from the field. What I can do, however, is gently challenge your own perception. In the Black community, is being considered a “wigger”, all other considerations aside, a net positive or a net negative for the person described? I discount the possibility of a neutral effect because if people truly had no feeling about it either way they wouldn’t bother to characterize the behavior and the word wigger would not exist. I would maintain that if it’s a net negative, then the word is derogatory, even if only nominally.

[BootmanLA]

14 hours ago, ErosWired said:

I hink it’s a bit of a reach to state that a man who feels that he occupies a lower rung in the masculine hierarchy automatically a) equates himself to a female, and b) devalues female roles. I’m a sexual service submissive for males. I submit to dominant men, and freely acknowledge their entitlement to the use of my body. I recognize this is not something universally accepted by any means, but for me it is a way of life, fully realized and quite genuine. In no way, however, do I consider myself female, or draw any equivalency between my service and women’s roles in society. I assure you that there is nothing sad about the attitude I take toward the superiority of other men; superiority is a relative measure in any case, but as I seem to be perfectly suited to fulfilling the role in an inferior position, I take pride in it as a man.

To clarify - since I wasn't clear apparently - I'm not saying that all bottoms/submissives are equating themselves to females. I'm a bottom myself, and sometimes (though not always) submissive in nature when it comes to sex, and I don't equate myself with women either.

But when one reads post after post from people posting about how they're nothing but a pussy hole for a REAL man to use and their tiny little "clits" don't need any attention, it's hard to overlook the use of terms pertaining to female genitalia coupled with the notion that the person is "less than" the "REAL" man using them, and what that suggests about their views on women and women's sexuality. 

It's not universal among bottoms or submissives, no. But it exists and it seems to be rampant among at least one subset of this community.