As I share this, I’m working on a Sunday column about incivility in politics, and I use this incident involving John McCain as an anecdotal lede, and I’m now at the point of whittling down that part so that the column gets to the point a bit more quickly. Anyway, before throwing out this digression completely, I thought I’d share it to provoke a separate discussion on the blog:
Authorities differ about whether anyone should ever use
the female-dog word. I certainly never do, unless I’m using it as a substitute
for the verb “to gripe,” and then only in impolite company. I do, however,
understand the word (when used by others) to refer, in extreme circumstances,
to a woman who is acting like a man whom I might, under similar circumstances,
refer to by a seven-letter word for the lower end of the human digestive
system. I’ve always sort of thought that (female-dog word) was the feminine
form of (word for the thing that dim-witted people can’t distinguish from a
hole in the ground). But certain linguists of the female persuasion insist that
it is never an acceptable word, and I am sensitive to that, without
being as big a prig as the guy on CNN, because I really don’t want those women
on my case.
Basically, I decided that my heavy-handed attempt to have a little fun at the expense of political correctness wasn’t worth the space it was taking up. So I put it here, where space is unlimited.
To conclude: It’s a bad word, no question. And I don’t use it, even when I’m being foul-mouthed, because so many women have told me it’s not like other words. I think they’re wrong, of course. I still think that it’s on a par with the words we use to describe men when they are being big jerks. But women I know seem to get hurt and upset when the word is used, even when not aimed at them, and even though I’ll never, ever understand why women identify like that with all other women, because I have never felt that way about other men (guys who are jerks are just jerks; end of story), I defer to the thing I don’t understand.
How about you?
Related Posts
No one I associate with ascribes any particular offensiveness to the b-word as compared to other naughty words, and that includes women.
Now I’m totally confused. Brad goes out of his way to avoid using the “B” word even though to most of us it isn’t all that extreme. He even gives us an explaination of exactly why he finds this word so offensive. Yet when it comes down to a real story with a person who is clearly using the word in a hateful, mean-spirited way Brad suggests that the REAL villian in the story is a CNN reporter who simply exposes a presidential candidate for his insensitivity in this matter. What gives? Excuse me Brad but your logic in this is impossible to follow.
Now that I think about it, I tend to use the b-word either as a substitute for ‘gripe’ or when I really dislike the woman about whom I am referring (or when I’m talking about a female dog, of course). That suggests to me that I unconsciously find it a more perjorative term for a woman than unisex naughty words. While I can think of worse to call a woman, that’s a term I don’t use. That suggests to me that I consider it a particularly perjorative thing to call a woman. I’m going to have to be a little more careful, here. I do know that the woman on the film clip, seemed a rather nasty sort because of the way she used that term. And I’m not that big a Clinton fan.
Even in an office of so-called professionals I’ve heard it used by women about other women either as an epithet during an argument or as a reference to one who is not there.
It’s a fighting word when used female-to-female. It seems tolerated for what it is — a petty insult — when the subject is not there. Rather like calling Republican’s racists.
It seems to me that guys can get away with using it only when there are subservient or no women around. But, and I’m trying to be helpful here, gays seem to be able to use around others, gay and straight, without much criticism as long as the target is a female or another gay.
So a woman asked, “How do we beat the b***h?” without mentioning anyone specifically, yet everyone knew who she meant.
Looks like Mrs. Clinton has a reputation problem.
Probably connects to the 50 percent in a poll who said they could never vote for her.
Another problem with epithets is that they mask or fail to expound upon what may well be complex thoughts and emotional assessments. I for one am pleased that Camille Paglia did not leave us with merely a simple monosyllabic slur.
Geez, Mike! Here I am, a regular guy trying to tiptoe safely between the relatively mild-mannered feminist types I know who get their feelings hurt over this word like no other, and that rather scary woman who uttered the term (wouldn’t want to meet HER in a dark corridor), and you have step up the terror by dragging in the self-described "feminist bisexual egomaniac" herself, who I suspect would just as soon deconstruct a guy as LOOK at him.
As Count Floyd would say, "Oo-o-ohhh! that’s sca-a-ary stuff! And in 3-D!"
And bud, what you refer to as my going out of my way to avoid the word is what I was referring to as "my heavy-handed attempt to have a little fun at the expense of political correctness." In one incarnation of the passage, it referred to the guy on CNN as having made a (three-letter-word for a donkey) out of himself.
In other words, it was drowning in so much ironic tippy-toeing that it just didn’t fit with the tone of the piece, in the end.
Also, to some extent, it was an inside joke. The prissiness of newsrooms in the 21st century with regard to the mildest of swearwords is a marvel to behold. Wait until you see the Leonard Pitts column we’re running on the op-ed page, opposite my column, on Sunday. It’s like he’s regurgitating a decade’s worth of internal memos on the subject, with a phrase changed here and there to reflect his distinctive style. He even presents, without irony or the slightest expression of doubt, the feminist canard that MEN who act like total jerks don’t get called down for it or called rude names, just women. Observations such as that, taken as indisputable gospel by most feminists, make me wonder what planet THEY’ve been living and working on. Trouble is, women are not called "jerks" because… well, because it constitutes a certain gender-specific sort of insult that applies most clearly to men, if you get my drift. So when a woman acts like that, and somebody wants to call her on it, she might call her the nearest feminine equivalent to "jerk."
Finally, let me say that the woman who started this ball rolling with her locker-room language came across as the nearest feminine equivalent to a jerk. But I’m not going to use the word myself, because it would be unchivalrous.
I like chivalry because I believe in it, because I’m a big fan of Arthurian legend, and because it gives me a polite way of disagreeing with feminists.
I always felt that that word was a name for someone who just didn’t do or say what you wanted her to.
Brad –
Regarding your last remark to bud about chivalry, I heard and have used this to great effect when some gal starts to complains that I’m opening the door for her or doing something else that my folks taught me to do: My dear, I am doing this for me, not for you. I confess that at times I have been sorely tempted to add the word under discussion here.
And if you think my previous post was bad, just listen to my dream: A cage match Meeting of Minds-like encounter featuring Camille, Ann Coulter, the Newtster, and Hitch.
(I’ve had to change the lineup a bit because we’ve had to say goodbye to other, greater folks like Normal Jeanne and Stevarino.)
There’s only one referee / host that could manage a match like this today, but we’d have to make sure that The Hammer’s wheelchair had a full charge.
After three hours, all but Krauthammer would remain standing, but he studio crew and most of the audience, even those at home, would be writhing on the floor.
Should Hillary Clinton win the election, it will be interesting to see how many Republicans and conservatives hold their tongues because “we should all respect the president” or “we should all support the president in a time of war,” at least when that president is George Bush.
Personally, I think McCain missed a good opportunity to distinguish himself as a leader of all the people, not just of Republicans or his own supporters. It was just like the way Ann Coulter called John Edwards a f-gg-t and the audience laughed it off. Laughing it off is a form of tacitly condoning it in the eyes of many people who actually are offended by such remarks.
It seems to be one of those words where the degree of perceived degradation has a lot to do with who is saying it, and who the speaker is referring to. As with the n-word, “acceptable” usage is reserved for certain groups.
Etymology of the b-word dates at least to 1400 in reference to women, and to 1500 in reference to men (for dog-like behavior). … In US politics there is this 19th century verse (performed in black-face):
“When woman’s rights is stirred a bit
De first reform she bitches on
Is how she can wid least delay
Just draw a pair ob britches on.”
We’ve come a long way, baby?
Or it might be, Weldon, that the 50% who won’t vote for her have a bit of a personality problem themselves (I presume the woman who asked that question is one of the 50%). Now, given that the scene was some sort of fundraiser for Senator McCain, just who else might she be speaking about?
It was a low-class way for that woman to ask her question and McCain showed his true colors in his answer (or lack thereof).
Yes, he did. He said he had the utmost respect for his Senate colleague, and that is in keeping with what I’d respect from John McCain.
McCain actually showed Senator Clinton no respect at all. He laughed at the ugly comment as if to agree. Then, in a very gratuitous and superficial way said he respected Senator Clinton. Take the blinders off Brad, everyone else sees how McCain fumbled this one.