Hatred doesn't have the prerequisite of sexism. If this were a Hillary Clinton rally, and somebody said "How do we beat that dick?" I'm sure the crowd would have giggled at the delightful pun on the VP and Hillary would have smiled knowingly and said that it was an excellent question.

Bitch. It's a magazine. It's an ironic word reclaimed by feminists. It's misogynistic hate speech. It's a facet of pop culture. It's overused and therefore cheapened slang. But, most importantly, it's a word with countless connotations, some more common than others.

I think it's time for us to stop thinking somebody using the word "bitch" means everything we want it to mean. It means a lot of things. I think in this case it just means a bunch of Republicans hate Hillary Clinton.

At the end he says "I respect senator Clinton" - but if he really did respect her, he wouldn't laugh at the joke "how do we beat the bitch?"

Or, he'd ask the people around him to have a little maturity and not disrespect his competitors by calling them crude names.

Yeah, bitch means a lot of things, but still: highly inappropriate. Did someone in the same room ask the same question, with a different word, for Barack Obama?

“Bitch. It's a magazine. It's an ironic word reclaimed by feminists.�
Eh? Really alexmlwallace? So she meant it in an ironic sense? As in “how do we beat the strong-willed awesome woman who speaks her mind?�.

“If this were a Hillary Clinton rally, and somebody said "How do we beat that dick?" I'm sure the crowd would have giggled at the delightful pun on the VP and Hillary would have smiled knowingly and said that it was an excellent question.�
Oh yeah? And I am sure someone would chime in “I thought he is talking about me ex-husband�. I don’t think so but even if that were the case, it would have been completely inappropriate.

Why do you even come here? It seems like your only point is that sexism actually doesn’t exist. It’s only in the bitches’ imagination.

ElleMariachi: Exactly.

Bitch is a common term. That doesn't change the fact that to many people, it is an offensive slur. A man was using the word in a room full of men. It wasn't being reclaimed. It was ignorant an mysoginistic and frankly, really pathetic that people thought it was just a-okay. If I had been a woman sitting in that room I would have felt very uncomfortable. There's no reason to bring up someone's gender to demean them.

And alexmlwallace? That's the thing. Nobody would have said 'how do we beat that dick?'.

"A man was using the word in a room full of men. It wasn't being reclaimed. It was ignorant an mysoginistic and frankly, really pathetic that people thought it was just a-okay. If I had been a woman sitting in that room I would have felt very uncomfortable."

NekkiNancy - it was a woman who asked the question.

Also, I know for a fact that "How do we beat the dick?" would be a question asked in some similar liberal cirles and campaign trails and it would not be considered offensive...it may in actuality be inappropriate but it is a little funny considering it is a play on words using the VP's name. John Stewart even has a segment called "You Don't Know Dick"...it hints a little more intelligence than labeling someoone a bitch.

Eh? Really alexmlwallace? So she meant it in an ironic sense? As in “how do we beat the strong-willed awesome woman who speaks her mind?�.
No, I said that the word bitch has many connotations and we shouldn't assume that different peoples usage of the word is always exactly what we assume it to be. Basically, what you just did right now.
Why do you even come here? It seems like your only point is that sexism actually doesn’t exist. It’s only in the bitches’ imagination.
I come here because there is a lot of stuff posted that shouldn't be. A lot of it just diminishes the overall impact of our message and opens the door for ignorant men who read one post to assume that all the stereotypes they've heard about feminists are true. This causes more harm than good, in a time when we need to be doing a lot more good. I try to explain this here, so I post occasionally. I don't have anything new that is begging to be said around here, and the overwhelming reaction to what I say is essentially "Fuck off" but I'd prefer to try and stick to the principles I presented.

I don't worry anymore about the assumptions of "ignorant men," and I don't think we ought to modify our analyses nor our responses to please them. In the context, the use of 'bitch' was inexcusable and highly offensive and a telling comment on the sexist prejudices women face. Ignorant men don't get this, so I should modify my indignation? No way.

Alex, your argument is specious.

It's usage in this case is obvious. The woman who asks the question is using it, very specifically, to degrade and dehumanize a political opponent. Even if the usage weren't sexist, it is still a telling example of a major flaw in our current political system. It was rude, ridiculous, and frankly, beneath any presidential hopeful who wants to apepar at all dignified.

*sigh* I remember when he seemed like a reasonable republican, 5-6 years ago. Compared to a lot of his peers, at least. What happened?

She's a bitch! Hardy har har! If we're going to go with the whole it's just an inoffensive dog name analogy, is it okay to call a male candidate a stud, then? Oh, right, that's not a bad thing, because most insults aimed at men undercut women by default. What's next, calling Obama a pussy? Giuliani a mangina?
And Alex, darlin', I don't necessarily agree with all the stuff the Feministers post on, but it's THEIR blog, so they get to post what THEY like, with or without your vital input. Get your own blog.

No arguments there, Nick. The fact that words like bitch are used and tolerated by "serious" presidential candidates is disgusting.

Grace, I'm not saying we should kowtow to what ignorant men want, but I think we should keep in mind that plenty of people read this blog, and some of them are probably forming their opinions of feminism based on what gets posted here. We could continue preaching to the choir and enjoying the hate-fests on whichever Republican moron is making an ass out of himself today, but I don't think it's entirely productive for the causes we support. My 2¢.

Jetgirl, I'm posting comments. I shouldn't need my own blog to post comments on a post here.

The fact that "bitch" was used to refer to a political opponent that nobody in the room was fond of indicates that it was clearly a negative connotation.

I come here because there is a lot of stuff posted that shouldn't be. A lot of it just diminishes the overall impact of our message and opens the door for ignorant men who read one post to assume that all the stereotypes they've heard about feminists are true.

Oh my god, what an idiot. Could "I come here because I think the bloggers don't do a good job" be any lamer of an excuse? Funny, I can't stand Bill O'Reilly but I don't write him a hate letter every day (or ever). Better things to do than trolling on blogs I don't like. Start your own damn blog if you're so concerned.

Alex, you're not a feminist. Maybe you could be some day if you would admit that, oh, I don't know, sexism exists, but that doesn't seem likely. Also, feminists don't engage in rape apologism (which you do) or say that "we can't make assumptions when Republicans call Hillary Clinton a bitch," both because feminists don't hate women and because most of us actually bother to think about what we say before we say it. So quit with "we." We're not on the same side, and judging from the notes I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Aside from McCain's totally inept response to a totally inappropriate comment, I think the fact that it was an older woman who asked the "question" (let's be honest, it was really more of a comment, or provocation) tells us a great deal about what we may face in the future if our generation (X or Y) continues to take earlier feminist strides for granted. I couldn't find any more info on the location, other than it was an "intimate campaign gathering" (FOX) in South Carolina. The fact that this woman was sitting in the front row at such an event means she is most certainly extremely wealthy and runs in powerful circles and that she has benefited greatly from feminism. I would be willing to bet she got a good education, too. If she is so vehemently opposed to whatever it is that she thinks Hillary represents, what about those of us who are two generations later, who weren't even alive during the second wave?

A rape apologist? Where the fuck do you get this shit? I'd be in favor of the death penalty for rapists, and I'd love the job of executioner.

On what the fuck do you base these completely off-target assumptions?

whoa, whoa, whoa. Who said anything about you being a rape apologist, alex? I'm a bit sleepy, and could have missed such a post, but I'm pretty sure that I've read them all, and have not read any such comment.

"I come here because there is a lot of stuff posted that shouldn't be. A lot of it just diminishes the overall impact of our message and opens the door for ignorant men who read one post to assume that all the stereotypes they've heard about feminists are true."

alexmwallace, "ignorant men" who come here to troll probably arrive at whatever lopsided conclusion they set out to prove by coming to a feminist blog, regardless of whether or not YOU think the topic at hand has merit. Seriously, where do you get off? If this topic doesn't mean anything to you or say anything to you, then do us a favor and don't say anything in return.

Isn't a big part of feminism being able to speak one's mind without constantly worrying about whether or not the patriarchy, or men in general, will approve of the message?

And lastly, I wonder why you DON'T think it's noteworthy that a man who wants to lead the country for the next four years is chuckling at gender slurs on the campaign trail. To me, that is very important, and I will keep it in mind when evaluating other arguments he makes.

Alex, I was quite certain that we had butted heads on other threads about the topic of rape. Going back through the threads, though, I couldn't find them. Which means that either I really suck at finding things again online (which is definitely true), or that I have conflated you in my mind with another commenter that I butt heads with (which may be true).

Which a lack of evidence, I will therefore have to apologize for my statement. I absolutely should not have said it without knowing for sure that I could back it up, and I mean that sincerely.

With that being said, though, I still stand by everything but those two words in my previous comment. Especially with some of the comments of yours that I did find.

But seriously, it was my bad. It might not make you feel better, but there it is.

MLEmac, Cara said that.

MLEmac, as I just explained, that was me and it was my bad.

Alex - this (McCain's laughter) might not be a big deal to you.
In fact, in the scheme of world issues, it isn't a huge deal.
But it is still offensive, and deeply troubling, especially considering the (albeit slim) possiblity he may be the next U.S. president.

Now, if a bunch of feminists (many, many of whom I will bet have been called "bitches" as a way of silencing us) point out that we don't like his laughter, do you really think it is your place to tell us we are wrong?
Maybe you could listen instead.
Think about why we don't like it. I mean really think.
Imagine if someone used a racial slur about Obama, and a presidential candidate laughed.
Would we be overreacting if we found that offensive too?

There shouldn't be any question about how the word "bitch" is being used in this context. This is John McCain we're talking about. I'm not going to fault anyone for laughing, even McCain. Laughter isn't necessarily a response to something funny -- It can be out of nerves or shock. However, the fact that McCain dignified the question with an answer is just plain crazy. And like others have said, if you replaced "bitch" with "nigger" or "spic," nobody would be asking if we were overreacting and McCain wouldn't have answered the question.

This is pretty disturbing. Calling Hillary Clinton a "bitch" is just like calling Barack Obama a racial slur. We must consider the deeper meanings of this word and the reasons why it exists in the first place. We live in a patriarchal society, and the word "bitch" exists in order to reinforce hierarchies. For a wealthy white heterosexual male (one who has all of the privilege in the world) to use this type of language is unacceptable.

oh, ok. sorry, that was before my nap and i must not have been reading closely.

I'm not sure which is worse this or the the new Tancredo commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZBjXr5CWUI

I really didn't expect something like this from McCain. I do say he does look rather uncomfortable about it,but the fact he didn't reproach the woman about her comment greatly bothers me. His silence is alliance.

Damn skippy, Roxie. I'm going to put that on a shirt and wear it every day.

P.S. Cara, you're probably thinking of Alaric, and why he wasn't banned when the "grey" rape posts were up is utterly beyond me.

While calling her a "bitch" IS inappropriate, turning around and calling him an "asshole" isn't any more appropriate.

It's not as though he personally slung the insult.

"For a wealthy white heterosexual male (one who has all of the privilege in the world) to use this type of language is unacceptable."

It was a woman who said it, as far as I know.

Cara, I know most of my comments here aren't exactly the norm. But I'm very aware of sexism's existence, and I will never do anything remotely associated with rape apologism. I'm sincerely thankful for the apology; being accused of that left a sickening feeling in my stomach.

Anorak, my point was not that the use of the word bitch shouldn't be disturbing. My point was that this is a Republican rally for a Republican presidential nominee talking candidly about Hillary Clinton. Some Republican protocol probably mandates that they engage in hateful dialogue. They're, well, Republicans.

How can ANYBODY make a comment like that in public...

DocEss, we know it was a woman that said it. It's been pointed out already. The fact that a woman said it doesn't explain or excuse anything. The sexist culture we live in causes women to internalize sexism and (some of them) project it against other women. Sexist behavior is equally disgusting in men and women. By laughing at the question, answering it, and giving some weak platitude at the end about how he really does respect Sen. Clinton, John McCain signaled his approval of the statement. The fact is, it's John McCain's campaign, and he is responsible for its content. If sexism wasn't part of his campaign, he should have corrected the woman or chosen not to respond to the question at all.

DocEss, I disagree. For one thing, "asshole" is not a gendered insult, while "bitch" most certainly is. Secondly, the term "asshole" was used in a post on a blog. It is a casual setting. "Bitch" was used at a campaign stop. That is a much more formal setting. Just like it would be inappropriate for me to be swearing at dinner in public, it is perfectly fine for me to use the f-word as a comma if I want to when I'm eating macaroni and cheese on the couch at home with my boyfriend. Context.

I feel my blood literally boiling after watching that. If it really makes you made, and you have a minutes go to http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/
and ask him if he cares about the feminist vote.

Fascinating and informative discussion, thanks to all. When I started reading, I was thinking what alexmlwallace expressed: "bitch" and "dick" are just the gendered equivalents to "asshole." I have reconsidered. I am now thinking that "bitch" is a sexually derogatory form of "rude." As is often noted here, American society doesn't "allow" women to be assertive: assertiveness in women is rude. If assertive is rude, then genuine rudeness must be a character flaw. So when a woman is genuinely rude -- it does happen, women are people, capable of error -- when a woman is rude, the word "bitch" often comes flying out.

Bringing it back to the context of the McCain rally, the sexism here is that Hillary Clinton is certainly not rude. If anything she is assiduously, monotonously calm. So the use of "bitch" here is a pure expression of the sexist view that assertiveness in women is a character flaw, and it is that to which McCain acquiesed with his laughter. And that is what makes it so offensive.

Does that sound right to anyone else?

"So the use of "bitch" here is a pure expression of the sexist view that assertiveness in women is a character flaw"

Generally false.

Bitch:

"A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing."

"a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman."

Personally, I'm not a big fan of Hillary, and I can see how the qualities of "spiteful, overbearing, and unpleasant" could easily be ascribed to her.

She doesn't present herself as a likable candidate of the people. She rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

That's not to say those qualities can't be ascribed to McCain as well, but there you have it.

When one side is just as nasty to their opponents as the other, there's no high ground to be taken.

The reason I brought up *who* said it was in response to someone acting as though McCain himself said it.

DocEss, can't you see that both of your definitions have "woman" in them? It's specifically a gendered insult. It's only used against men when they are being compared, negatively, to women. "Assertive" and "overbearing" are synonyms with opposite connotations. I have never heard a man be called a "bitch" for being assertive. Never in my life.

"She doesn't present herself as a likable candidate of the people." So find another choice epithet for her that doesn't point out the painfully obvious fact that she is a woman.

"DocEss, can't you see that both of your definitions have "woman" in them? It's specifically a gendered insult."

I never said it wasn't. I was responding to the implication that someone claimed it was intended as an insult against "assertive women". I posted the accurate definition, which, aside from being gendered, isn't a sexist insult, per se. Just like you could call a man who embodied those traits a "dick", it doesn't mean you're sexist.

We don't need to push PC-ness in insults, too, do we?

""Assertive" and "overbearing" are synonyms with opposite connotations. I have never heard a man be called a "bitch" for being assertive. Never in my life."

Assertive does NOT mean overbearing. Don't attempt to redefine a word just to suit your argument.

Overbearing:

"domineering; dictatorial; haughtily or rudely arrogant."

Assertive:

"confidently aggressive or self-assured; positive: aggressive"

See the difference?

" So find another choice epithet for her that doesn't point out the painfully obvious fact that she is a woman."

Like I said, the entire point of an insult is to be insulting. Political correctness really doesn't fit with the entire concept of the insult. Besides which, "bitch" is not nearly in the same league as racial slurs, as people were saying earlier.

Bitch is in the same league as "dick".

If she had moved onto "cunt", then yes, you'd have a point.

Shades of Barbara Bush and Geraldine. McCain really missed an opportunity to speak up for civility in the campaign. He's raised it before and just didn't have the courage to call one of his financial supporters on it. Despite his position on the war and social issues, I had thought he was the only one of the major Republicans with integrity.

"We don't need to push PC-ness in insults too, do we?"

Sigh... being "non-PC" is conservative code for the racist, sexist bullshit that used to be socially acceptable to say, and is not socially acceptable to say anymore. What I'm trying to say is, and I do think you're being deliberately obtuse here, is that if you are going to criticize Clinton, do so in a way that attacks her arguments, not the simple fact that she has a vagina and is uppity enough to run for political office.

At least tell me you see the inherent conflict in your phrase, "aside from being a gendered insult, isn't sexist, per se." Uh-huh. What WOULD you consider sexist if not a gendered insult?

"Besides which, 'bitch' is not nearly in the same league as racial slurs, as people were saying earlier."

That's because, at least in American society, sexism is socially acceptable, whereas racism (at least overt racism) is not socially acceptable. There are people working to change that. They draw attention to and criticize sexist behavior when they see it. They're called feminists. Have you heard of them?

I do personally find this whole McCain situation offensive and tacky to say the least. What I find even more aggravating is that the McCain campaign seems to think it's not a big deal and is using the controversy to generate funds. I've attached the AP article with specific details, but apparently McCain is blaming the news media for blowing this all out proportion and asking that people contribute to him campaign as he is "the only candidate that can beat Hillary".

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzEzODNhOWQzYzRmOTc2N2VhZjAzMDBhYzAwZGVkZjM=

I sincerely hope that we are not going to make another word completely unmentionable. Harry Potter was right, not to be able to say Voldemort gave the word more power than it deserved. The N word is already there. Others are nearing that status: the "C" word, the "F" word and now I hear an argument for the "B" word.

Harry was talking about the name of a character. Like, if we were to never speak Hitler's name, I would agree with you. But, a word that is used to oppress an entire class of people has become too powerful all on its own, and calling the people who use it out is one way to start dismantling that power.

"Sigh... being "non-PC" is conservative code for the racist, sexist bullshit that used to be socially acceptable to say, and is not socially acceptable to say anymore."

Bollocks. Political correctness turned "manhole" into "maintenance opening", "garbageman" into "sanitation engineer", "trailer park" into "mobile home community", amongst numerous other things.

Immediately lumping anyone who says anything you don't 100% agree with into some opposing camp isn't a very good way to debate, discuss, or even argue.

" do so in a way that attacks her arguments, not the simple fact that she has a vagina and is uppity enough to run for political office."

See, you're trying to twist a word and make it simply mean "woman that is doing something I don't like", which would fit your definition of sexist, and further your argument.

As per the definition I posted, "bitch" carries various negative traits, none of which are "simply a woman I don't like". It was used in the same manner "dick" might be, as I already said.

Spiteful, overbearing, malicious, unpleasant. None of which have anything to do with "uppity woman". You're trying to convert the situation to suit your notions.

""aside from being a gendered insult, isn't sexist, per se." Uh-huh. What WOULD you consider sexist if not a gendered insult?"

"Cunt." Any insult that specifically insults someones gender, and not any characteristics they portray.

As I've already stated, "bitch", like "dick" are both gendered, but they don't attack someone simply because of their gender, like a racial slur. They encompass various bad qualities, and happen to simply be gendered, one for male, one for female.

See what I'm getting at here?

"They draw attention to and criticize sexist behavior when they see it. They're called feminists. Have you heard of them?"

Yeah, and some on other sites, not so much this one, they easily and gladly use terms that, by your definition, are sexist, just against men, and there seems to be nothing wrong with that in these circles.

Bitch is simply not sexist. Sexist would be apt if it were a term that was simply "derogatory word for woman". A certain subset of (mostly) American society has appropriated the word to mean that, but that's not it's actual definition.

Perhaps you're simply using that definition?

Besides which, I'm by no means defending the situation, just simply offering perspective.

I think it was low class of him not to ask for more appropriate language, or refuse to answer before she cleaned up her speech, but it's a fine line to get on.

Famous quote and all, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

However, I do agree that more proper language should be used in these situations.

DocEss, I am strongly, proudly politically correct.

Because it is a term that has no fixed meaning, I can use it to identify as someone who believes in fair and equal treatment for all peoples.

You seem to belive it means something else - we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Am I right in assuming you are not a woman?

So you probably haven't been called a bitch before.

Do you really think this is a free speech issue?

As a woman, let me tell you that every time I have been called a bitch, it has VERY MUCH been a sexist attack. That's the point of the insult.

I see at the end you concede that it is inappropriate for that sort of word to be used in that sort of situation.
Cheers for that.
That's what we've been saying this whole time...

"Because it is a term that has no fixed meaning, I can use it to identify as someone who believes in fair and equal treatment for all peoples."

I use it to imply terms that have been homogenized, sterilized, and watered down to be as inoffensive as possible to as many people as possible, like the terms I posted earlier.

"So you probably haven't been called a bitch before. "

I have been. Also a dick.

"Do you really think this is a free speech issue? "

Not as such, but when you get into the territory of wanting to silence someone because you don't like what they say, then it starts to become one.

"As a woman, let me tell you that every time I have been called a bitch, it has VERY MUCH been a sexist attack. That's the point of the insult. "

Then so is dick, but I've not seen any women or feminists that balk at using it.

Perhaps, not to be rude here, but perhaps you view it as sexist because it denotes gender, and you're a woman?

If you're being malicious, unpleasant, spiteful, and overbearing, and someone calls you a bitch, is that sexist? Did they only use the term to assault your gender?

"I see at the end you concede that it is inappropriate for that sort of word to be used in that sort of situation.
Cheers for that.
That's what we've been saying this whole time..."

More of a tact issue. While I find her actions tactless, I'm not going to say she shouldn't have been allowed to say what she wanted to.

Though, I really must ask:

If she had simply said "How do we beat that malicious, spiteful, overbearing and downright unpleasant Hillary Clinton?", would you still call it sexist?

DocEss, you are a man right?
And when you're called a bitch, it means something different than when I'm called a bitch.

You do get that, don't you?

Yes, I think if the questioner had said: "How do we beat that malicious, spiteful, overbearing and downright unpleasant Hillary Clinton?", I wouldn't find it sexist. Because none of those terms are sexist. Unlike "bitch", which carries a huge amount of sexist baggage.

Doc, I don't have "notions." I have thoughts. DON'T TALK DOWN TO ME.

Look, I do not use the word "dick." Nor do I use the word "bitch." Nor have I ever uttered the word "cunt" out loud IN MY LIFE. You're assuming that because some women (on another blog?? Dude! Apples and oranges!) do X, all women do X, and therefore all women are being hypocritical by disapproving of Y.

"Perhaps, not to be rude here, but perhaps you view it as sexist because it denotes gender, and you're a woman?"

YES. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, YES. You really don't know the amount of sexual harassment, once leading up to assault, that I have put up with in my (relatively short) life. When a man attacks a smart, powerful woman on the grounds that she is a woman, he is insinuating that she doesn't deserve to be a powerful woman. I know this from EXPERIENCE, an experience that you DON'T HAVE.

The phrase was uttered by a woman, and approved of by a man. A very powerful, influential man who wants to lead the country I live in. His approval of sexism is VERY relevant to how it will affect ME PERSONALLY if he is elected.

"Yes, I think if the questioner had said: "How do we beat that malicious, spiteful, overbearing and downright unpleasant Hillary Clinton?", I wouldn't find it sexist. Because none of those terms are sexist. Unlike "bitch", which carries a huge amount of sexist baggage."

Somehow, though, I bet a large amount of people here would still call it sexist, it would still be posted as "Woman hate from the McCain campaign", and not a whole lot would have changed.

It's a minor newsflash, not liking a candidate who happens to be a woman isn't sexism or woman-hate.

You dodge my questions about "dick". Doesn't that have "huge sexist baggage"? Or is that not relevant?

Bitch only has "sexist baggage" because you want it to.

"Bitch only has 'sexist baggage' because you want it to."

That is completely and totally illogical. Why would I deliberately misinterpret something? Why are you discounting the experiences of all the women that are telling you that when the word "bitch" is used against them, it is a deeply sexist attack?

"Notion,
n.
1. A belief or opinion.
2. A mental image or representation; an idea or conception."

I fail to see how using the word notion is "talking down to you".

"You're assuming that because some women (on another blog?? Dude! Apples and oranges!) do X, all women do X, and therefore all women are being hypocritical by disapproving of Y."

No, it's more of a point that a lot of feminists (and that blog is linked off the main page of this one, so it's more red delicious and granny smith) have no qualms about making gross generalizations about men, or using sexist terms for them, whilst speaking out against the inverse.

"When a man attacks a smart, powerful woman on the grounds that she is a woman, he is insinuating that she doesn't deserve to be a powerful woman. I know this from EXPERIENCE, an experience that you DON'T HAVE."

He did not "attack a smart powerful woman on the grounds that she does not deserve to be a powerful woman".

That's complete horseshit and you know it.

A woman made the comment. OMG. Yes, a woman said it. Besides which, as I said, "bitch" does not mean "derogatory term for woman". I'm sorry, when your argument boils down to "I'm right, and the dictionary is wrong", it's time to go back to the drawing board. Really.

You know this from "EXPERIENCE"? When have you run for politics? Can you confirm that in your place of power, you were not being in any way unpleasant, malicious, or spiteful, and were called a bitch based on your gender and nothing else?

"A very powerful, influential man who wants to lead the country I live in. His approval of sexism is VERY relevant to how it will affect ME PERSONALLY if he is elected."

You haven't even established it was sexism.

Hillary puts herself out as a very unpleasant, spiteful, and malicious woman. The dictionary definition of bitch.

Which, one more time, is not "Poweful woman that I believe should be made to submit to me", or whatever else it means in your head.

DocEss, I absolutely agree about the term dick. I think any insult that uses the genitalia of a specific sex as a derogatory term is sexist and horrible. I said as much on Cara's blog yesterday in fact. You can't assume that all feminists think its okay to use gendered insults about men either. But you love sweeping assumptions, so what could I expect?

"That is completely and totally illogical. Why would I deliberately misinterpret something?"

Because it suits your purpose at the time? I believe it was either Jesse Jackson, or the NAACP that at the time, said the "Johnny B Goode" scene in Back to the Future was racist, because "It implied that Chuck Berry needed a white man to teach him the song".

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes bitch simply means the negative traits defined in the word, not simply "woman".

"Why are you discounting the experiences of all the women that are telling you that when the word "bitch" is used against them, it is a deeply sexist attack? "

Why are you ignoring the dictionary definition of the word, and the fact that Hillary often fits that definition?

That's right.
I want "bitch" to be sexist.
Desperately.

I didn't "dodge" your question, and I think you are being very impolite in your manner.
Just because its the internet doesn't mean you get to be rude..

I answered this question here, and you've just disregarded my answer and made up your own:
"Somehow, though, I bet a large amount of people here would still call it sexist,".

Regarding "dick" as an insult: It's complicated, not least by the fact it can be a legitimate name. It has more of a "geek" outsider sort of denotation, so I think "bastard" is probably the male equivalent of "bitch".

You may be surprised to learn I am not perfect, and I sometimes swear or use insults that I shouldn't.

That doesn't make it ok for a presidential candidate to condone that sort of sexist bullshit.
Two wrongs and all that...

"I answered this question here, and you've just disregarded my answer and made up your own:"

No, I was saying that despite your (anecdotal) assurance otherwise, I was wagering that it would still see front page here, and still be considered sexist.

"Regarding "dick" as an insult: It's complicated, not least by the fact it can be a legitimate name. It has more of a "geek" outsider sort of denotation, so I think "bastard" is probably the male equivalent of "bitch". "

Alright, fair enough, we'll go with "bastard" for the purposes of the argument.

That's a heavily gendered, sexist term, to put it up to the same standards.

Yet, I've seen a lot of feminists use it. Freely.

That doesn't bother me. At all. Why? Because I'm aware, that despite it being a specifically male term, it means more than simply "Male I disagree with/do not like".

It means "a vicious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person".

I've been called one, when I was acting quite thoroughly despicable. Do I wish they had used a neuter term? No, it didn't even occur to me. That's sort of my point.

Being called something for no other reason than your gender = problem. Being called a gendered term that has a slew of negative personality traits attached, because you are currently exhibiting them = not a problem.

Yes, bastard is a gendered term.
Because it means, literally, that your parents weren't married when you were born - therefore your mother is a slut.
Just like "son of a bitch" is actually insulting a woman - the mother.

Yes, damn those feminists and their sexist language!

Um, why are you on this site again?

Because word to the wise, it's crammed to the brim with those crazy sexist feminists.

Also, don't ask for my opinion, and then when I give it tell me it's "anecdotal".
You, sir, are not, in my "anecdotal" opinion, a very good debater.

Yes, bastard is a gendered term.
Because it means, literally, that your parents weren't married when you were born - therefore your mother is a slut.
Just like "son of a bitch" is actually insulting a woman - the mother.

Yes, damn those feminists and their sexist language!

Um, why are you on this site again?

Because word to the wise, it's crammed to the brim with those crazy sexist feminists.

Also, don't ask for my opinion, and then when I give it tell me it's "anecdotal".
You, sir, are not, in my "anecdotal" opinion, a very good debater.

"Because it means, literally, that your parents weren't married when you were born - therefore your mother is a slut."

That is REALLY reaching.

Originally, "bastard" wasn't an insult at all. It simply meant a child born of unwed parents. Period. It's gained it's negative connotations over time and the evolution of language, much like "bitch".

"Also, don't ask for my opinion, and then when I give it tell me it's "anecdotal". "

Anecdotal simply means it's not an accurate piece of evidence of the majority, that it's one or two localized statements of opinion.

"Um, why are you on this site again? "

Because contrary to popular opinion, one can easily be very pro-choice, and pro-women's rights without agreeing with every single thing a feminist says?

DocEss, you do not argue in good faith. You dismiss others' comments, not with logic, but by calling them idiotic, silly, or ridiculous. You are a troll. And since, you're exceptionally rude, I've already gotten inflammatory once. Anorak is very polite; I'm not. You're an ignorant, racist bit of anonymous internet trash, and as far as I'm concerned you're doing nothing but using up feministing's bandwith. If you cannot debate by listening and actually deconstructing someone else's argument without dismissing their valid life experiences on the receiving end of our misogynist culture, and without indiscriminately calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot, then you have no business here.

Dude, you asked me a direct question, then dismissed my answer when you didn't like it. Don't try and paint it otherwise.

Thanks for the tour of English as a Living Language.
It's like a shark - it must move forward or it will die.
Thanks for that!

I wonder how you define feminist then...maybe you should go to the feminist101blog. It's designed just for people like you!

"You dismiss others' comments, not with logic, but by calling them idiotic, silly, or ridiculous."

When someone makes a comment so far out that it becomes a logical fallacy, it is no longer worth responding to. I require logic in, to give logic out.

"You are a troll."

Nope. I don't agree with you. Gasp. Does that mean that I'm a troll? No. Or do you expect everyone to agree with your every statement, bar none?

"And since, you're exceptionally rude"

How so?

"You're an ignorant, racist bit of anonymous internet trash, and as far as I'm concerned you're doing nothing but using up feministing's bandwith."

Ad hominem attacks are the lowest form of logical fallacy, and have no place in organized debate or argument.

How exactly am I "ignorant and racist". Or is that simply because I don't agree with you?

"If you cannot debate by listening and actually deconstructing someone else's argument without dismissing their valid life experiences on the receiving end of our misogynist culture, and without indiscriminately calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot, then you have no business here."

I have logically stated my point, repeatedly, patiently, and with increasing irritation because each time it is posted, it is dismissed out of hand, ignored, or set aside.

I get pretty annoyed with people who base arguments on "The dictionary is wrong and I am right".

One can only take so much ignorance from the other side of the argument before they start getting a little rude.

When people acknowledge that there is more than their own personal perspective, and that certain things aren't always black and white, and actually accept that they might not be 100% right, we'll have a discussion.

I've said the same point, over and over, and because it disagrees with how people wish to see this issue, it's ignored.

Though, you could take your own advice. Calling me names because you don't agree with me serves no purpose.

Being called a bastard was always an insult. Specifically because it meant that you're parents weren't wed, which was considered (and still is by many people) not good. Bitch was always an insult to human women b/c it means a female dog. For someone who seems to love spouting definitions of things (except when it comes to the part of the definition of racism that describes you), you sure don't dig very deeply.

Thanks kissmypineapple! I'm not always so polite, I just thought I'd try that approach this time...
Also, I love your handle! I will kiss your pineapple anyday ;O)

DocEss, words are alive. Their meanings change as time goes on, in different circles, and in different situations. Stop hiding behind the dictionary.

kissmypineapple, as I've said, words and language evolve, and meanings change.

Historically they meant certain things, modern definitions do not tend to use them.

Most people outside of breeders do not call female dogs a bitch anymore, and bastard has fallen completely out of fashion as a term for an illegitimate child.

Neither of which are terms simply replacing "man" or "woman".

They embody certain personality traits, that when exhibited, tend to cause a person to use the word.

This has been my entire (completely ignored by nearly everyone) point.

"DocEss, words are alive. Their meanings change as time goes on, in different circles, and in different situations. Stop hiding behind the dictionary."

Sure, but they also don't simply mean what you want them to mean at the time.

The dictionar is alive too, you know. Definitions are added, changed, removed, pretty much every year. It reflects the changing nature of the language.

DocAss--try adding some sociology, psychology, cultural analysis courses to your reading of the dictionary. You'll be more well-rounded and you might just gain some insight into the interpretive layers of language.

I'm still baffled as to why DocEss is here, or why he's using Merriam Webster as his feminism handbook.

Am I supposed to thank him for being pro-choice and "pro-women's rights" even though the Good Lord gave him a penis (and therefore superior logical abilities) and not me? Because I'm feeling less than thankful for DocEss right about now.

"I'm still baffled as to why DocEss is here, or why he's using Merriam Webster as his feminism handbook."

Uh, what? That doesn't even really make sense.

The dictionary tells you what words mean. It's sort of what it's for. You can't redefine words on the fly so that they suit the situation and meaning you want them to have to fit your purpose at the time. It's not really how it works.

I can't really figure where you're trying to go with a statement like that, unless you're trying to somehow say that your personal feminism ignores any information that disagrees with it, and pretends it doesn't exist.

"Am I supposed to thank him for being pro-choice and "pro-women's rights" even though the Good Lord gave him a penis (and therefore superior logical abilities) and not me? Because I'm feeling less than thankful for DocEss right about now."

Passive-agressive comments are not appreciated or productive.

Besides which, that, yes, was a sexist comment. Or, should I say that "I should be thankful that you have a vagina (and are therefore incapable of sexism)?"

You know, Doc, KMP has been shouting "CONTEXT!!" at you for a day and a half, so it's disingenuous of you to call LOOKING AT A PHRASE IN CONTEXT "redefin[ing] words on the fly so that they suit the situation blah blah blah."

Ooh, I'm passive-aggressive now, too! That's in addition to being idiotic and full of horseshit, I presume.

"You know, Doc, KMP has been shouting "CONTEXT!!" at you for a day and a half, so it's disingenuous of you to call LOOKING AT A PHRASE IN CONTEXT "redefin[ing] words on the fly so that they suit the situation blah blah blah.""

Yes, context. Someone used a term that contains various negative personality traits, and applied it to someone that exhibits them.

Do you know what she was thinking when she said it? Can you say with certainty that she only meant it as "That woman is powerful and intelligent and that scares me, so we must knock her down!"?

So, you are, in fact, reading out of it what you want to read out of it.

Taking it, and having it mean something completely other than what it means, is in fact, redifining a word on the fly to mean what you want it to mean at the time.

Sure, in some situations, someone could call a woman a bitch who wasn't exhibiting any of the traits associated with the word, and that would be flat sexist.

However, can you say that this was the case here? That's all I'm trying to say.

You sound as though you're one step from throwing the "I'm a better feminist than you because:" blanket.

"However, can you say that this was the case here? That's all I'm trying to say."

Yes. That's all I'm trying to say.

I'm really done trying to persuade you that sexism does, in fact, exist, and that it did, in fact, exist in this situation. I'm obviously wasting my energy trying to peel the male-privilege blinders off of you.

"I'm really done trying to persuade you that sexism does, in fact, exist"

Where have I said that it doesn't?

Oh, yeah. Nowhere.

"and that it did, in fact, exist in this situation."

And all I'm trying to explain is that Hillary exhibits traits associated with the word, and you have no way of proving that the woman who said it, said it solely because she "hates women" or "doesn't want women in power". You simply do not. You say it was said for those reasons, because if it wasn't, then this entire article was pointless, and you'd have no reason whatsoever to say a word about it.

"I'm obviously wasting my energy trying to peel the male-privilege blinders off of you."

Oh, of course, it's "male privelege" now, to read the dictionary, and look at things objectively? Come on, be serious here.

Explain how saying that a word has a definition, and it's impossible for you to know someone's intent without being that person is "male privelege".

Nope. I'm not explaining shit to you. I'm done feeding the troll.

Here is an example of breaking down an event until the individual components become absolutely meaningless. Doc Ess will start talking about atoms and molecules soon and then we'll all float off into the aether because everything that gives ideas meaning and makes them hold together will have been systematically dismantled.

The audience member made a gendered and insulting comment about Clinton that was widely appreciated by the audience and that was not called out by McCain. It isn't the most important thing that will happen this campaign season, but it reminds me that many people are still unable to deal with women in power. They find it threatening. I already knew that, of course.

Is it worth arguing with someone who is more invested in semantic tricks than an honest exchange of ideas? On this issue? Maybe not.

And all I'm trying to explain is that Hillary exhibits traits associated with the word

I would say (and I am betting I know Sen. Clinton as well as you do) that she doesn't exhibit those traits. Your personal opinions about Sen. Clinton don't make sexist comments about her ok.

Sure, in some situations, someone could call a woman a bitch who wasn't exhibiting any of the traits associated with the word, and that would be flat sexist.
However, can you say that this was the case here? That's all I'm trying to say.

To borrow your phrase: "Uh, what?" So, sexist slurs are not sexist if used against someone of whose behavior you don't like.

Oh wait, I think I get it now. If DocEss has determined that a woman exhibits the traits of a "bitch," then it is ok to call her one and it cannot be construed as sexist. However, if DocEss has determined that a woman doesn't exhibit the traits of a "bitch," well, then calling her one would be sexist. Now that is idiotic.

"but it reminds me that many people are still unable to deal with women in power. They find it threatening. I already knew that, of course."

As I said, can you prove that it has *anything* to do with "women in power"? No, you cannot. If someone in the audience called her out on her negative traits, I'm fairly certain people here would still say it was because "they can't deal with a woman in power".

It creates a really odd situation, where people are going to feel unable to dislike her because any dislike of her or her policies will be called out as "sexist people unable to deal with a woman in power".

"I would say (and I am betting I know Sen. Clinton as well as you do) that she doesn't exhibit those traits. Your personal opinions about Sen. Clinton don't make sexist comments about her ok."

I've seen a lot of Clinton, and she does at times seem quite malicious and unpleasant.

"So, sexist slurs are not sexist if used against someone of whose behavior you don't like."

Uh, no? As I've stated, repeatedly, the definition of bitch is a malicious, unpleasant, spiteful, selfish woman. Not just "derogatory term for woman", as you seem to think it means.

Not just "derogatory term for woman", as you seem to think it means.

It's not what I "seem to think it means." That IS what is means. "Malicious, spiteful, selfish" are all derogatory terms and "bitch" refers specifically to women (as you yourself have pointed out) – ergo, it is a derogatory term for women.

the definition of bitch is a malicious, unpleasant, spiteful, selfish woman

The key to the whole debate is right there in your definition: a malicious, unpleasant, spiteful, selfish woman. You see, DocEss, this term is consistently and regularly used to degrade, demean, and put-down women and they certainly don't have to be exhibiting any of the above behaviors to be called a "bitch." If it were regularly used any other way, you may have an argument, but it's not.

I've seen a lot of Clinton, and she does at times seem quite malicious and unpleasant.

Again, your personal opinions about her doesn't excuse the sexism leveled against her. I've seen a lot of her also and I would not categorize her as "malicious" or "unpleasant."

It creates a really odd situation, where people are going to feel unable to dislike her because any dislike of her or her policies will be called out as "sexist people unable to deal with a woman in power".

Bullshit. Many people, me included, have said they don't care for Clinton's politics and would prefer not to vote for her. They somehow manage to express their discontent with her politics and policies with out resorting to sexist remarks. Just as they do when they are talking about male candidates, imagine that.

"It's not what I "seem to think it means." That IS what is means. "Malicious, spiteful, selfish" are all derogatory terms and "bitch" refers specifically to women (as you yourself have pointed out) – ergo, it is a derogatory term for women. "

Tsk tsk. I'd have thought you were above things like that. By "Derogatory word for woman" I mean "Derogatory synonym for woman", which is how you are using it.

"Just as they do when they are talking about male candidates, imagine that."

Right, which is why this topic calls McCain an asshole, and various other blogs call male candidates such fun terms as "dickblister". Because they question their policies. Got it.

Mods, DocEss is trolling. Not arguing in good faith. Talking down to his opponents. Being a sexist asshole.

Please ban.

This is late, but thanks anorak!

"Mods, DocEss is trolling. Not arguing in good faith. Talking down to his opponents. Being a sexist asshole.

Please ban."

Uh, please explain how I'm "being sexist", or "talking down to my opponents".

Or is this a simple matter of "I don't like what you have to say, or the perspective you offer, therefore I think you should be banned".

I am not by any definition trolling.

Trolling=posting for the sole purpose of annoying and offending other users.

Not what I am doing. I could say you calling me a "sexist asshole" is trolling.

Look, you don't agree with me, does that suddenly mean I'm sexist? Nope.

People are always going to disagree with you, this doesn't mean you're always right and they're always wrong, or that they are the bad guy or whatever negative quality you wish to apply to them.

Automatically classing anyone who you do not agree with in some negative opposing camp is most definitely "not arguing in good faith".

You don't argue in good faith. There are plenty of people who post on this site who vehemently disagree with the majority of posters, but no one has called for those people to be banned. You have demonstrated your racism and either blatant sexism or just plain male-privilege-hysterical-blindness over the last day and a half. You argue by calling people idiots, ridiculous, passive aggressive, etc. You talk down to posters by using "tsk tsk" and calling them silly. You spew a whole lot of vitriol at people for voicing their legitimate experiences as people of color or women or both. You are a troll. You are sexist. You are racist. And you shouldn't be here.

Bull. Shit.

Explain how I'm "sexist". Please. Let's have it. Also my "male privelege".

I've asked for this to be shown, and NO ONE HAS. They just say it, and then throw insults. Then tell me I'm "bad" for saying someone is being ridiculous, when their argument consists of "I'm always right, you never are, and the dictionary is wrong!".

Please.

See, here's the thing: If someone disagrees with you, or a woman, they aren't sexist.

I'd say YOU are being sexist because you assume that me being male and disagreeing with someone automatically makes me a woman-hater or something.

You immediately lump people into a category rather than address their opinion in any way.

If this is how you debate, I can see why people would request bans of others.

Do you discuss topics with other people and gain insight and other points of view, or do you prefer to preach to the choir, and only have a chorus of those who tell you how right you are?

Finally, if you noticed, I only began to become irritated with people after REPEATEDLY stating my point and having it completely overlooked in favor of simply saying "I don't like him/that opinion, therefore he's sexist".

I had calmly and patiently stated my point a number of times before moving on from it to stating it in a much more abrupt, rude, irritated manner.

I seem to notice a number of others here, who moved from tactful to rude, but no one calls them out.

But I suppose calling me an "asshole" is perfectly alright, though?

I am not racist, nor am I sexist. You wish to apply these blanket terms to me, because it's so much easier to dismiss someone out of hand as "racist/sexist" rather than actually see them as a person.

Much easier to say "They don't exactly agree with me, or they say something I don't like, therefore I shall see them as a label".

You remind me of women that are called "misogynist" or "antifeminist" by radfems because they have relationships with men.

If you read, I stated my point, and was then attacked for it. I was attacked first, for posting an opinion.

Not the other way round.

Sorry all, been crazed. Troll gone.

Aw, is he gone? Drat. Who will tell me the true meaning of all words and events now? It has been clearly demonstrated, after all, that our own experience and understanding of the world is worthless in the face of his scary knowledge. I'm lost!

sgzax:
No kidding.
Who will we defer to when discussing whether something is sexist? I mean, without a man to tell us how we should feel about it, what will we do? I'm frightened - what if I am offended by something and he's not here to tell me that my perceived offense is idiotic?
OMG!...I'll have to think for myself - are women even biologically capable of that?!?

Ok, I think all the snark is out.

I've got just enough snark left to wonder who's going to set me straight the next time I get some silly handwringing NOTION of sexist assholery. Who's going to gently, lovingly, politely tell me I'm full of horseshit?