Thick Moral Concepts

Jessica Valenti notes that GOP consultant Alex Castellanos thinks it's sometimes "accurate" to call a woman a "bitch."

To perhaps overanalyze, the trouble here is that "bitch" is what they call a "thick moral concept" in the philosophy game. A "thin" moral concept purely expresses a judgment -- so you might say something was "good" or "bad" and that doesn't carry any descriptive content apart from the ethical evaluation. But there are also thick moral concepts like "brave." To call an act "brave" is to praise it, just like calling it "good" is, but it's not merely to praise it -- you might agree that someone has done something praiseworthy but still say "brave" is an inappropriate description because it didn't involve risk in the right kind of way.

One of the ways in which sexism in our society works is that there are several highly-gendered thick moral concepts of which "bitch" and "slut" are probably the most salient. It's true, of course, that some women do manifest the non-normative descriptive qualities associated with those terms. But the crux of the matter is that the alleged accuracy or lack thereof of such a term is besides the point, the concepts themselves are part of an inherently sexist conceptual scheme -- the terms just are the moral vocabulary of the sexist.

Comments

A woman is a bitch a man is an asshole.

Posted by jmo | May 21, 2008 11:55 AM

Bitch, please.

Posted by NC Saint | May 21, 2008 11:56 AM

Monster: Thick or thin? Freighted? Sexist?

Posted by wren | May 21, 2008 11:57 AM

jmo gets it exactly right.

Posted by JH | May 21, 2008 12:04 PM

I've summarized my thoughts on this subject here.

Not safe for work unless you have earphones.

Posted by Grandpa Simpson | May 21, 2008 12:05 PM

Ho is a better term.

Posted by Peter | May 21, 2008 12:06 PM

Guess I'm sexist too, then. I have called, do call and will call women I find disagreable bitches, as I might call a man I find disagreeable an asshole, bastard, dick, or douchebag.

Someone in the comment thread at Feministing suggested "asshole" as a gender-neutral insult. This has never been my experience. Actually, I can't really think of a gender-neutral word for a disagreeable, unpleasant person.

Posted by Vidor | May 21, 2008 12:07 PM

The only similar gender-specific to men term that comes to mind is "prick" (or it's various variations) - yet I can't imagine a time when members of the chattering class would use it or excuse it's use to commonly refer to a male public figure.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | May 21, 2008 12:08 PM

To call an act "brave" is to praise it...

So, do you agree with the criticism of Bill Maher when he said the 9/11 hijackers were brave?

Although I agree the word has positive connotations, I do not really agree that calling an act brave is necessarily to praise it, but rather refers to the emotional state and decision-making process of the person who carries out the act, regardless of whether I think the act was desirable or not.

I mean, don't you think its silly to say that there were many instances of bravery among U.S. soldiers in WWII, but none among German or Japanese soldiers, just because their cause was evil?

Posted by Jim W | May 21, 2008 12:09 PM

Asshole is nongendered. Ergo, frequently it is accurate to call Hillary an asshole

Were I to call her the gendered term "bitch," I would have to say I was acting like the gendered term, "a dick."

Doesn't stop me, per se, I just know I'm being one

Posted by Jack | May 21, 2008 12:10 PM

I don't think Matt quite has the distinction. He's right in explaining why "brave" is sometimes called a thick moral concept, but you can't get much thinner than name calling or, perhaps, a baby's wailing, and the sexist perspective doesn't make it any more than that. It's a thick moral concept only in the peculiarly indirect sense that it identifies the moral failings of the speaker.

Posted by John Haber | May 21, 2008 12:11 PM

Seriously? Anyone whose vocabulary includes the word "bitch" is sexist? My vocabulary includes words way worse than that, for both men and women. Or does it just have to be part of my "moral vocabulary?" Someone needs to publish the definitive guide so I can know what what words to use when I want to piss Jessica Valenti off.

Posted by too many steves | May 21, 2008 12:12 PM

The only real issue people have with the term, I think, is that male equivalents of "bitch" don't seem as gender-specific. As jmo notes, "asshole" is the most common equivalent term employed on guys. I suppose calling a man a dick would add that gender element, but it's not as satisfying as calling a guy an asshole.

It's important to note, however, that different behaviors are associated with the terms "bitch" and "asshole." Maybe this is due to the fact that men and women ARE DIFFERENT, and thus generally display different tendencies when the worst bits of their personalities come out. Is "bitch" really such a sexist term, just because it is gender-specific?

Posted by Angry Sam | May 21, 2008 12:12 PM

Gotta agree with most posters: women who are "bitches" should be called "bitches".

Men who are "dicks" should be called "dicks".

I would not call a woman a "Dick", because it doesn't apply. I would not call a man (well, a heterosexual man) a "bitch", because it doesn't apply.

"Bitch" has a specific connotation as does "Dick", and they are used in a very specific way for a reason. IMO, if a guy doesn't like being called a "Dick", he should stop acting like one. Ditto for women and "bitches".

MY, I don't think I've ever criticized you for being a PC, liberal, Ivy league, Trust Fund twit, but posts like these is where you lose me.....

Posted by JRVJ | May 21, 2008 12:13 PM

Still trying to remember one time in my life I've heard a woman called an "asshole", and failing.

Posted by Vidor | May 21, 2008 12:14 PM

No, a Woman is a Bitch. a Man is a Dick. An asshole may be of either gender. Both the gendered versions are often misused to mean 'hey! I don't like what you did', rather than 'OMG, you're a scumbag who doesn't give a damn if they hurt other people to get what they want!'. Someones not a dick or a bitch if they get promoted over you. If they fuck around on you, and then laugh in your face and call you pathetic when confronted about it, then the words completely apply.

There's no real call for slut. If someone cheats on you, bitch is plenty appropriate enough. It's the betrayal that wrong with it, not the fucking.

Posted by Soullite | May 21, 2008 12:14 PM

jmo has a point...this is something I started thinking about a while back after reading a post by geriatric Chicana punk rock blogger Alice Bag in which she complained about the language that was used even on the left to disparage Hillary (oh, and sorry, I still think there are practical reasons for calling her that). It seems to me that most of the words we use as insults are gender-specific, with gender-specific connotations, but there is just a greater variety available for insulting guys.

Of course, I haven't looked at Alice's blog for a while, because it wasn't long after that that something she said implying that the powers that be had redirected their support to Obama because they saw Hillary as a threat, which caused me to freak out a bit in comments, which is always embarrassing for me.

Posted by godoggo | May 21, 2008 12:15 PM

You know who is really bitchy? John McCain. I wonder why there's never a seminal discussion by highly paid "analysts" on national network news on whether or not it's appropriate to use the term for him.

Besides, anyone who really can't see why discussing the appropriateness of using a derogatory sexist insult to describe a prominent senator and presidential candidate (whatever you might think of Clinton) probably doesn't think sexism is much of a problem in the first place.

Posted by greg | May 21, 2008 12:16 PM

"So, do you agree with the criticism of Bill Maher when he said the 9/11 hijackers were brave?"

I think the fact that he was criticized sort of proves the point - he called them brave, then he got excoriated for that, even though he was explicitly sying they did wrong. But in people's minds, only "good" people can be brave - braveness cannot be harnessed in a bad cause. That is what makes the term thick - if it was thin, we could conceptually agree that (say) the hijackers were brave and evil.

Posted by Chris B | May 21, 2008 12:17 PM

Indeed, you can tell that 'slut' is sexist primarily because there are no generally used male versions of it. In fact, men aren't judged harshly for the behavior it defines and are actually rewarded for it. The same really goes for 'whore', though whore is gaining a definition that comes closer to 'sell-out' than 'sleeps with people for money', that process is not yet complete.

It's the tendency to use 'bitch' as interchangeable with 'female' thats the real problem and indication of sexism in our society. That the word exists at all isn't really that big of an issue.

Posted by Soullite | May 21, 2008 12:20 PM

The problem with Castellanos wasn't his calling (in so many words) Hillary a bitch, it's that he was calling her a bitch to some how argue his point that the media was NOT sexist towards her. Castellanos is an asshole and a bitch, Hillary is just a non-stop complainer.

Posted by tom.a | May 21, 2008 12:21 PM

I find it interesting that "douche" (or the more complete "douchebag") is masculine.

Posted by LFC | May 21, 2008 12:22 PM

Besides, anyone who really can't see why discussing the appropriateness of using a derogatory sexist insult to describe a prominent senator and presidential candidate (whatever you might think of Clinton) probably doesn't think sexism is much of a problem in the first place.

Would it be bitchy of me to suggest that you revise that so it's actually a sentence?

Posted by Hillary Clinton | May 21, 2008 12:24 PM

"Douchebag" is a gendered term in that it's only ever applied to men. It also happens to be a gendered term in that it derives its unpleasant connotations by way of reference to female genitalia.

See, also, "pussy" (in the sense of "weakling").

Posted by phil | May 21, 2008 12:26 PM

I prefer dickhead to dick. Dick seems so 80s to me. It's actually funny to call someone a dick, but dickhead comes off as more heartfelt.

Those who say there's no male equivalent to bitch are correct, though. The female equivalent to dick/prick/dickhead is of course, cunt and it's associates. As for asshole, I've heard women called that plenty of times.

What's weird is that bitch, arguably the nastiest insult word because it is so gender specific and has such a terrible amount of cultural baggage referring, as it does, basically to a woman who is uppity and doesn't know her place and is acting like a man, is OK to say on television. I guess Jon Stewart gets away with saying dick, but other than that all the other gendered insults (plus asshole) are way out of line in polite conversation.

Personally I would never use the term bitch (except in an academic discussion like this one) but I use the others whenever the need strikes.

Posted by Rob Mac | May 21, 2008 12:26 PM

It is incorrect to say "asshole" is gender neutral. An asshole is a man.

Secondly, "bitch" is in fact more gender-neutral than most of these words. I have never heard a woman called an asshole, but I have heard a man called a bitch on occasion, and I frequently hear (and use) "bitching" to describe irritating complaints from complainers of every sex.

Posted by Vidor | May 21, 2008 12:26 PM

It is incorrect to say "asshole" is gender neutral. An asshole is a man.

Secondly, "bitch" is in fact more gender-neutral than most of these words. I have never heard a woman called an asshole, but I have heard a man called a bitch on occasion, and I frequently hear (and use) "bitching" to describe irritating complaints from complainers of every sex.

Posted by Vidor | May 21, 2008 12:28 PM

It is incorrect to say "asshole" is gender neutral. An asshole is a man.

Gotta' disagree with this one. I use "asshole" as gender neutral on my commute on a somewhat regular basis.

Posted by LFC | May 21, 2008 12:30 PM

That is what makes the term thick - if it was thin, we could conceptually agree that (say) the hijackers were brave and evil.

Ever heard anyone try to say they found Hitler to be an intriguing person?

I always felt like that was the preferred way to subtly signal admiration.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | May 21, 2008 12:30 PM

Actually, I can't really think of a gender-neutral word for a disagreeable, unpleasant person.

That's the problem. Although it is sometimes claimed that there exist gender-neutral terms to use here, it is very hard to find one. "Asshole" is not in fact gender neutral. You would be hard-pressed to find any significant number of uses of "asshole" in print to describe women, despite the fact that one can assume women and men in about equal numbers satisfy the alleged dictionary definition of "asshole" as a detestable, contemptible, disagreeable, inappropriately aggressive person.

We seem to have evolved these two gendered epithets for roughly the same character trait. If a guy cuts me off in traffic, I might say, "Nice move, asshole!" If a women does it, I might say, "Way to go, bitch!" The sentiment and sense are the same.

In the spirit of liberal language reforms of the past, perhaps we should craft a gender neutral term we can use guilt-free.

Bitchhole? Assbitch? Biyass-person? Hmmm. Nothing seems to work.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 21, 2008 12:33 PM

"One of the ways in which sexism in our society works is that there are several highly-gendered thick moral concepts of which "bitch" and "slut" are probably the most salient..."

Standard feminist boilerplate. Meaningless PC nonsense.

Posted by kafka | May 21, 2008 12:35 PM

Well if the shoe fits...sometimes a bitch is a bitch.

And sometimes a cunt trollop is a cunt trollop. That's not sexist. That's straight talk.

.

Posted by J. McCain | May 21, 2008 12:36 PM

What about when men call other men bitches? Is that sexist? What about when gay men use it with each other? What about when a gay man calls his straight male friend a bitch? What about vice versa? What if a lesbian calls her gay friend a bitch? What about vice versa? What about when Karen O sings "boy you're just a stupid bitch and girl you're just a no-good dick"? This doesn't even begin to factor in bisexuality, transsexualism, asexuality, etc. Having multiple sexual orientations and gay culture both go mainstream complicates the bitch vs. dick gender dichotomy. Cunt, IMHO, has a much stronger sexist connotation than bitch does.

I don't think I've actually ever heard a woman called an asshole or a jerk. Cunt, bitch, yes, but not asshole, bastard (unless used in the literal sense), jerk, etc. If the structure of the language is sexist, but language must be commonly understood in meaning to be useful as a means of communication, does this make a person who says "bitch" sexist? Just sit and try to think of common insults in English that imply a person is mean that don't 1) sound sexist and 2) anyone would be able to use non-ironically outside of kindergarten or Utah without being beat up (meanie poopiehead)? Calling someone one of the weird names Ben Kingsley used in "Sexy Beast" like cum bubbles or something is insulting, but it's not clear without context what exactly you are insulting a person for (being mean? being a wimp? liking a particular sexual act?)

Part of me feels that the old-style feminist criticism of "bitch" as an insult is based on an unstated but implied argument that "bitch" is the gender equivalent of the n-word and other racial slurs. However, a white person can call a black person who is being a jerk a jerk without using, or even implying, the n-word. Such commonly understood race-neutral terms for a mean person exist in a much more robust way than exist for calling individual men and women mean.

Posted by Reality Man | May 21, 2008 12:37 PM

I find it interesting that "douche" (or the more complete "douchebag") is masculine.

I think this is a great example of genuine ingrained (and often unrecognized) societal sexism/misogyny. The entire premise of this insult is that a man is being associated with a femine cleansing product, which we are to take as embarassing, emasculating, etc. Because society has been conditioned to revulse at female genitalia and its accoutrements, the insult has salience. If society weren't programmed in this way, many of the gendered insults would lose their power.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 21, 2008 12:38 PM

so what do I tell my female friends who call each other, themselves, and males they know 'bitches' all the time? are they not supposed to say that? or are they supposed to keep doing what they're doing, which is bypass these silly old-school linguistic semantic debates and actually live the liberation that feminism always promised?

Posted by onceler | May 21, 2008 12:42 PM

I have to agree- there are gender differences and so there is nothing inherently wrong with gendered insults. Context is everything. Matt is right that the meaning of these terms is imbricated in social constructs that represent structures of power, which have consistently disadvantaged women throughout history. But there is no totally neutral language. We should be careful with what we say, but calling a woman a bitch does not necessarily mean that she's an angel and that the person who says it is a sexist.

Posted by chuck | May 21, 2008 12:46 PM

What's exactly is the problem with having gendered insults?
I don't know about anyone else, but I do frequently experience men and women being assholes and jerks in quite gender specific ways and I really don't care whether their nature or nuture is to blame. It is gender-specific to me, so why shouldn't I call it as I see it? Especially since I'm using insults anyway and thus am not overly concerned with a lack of objectivity.
(To be clear, as near as I can describe it, asshole and idiot are all-purpose, bitch denotes a special kind of cold meanness whereas dicks like to gloat. (For both of which it's easy to make up a just-so story to explain the genderedness of the nastiness but lacking any real research data I'll refrain.))

Posted by markus | May 21, 2008 12:51 PM

My sense is that the traditional male equivalent of "bitch" is actually "son of a bitch", which does in fact suggest a somewhat sexist conceptual scheme operating in the background of these terms.

Posted by DTM | May 21, 2008 12:51 PM

Dan, I'm going to try to use assbitch and bitchole on the subway tomorrow. Then again, I'll be the only one riding who speaks English, so that kinda defeats the purpose.

"Secondly, "bitch" is in fact more gender-neutral than most of these words. I have never heard a woman called an asshole, but I have heard a man called a bitch on occasion, and I frequently hear (and use) "bitching" to describe irritating complaints from complainers of every sex.

Posted by Vidor | May 21, 2008 12:26 PM"

Good point. Just a couple of weeks ago on Top Chef, after all, Spike told Dale that he "is such a little bitch." James Joyce commented on calling men bitches towards the end of "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man."

The same thing has happened a bit with slut and whore, though not to the same extent. I have a few male friends that get talked about behind their backs for being "manwhores." "Slut" in some ways is also used as a point of pride for having broken out of traditional restrictions concerning sexual relations and power (how traditionally sex was seen as something women gave up and men took - a wife gave her husband her virginity but the husband didn't need to be a virgin - but how women can now take sex as well). "Slut" still is used in a more sexist way than "bitch" is now IMHO even with these changes.

Posted by Reality Man | May 21, 2008 12:52 PM

What about when men call other men bitches? Is that sexist? What about when gay men use it with each other? What about when a gay man calls his straight male friend a bitch? What about vice versa? What if a lesbian calls her gay friend a bitch? What about vice versa?

Context counts. When someone calls Clinton a bitch to suggest that she's acting in ways inappropriate for a woman to act (which is what Castellanos is doing under the guise of "speaking frankly"), it's sexist. If I (a male) call my buddy my "bitch" to suggest that he's subservient to me or filling the role of a woman in some way, that's sexist, though in a different way. If a gay man calls a straight guy a bitch, it sort of depends, but it's probably an ironic riff on sexism rather than sexism itself. So, one has to read with a bit of nuance.

Which doesn't change the fact that Castellanos is an asshole.

Posted by Roderick Random | May 21, 2008 12:55 PM

It's kind of amazing reading through these comments - so many seem to be missing the point.

What's sexist is that the many in the media seem to have no problem using these kind of terms to describe a woman politician/presidential candidate - but would never use the same equivilent term for a male.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | May 21, 2008 12:56 PM

Just out of curiosity, why are gender-specific insults ok (as seems to be the opinion of many commenters here)?

Would it also be ok to have race-specific or ethnic-specific insults? Can we also have special insults for gays?

I don't really see that this is any better even when the insult is deserved. As a fairly aggressive driver, I am constantly swearing at idiots and morons and (when the kids aren't in the car) even the occasional fuckwad who can't seem to signal or put down their cell phones. And I imagine I may piss off a few people too, but they should LEARN TO DRIVE: I don't think it matters whether they are male or female.

Posted by matt | May 21, 2008 12:57 PM

"It's kind of amazing reading through these comments - so many seem to be missing the point.

What's sexist is that the many in the media seem to have no problem using these kind of terms to describe a woman politician/presidential candidate - but would never use the same equivilent term for a male.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | May 21, 2008 12:56 PM"

I can think of quite a few people, most prominently Jon Stewart, who have called Dick Cheney and co. dicks. You also have him calling Novak a "douchebag of liberty." Now, you can argue that this isn't the same because of historical baggage, just how a white person calling a black person the n-word and a black person calling a white person a cracker aren't really equivalent, but then your use of the the word "equivalent" doesn't make sense. There is also a difference in how "bitch" can be used to mean a woman is acting uppity and not "knowing her place," but that's not the same as using "bitch" to mean someone being a jerk for no reason. For instance, when Ann Coulter was pretty much making fun of the Edwardses for their son being dead, it's hard to think of a pithier term for her behavior than being a "cold-hearted, evil bitch."

Posted by Reality Man | May 21, 2008 1:05 PM

It all has to do with context.

If you called Oprah a bitch, that would be terribly wrong.

If you called Hillary a bitch, you'd just be calling it like it is.

Posted by Freakshow Friday | May 21, 2008 1:10 PM

Fascinating that the discussion of appropriate terms of address should be in respect to the Clintons' who have never had a problem with disparaging treatment of women. I mean no Clinton ever apoligized to Paula Jones when James Carville called her trailer park trash.

Posted by DavidL | May 21, 2008 1:11 PM

I think Reality Man is on to something: Mr. very PC MY is not going to keep me from calling Ann Coulter a bitch, when she is indeed, very much, a bitch.

Posted by JRVJ | May 21, 2008 1:12 PM

"Just out of curiosity, why are gender-specific insults ok (as seems to be the opinion of many commenters here)?

Would it also be ok to have race-specific or ethnic-specific insults? Can we also have special insults for gays?"

I'm not sure anyone (beyond a couple of people here) is saying it's good that insults relating to being mean are gender-specific. However, that is the reality of the English language in 2008. As for the car thing, insults related to being stupid tend to be more gender-neutral (idiot, retard, etc.), but they are also castigating someone for a different type of unwanted behavior.

Posted by Reality Man | May 21, 2008 1:13 PM

Jerk is a good gender-neutral epithet. It has some flexibility in that how much it's stressed equals how vehement it is. If you want something very angry and aggressive, just put a lot of stress on it. If you want something casual, mild, and jokey, put very little stress on it.

Yes, jerk has a mild amount of gender specificity. But less so than asshole and the more people use the term in a gender-neutral way, the more it will be a gender-neutral term. (Asshole is literally gender-neutral, but not by usage.)

This isn't difficult, people: the reason that bitch is sexist is because it's overapplied to any woman who is aggressive and is a judgment against her acceptability as a "proper" female; it's sexist because it follows the general sexist trend of comparing women to animals; and it's most sexist in that it strongly evokes a belittling aspect that is not reflected in any similar masculine-associated term—how bitch has recently become an epithet used against men reveals this characteristic strongly.

Asshole is not the masculine equivalent of bitch, neither is dick; and, in fact, no masculine epithet is an equivalent because no masculine epithet couples "disagreeably aggressive/rude" with contemptuous belittling. You call someone an asshole to insult them, not to also belittle them. You quite often call a woman (and, recently, a man) a bitch to belittle her(him) ("get me a sandwich, bitch"). The intrinsic belittling and lower-status affirming aspect of bitch is exactly why it is used against men.

In American usage, bitch is mostly a milder version of cunt and is unacceptable and sexist for the same reasons. It is not merely an gendered epithet applied to unpleasant people. As Matt was trying to explain, it has a lot more meaning than that; and all that other meaning has everything to do with sexism.

"so what do I tell my female friends who call each other, themselves, and males they know 'bitches' all the time?"

I don't know, what do you tell black people who call each other the n-word? Unless you're black, or in your example, female, then hopefully you have the good sense to keep your mouth shut. That oppressed groups use the language of oppression is a complex issue and, in general, it's not appropriate for the oppressing groups to "correct" them on these matters.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | May 21, 2008 1:13 PM

when Ann Coulter was pretty much making fun of the Edwardses for their son being dead, it's hard to think of a pithier term for her behavior than being a "cold-hearted, evil bitch."

I thought we were talking about using insulting language toward women.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 21, 2008 1:14 PM

Or to Monica Lewinsky after Hillary called her a stalker.

Or Gennifer Flowers after Hillary said awful things about her.

With the Clintons, the world is a one-way street.

It will be so nice to see them lose. Too bad Obama is too much the gent to rub their nose in it.

Hopefully the press will rub their nose in it for the rest of us. Hopefully enough that Bill explodes again and Hillary cries. Would be nice to see her cry real tears after the baloney crocidile tears she's shown on the campaign trail.

What awful people the Clintons are. Good riddance!

Posted by Freakshow Friday | May 21, 2008 1:15 PM

By the way, although I agree there is arguably a sexist conceptual framework operating in the background of the term "bitch", one of the problems in these discussions is that some people then leap to the conclusion that Clinton's relevant behavior and attributes wouldn't be criticized at all if she was male. Of course that is not necessarily the case ... it may well be that she would still be criticized, just not in the same terms.

Posted by DTM | May 21, 2008 1:15 PM

can think of quite a few people, most prominently Jon Stewart, who have called Dick Cheney and co. dicks. You also have him calling Novak a "douchebag of liberty." Now, you can argue that this isn't the same because of historical baggage

No, I would argue that Jon Stewart is a comedian appearing on The Comedy Channel He isn't a journalist/pundit appearing on a channel that has NEWS in it's name. There is a difference.

And since when is Novak a politician or presidential candidate?

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | May 21, 2008 1:15 PM

It's kind of amazing reading through these comments - so many seem to be missing the point.
What's sexist is that the many in the media seem to have no problem using these kind of terms to describe a woman politician/presidential candidate - but would never use the same equivilent term for a male.

Yes, that's one point they're missing. Another point they're missing is that Castellanos is not using the term generically, and neither are a lot of people: they're saying that Clinton is the wrong kind of woman, not just that she's not a nice person. If you go here, you'll see how Castellanos characterized Clinton as a bitch: he said she's "abrasive, aggressive, irritating." Those are specifically gendered attacks, not just something you say when you get cut off in traffic.

Posted by tomemos | May 21, 2008 1:17 PM

I think Trey Parker and Matt Stone had the right idea on this one. Gary Johnston's monologue from "Team America: World Police." Definitely NSFW. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/quotes

Posted by Tel | May 21, 2008 1:17 PM

Ok, let me see if I understand: as an oppressor, I cannot call Ann Coulter a bitch because she's oppressed.

Right......

Posted by JRVJ | May 21, 2008 1:18 PM

This thread is very disappointing. Yeah, many of us use these words in casual conversation with friends, myself included. Sometimes the joke is just too much to pass up. But you should be aware of their tendency to reinforce gender-specific criticisms of women, which are sexist. And to use the term in the public sphere, is most definitely sexist, b/c of this fact. People don't like to accept this b/c the sexist concepts that the words like bitch and slut take advantage also make them useful as insults, for men or for women. But just b/c you are lazy, insensitive, uneducated or dumb doesn't change the fact that the usage of these terms only reinforces sexist ideas about appropriate women's behavior.

Posted by mpowell | May 21, 2008 1:21 PM

"Yes, that's one point they're missing. Another point they're missing is that Castellanos is not using the term generically, and neither are a lot of people: they're saying that Clinton is the wrong kind of woman, not just that she's not a nice person. If you go here, you'll see how Castellanos characterized Clinton as a bitch: he said she's "abrasive, aggressive, irritating." Those are specifically gendered attacks, not just something you say when you get cut off in traffic.

Posted by tomemos | May 21, 2008 1:17 PM"

There seem to be two separate conversations, the abstract idea surrounding the word "bitch" (which is what our host was talking more about) and about Castellanos's use of the word to refer to Clinton in particular.

Posted by Reality Man | May 21, 2008 1:23 PM

I find it interesting that "douche" (or the more complete "douchebag") is masculine.

You know, the thing is...there are specifically male terms that are fairly similar to bitch in that they're meant to refer to men that are not behaving like they're supposed to. The interesting thing about these is that they're all feminizing...which, I think, is sort of generally sexist in and of itself, even if we don't conceptualize it that way when we use them. Some of the worst things to call a guy pretty much imply that he's a girl, or like a girl. See: pussy, douche, douchebag, general use of 'gay' as insult, etc.

Posted by rabbit | May 21, 2008 1:25 PM

There seem to be two separate conversations, the abstract idea surrounding the word "bitch" (which is what our host was talking more about) and about Castellanos's use of the word to refer to Clinton in particular.

If Castellanos were the only one using the word in this way and referring to Clinton in sexist terms, I'd agree with you that these are separate conversations. As it is, we've seen way too many "progressive" sexists this year, including in this very thread where one person has already expressed a hope that Clinton cry in public. And the people up in arms about their precious term "bitch" being taken away from them don't make me think that things are getting better.

Posted by tomemos | May 21, 2008 1:29 PM

To their eternal credit, left-wing feminist bloggers went at me hard for calling even Ann Coulter a bitch, but it's still the word that springs to mind.

The real problem is that our culture is still run by a "white, Christian, male power structure" (right, John Mccain? [nods]). It is this structure that makes the "N word" horrible, but "honkey" not so bad. It makes calling a man a "woman" or a "girl" an insult, but calling a woman a "man" just weird and pointless.

Posted by nitpicker | May 21, 2008 1:30 PM

Calling a woman a "bitch" has two purposes. It is to compare a woman's behaviour to an ill-tempered dog, and to remind her that women are domesticated animals kept for work and breeding purposes.

It is, without exception, a sexist insult. You can not call one woman a bitch. When you say it, you declare all women to be lesser beings.

It is perfectly analagous to the racist epithet that is used to denote all black people as being fit only for slavery. You can not call one black person a n*gger. When you say it, you say it to all of them.

Posted by Njorl | May 21, 2008 1:31 PM

My upbringing would never let me refer to her as a bitch, but I sure don't like that woman.

Posted by aleks | May 21, 2008 1:34 PM

tomemos, I'm referring to specifically this thread. Not everything to do with gender issues begins and ends with Clinton. People have lives outside of politics and those lives involve gender relations, insults, how words change in meaning over time, etc. I personally have been called a bitch more times than I can count (sometimes as an insult and sometimes as a compliment) and I'm not sure if that really has any bearing on anything to do with Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Reality Man | May 21, 2008 1:36 PM

So, even though the behaviors necessary are identical for meriting "dick" or "bitch" (being, among other things, being abrasive aggressive and irritating). The only reason one is used instead of the other is the gender of the person in question. So that makes the term itself sexist?

I can think of other terms that have that same male/female dichotomy but are otherwise interchangeable (bride/groom, husband/wife, king/queen, lady/gentleman, Mr/Ms, aunt/uncle...). Are all of those formulations likewise sexist? Is "husband" really a sexist term, even if there's an alternative term in "spouse"? (Or perhaps I'm a victim of my own subconscious prejudice by willingly calling myself the husband of my wife). If Hillary does win the election, would it be sexist to call Bill the "First Gentleman," since both gentleman and lady both have connotations of appropriate behavior? In my opinion, no it wouldn't.

There is a place for language policing - and that's when one term really does imply that the other is less worthy simply because of the gender of

Posted by Tel | May 21, 2008 1:41 PM

Njorl, if we're going to get etymological about insults, could you please do the same analysis you've done for the word "bitch" for the word "dick"?

I'd love to read it.

Posted by JRVJ | May 21, 2008 1:41 PM

Reality Man: isn't that like saying that Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot doesn't necessarily bear on views of homosexuality "outside of politics" or on whether that word is offensive to people at large?

Posted by tomemos | May 21, 2008 1:44 PM

I use "asshole", "dick", "dickhead", "dickhole", "douche, "douchebag", "douchehole", etc. to describe all people without regard to gender. (I'm actually kind of surprised that people here have never heard a woman called an asshole.) Partly because I like mixing it up, and partly because I don't want to perpetuate use of the word "bitch".

Admittedly, this is a lonely crusade of mine to gender-neutralize these words, but the fact remains that language does and should change. One of the ways it should change in my view is from the ways that it validates patriarchal or heteronormative schemes.

Now, ideally, I would like to gender-neutralize the word "bitch" as well. But due to the fact that it is disproportionately applied to women and associated with characteristics that are widely considered feminine, and given that we still live in a patriarchal society (though it is growing less so), that seems not too likely at this point in history. So I would argue that it is a gender-based slur, like "macaca" is a race-based slur, "fag" is a sexuality-based slur, and "trailer trash" is a class-based slur.

I think that it may happen in the next few decades, but for the moment, effectively gender-neutralizing "bitch" seems difficult. Particularly since applying it to a man has the connotation of a sexuality-based slur. (Honestly, it would probably be easier to transform the patriarchy into a matriarchy. At which point I'll stop complaining about "bitch" and start complaining about the word "dick" being a slur against men.) It would be like if you wanted to somehow transform the n-word into a word that was not a racial slur. I mean, it is possible theoretically, but I wouldn't put money on that changing anytime soon.

"Slut" is beyond the pale due to the puritanical judgment component on top of the already sexist component.

Posted by Hunter H. | May 21, 2008 1:45 PM

Njorl, if we're going to get etymological about insults, could you please do the same analysis you've done for the word "bitch" for the word "dick"?

I'd love to read it.

Posted by JRVJ | May 21, 2008 1:46 PM

If a woman does something to make a man angry and he responds by calling her a bitch, that doesn't necessarily make him sexist. It's an emotional, informal response based on one person's behavior, and a man might be called a dick for doing something similar. I wouldn't say it's commendable, but I wouldn't label someone a sexist for using it in that context.

If you go on CNN and say it is justified to call an "abrasive, aggressive, irritating" presidential candidate who happens to be a woman a bitch in what is supposed to be an measured analysis of her candidacy, that makes you sexist. "Abrasive, aggressive, and irritating" would do, and wouldn't resort to demeaning her based on her gender. (Btw, aggressive is the real kicker there... how are you supposed to win a presidential election without being aggressive? Will we ever be able to elect a woman who isn't a bitch for president?)

And of course, male politicians do not get called dicks in the traditional media (i.e., not satirical and not blogs). Donna Brazille, who was on the same panel, wouldn't say "That McCain is kind of a dick" even though it would be more accurate than Castellanos's remark.

Posted by ibid | May 21, 2008 1:49 PM

Tel, JRVJ, emphasizing stereotypical qualities in disadvantaged groups is always going to be worse than emphasizing them in privileged groups; sorry, that's how it is and how it should be until those groups aren't discriminated against. "Aggressive" and "abrasive" mean different things when you're talking about women, the same way Joe Biden calling Obama "articulate" created controversy while Obama calling Biden "articulate" wouldn't have.

Posted by tomemos | May 21, 2008 1:50 PM

Hrrw. Interesting post - ends up with me thinking lots about relative power and class in society. I think that the newer insults of asshat and tool seem to not have much in the way of gender baggage yet. Or perhaps I'm just too old to know how to use them right. ;-)

Posted by BethanyAnne | May 21, 2008 1:50 PM

"It is, without exception, a sexist insult. You can not call one woman a bitch. When you say it, you declare all women to be lesser beings."

The problem is that a whole lot of women disagree with you on whether or not this is true and often crosses generation lines, in part because of younger people's greater acceptance and exposure to gay culture. Such a parallel simply cannot exist with racial slurs because traditional gender roles were based on a static dichotomy between both men-women and gay-straight and the resulting roles one had to take on. Once you start to erase those, the words to describe such a society don't fit that well. The experience of being biracial is simply too different from the experience of being bisexual, transgendered, being a feminine man or a tomboy, etc. that such parallels with racial slurs start to break down. Now, I'm not defending the use of the term "bitch" and I get pretty pissed when it is used to "put a woman in her place," but the term has evolved across time in ways that seem to be being ignored by many here. Should gay men not be allowed to use it to refer to each other because of the sexist history of the term?

Posted by Reality Man | May 21, 2008 1:50 PM

The behaviors necessary are identical for meriting "dick" or "bitch" (being, among other things, being abrasive aggressive and irritating). The only reason one is used instead of the other is the gender of the person in question. So that makes the term itself sexist?

I can think of other terms that have that same male/female dichotomy but are otherwise interchangeable (bride/groom, husband/wife, king/queen, lady/gentleman, Mr/Ms, aunt/uncle...). Are all of those formulations likewise sexist? Is "husband" really a sexist term, even if there's an alternative term in "spouse"? (Maybe I'm a victim of my own subconscious prejudice by willingly calling myself the husband of my wife). If Hillary does win the election, would it be sexist to call Bill the "First Gentleman," since both gentleman and lady both have connotations of appropriate behavior? In my opinion, no it wouldn't.

There is a time and place for language policing - and that's when one term really does imply that the other has less (or more) of a certain quality simply because of the gender of the person in question. This isn't one of those times. "Bitch" and "dick" are functionally equivalent. Neither one is more obnoxious than the other, any more than "gentleman" is more meritorious than "lady," or "wife" more married than "husband."

There's no gender-neutral word that clearly articulates the behaviors necessary to achieve bitch-dom or jerk-dom (just like there's no gender-neutral word in English for "a person who is either an aunt or an uncle"). We're perfectly free to create one, and if it sticks we should use that instead. But until that happens, calling a bitch a bitch is the same as calling a dick a dick. Potentially accurate or inaccurate, and certainly sex-ual in meaning, but not sex-ist.

Posted by Tel | May 21, 2008 1:51 PM

Ugh. This thread is depressing and I couldn't read the whole thing. Who knew so many liberal men can't recognize sexism when it's staring them in the face?

But re the asshole/bitch distinction:

I've definitely both heard and used "asshole" to refer to women.

On the other hand, it's true that "bitch" is sometimes applied to men. The thing is, it means something different when it's applied to men. A woman who is a "bitch" is aggressive, arrogant, self-centered, rude, mean, cold, etc (all things that are not "feminine"). A man who is a "bitch" is whiny, passive-aggressive, ineffectual, irritating. To call a woman a "bitch" connotes a certain unpleasant kind of strength; to call a man a "bitch" connotes an unpleasant weakness. In calling a woman a "bitch", you're calling her mannish; in calling a man a "bitch", you're calling him womanish. In other words, it's a sexist insult. (Duh.)

Asshole, by contrast, means the same thing applied to a man or to a woman.

Posted by Kalkin | May 21, 2008 1:55 PM

I don't know, what do you tell black people who call each other the n-word? Unless you're black, or in your example, female, then hopefully you have the good sense to keep your mouth shut. That oppressed groups use the language of oppression is a complex issue and, in general, it's not appropriate for the oppressing groups to "correct" them on these matters.

Ah, dude, time for a reality check: the Jim Crow era has been over for decades. Blacks aren't an "oppressed group" any longer and whites aren't an "oppressing group."

Posted by Peter | May 21, 2008 1:56 PM

Tomemos,

The thing is that I don't buy the argument that all women are implicitly part of a disavantaged group, in the same way that I don't buy the argument that all minorities are impliclicity disavantaged.

I do buy that some women ARE disadvantaged, and that some are MUCH MORE disavantaged than others (this self-evident). Ditto with minorities.

To take it back to Njorl's line of reasoning (etymological origins of insults), "dick" does not compare men to ill-tempered penises (?) nor does it remind a man that he is a domesticated sexual organ kept for breeding purposes.

Since "bitch" and "dick" have taken fairly similar connotations (there seems to be fairly large agreement in this group about this), I don't buy Njorl's underlying reason for using "bitch" as an insult.

Getting back to my reply to your comment, I will agree that the use of the term "bitch" can be VERY demeaning to some women, but I don't buy that it's inappropriate for ALL women (or to use Ann Coulter as an example again, I don't think of Ann Coulter as a bitch because I would want her role in the world limited to breeding purposes - God, I really wouldn't want those genes passed on!! To the extent that "bitch" does remind me of an ill-tempered dog, I'm certainly not upset about using that term for Coulter, who acts like, well, you now, a total bitch).

Posted by JRVJ | May 21, 2008 2:01 PM

"Ah, dude, time for a reality check: the Jim Crow era has been over for decades. Blacks aren't an 'oppressed group' any longer and whites aren't an 'oppressing group.'"

You've got to fucking be kidding me.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | May 21, 2008 2:02 PM

"Reality Man: isn't that like saying that Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot doesn't necessarily bear on views of homosexuality "outside of politics" or on whether that word is offensive to people at large?

Posted by tomemos | May 21, 2008 1:44 PM"

It's that if one random person says "faggot," "bitch," etc. to another, it's only tangentially connected to John Edwards and Ann Coulter. The abstract discussion about "bitch," changing gender and sexual norms, etc. are much bigger than Clinton and I find it tiring how everything is brought down to be just about one woman's primary campaign. These issues are much bigger than her, just as black history, integration and the civil rights movement are much bigger than Obama. Similarly, it would be silly and tiring if every discussion of gay rights devolved into a discussion of Coulter calling Edwards a "faggot." I think this dynamic has played a big reason why there has been such a gender divide, especially among educated women, among whether or not feminists have decided to back Clinton and even whether to see her as a feminist after being associated for so long with a man who has shown no real social respect to women, including her.

"Asshat" seems to be the best term brought up so far that is the closest to being gender-neutral insult for a mean person.

Posted by Reality Man | May 21, 2008 2:03 PM

"Ah, dude, time for a reality check: the Jim Crow era has been over for decades. Blacks aren't an 'oppressed group' any longer and whites aren't an 'oppressing group.'"

You've got to fucking be kidding me.

Blacks are generally of somewhat lower socioeconomic status than whites in America today. But that is FAR from saying that blacks are "oppressed" and whites are "oppressing." And you know that.

Posted by Peter | May 21, 2008 2:07 PM

When did asshat become part of common parlance? I wholeheartedly endorse its usage, by the way.

Posted by Hunter H. | May 21, 2008 2:12 PM

'Njorl, if we're going to get etymological about insults, could you please do the same analysis you've done for the word "bitch" for the word "dick"?'

If men were essentially kept only for sexual (or, I suppose, urinary) purposes for a large chunk of human history, I would consider calling someone a dick to be sexist. If it happened, I don't remember it.

Posted by Njorl | May 21, 2008 2:14 PM

Re: Kalkin

"I've definitely both heard and used "asshole" to refer to women."

The thing is your experience, both on this thread and when I've heard others discuss this, is rather unique. I honestly can't remember the last time I heard "asshole" used to refer to a woman. Now, it will probably be a better world if we decide to make this gender-neutral and use it to replace "bitch" and I'm all for that on feminist grounds, but that simply isn't a reflection of any type of reality I've seen in my life across the country and the world in how "asshole" is used. For most people for "asshole" to play this function, it will have to lose a definite masculine connotation and lose any gender identification.

Posted by Reality Man | May 21, 2008 2:14 PM

I agree that bitch and dick are largely equivalent to one another. What's interesting is that there are a couple milder terms for dick, namely dork and schmuck, but there aren't really any milder terms for bitch. Harridan and common scold are a bit too archaic to qualify.

Both dick and bitch have intensifiers, prick and c*nt respectively, though of course the latter term is much more vulgar.

Posted by Peter | May 21, 2008 2:18 PM

This is one of my all-time favorite MY posts.

Posted by right | May 21, 2008 2:19 PM

So in essence, Njorl, you're not going to answer my request. Swell....

Posted by JRVJ | May 21, 2008 2:19 PM

In a clear case of serendipity, a few minutes ago I left the campus library and immediately saw a poster for the Campus Republicans, who are bringing Ann Coulter to campus. The poster said, "Love her? Think she's a BITCH? Either way it'll be a good time!" And I thought, how perfect: you can either endorse Coulter's thoughtless venom, or use her to exemplify the gender category "bitch." Either way conservative goals are served. The authors of the poster knew what they were doing; they are going to grow up to be great Republicans.

Posted by tomemos | May 21, 2008 2:19 PM

It's sort of funny how Ann Coulter is being used as an example, as the precise character of her (his?) genitalia is in some doubt ...

Posted by Peter | May 21, 2008 2:24 PM

Reality Man: I agree it's more commonly applied to men, but I don't think my experience of hearing it applied to women is unique. I believe at least a couple of others have said the same in this thread.

Having seen some later discussion, now - the appropriate parallel to "dick" or "prick" is probably "cunt". But "cunt" is of course much stronger than "dick" - as someone said further up it's almost funny to call someone a "dick", in terms of severity it's probably closer to "butthead" than to "cunt".

My preferred term of abuse recently has been "shitbag", when I'm not in the mood to say something more specific.

Posted by Kalkin | May 21, 2008 2:28 PM

It's sort of funny how Ann Coulter is being used as an example, as the precise character of her (his?) genitalia is in some doubt ...

Right! Because she's so aggressive, she's really more like a man! God, that's hilarious!

Oh, that's funny. Now, back to the matter of how there isn't any sexism in this thread…

Posted by tomemos | May 21, 2008 2:30 PM

I haven't heard of "asshole" referring to women, either ... Kalkin, maybe it's a regional difference? I'm in the DC area.

Posted by Tel | May 21, 2008 2:35 PM

"So in essence, Njorl, you're not going to answer my request. Swell...."
Posted by JRVJ

Of course not. I've shown that your request was pointless. If you had a purely academic interest in the origins of "dick" I suggest you pursue them yourself. If you find those origins to be relevant to this discussion, I would like to know your reasoning. It seems unlikely to me, but I would be interested to find out if I was wrong. I don't generally call people "dick", so it's no skin off my nose if I discover that it is sexist to do so.

Please, enlighten my ignorant, closed mind.

Posted by Njorl | May 21, 2008 2:39 PM

It's sort of funny how Ann Coulter is being used as an example, as the precise character of her (his?) genitalia is in some doubt ...

Right! Because she's so aggressive, she's really more like a man! God, that's hilarious!

It's not just aggression. Google "Coulter" + "Adam's apple" and see what you get :)

Posted by Peter | May 21, 2008 2:43 PM

"I agree it's more commonly applied to men, but I don't think my experience of hearing it applied to women is unique. I believe at least a couple of others have said the same in this thread."

It's times like this I wish Pew would once in a while a study on more inane topics to get people's opinions on a wider range of matters. Personally, when I've heard a woman being called an "asshole," the person insulting the woman intended to say that she was "aggressive, arrogant, self-centered, rude, mean, cold, etc (all things that are not "feminine")... [and] mannish" and thus serving the same basic purpose as using "bitch" while going the extra mile to say that the woman in question is almost more of a man than a woman. As such, it's been years since I've actually heard a woman called an asshole and I can't even remember when and where it last happened, but I can still remember a classmate from many years ago referring to a female administrator at school as a cunt, which I remember both for how sexist and how harsh it seemed.

It's just odd how the English language has evolved so that there are clearly race-neutral insults (maybe a reflection of how sexism is so much older than pseudo-scientific racism, race theory and social Darwinism?), yet intelligent people can argue over whether or not a generic, commonly used insult is imbued with certain gender traits or is gender-neutral. I also wonder what it says that the commonly-used insults to specifically refer to a mean person in particular seem to have gender connotations while commonly-used insults referring to idiocy, being fat, being worthless, etc. seem to be more gender-neutral.

Posted by Reality Man | May 21, 2008 2:44 PM

(1) Dick and bitch are seen as fairly equal insults, at least by most posters on this threasd.

(2) Dick cannot reasonably be subject to the analysis you posted previously on this thread (since your analysis falls apart on doing so).

(3) Because of (1) and (2), it stands to reason that "bitch" has lost the loaded, historical meaning you atribute to it (please note that I'm not questioning whether you are correct in the origin of the term bitch - I AM questioning whether "bitch" the insult has the meaning TODAY that you atribute to it).

There, that should be simple enough.

Posted by JRVJ | May 21, 2008 2:48 PM

Just an aside, but when a person calls a man a "douchebag", I don't think they are attributing any feminine stereotypes to that person. In fact, I think "douchebag" has become as dead a metaphor as "scumbag".

Posted by DTM | May 21, 2008 2:56 PM

Ahhhh... "scumbag". I, for one, am quite glad that one lost the historical connotation.

Posted by Hunter H. | May 21, 2008 2:58 PM

"But the crux of the matter is that the alleged accuracy or lack thereof of such a term is besides the point"

Accuracy, or lack thereof, is NEVER beside the point.

We've got a gendered language, that it has gendered insults is to be expected. If you don't like "bitch" having no real equivalent for men, perhaps you should start a campaign to revive "cur".

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 21, 2008 3:07 PM

Hunter H.,

I'll admit I was somewhat appalled when, as a kid, an adult relative explained the origin of the term "scumbag" to me.

Posted by DTM | May 21, 2008 3:09 PM

' Because of (1) and (2), it stands to reason that "bitch" has lost the loaded, historical meaning you atribute to it (please note that I'm not questioning whether you are correct in the origin of the term bitch - I AM questioning whether "bitch" the insult has the meaning TODAY that you atribute to it).'

I don't think it has the same denotation, but the connotation that women are lesser beings is still there. I don't think there is an overt thought process - "I will call this woman a bitch so that she will feel like a dog to be kept to work for me and breed." Instead there is an emotional connection, "You are just a woman; don't be annoying".

Calling a man a "dick" expresses a low opinion of him specifically and indicates displeasure with his annoying actions. Calling a woman a "bitch" connotes a belief that she has no right to engage in those annoying actions because she is just a woman.

You may think the connotations have died out, but evidently many women do not agree with you.

Posted by Njorl | May 21, 2008 3:12 PM

Ok, so we've gone from "bitch" meaning that a woman is a breeding instrument to it being a put down to women.

Obviously we're not going to agree on this (and sure, some women will disagree with me on this. That's why it's called a POV), but I take note of the fact that by thinking about things, you've certainly softened your stance.....

Posted by JRVJ | May 21, 2008 3:17 PM

Njorl,

In my experience, individual women take both sides of this issue, with some women viewing "bitch" as you suggest, and other women instead viewing "bitch" as you suggest people view "dick".

Which means people speaking to the general public should probably avoid the term, since at least some people with view it as offensive to women. But I also think it is understandable that some people (including some women) resist the notion that using "bitch" is inherently sexist, since its use may not have the connotations you suggest in their personal experience.

Posted by DTM | May 21, 2008 3:20 PM

Ann Coulter is an asshole. Michelle Malkin is an asshole.

Hillary Clinton is a bitch.

Posted by skylights | May 21, 2008 3:33 PM

I think Matt gets it exactly right. And, IMO, the strident insistence by some posters as to why "it *is* OK" or "it really isn't that bad" merely shows the extent to which sexism has permeated our perceptions, as a Society, and goes unnoticed and unconfronted.

Posted by Cathexis | May 21, 2008 4:47 PM

I, for one, would like to see the word "bitch" taken back by its targets, much like "dyke" has been. There are certainly days when I put on my bitch shoes and set out to be the biggest bitch in the room. It's necessary from time to time. The male equivalent might be "big swinging dick," which seems to be different from plain "dick."

I think the real trouble is that our society has mixed feelings about rude, aggressive, overly ambitious behavior. We value it, and indeed there is no way to advance in many fields without it. But we also hate it because, frankly, it is obnoxious. We hate it in men too, I might add. And we value the opposite behaviors -- graciousness, concern for others, and good manners of all kinds -- even though we don't seem to reward them very well in the marketplace.

Making this just about gender is too easy. A lot of what might be considered "appropriate for a woman" is, in fact, appropriate for everyone. And what is "inappropriate for a woman" is often characteristic of sociopaths.

I think what we really want from leaders of both sexes is people who speak softly and carry a big stick. (Note that this is not the same as "big dick.") We want to know they aren't pushovers, but we really don't want to see behavioral evidence of that fact all the time. But in order to appear that way, a politician has to have assembled a hefty resume and done a bit of brawling in the past.

Hillary's big problem is that her resume is thin, and she's trying to make up for that by demonstrating her brawling ability on the campaign trail. It doesn't seem to be working.

Posted by M.C. | May 21, 2008 5:00 PM

I, for one, would like to see the word "bitch" taken back by its targets, much like "dyke" has been. There are certainly days when I put on my bitch shoes and set out to be the biggest bitch in the room. It's necessary from time to time. The male equivalent might be "big swinging dick," which seems to be different from plain "dick."

I think the real trouble is that our society has mixed feelings about rude, aggressive, overly ambitious behavior. We value it, and indeed there is no way to advance in many fields without it. But we also hate it because, frankly, it is obnoxious. We hate it in men too, I might add. And we value the opposite behaviors -- graciousness, concern for others, and good manners of all kinds -- even though we don't seem to reward them very well in the marketplace.

Making this just about gender is too easy. A lot of what might be considered "appropriate for a woman" is, in fact, appropriate for everyone. And what is "inappropriate for a woman" is often characteristic of sociopaths.

I think what we really want from leaders of both sexes is people who speak softly and carry a big stick. (Note that this is not the same as "big dick.") We want to know they aren't pushovers, but we really don't want to see behavioral evidence of that fact all the time. But in order to appear that way, a politician has to have assembled a hefty resume and done a bit of brawling in the past.

Hillary's big problem is that her resume is thin, and she's trying to make up for that by demonstrating her brawling ability on the campaign trail. It doesn't seem to be working.

Posted by M.C. | May 21, 2008 5:03 PM

Sorry for the double post. My computer made it look like the first one didn't go through.

Posted by M.C. | May 21, 2008 5:05 PM

"since its use may not have the connotations you suggest in their personal experience."

Now here we're touching on philosophy of language, but that's how Matt started it off, so hey...

The thing is, language is intrinsically social. No meaning comes a priori fixed to any particular set of sounds, but you can't just use "bitch" to mean what you want it to mean, or think it means. That would require adherence to the Humpty-Dumpty theory of language. This isn't an area where there's any kind of consensus, but it's impossible to take seriously a purely intentionalist view.

In other words, "bitch" is always sexist, when applied in its traditional setting, even if that's now how you intend it.

Posted by Kalkin | May 21, 2008 5:45 PM

M.C., who says it isn't working for Hillary? If she hadn't dug herself such a big hole with that idiotic Super Tuesday-only strategy, or if Florida and Michigan hand't screwwed up the process, she'd be cruising to the nomination right now.

As for bitchiness, I think you're a bit wrong. Women have a much lower threshold before their behavior is seen as obnoxious.

Posted by AlanC9 | May 21, 2008 6:34 PM

So, we all agree that Hillary Clinton is a prick, then?

Personally, I'm somewhat surprised that Matt chose a racially loaded work like brave to make his point.

Posted by Just Karl | May 21, 2008 6:38 PM

Now we see the benefits of Matt's philosophy degree - complete incomprehension of normal speech.

"Bitch" is not sexist because it does not refer to all females - it refers to a specific set of traits of a specific set of females (those who have those traits.)

The same is true of "nigger", used properly. It does not refer to all blacks, but to a specific set of traits possessed by a specific set of blacks.

The same is true of any ethnic slur, used properly. Used IMPROPERLY, they can of course be applied to all members of the ethnic or other group referred to.

Historically, the term "nigger" is usually applied to all blacks by racists. The term "bitch" is NOT usually applied by males to all women, but to specific women.

So "nigger" tends to be more of a racial slur than "bitch" is a gender slur.

But it is the USAGE that matters. If you apply a slur to all members of a group, then it is racist or sexist or whatever error applies. If you apply it to a specific set or member of a set, it is not. It becomes merely an insult or a judgement locally applied.

Matt is clueless.

Kalkin: "The thing is, language is intrinsically social. No meaning comes a priori fixed to any particular set of sounds, but you can't just use "bitch" to mean what you want it to mean, or think it means."

Absolutely not. And you're doing the exact same thing you accuse others of doing - forcing your interpretation - which you already admit is not universal - on everyone else.

And the proof of that is that people will go right one calling other people "bitches" and "niggers".

And nobody who uses such terms is going to give a damn whether you think it's "sexist" or "racist" if they are applying it to individuals or subsets of groups.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 21, 2008 6:40 PM

RSH - the thing is, when a word has multiple meanings, all are going to be felt. You can't pretend the connotations you don't want aren't there - they remain. It's not me "forcing my interpretation" on anyone, that's just the way language works.

That "people will go right one calling other people "bitches" and "niggers"" is a complete non sequitor - although I suppose it's evidence that racism and sexism are alive and well.

If you think applying "nigger" to a specific Black person is not racist, you're the one who needs to get a clue.

Posted by Kalkin | May 21, 2008 7:14 PM

"Bitch" is not sexist because it does not refer to all females - it refers to a specific set of traits of a specific set of females (those who have those traits.)

I would argue that it is sexist since it indirectly applies to all females (and only females, or at least disproportionately), by holding them to a specific standard of behavior. The problematic part is that there is no male corrolary to this that carries the same social/connotative weight. As I said before, in a matriarchal society this would not bother me.

But it is the USAGE that matters. If you apply a slur to all members of a group, then it is racist or sexist or whatever error applies. If you apply it to a specific set or member of a set, it is not. It becomes merely an insult or a judgement locally applied.

The real problem is that these words have this specific slur connotation in the first place. Until the language is transformed, they are effectively skunked in my view. Yes, intent matters, and you can use these words in non-racist, non-sexist ways. But by using them ambiguously--and I would argue that using them as any form of insult, even local, is ambiguous--it validates their usage in other, less benign contexts.

Posted by Hunter H. | May 21, 2008 7:33 PM

That "people will go right one calling other people "bitches" and "niggers"" is a complete non sequitor - although I suppose it's evidence that racism and sexism are alive and well.

If you think applying "nigger" to a specific Black person is not racist, you're the one who needs to get a clue.

The two are not equivalent. Bitch simply does not have the historical baggage of the word nigger. There were no all-male organizations setting out to lynch the bitches. Nor were there many "No Bitches Allowed"

I would apply Bill Cinton's policy on torture to this:

"I think what our policy ought to be is to be uncompromisingly opposed to terror--I mean to torture, and that if you're the Jack Bauer person, you'll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences... And I think the consequences will be imposed based on what turns out to be the truth."

bitch: A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing

Posted by JL | May 21, 2008 8:09 PM

Kalkin,

I wasn't claiming a given individual's private intentions can determine the meaning of a term, because I agree meaning is socially determined. Rather, I was suggesting that within certain parts of our society, "bitch" may have the connotations Njorl suggested, but in other parts of our society it may not. In that case, what you actually have is two different linguistic communities, and therefore two different, but equally valid, sets of meaning attached to the term.

Now as I noted, I think the practical implication of such a situation is that public speakers should avoid using the term, because it might offend certain members of their audience. Again, though, I think the theory of language you described is actually perfectly consistent with my claim that "it is understandable that some people (including some women) resist the notion that using 'bitch' is inherently sexist," because we are agreeing that there is no such thing as the inherent meaning of the term "bitch".

Posted by DTM | May 21, 2008 10:38 PM

Re: the post - FALSE.

Posted by Timothy Saint | May 22, 2008 2:10 AM

Re: the original post - FALSE.

Posted by Timothy Saint | May 22, 2008 2:10 AM

"I would argue that it is sexist since it indirectly applies to all females (and only females, or at least disproportionately), by holding them to a specific standard of behavior. The problematic part is that there is no male corrolary to this that carries the same social/connotative weight."

Oh, horseshit. There are plenty of terms applied to males that carry the same or at any event similar negative connotations. Hell, the term "bitch" itself is applied to males as frequently as any term these days, thus demonstrating that it refers more to behavior than to gender.

And "holding them to a specific standard of behavior" - no, it applies to a specific set of behaviors which are engaged in by females primarily (and occasionally gay men and even non-gay men - but primarily women.)

Let's not forget that the term also derives directly from female dogs.

I'm NOT saying the term ISN'T used in sexist ways by sexists, I'm saying it is not sexist in its basic definition. It is based on the behavior of a subset of a certain gender, not on the gender itself.

Personally, I prefer to leave the term for use as sexual "dirty talk", and use the term "asshole" to cover the relevant behavior.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 22, 2008 4:34 AM

Richard, the most common use of the word "Bitch" is for a woman who arrogates to herself the privileges that are set aside exclusively for men, most notably the right to criticize men. It is intrinsically sexist. It is used to try to strip her of those privileges.

There is no term for a man who unjustly assumes the privileges of a man (or woman) for that matter, except, of course, "bitch". It is used to say that a man shouldn't have the privileges of other men, and should be considered to be a lowly woman.

The only non-sexist use I've encountered is that by "Bitch Ph.D", the blogger. She uses it a as a statement essentially saying that, yes, she is arrogating to herself the privileges set aside for men, and you can't do anything about it.

Posted by Njorl | May 22, 2008 9:31 AM

The two are not equivalent. Bitch simply does not have the historical baggage of the word nigger. There were no all-male organizations setting out to lynch the bitches. Nor were there many "No Bitches Allowed"

Dealing with the second part first, what planet do you live on? You think there haven't been many places or institutions that did not allow women?

For the former point, there have not been very public and organized lynchings of women, true. Each day, about three women are murdered by their husbands in the US. They aren't being killed to get insurance money. The majority are killed because their husbands think of them as "bitches".

Posted by Njorl | May 22, 2008 9:43 AM

"in other parts of our society it may not. In that case, what you actually have is two different linguistic communities, and therefore two different, but equally valid, sets of meaning attached to the term."

That's fair enough as far as it goes, though I'm not sure what communities you're thinking of. I have gay male friends who occasionally call each other bitches and I don't necessarily have a problem with that - it's at least arguably reappropriation. Same with Bitch magazine. But those are rather specific contexts and rather small communities...

Posted by Kalkin | May 22, 2008 10:05 AM

I loath Ann C as much as the next thinking person, but to see, in a thread ABOUT sexism, people mindlessly making comments like It's sort of funny how Ann Coulter is being used as an example, as the precise character of her (his?) genitalia is in some doubt ... as though denying certain women's womanliness wasn't a CLASSIC FUCKING WAY to keep women in their place -- well, it reminds me that there's no intelligence requirement to post on the Internet.

Or in other words, stop it, unless the point you're trying to make is that you're an asshole.

Posted by sherrold | May 22, 2008 12:07 PM

I loath Ann C as much as the next thinking person, but to see, in a thread ABOUT sexism, people mindlessly making comments like It's sort of funny how Ann Coulter is being used as an example, as the precise character of her (his?) genitalia is in some doubt ... as though denying certain women's womanliness wasn't a CLASSIC FUCKING WAY to keep women in their place -- well, it reminds me that there's no intelligence requirement to post on the Internet.

Or in other words, stop it, unless the point you're trying to make is that you're an asshole.

Posted by sherrold | May 22, 2008 12:11 PM

Kalkin,

To answer your question, a review may be in order. Njorl originally claimed the following:

"Calling a man a 'dick' expresses a low opinion of him specifically and indicates displeasure with his annoying actions. Calling a woman a 'bitch' connotes a belief that she has no right to engage in those annoying actions because she is just a woman."

What I suggested in reply was the following:

"In my experience, individual women take both sides of this issue, with some women viewing 'bitch' as you suggest, and other women instead viewing 'bitch' as you suggest people view 'dick'."

So, to unpack that a bit more, I know women who use the term "bitch" to express a low opinion of another woman specifically, and to indicate displeasure with that woman's annoying actions. I do not believe that when doing so, they understand the term to be suggesting that this woman "has no right to engage in those annoying actions because she is just a woman." And I believe that is how the term is commonly used among the people they know.

Posted by DTM | May 22, 2008 1:52 PM

njorl,

You state: "the most common use of the word 'Bitch' is for a woman who arrogates to herself the privileges that are set aside exclusively for men, most notably the right to criticize men."

How do you know this is the most common use? And among exactly whom is it the most commom use?

Posted by DTM | May 22, 2008 1:55 PM