Hillary is called a bitch.  John McCain calls his wife a trollop and a C-word... Isn't it great how far we've progressed in this country? Surprising that Obama isn't called the N-word...

Sadly that day is coming again. When the Rove Machine picks up.

Sadly, I think you're right. Assuming that Obama continues and secures the nomination, the Regurgicons will launch a vicious, racist campaign against him.... under the radar, of course. Have to give McBush plausible deniability. Ironically, they'll probably use the same techniques Rove used against McBush in 2000.

I think the Rove smear machine will make a great attempt to divide this nation along racial lines as the summer moves on. You will see the Southern Strategy come back in full force.  Racism is ugly and the GOP is best and playing it.

Absolutely correct, IMO, Sue...! There are still many people who are fearful of electing a black president. And, remind me again, what are Republicans best at playing off of...uhhh, fear?

Willie Horton?  1988, that is what they do best.

SPOILER ALERT!!     SPOILER ALERT!!    SPOILER ALERT!!

As always-- even though this MMFA article is about Clinton, the Obama-maniacs here have hijacked much of the rest of the thread to talk about Obama.

So be forewarned. 

Why do they always do this? Well, they just don't like any kind of Hillary-sympathetic articles, do they?

You're hysterical.

And a little unhinged.

Would you prefer the alternative where people argue if she's a bitch, exactly how much of a bitch she is or isn't, along with numerous examples? Be thankful.

 

As a supposed discussion about this presidential election, the CNN stuff transcribed above is worthless. Not a single National Policy issue is mentioned, nor any real mention of any qualification or ability in the candidates ("she is a tough -- that tough lady, tough in politics, that's been her great strength" doesn't count as mentioning an ability, when it seems it was said simply in order to follow it with "let's face it, she can be a very abrasive, aggressive, irritating person")... no, no National Policy issues or any of the candidate's abilities were invoked in the CNN transcript: just a variety of cartoonish perceptions of the Democratic candidates. Who needs that? Average dopes standing on line at the checkout counter in the market, or sitting around the laundromat or the hair salon, make more sense... the funniest part of the transcript was that it was prefaced by someone named "wolf blitzer" in this manner...

BLITZER: Let's discuss these provocative words from Senator Clinton with the best political team on television.

...he may as well have just went to a live remote at the supermarket or the laundromat or the beauty parlor, as to his team of "all-stars", for what was then said.

 

As far as racism is concerned in what remains in this presidential campaign, and whether any racist words will be broadcast (even as supposed political ads) regarding any of the candidates: I do not believe you will hear even a single reference to a certain word (which has it's origin from the Spanish word for black, and from the Latin word for the same)... no, you won't hear it on television, or even see it in print I don't think. It's mention could cause a Titanic shift of weight in the political mood of the American People, and that shift would not be in favor of the Republican candidate left in the presidential campaign, that's for sure.

But why say that word, when you need only say "African-American" to imply it, in the minds of people who think in terms of that word, and use it also (mostly in private, among other white birds of a like feather)... you see what I mean here? No racist word needs to be said, only just to instead continuously and gratuitously invoke the race or heritage or color or whatever, of the candidates... you see what I mean?

Why is it necessary to do that?

It isn't.

Then why are they continuously and gratuitously invoking the race or heritage of the presidential candidates?

Because I already said: every mention of "African-American" they unessecarily make in these matters, suggests to the minds of racists and other discriminatory types, that other word, which they rarely themselves say in public, and so why would the campaigns use it either?

Again, why are 'pundits' and other televised idiots still gratuitously (unecessarily) invoking any of the presidential candidate's race or heritage or color or whatever?

It's not necessary to do that... it's a subtle form of racism, is what it is... let's get past the race or heritage or color or whatever, of the presidential candidates... let's move on, because it really doesn't matter, does it... there really is no reason to keep mentioning it (or no reason other than the one I cited).

 

Even people at the checkout at the supermarket, and in the laundromat and the beauty salon, have gotten past the fact that there is an African-American man running for President of the United States of America... even they don't keep mentioning that fact, as the 'pundits' and many other televised idiots continuously and gratuitously do.

 

 Because these people on CNN do not have the level or intelligence to talk about issues or other things with  much substance. I guess it's more for entertainment value,if draws  people's attention. To me I couldn't even sit in front of the tv and watch these people carry on for five minutes , it gives me a headache.  If they really wanted to clean up their act they would've done it , but as long as they get ratings I guess anything goes even if it is of shock-value. They just  don't have anything original to offer.

You know, I am almost as old as BHO. And yea, I went to a fancy school and all but way back in the day my old man (who grew up in the projects) drug my preppy butt over to the 'dark side' of town to learn to play ball. And play I did. Plus, I learned some stuff.

I learned that these people were not monsters, in fact they were no different than the rest of the folks I knew...minus the money. They had the same fears and hopes that I did. They were spun out about 'dating' just like the rest of my friends.

Bottom line is that, 'just like they say' no one is much different than anyone else.

Some of these friends would visit me at school across the bay. They were just like us. Drink too much beer, say dumb stuff, fall down...wake up in pain. Girls, boys, beer, parties, fun...and no one seemed to give much of a damn who went home with whom...but sure the next day everyone laughed and poked fun. I remember thinking after reading 'Black, Like Me'...wow how freakin' cool that it isn't like that anymore! Like...it's all over...and then...then there is this.

I find that really sad. The guy is smarter, richer, and better spoken than me or about 90% of America. Oh...he's black...hell he's half black...like that could even be an issue.

Sorry fellow posters...just bums me out when i read evidence that pops my bubble. (and no offence to those of the shade-ier persuasion if i sound niavie...but for a long time i really did think it had changed, if just a bit.

You can bet they'll be calling him Oreo.

You recall that Limbaugh called him Hafrican. What a comedian that.Rush...

Rush is funny, always has to bring race into his "jokes".  What a jerk.

So does that make Limbaugh a "Fastard"? 

Surprising that Obama isn't called the N-word...

I'm sure he's called that at GOP meetings......

I'm sure he's called that at GOP meetings......

Yea, but I'm sure you're taking that out of context...  ;>)

Yea, but I'm sure you're taking that out of context...  ;>)

You're right - I'm sure that at GOP meetings, that "N" word is preceded by the word "uppity".  :-)

...or the F-word.  ;>)

Hey, the "N" word is just a schoolyard taunt used by kids around the country... (channeling some right winger's thoughts no doubt)

Obama is the only one who won't be criticized like Hillary or McCain. The media is afraid of saying anything negative about him in fear of being called a racist.

This guy Castellanos is the biggest piece of S on CNN right now.

I'm old enough to remember when words like this would not have made it past the network censors. Ah the good old days.

LBJ was often referred to as a bastard in private or in books.. But not on the air. I don't happen to think of Hillary Clinton as being a bitch, though there are certain women I might attach that description to.

Ann Coulter comes to mind...

I don't even think of Ann Coulter as a bitch...just a satanically evil person.  ;>)

In order to think of Coulter as a "bitch," one has to first think of her as a woman, and there are some things my brain just refuses to do.

Good point... And, I don't know, maybe it's just me but bitch strikes me as such a dated appellation...like something a Republican would say.  ;>) 

I happen to own a female dog (lit a "bitch") and I would not demean my beloved pet by elevating Coulter into the same category.

there are certain women I might attach that description to.

 -Jeter2


Well then, you and Castellanos are on the same page.  To mean, this is just a way to timidly call women "bitches".

 

To 'me', this is...

I love it when you lecture someone on the use of inappropriate language or the importance of decorum and respect, considering the vile links and classless schoolyard slurs you have used on this very website.

You have no leg to stand on, much less any moral authority.

I simply think it's inappropriate to call women "bitches".  There's no lecture there - just my opinion.  Sorry if I offended you.

Coming from someone who isn't a hypocrite, I would agree 100%.

What, specifically, are you going on about?  I think Jeter should be able to handle his 'certain women' are 'bitches' comment on his own, unless, of course, you know EXACTLY what he meant...

I assume he meant exactly what he said. 

Perhaps if you'd examine your own reasons for hurling expletives you wouldn't have time to be so concerned about someone else.  Self reflection is good for the soul.

Again, what are you going on about?

What's to handle Gov?

It's pretty self-explanatory.

Well to everyone else but you of course....

And just for the record let me add, what Tommy wrote is fine with me.

It's pretty self-explanatory.

Well, sometimes sexism, such as Castellanos' (and yours) requires a spotlight.

Of course a woman could just say "little Prick"  and it might be apt for some men too......

 

Does that make it ok to say that on national tv?   I guess in these days and times it does....too bad I can get on national tv and call some men little pricks and for some it's true.

 

heh....how does it feel?   Women get tired of having names called by men that don't think it is a bad thing! 

There's no need for you to make that promise.  "Moron" is not a bigoted comment.

Jeter, No need to explain youself, it's perfectly reasonable and understood.....to people who don't prop themselves on some pedestal and hypocritically denounce inappropriate name calling, all the while engaging in it themselves on this very website, "fcuk you", and linking to cartoons bashing men's genitals, which by the way could easily be viewed as extremely sexist towards men.....both of which the Governor has done here.

 

 

Very interesting Tommy. Thanks for that info.

The only reason I even bother responding to some of Gov's inane posts is to set the little twerp straight after he purposely twists my words or misinterprets what I wrote.

I wonder if he's related to Clams ;-)

(chills........)

J, He can't argue unless he twists intentionally, how pathetic. 

What has been misrepresented here by me?

Start with owning your own hypocrisy on chiding others on name calling, then apologize for baselessly calling Jeter a sexist.  In other words, be a man.

You're going to have to be more specific.  Quote my words, point to what I've written here that you have a problem with...

I just did, at 3:38:34, check it out.

I should apologize to Jeter for posing a link to a graphic from the Onion, and because I once wrote a reply to you months ago that that read "if you're going to continue to keep calling me names, then perhaps you should fcuk off"?  These are reason to apologize to Jeter?  My god you're insane.

You honestly can't follow can you?  You called Jeter sexist, that you should apologize for. Never mind.

But he is sexist.  Your demand is utterly foolish.

TOMMY: In other words, be a man.

Jeez, Tommy, some people might regard that as a pretty sexist remark. Do you mean to imply that women don't own up to things...only a man does? A manly man...? Women don't share the same qualities of personal responsibility?

Governor is a male, I presume - so he should be a man.  If Governor were a female, then she should be a woman.

Is it sexist? No. Some women deserve the title.

 

I think you're dead wrong on this.  It is sexist.  Just as it would be racist if you thought that some black people deserve the title of 'n*gger'.

How ridiculous, "bitch" goes to behavior......."n&gger" has nothing to do with behavior, it is inexcusable in any context.

Bingo!

Tommy,

Why does Gov continue to keep showing us all what a frigin moron he is?

Geez, if I was as numb as he is, I wouldn't put it out there for everyone to read. LOL!

Just because you and Tommy think that the term "b*tch" is not sexist does not make it so.

Blew another argument eh Gov?

Tommy just handed you your head.

Now go away. It's way past your naptime

Blew another argument eh Gov?


That you think certain women deserve the title "b*tch" and that it's not a sexist statement because it's about behavior?   I blew that?  Ok, have a pleasant evening...

TOMMY: How ridiculous, "bitch" goes to behavior...

Sorry, that's not entirely true...it may or may not go to behavior. Calling women bitches and hos in some circles has nothing to do with their behavior...those are just insulting references to women in general.

Irony let me give you some history behind this silly exchange with Gov.

Here's the post that got Gov's panties in a twist:

 

I'm old enough to remember when words like this would not have made it past the network censors. Ah the good old days.

LBJ was often referred to as a bastard in private or in books.. But not on the air. I don't happen to think of Hillary Clinton as being a bitch, though there are certain women I might attach that description to.- jeter2 / Wednesday May 21, 2008 12:27:56 PM EDT

 

As you can cleary see I in no way advocate calling women bitches. However I admit I & I'm sure many have thought some woman was a bitch. That in no way means this term should be used in public. Some women are nasty creatures. Bitches. Some guys are assholes. Bastards.

Gov took what I said out of context. Typical of the little twerp.

Now I'm sure there are a few bitches & bastards in West Virginia & Palm Beach. Wouldn'y you agree? ;-)

Some guys are assholes. Bastards.

Some guys are bitches, too...  ;>)

I have misrepresented nothing.

You claim that there are certain women you might attach the description “b*tch” to and you claim that it's not sexist because some women deserve the title.

Again, I have misrepresented nothing.

Lighten up, guys... All of you are starting to sound like a bunch of little bitches.  ;>)

I'm perfectly calm.  Had a productive work day while also finding time to call sexism 'sexism' when I see it.  Yours is as mild as it gets.

I am in agreement with your sentiments about sexism, Guv, and bitch is sexist and offensive...but apparently there is some gray area in the usage of the term and sometimes it can slide, depending on the context. I understood what Jeter was saying. On the other hand, Tommy was just being his usual bitchy self.  ;>)

Lighten up, man... it's cool. 

I'm cool with other people's opinions, and I think I've been cool in giving my opinion on other people's opinions.  In my opinion of my opinion, I've been absolutely icebox.

You're right Irony, I can be bitchy, which invalidates the term being exclusively sexist, as is the Governor's ridiculous claim.  The term has been expanded in today's vernacular to convey nastiness, or a foul mood, regardless of gender.

It's no more sexist than jerk, or moron, or jacka$$........perhaps the Governor has been jusitifiably called those names before so he can attest to their gender-less uses as well, I don't know.  As for the term "bitch", offensive as it may be, is not indicitive of someone who despises or is bigoted towards women, only a child would paint with that broad a brush, I mean really......

 

The term has been expanded in today's vernacular to convey nastiness, or a foul mood, regardless of gender.

 

Jeter's use of the term, which I chose to comment on - were most certainly - gender specific.  So you are wrong.

It's not my job to expound on the acceptable usage, vel non, of the word bitch, nor do I care to. However, Tommy, it is not always acceptable. To describe women, generically, totally uncool...unless your name  is Snoop Dog.  To describe a contrary or aggressive woman, the term is acceptable in common parlance but perhaps not in polite company. However, that also raises the question of whether the term is applied accurately to a particular woman. Personally, unless said tongue-in-cheek, I'm like Guv...I don't like it.

Irony, Perhaps you misunderstood, I never said it was acceptable, I said it is not automatically, knee-jerky reflective of its user being sexist. For it encompasses a more broad meaning in various contexts, that was my point.

Governor, in his typical knee-jerkiness fashion, called Jeter a sexist based on his original comments, which is ludicrous.  Jeter was very clear that he was speaking of the term "bitch" as it relates to behavior - Governor ran with it and hauled out his usual accusations from his shaky moral highground steeped on quicksand.  

Do you think Jeter, based on his long history of posts here, is sexist?  Of course he's not. Governor should apologize.

His comment that certain women derserve the title "bitch" was and is sexist.

"Deserve", why Governor? Wholly because they are women?, or because of a certain type of behavior exhibited.

You know the answer.

Have a good night.... 

Tommy, I do not purport to speak for the Guv but I think the problem lies in the gender specific aspect of the application. As another poster wisely pointed out, why not just call an A-hole an A-hole regardless of gender? Using a charged gender specific term like bitch easily lends itself to sexist use. I'm not certainly not accusing anyone here of being sexist but I can understand the basis of the Guv's thinking. Again, as I said above, the problem is that this specific term means diffferent has different connotations to everyone. Let's all get along...peace. 

I apologize for calling Jeter sexist (Sorry, Jeter). I maintain that his comments (twice stated) were sexist.

Somehow, Gov, people have decided it's OK to lower the discourse and go back to the school-yard taunting that we all grew up with.

It's just immaturity - and in my opinion, those who uphold the values of both genders will refrain from referring to others as "bitches".  So let the right-wingers defend their use of the slur.  It's all they have. 

 

But that's the problem, Tommy, when words take on all sorts of different connotations to each person and context must be examined. Personally, unless spoken with tongue firmly in cheek I've gotten away from using the word...I just don't like it. Not a PC thing, either...

Agreed.  I believe the word is demeaning.  Many women object to the word, as well as the c-word.  As I said in a previous post, if one were to call my sister a bitch, she would probably knock their teeth out.  It's a degree thing (i.e. some women are more upset by the word than others), but it's still a demeaning word whose use should be limited.

Call my sister a bitch and see how many teeth you have left after she clocks you.

It's a nasty word - that's why it's considered one of those words you wouldn't say before kissing your grandmother good-night.  It demeans, and in most, it is sexist.  Either way, it's inappropriate, especially for Castellanos.  Hillary hasn't done anything to Castellanos.  For him to paint her as a bitch is just wrong - and he has no supporting evidence of her being the definition of a bitch.  I'm sure Castellanos wouldn't like it if people on national television referred to him as Bush's (or Rove's or Cheney's) bitch...

What the heck is that suppose to mean.....you sexist you!!!!!

But as Jeter described the term it is based on behavior, which validates Tommy's comment.  We are talking about Jeter's original post, right?

It can be used to generally describe women, which is unacceptable.   But saying that some women deserve that title is hardly controversial.  Leona Helmsley, Imelda Marcos, Anne Coulter, Marie Antoinette...these are not angelic sweethearts.  By any standard some women can be criticized for their behavior.

I understand the issue that it's gender-specific, and the difference between that and a term like "prick" is that men have been in control and so generalized derogatory terms about men haven't had as much of a chance to be established.  But as long as it is obviously about specific behavior then Governor's charges of "sexist" fall flat because it's not about the gender itself.  I could believe that most men are a-holes and only a small percentage of women deserve to be called bitches at the same time.  Obviously that attitude couldn't be considered to be sexism against women. 

But as long as it is obviously about specific behavior then Governor's charges of "sexist" fall flat because it's not about the gender itself. 

I disagree, being a woman was the first critria used before claiming that certain ones are derseving of the title "bitch".

I already explained why "gender-specific" is not the same as "sexist".  Sexism is an attitude that a gender is inferior.  That's general.  Saying something bad about one woman or a few women is specific.  It doesn't suggest the gender is inferior.  By your logic if you called Clarence Thomas an "Uncle Tom" you would be a racist, since that term is dependent on his race.

By your logic if you called Clarence Thomas an "Uncle Tom" you would be a racist, since that term is dependent on his race.

I agree.

Then you need to look up the definitions of these words, because you are using them incorrectly.

As a white man, I can't refer to a certain black man as an "Uncle Tom" without it being racist.  As a man, I can't refer to a certain woman as a "bitch" without it being sexist.  This is, of course, my opinion.  I don't need other people to agree with it, but I also don't need to consult a dictionary.

"As a white man, I can't refer to a certain black man as an "Uncle Tom" without it being racist.  As a man, I can't refer to a certain woman as a "bitch" without it being sexist.  This is, of course, my opinion.  I don't need other people to agree with it, but I also don't need to consult a dictionary."

Sure you can, as long as you're not denigrating a large group of people.  It's really not a matter of your opinion, there are established meanings of words.  You're not Humpty Dumpty who uses a word to mean what he wants it to, nothing more and nothing less.

The terms "Uncle Tom" and "Bitch" are both disparaging and offensive.

"Disparaging and offensive" wasn't your point, now was it?  No, it was "sexist".  If you want to say what Jeter said was rude or mean or whatever, make that argument.  But don't come up with your own definition of a word to bolster your point.  I never accept that when conservatives try it, and I won't make an exception because it's you.  It makes your argument invalid, plain and simple.

To answer your question below, the C-word is much more severe and much less accepted, but if it is used to refer to specific women instead of the gender itself then it isn't sexist either.

Brab, Welcome to the circular inane nonsensical word twisting games of the Governor, I know I play along too but I will learn someday, and, if I EVER get this bad, no matter how heated you and I get, please tell me.....

Your points are dead on. 

The "C-Word" and the term "Bitch" are both sexist.  Claiming that only a certain kind of women may deserves it, don't change a damn thing.

It changes everything.  Go to dictionary.com or something and see for yourself.

Words have specific meanings.  This concept is not controversial. 

Dictionary.com does not state that the N-Word is "racist" - but it is. 

And "b*tch" is sexist.

Who asked you to look that up?  Look up "racist" and "sexist" and see if it tells you it's just about race-specific or gender-specific commentary.  Pointing out that it doesn't explicitly say the N-word is racist is utterly irrelevant to the point.   Incidentally, it does say it's disparaging and the main definition refers to any black person, so you do the math.

Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc

That's the second listing on the page.  Believing a race is inferior is racism.  Therefore it's a racist term.  I have no idea what you think you're talking about.

I'm asserting that it's sexist for a man to refer to a women as a "b*tch".

Yes, I know, but your argument is absurd.  Why not address what I said?

Perhaps you could have tried to answer Lorelei's question below:

 

What specifically would you call behavior deserving of the appellation "Bitch"?

I did.  Your turn.

Brab, Your comments are well stated and perfectly clear.

"[S]ome women, by the way, are named that and it's accurate."

"Some women deserve the title."

What's perfectly clear is that both of these statements above are sexist.

Gov, We went round and round on this yesterday and you have your opinion, and I have mine. If you have never used the term, and never intend to, then you are to be admired for that.  I have used the term, under my breath, on occasion as it went to a person's specific behavior, not to their gender.  If you want to call me sexist, you are free to do that.......another difference of opinion.

Enjoy your day.... 

Is it ok for a man to bestow the 'c word' onto a woman if her so-called behavior has been deemed deserving of that moniker?

Stop twisting my words, I never said any of it was ever "Ok".  We are not discussing the appropriateness of these words, your insistence on that angle just illustrates your dishonesty.  

As I said, you have your opinion, which is irrelevant to me.  

I have very consistently maintained one thing: that it's sexist to refer to certain women as b*tches.  Your dissenting position (and 2 others) has been that it’s not sexist if the woman deserves that title based on her behavior.  I have twisted NOTHING.

Well, either you aren't intelligent enough to be able to differentiate beween a slur that can certainly be offensive without being sexist, or you're just twisting our words to keep from admitting you made a mistake.  One goes to a lack of character, and the other to dishonest stubborness.  You tell us which one it is.

What words did I twist?

That using the word "bitch" is somehow "Ok" with us, when none of us ever even remotely suggested that.  We specifically said it's not automatically sexist, however it is always offensive.  Big difference.  

You may pat yourself on the back for not using your "sexist" words, but you should really examine why you take such delicious pride in your personal dishonesty.  Wow.... 

Did not mean to imply that you're ok with the word.  I totally disagree, however, with your notion that a man can use that term if a woman's behavior is somehow deserving of it and that doing so can somehow not be sexist. 

You guys might be pleased to know that you're in disagreement with MMFA on this:

http://mediamatters.org/action_center/castellanos/index

Well, there's a novelty for me.

Gov, I have four words for ya > GI - IVE  U - UP! 

Give what up?

It's sexist to believe that certain woman can in certain situations be aptly called a "bitch".  I'm happy to disagree with you on this.

Well thats just BS!!!

What specifically would you call behavior deserving of the appellation "Bitch"?

 What?  No dinner when you get home?   That time of the month, making a woman "Bitchy"? A women not taking BS from people?   What behavior actually should have the name "Bitch"  added to it, please tell me.

It's a little hard to tell this far down the thread, but if you're talking to me I'm glad to answer your question:Being mean-spirited, vindictive, vengeful.

Let me give you an example.  Some years ago I dated a woman on a very casual basis.  She found out my parents had some money.  Then she got pregnant and told me it was mine.  It wasn't, and I was sure of it, especially since I knew she was seeing her on-again-off-again boyfriend as well.  She sued me for paternity, even though I told her I knew what her game was and wasn't going to support someone else's kid.  She made all efforts to look innocent and vulnerable and hopelessly wronged by me.  I got aggressive letters from her lawyer (her uncle) at least three times a week.  Of course, she lost because she wouldn't make an effort to prove it, and she didn't find anyone stupid or sympathetic enough to women to buy her BS.

Really, is anyone going to blame me for calling her a nasty name?  And not just in anger, I mean calmly and flat to her face telling her she's a psychotic lying bitch?  Is anyone going to debate the merits of that judgment on my part, honestly?  It seems highly unlikely.

Now most women I respect completely, just like I respect most men, and I don't agree with using the term as a label for women in general.  I'm more pro-women's rights than my wife is.  But to suggest that there are no women who can be criticized in harsh terms is completely absurd.  Of course there are, just like there are men who deserve to be called a-holes or pricks (also largely considered to be gender-specific terms).  Mean, yes, derogatory, yes, but not always without merit.  If you've dealt with men who have called you that name for the reasons you cite, then those men are pricks.

And of course being assertive or acting like one can do anything a man can do doesn't merit the term, which is usually why it's used to describe women in positions of power.  So I also agree that there's no cause to refer to Hillary this way.

I don't blame you for calling her a sexist name under those conditions.  But it's still sexist.

You are out of your mind.  Do you even know what the word "sexist" means? It means prejudice or discrimination. Please explain to me how Brab's scenario fits either of those descriptors?

He, as a man, chose to use a term to offend someone based first on their gender.

If I call you a "dumb a$$", is that based first on your gender or would it be on your incredibly unbelievably stupid reasonings?

When you answer that question, you have your answer.

Not sure why you’re resorting to name-calling but – getting back to the topic – let’s cut the crap, that scenario was all about gender.  If it weren’t then he would have called something offensive but gender-neutral.  I have a story I could tell and I most certainly am no saint, but when and if I say something sexist, I can freely admit it.  

Well, since you never did answer my question about how Brab's scenario displayed prejudice or discrimination, which is the very definition of sexism, then there is no point to continue.  Because you can't answer it, because it is not there.  And rather than admit that, you talk about cutting crap or some nonsense.

We disagree. 

He called a her a "bitch" because she wronged him and because she's a woman.  It was sexist.

So if I cheat on my wife and she calls me a "prick", is that sexist of her to do so?  It's gender-specific, right?  The entire argument is ludicrous.  She can call me a name for that without making a comment about all men.  You'd understand this simple concept if you didn't think that your own opinion was more credible than a dictionary.

 

How does the dictionary make the assertion that certain women can be called "bitch" non-sexist?

Because it defines a sexist comment as one about all women, about the gender in general.  A comment based on someone's individual behavior is not a comment on all women.  In my example, my use of the word was based on one woman, it's not something I say about all women.

Get it yet? 

The term "bitch" applies that certain woman's behavior to all women.

Get it?

How exactly does that work?  If I'm angry at one woman for something, then I'm attributing her behavior to all women?

What precisely is this fantasy based on? 

It's based on the term we're discussing, which was born out of sexism.

"Born" out of sexism?  Your argument gets stranger and stranger.  First off, even if it was originally used to describe women in general, language evolves.  So the usage of it doesn't have to be as it was originally done.  More importantly it could be that the term was adopted to characterize specific women (check out some of the definitions of "bitch", regarding being malicious, unpleasant, spiteful, overbearing) and was corrupted to apply to all women.  That wouldn't be "born" out of sexism because it wouldn't be regarding all women even in its original usage.

Incidentally, I just noticed that it's been used to insult women since 1400...and used for men since 1500.  So after five hundred years of it being used for both genders, I'm supposed to believe that using it for one woman applies to all women because of how it was "born"?  Why doesn't that long history make that comment applicable to everyone on earth?

You maintain that the term "bitch" can at times be used in a non-sexist way.  And I totally disagree.  That's it really.

Yes, I know.  You have absolutely no argument, you can't address my points, but you cling to your baseless assertion.  That's exactly what Tommy does far too often.

And please answer the question about if I cheated on my wife and she called me a "prick".  Would you say that was sexist, honestly?

Not gender specific.  Look it up.

If a woman called a man a "prick", it would be sexist.  But it's silly to compare its offensiveness to "bitch", in my opinion.

So you would really criticize a victim of infidelity for using a "sexist" term in such a situation.  The mind reels.

And truly, I'm laughing out loud that you say it's not gender-specific in one post and that it's sexist three minutes later, when your entire argument is that the sexism is due to a term being gender-specific.  And I'm laughing even more that someone who believes their opinion is more valuable than a dictionary is telling me to look up a word.  Why don't I just say I don't need a dictionary, since you seem to think that's fair for you to do?

No, fair enough, although one entry clearly defines as "especially a male".  I've never heard anyone call a woman a prick.  How about "dick"?  Is that really supposed to be fitting for a woman?  How about if a woman uses the term exclusively for males and the man who is called the name knows it?  Obviously that would be gender-specific.  And I've heard men called "bitches", yet that is supposedly exclusive to women.

On that note, it occured to me to look up the word "bitch".

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

"esp." a woman?  Just as the term "prick" is being used "especially" for men.

A man considered to be weak or contemptible

Interesting!

a person (usually but not necessarily a woman) who is thoroughly disliked

So why didn't it occur to you to look up this word before you made so many declarations about how the use of it must be sexism against women?

So you would really criticize a victim of infidelity for using a "sexist" term in such a situation.  The mind reels.

I would not criticize the person.  Did not say I would.  You asked me my opinion and I gave it.

But that would be your opinion of that person, since circumstances don't matter.  The mind still reels.

And that's your full response?  You can't address anything else I'm saying? 

To be fair, I used a term to accurately describe her behavior, not to "offend" her.  I didn't give a damn if she was offended or not, the comment was justified.  An