Is using the b-word sexist?

[RedWorker]

I think I've heard that here on RevLeft somewhere. But I honestly can't understand how it could be sexist. It could be speciecist. But sexist, how? Only because it is exclusively applied to women? There are insults which are exclusively applied to men, but that doesn't make them sexist.

Edit: Had to type "b-word" because RevLeft for some reason censors it... it's a 5 letter word referring to the female version of "dog".

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You can't see how a term for a female dog when applied to a human woman is sexist? Really?

[RedWorker]

You can't see how a term for a female dog when applied to a human woman is sexist? Really?

Correct. If I call a male human a "mono", the Spanish word for a male monkey, as an insult, how is that sexist?

If I post this here, then the only purpose is to learn. It's not like I have an urge to use the word and need justification or anything. So I don't see the point of your non-answer, other than maybe insulting my intelligence, which I don't appreciate nor think is helpful in any way.

I don't know how many paragraphs I will need to use in my next controversial post exclusively dedicated to discourage useless replies.

(Because you all are so sensitive: Not that I'm trying to be rude or anything with the previous two paragraphs. Relax, people.)
(Note about the previous sentence: No, I'm not saying that condemning reactionary speech is "being too sensitive". Don't mis-interpret.)

[RedWorker]

Well, after reading something I realized that it could be analogous to calling a black person a "nigger" or a homosexual person a "faggot". But what I still do not understand is why insults exclusively against women could be considered "sexist", while insults exclusively against men would be not. I suppose it is because women are an oppressed group. I think I still do not fully understand the mechanisms etc. going on here.

I guess the way to determine if such words are oppressive or not is through a series of questions, including "is it used to target an individual of the group alone or does it target the group itself?", "is the group oppressed?", and "does the word promote the oppression of the group?".

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's not sexist ... if you're using it to describe your breeding golden retriever. If you're using it to describe an overbearing woman at work, you might be being sexist.


Well, after reading something I realized that it could be analogous to calling a black person a "nigger" or a homosexual person a "faggot". But what I still do not understand is why insults exclusively against women could be considered "sexist", while insults exclusively against men would be not. I suppose it is because women are an oppressed group. I think I still do not fully understand the mechanisms etc. going on here.

I guess the way to determine if such words are oppressive or not is through a series of questions, including "is it used to target an individual of the group alone or does it target the group itself?", "is the group oppressed?", and "does the word promote the oppression of the group?".

Generally the power of such words comes from a history of violent oppression and exploitation, not just from their literal meaning.

[#FF0000]

I dunno if I'd say it's on par with slurs like that, but I'd definitely say it's sexist, even when it's used against men.

Think about this -- what are people trying to say when they call a woman that? What are they trying to say when they call a man that?

[RedAnarchist]

There's not an analogous word for men that is used in the same way the b-word is used for women, because the traits that people associate with a b-word are not seen as undesirable in men whereas they are in women.

[IWantToLearn]

The n-word is directed at men because of their skin color so racist, f*ggot is directed at men because they are homosexual so it is a homophobic word and the b -word is used at woman who just happen to be woman so it is sexist, i know it originally is supposed to refer to women who have sex with many men but i think that it's meaning is shifting as i see it being used very lightly and even then is sexist because if a guy has sex with many woman he is cool or whatever and if a woman does that then she is a b****. Also i guess there is some non sexist insults directed at womans.

[Loony Le Fist]

There's not an analogous word for men that is used in the same way the b-word is used for women, because the traits that people associate with a b-word are not seen as undesirable in men whereas they are in women.

It's interesting to note that b*tch means different things when applied to different genders. In both cases the traits are generally seen as undesirable. Being called a b*tch if you're male generally means effeminate (not really an insult in my book), weak, cowardly etc. Whereas when it's used to describe a female it generally means stubborn, aggressive, annoying etc.

[#FF0000]

and the b -word is used at woman who just happen to be woman so it is sexist

Yeah I think it's used most specifically though against women who are too assertive or who someone thinks is talking out of turn or something, you know?

And when it's used against a man, it implies that he's being too "feminine".

EDIT: Oh beaten to it.

[IWantToLearn]

Yeah I think it's used most specifically though against women who are too assertive or who someone thinks is talking out of turn or something, you know?

And when it's used against a man, it implies that he's being too "feminine".

EDIT: Oh beaten to it.

Yeah, i think i got the meaning wrong, sorry.

[Comrade #138672]

Yes. It is sexist. There is a reason why RevLeft decided to censor it.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think I've heard that here on RevLeft somewhere. But I honestly can't understand how it could be sexist. It could be speciecist. But sexist, how? Only because it is exclusively applied to women? There are insults which are exclusively applied to men, but that doesn't make them sexist.

It's all quite simple.

The crucial difference is the fact of social discrimination and gendered power dynamics which place women in a subordinate position. That's why any analogous insult word simply does not work in the same way since the speech act of insulting someone in this case doesn't have an origin in systemic sexism.

[Rosa Partizan]

In almost all cases, it is sexist and derogatory. There may be some very few cases when it's okay, i.e. (I wrote already about that woman) when a woman refers to herself as a b!itch, as it is the case with a female rapper here. She wrote a book called b!tchsm and defines this as being sexually self-confident, being a sexual subject instead of an object, not allowing anyone to use you and treat you bad etc. She was like "I call my fellow female friends b!tch when they fit into this definition and they call me this way, too". I guess I wouldn't be offended if a woman like her called me that, knowing what's behind it. But this is the only possible case I can imagine now when it's fine. But the point is that she took that meaning and changed it into something positive, tough, patriarchy-defying.

[Sinred]

The relevance of any word is not in black or white conditions.
The relevant thing is who says it and why. I.e the context.

[Loony Le Fist]

I dunno if I'd say it's on par with slurs like that, but I'd definitely say it's sexist, even when it's used against men.
...

I would say it's particularly sexist when used against men because it implies that behaving femininely (whatever that means) is undesirable. It is basically a direct attack against another gender.

[Lily Briscoe]

I guess I'll take the unpopular view here and say that I don't think the word is automatically sexist. And certainly there are words that - with the exception of being "reclaimed" or whatever by someone who has been the target of the insult - are automatically sexist, e.g. "slut".

But, for example, women using the word "bitsh" when talking shit about other women (which is the context in which I most often hear it being used) doesn't strike me as being 'sexist' at all; it is basically a female gendered equivalent of calling someone a 'dick' or an 'asshole'.

[Sinred]

I guess I'll take the unpopular view here and say that I don't think the word is automatically sexist. And certainly there are words that - with the exception of being "reclaimed" or whatever by someone who has been the target of the insult - are automatically sexist, e.g. "slut".

But, for example, women using the word "bitsh" when talking shit about other women (which is the context in which I most often hear it being used) doesn't strike me as being 'sexist' at all; it is basically a female gendered equivalent of calling someone a 'dick' or an 'asshole'.


Spot on what i was talking about.
I for example cant remember when i used the word **** (in sweden fitta) against a woman. I been using it several times against men thou. More specifically men that i find spineless. That does not reflect anything about my views on women or the vagina. Its just a word that comes out when im frustrated with someone. Thats how cursing works.
And dont for one second believe our comrades outside the western hemisphere has as elegant mouths as we have (both men and women). This doesnt necessary says anything about their stands on gays or womens right.

My point is not to defend sexist slurs. The point is I think its meaningless to focus on the using of words.
As always, its all about the context: who says what and why

[Sea]

Correct. If I call a male human a "mono", the Spanish word for a male monkey, as an insult, how is that sexist?Because European words are scary and I don't understand them.

You don't seem to even know what connotations are. You shouldn't be on revleft, you should be in a remedial English (or whatever your native language is - connotations work everywhere) class. Is there a male equivalent for bitсh? Is there a white equivalent for nigger? Is there a heterosexual equivalent for faggot? Is there a gentile equivalent for kike? Is there a hen equivalent for *******? Is there a pro-dialectical equivalent to ************************? No, there isn't. Mono is not and it is completely irrelevant to the topic. It's neither sexist nor insulting when a young male is called a colt (like a young horse). I wonder why that could be... Maybe it's because we live in a society that demonizes things that are seen as feminine or related to females in some way. Hmmmmmmm, yeah that's a fucking mystery isn't it.


I don't know how many paragraphs I will need to use in my next controversial post exclusively dedicated to discourage useless replies."Replies" is plural, poophead. There was 1 (one!!!1) reply, Danielle Ni Dhighe's, between your OP and this post. It was a good reply - it answered your question thoroughly. Now you're telling that we're making useless replies (!) and being too sensitive!

Sounds to me like you're cranking up the damage control dial to 11 and just being a defensive ass for no reason.

(I do agree it's stupid that revleft censors it, since obviously it's doing jack diddly to prevent sexist fucks like you.)

[#FF0000]

I been using it several times against men thou. More specifically men that i find spineless. That does not reflect anything about my views on women or the vagina.

Yeah but the fact that the word is used against men who are "spineless" or insufficiently masculine reflects some fucked-up attitudes in our society in general don't you think?

[synthesis]

I think it's a little ridiculous that it's still censored, as is the word for a male chicken. Whatever events may have occurred that prompted it are long since past and now it just diminishes our ability to discuss the connotations and semasiology like grown-ups.

(Not to mention that one admin's former username is censored in all posts quoting her from the period during which she used that name.)

[PhoenixAsh]

I would say it's particularly sexist when used against men because it implies that behaving femininely (whatever that means) is undesirable. It is basically a direct attack against another gender.

Yup.

...it also enforces the concept of a male gender stereotype to which a man must conform. B* is one of the ultimate gender role enforcing words.

[Sea]

I think it's a little ridiculous that it's still censored, as is the word for a male chicken. Whatever events may have occurred that prompted it are long since past and now it just diminishes our ability to discuss the connotations and semasiology like grown-ups.

(Not to mention that one admin's former username is censored in all posts quoting her from the period during which she used that name.)What name is that? PM me if you have to.
Yup.

...it also enforces the concept of a male gender stereotype to which a man must conform. B* is one of the ultimate gender role enforcing words.reflecting*
words don't have the power to enforce anything

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I don't think it's automatically sexist. I playfully say "what up *****es" to my male friends. It's not because they're acting effeminate or anything, I would never use it like that. Also I know many gay guys who use it in non-sexist ways.

But yeah it usually is sexist when it's used most of the time. And there's another point that's sort of been touched on but hasn't been said so explicitly.

It's used mostly to put people in their place. Women are put in their place because they are called a ***** when they are domineering and assertive. Meaning that they are called that because women apparently shouldn't be aggressive. When males are called *****es, it's because they are effeminate and apparently men shouldn't be effeminate.

And here's another interesting point. The ONLY time a man is called a ***** when he is being aggressive is the usage of "son of a *****." This implies that the man's mother is one, which is unbelievably offensive. Notice that the man is never called JUST a ***** when he's being aggressive, it has to have the "son of" part.

Anyway, all this being said, I think there are usages where it isn't sexist. You can't just say a word is ALWAYS evil or something because that stifles contemplation of the issue. Also, it is ridiculous that it's censored. I mean really, are we little kids or something who have to be sheltered from the world?? The word "nigger" isn't even censored.

[Sea]

I don't think it's automatically sexist. I playfully say "what up *****es" to my male friends. It's not because they're acting effeminate or anything, I would never use it like that. Also I know many gay guys who use it in non-sexist ways.what does that have to do with anything? do you even know what gay means? you're doing that "it's OK cause I have black friends" thing and it's not helping.


But yeah it usually is sexist when it's used most of the time. And there's another point that's sort of been touched on but hasn't been said so explicitly.

It's used mostly to put people in their place. Women are put in their place because they are called a ***** when they are domineering and assertive. Meaning that they are called that because women apparently shouldn't be aggressive. When males are called *****es, it's because they are effeminate and apparently men shouldn't be effeminate.

And here's another interesting point. The ONLY time a man is called a ***** when he is being aggressive is the usage of "son of a *****." This implies that the man's mother is one, which is unbelievably offensive. Notice that the man is never called JUST a ***** when he's being aggressive, it has to have the "son of" part.these are totes great reasons to use it on your friends, sure

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

what does that have to do with anything? do you even know what gay means? you're doing that "it's OK cause I have black friends" thing and it's not helping.

these are totes great reasons to use it on your friends, sure

No, I don't know what gay means. What's that?

If you respond to me with a no-substance sarcastic post, you'll get one back. Why don't you articulate your point a little better?

It's not a "oh I have black friends so I can say the N-word" thing at all. Did you read my post? They're using it in the same way some women use it by referring to themselves as it. If you want to go around policing the way us gays talk amongst ourselves then be my guest. But expect laughter and ridicule from men and women alike.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

words don't have the power to enforce anything
Words reflect relations of power and privilege, and, yes, they're used to enforce them.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Also I know many gay guys who use it in non-sexist ways.
The gay male sub-culture can be quite misogynist at times.

It's depressing how common the usage of the B word has become. I don't think there are any non-problematic uses of it, to be honest, regardless of intent.

[consuming negativity]

I don't think it's automatically sexist. I playfully say "what up *****es" to my male friends. It's not because they're acting effeminate or anything, I would never use it like that.

Ask yourself why you say this and you'll understand why you're wrong.

This thread sucks, OP should be restricted if not banned, and I like that ***** is censored because of all the whining about how we need to be able to use shitty slurs in order to discuss shit relevant to the revolutionary left.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

The gay male sub-culture can be quite misogynist at times.

It's depressing how common the usage of the B word has become. I don't think there are any non-problematic uses of it, to be honest, regardless of intent.


Ask yourself why you say this and you'll understand why you're wrong.

This thread sucks, OP should be restricted if not banned, and I like that ***** is censored because of all the whining about how we need to be able to use shitty slurs in order to discuss shit relevant to the revolutionary left.

If multiple people are calling me out for this, then I can definitely accept that it's wrong to use it like that. Seriously, I am prepared to change my opinion.

Could I ask why it's problematic to say "what up b-word" to my friends? Or for gays and some women to refer to themselves as it? I have hung out with mixed groups of both gays and women and the word has been thrown around plenty in what I thought was a perfectly harmless way.

Now, if that argument was made for a man calling a woman that, that wouldn't hold water. It is always sexist for a man to say that to a women or for anyone to say that to other men to criticize them for being effeminate because it is reinforcing sexist gender perceptions. But in the above examples, I don't see how it does.

Anyway like I said, if I'm wrong I'll accept that, I don't mind being wrong. :) My point actually is pretty simple and I feel uncomfortable because I don't want people to think I am trying to legitimize sexist language my making multiple posts about this. It infuriates me to hear that word come out of guys' mouths. But it surely can't exist in a vacuum right?

[Sea]

No, I don't know what gay means. What's that? According to you, it means someone who talks a certain way so that you can use this as an excuse for using sexist language. See:

It's not a "oh I have black friends so I can say the N-word" thing at all. Did you read my post? They're using it in the same way some women use it by referring to themselves as it. If you want to go around policing the way us gays talk amongst ourselves then be my guest. But expect laughter and ridicule from men and women alike.You have no fucking excuse to use sexist language. Sexual orientation is not a justification.




Words reflect relations of power and privilege, and, yes, they're used to enforce them.The connotations of epithets are part of the superstructure. The power relations that lead to these usages are part of the base. This is not up for debate, you idealistic fool.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

This is not up for debate, you idealistic fool.
Since you said that after you quoted something I said, I have to ask, WTF?

[synthesis]

This thread sucks, OP should be restricted if not banned, and I like that ***** is censored because of all the whining about how we need to be able to use shitty slurs in order to discuss shit relevant to the revolutionary left.

What do you mean by "using shitty slurs," though? Do you mean "whining" about not being able to casually toss them around in debates? Because I haven't seen anyone here complain about that for a long time.

But if you mean a thread like this, then yeah, I'd say we'd need to be able to say a word in order to discuss its connotations. Otherwise you wind up with people having to come up with more and more creative ways to use punctuation to visually approximate the word and absolutely nothing gained in the process except for a creeping feeling that someone installed a parental filter on our computers without our knowledge.

[Sinred]

Yeah but the fact that the word is used against men who are "spineless" or insufficiently masculine reflects some fucked-up attitudes in our society in general don't you think?

I guess im reacting more to how people use this insight rather than the insight itself.
In other words: absolutly, its fucked up.

[Sea]

Since you said that after you quoted something I said, I have to ask, WTF?Don't get me wrong I still love you and all that but to say that an epithet can influence the context of its origin is rather silly.
But if you mean a thread like this, then yeah, I'd say we'd need to be able to say a word in order to discuss its connotations. Otherwise you wind up with people having to come up with more and more creative ways to use punctuation to visually approximate the word and absolutely nothing gained in the process except for a creeping feeling that someone installed a parental filter on our computers without our knowledge.Copy-paste cyrillic letters. You're a leftist for crying out loud. You should know how to meaninglessly throw around cyrillic characters. It's in your blood!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Don't get me wrong I still love you and all that but to say that an epithet can influence the context of its origin is rather silly.
What I said was words reflect social relations and are also used to enforce them. Language is ideological. How is that idealism?

[Sea]

What I said was words reflect social relations and are also used to enforce them. Language is ideological. How is that idealism?Would you like to explain to me how a word can actually enforce anything?

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

When you say "what up b****es!" to your friends, it's a lot like saying "what up dipshits!. You like/love your friends, and you are playfully insulting them. The dipshits/b****es is meant with negative connotations (that it is bad to be a dipshit or b****). Playful or not, you are still perpetuating the idea that to its bad to be a b****, and so it's sexist to use it in this way especially if you are a man (gay or not). Between women it can of course still be sexist, but may come under the banner of 'reclaiming' the word.

[RedWorker]

Interesting. Are black people calling each other a "nigger" in a friendly way perpetuating racism too? Or has the word just lost all meaning in that scenario? Do you think it is possible for such words to be "reclaimed" like some people claim? Or are such things counter-productive and should not be attempted?

[synthesis]

Would you like to explain to me how a word can actually enforce anything?

Are you referring to the word in and of itself, or the use of it by people in a non-abstract sense?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Sea, why are you saying that a word can't enforce anything, yet you're also saying the word exists in a complete vacuum and is always evil no matter what?

Also, I have a question then. My straight friend calls me faggot in a playful way, but he hates homophobes and would beat the ass of anyone else who ever said it to me. He even cut off contact with one of his friends because they casually mentioned they didn't like gay marriage. But I suppose you'll tell me I'm just oppressing myself? :laugh:

Are black people not allow to say the N-word to each other either?

All I'm saying is that words don't exist in vacuums. The b-word, 95% of the time is sexist because of context. But I don't see how it's somehow problematic for women to say it or guys to say it to each other when they aren't meaning it to say they are effeminate. It's just I've only heard this point of view on this website. Even real life feminists I know have never claimed that the word exists in a vacuum.

I shouldn't be arguing this so adamantly, but cognitive dissonance annoys me so much.

[Sea]

you're also saying the word exists in a complete vacuum and is always evil no matter what?nu-uh
Also, I have a question then. My straight friend calls me faggot in a playful way, but he hates homophobes and would beat the ass of anyone else who ever said it to me. He even cut off contact with one of his friends because they casually mentioned they didn't like gay marriage. But I suppose you'll tell me I'm just oppressing myself? :laugh:I can't help it that your friends contradict themselves.
Are black people not allow to say the N-word to each other either?nigga ≠ nigger

learn the difference
All I'm saying is that words don't exist in vacuums. The b-word, 95% of the time is sexist because of context. But I don't see how it's somehow problematic for women to say it or guys to say it to each other when they aren't meaning it to say they are effeminate. It's just I've only heard this point of view on this website. Even real life feminists I know have never claimed that the word exists in a vacuum.

I shouldn't be arguing this so adamantly, but cognitive dissonance annoys me so much.I never claimed that it exists in a vacuum. Men have no right to use the word, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual or anything in between. You can take your freedom of speech crap and put it in your pooper.

(btw, how are those macaroni recipes I gave you?)

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

nu-uhI can't help it that your friends contradict themselves.nigga ≠ nigger

learn the differenceI never claimed that it exists in a vacuum. Men have no right to use the word, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual or anything in between. You can take your freedom of speech crap and put it in your pooper.

(btw, how are those macaroni recipes I gave you?)

Men have no right to use that word to women. Men also have no right to use that word to men if they are berating them for being effeminate or putting them in the place of their gender roles. That is because those contexts are ALWAYS sexist. Other contexts are not always sexist.

(and it was actually really fucking good so far lol assuming I made it right)

[#FF0000]

The connotations of epithets are part of the superstructure. The power relations that lead to these usages are part of the base. This is not up for debate, you idealistic fool.

Yeah but doesn't the superstructure do a part to legitimize the base tho

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Would you like to explain to me how a word can actually enforce anything?
Because ideology sets boundaries, and when ideology is communicated, it reinforces them.

[Sea]

Yeah but doesn't the superstructure do a part to legitimize the base thoNo. It is a one-way relationship. The base dictates the conditions of its own legitimization. Hegemony must make current the verbal expression of itself, or the use of these words for these reasons would not have occurred in the first place.

Because ideology sets boundaries, and when ideology is communicated, it reinforces them.The mode of production and the peculiarities of its implementation set ideology. This is not a cyclical relationship. See above.

I'm sure one of you can find a study comparing the currency of certain epithets with the quantitative realization of various types of hegemony.
(and it was actually really fucking good so far lol assuming I made it right)Keep in mind there are some revisionist recipes in there. That second one by Leon Trotgourmet uses velveeta instead of real cheese, for instance.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The mode of production and the peculiarities of its implementation set ideology.
And ideology sets boundaries, which are reinforced in many ways, including language.

[Sea]

And ideology sets boundaries, which are reinforced in many ways, including language.Ideology does not set boundaries.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Ideology does not set boundaries.
When Marx said, "the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control over the means of mental production, hence it rules also as producers of ideas, and regulates the production and distribution of the ideas of their age," he's talking about ideology and "the ideas of their age" set certain boundaries.

You don't think that bourgeois ideology, for example, isn't setting pretty strong boundaries for how society should be organized?

[Sea]

When Marx said, "the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control over the means of mental production, hence it rules also as producers of ideas, and regulates the production and distribution of the ideas of their age," he's talking about ideology and "the ideas of their age" set certain boundaries.

You don't think that bourgeois ideology, for example, isn't setting pretty strong boundaries for how society should be organized?Marx is stating that control over ideology flows from control over the means of production. He is not stating that the reverse can occur. The way society is organized determines its ideology.

Ideology is dictated by the mode of production.
The organization of society is dictated by (in this case, limited by) the mode of production.

That does not mean that the organization of society is dictated by ideology.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Marx is stating that control over ideology flows from control over the means of production. He is not stating that the reverse can occur.
Nor am I saying the reverse can occur.


That does not mean that the organization of society is dictated by ideology.
Mode of production creates ideology, ideology is the programming that flows through all aspects of culture, including language, and which is constantly reinforced.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Generally the power of such words comes from a history of violent oppression and exploitation, not just from their literal meaning.

This is the key point. OP, you are confused because you are considering the term according to its literal definition. But words are just words. There is no inherent law that says the b-word can ONLY define a female dog. It's just an accident of history. Accordingly, whilst in a dictionary you will find that word as the definition to a female dog, it has taken on a social meaning that is used to refer degradingly to a woman - essentially labelling her as a female dog.

Taken hand in hand with the historical and contemporary view of women in many parts of the world and many social circles as somehow inferior and of lower status, it is quite easy to see how calling a woman the b-word has strong, consciously sexist connotations.

Whereas calling a man a wanker, for example, does not really have the same connotations, since it is generally used as a crude insult rather than being associated with any inference that the term 'wanker' is used to denote that men are in any way inferior or of lower social status than anybody else.

[Црвена]

It wouldn't be sexist if there was a male version that was just as widely used, but there isn't, so it's sexist.

[synthesis]

I don't think there are any non-problematic uses of it, to be honest, regardless of intent.

I thought of one.

Say you're hammering a nail into a wall, to hang something on, and you smash your finger accidentally.

You say, "That hurt like a [b-word]!" Where it is simply a harsh-sounding obscenity that could be phrased just as easily, "That hurt like a motherfucker!" or "That hurt like hell!" (Using obscenities in this fashion, of course, has been proven (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090713085453.htm) to increase tolerance to pain.)

That's not necessarily relevant to the subject at hand, but sometimes an obscenity is just an obscenity, even if it probably shouldn't be used as such, just to avoid confusion. So I guess that kind of begs the question of what specifically "problematic" means here. If you mean there is no non-sexist or non-gendered way to use it, then I disagree. If you mean that there is no way to use it that doesn't make its use in obviously sexist situations more acceptable, sort of, then I'm more on board.

[Brotto Rühle]

People who think sexism/racism/homophobia/transphobia is about someone having their feelings hurt by a name are worse offenders than someone who is ignorant of the origins of certain words, and use them.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

So I guess that kind of begs the question of what specifically "problematic" means here. If you mean there is no non-sexist or non-gendered way to use it, then I disagree. If you mean that there is no way to use it that doesn't make its use in obviously sexist situations more acceptable, sort of, then I'm more on board.
I mean there's no non-sexist or non-gendered way to use it in reference to other people. For obvious reasons, referring to a female dog as a ***** isn't problematic.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

someone who is ignorant of the origins of certain words, and use them.
Even people ignorant of the origins of those words know that they're using them because they have negative connotations.

[Brotto Rühle]

Even people ignorant of the origins of those words know that they're using them because they have negative connotations.No shit... that's why they use them... the ignorance of said negative connotations is a problem, of course, but as I said... it's nowhere near as bad as thinking that racism/sexism/etc. is name calling and hurt feelings. Me calling someone a dumbass has negative connotations as well, just not bigoted ones.

[PhoenixAsh]

Why in the he'll would you want to use that word specifically when there are so many awesome options that do not have such a loaded history? Why? Think about that for a minute...maybe more.

There is one legitimate use of the word and very few others where the word isn't necessarily sexist. However the word is predominantly and overwhelmingly used outside it's legitimate meaning to enforce patriarchal notions of female and male behavior and gender roles and historically carries that connotation...regardless of your specific intent or the sensibilities of the person you use it against.

[Quail]

No shit... that's why they use them... the ignorance of said negative connotations is a problem, of course, but as I said... it's nowhere near as bad as thinking that racism/sexism/etc. is name calling and hurt feelings. Me calling someone a dumbass has negative connotations as well, just not bigoted ones.

Nobody thinks that sexism is "name calling and hurt feelings" but in the vast majority of contexts, calling someone a b-tch is reinforcing sexist gender roles. E.g. a dude harasses a woman, she tells him to get lost and he calls her a b-tch. In that situation it's reinforcing the idea that she shouldn't have stood up to the harassment and also reinforces the general worry about the threat of violence from men that many women have to deal with when they're out alone. You'd have to be an idiot to call that "name calling and hurt feelings".

[Brotto Rühle]

Nobody thinks that sexism is "name calling and hurt feelings"People do, and people often get more up in arms about the use of sexist/racist language than the actual problems.


but in the vast majority of contexts, calling someone a b-tch is reinforcing sexist gender roles. E.g. a dude harasses a woman, she tells him to get lost and he calls her a b-tch.Sure, dude shouldn't be calling her a *****... however, stopping the use of the word, and other sexist language isn't going to eliminate sexism. It's like looking at fascism and thinking of it as an issue separate from capitalism that must be tackled. "We must stop the fascists first!"


In that situation it's reinforcing the idea that she shouldn't have stood up to the harassment and also reinforces the general worry about the threat of violence from men that many women have to deal with when they're out alone. You'd have to be an idiot to call that "name calling and hurt feelings".The use of the word ***** isn't what is reinforcing it. It's the man using any word, any form of harassment, to make her feel as if standing up for herself is incorrect.

That's my point... it's bigger than a word. Do you honestly think that a women wouldn't feel the same way if the word "dumbass" was used instead of "*****"? It's the actions of the man, reinforced by the wider systemic sexism which tells him he is superior.

Should we acknowledge that the word is inherently sexist?? Yes! Should we claim that the use of that word is a bigger issue than the man who feels he has the right to shut the women down for standing up for herself? No.

[Quail]

If you're using sexist language then you're probably at least subconsciously sexist. Calling people out on using these words and asking them to find alternatives not only means that women and other people affected by sexism don't have to put up with hearing sexist slurs but it is asking people to question why these words are socially acceptable to use when they really shouldn't be.

The difference between b-tch and dumbass is that dumbass is used in a wide variety of contexts whereas b-tch is almost exclusively used in a context like the example I gave above, i.e. to "put women in their place."

[Brotto Rühle]

If you're using sexist language then you're probably at least subconsciously sexist. Calling people out on using these words and asking them to find alternatives not only means that women and other people affected by sexism don't have to put up with hearing sexist slurs but it is asking people to question why these words are socially acceptable to use when they really shouldn't be.

The difference between b-tch and dumbass is that dumbass is used in a wide variety of contexts whereas b-tch is almost exclusively used in a context like the example I gave above, i.e. to "put women in their place."
Again, I reemphasize my only point:

It's irrelevant whether the person uses "*****", "dumbass", "moron", "dick", or any other word. What is sexist, is the reason the man feels he has the right to shut the woman down.

Tackle the disease, not the symptoms.

[RedWorker]

But the use of sexist language perpetuates sexism.
If you say something bad is gay, then you're perpetuating the idea that "gay" is bad.
Otherwise that association would disappear.

[Lily Briscoe]

If you say something bad is gay, then you're perpetuating the idea that "gay" is bad.
Otherwise that association would disappear.
So the only reason people think being gay is bad is because of language...? :confused:
-

Like I kind of said on the first page of the thread, I don't see what's sexist about some woman being like (to paraphrase something someone said to me recently), "my boss is such a b*tch; she wrote me up today for taking two seconds to reply to a text message when there weren't even any customers in the store".

Yes, it's a gendered word being used in a negative context. So what? If the boss in question had been male, the word could have been replaced with 'dickhead' or 'prick' (etc.) and switched genders while retaining the same meaning.

I can't comment about how the word 'b*tch' is used "in the vast majority of cases" in general. I know that in the majority of cases where I hear it from people face-to-face, it's used by women about other women, in a way that is analogous to calling someone an asshole.

I guess it just seems kind of pointless to focus on words themselves. I think it's way more important what someone is actually saying than whatever words are being used to convey it. And it's perfectly possible to use completely sterilized, etymologically 'pure' language to be a sexist asshole, and likewise, to use gendered language with sexist origins to say something that isn't sexist at all. I can understand completely the impulse to focus on certain words that have been used disparagingly, but when it translates into making it about the words in an abstract/generalized sense, it ends up completely missing the point IMO.

That being said, if someone expresses that they're offended by a particular word, especially in a political context, the thing to do is obviously to stop using it around them and to take into consideration whether it might be making other people uncomfortable as well.

[RedWorker]

Yes, it's a gendered word being used in a negative context. So what? If the boss in question had been male, the word could have been replaced with 'dickhead' or 'prick' (etc.) and switched genders while retaining the same meaning.

That is why I asked. Because I thought the b-word could basically be a female analogy to "dickhead" or "prick". So I wanted to know if it was sexist or not and why.

If the b-word really has a sexist status then even a female using the word would be bad, just like a homosexual person calling something which he doesn't like "gay".

[Lily Briscoe]

If the b-word really has a sexist status...
Like I said, I think it depends on the context.

[Quail]

So the only reason people think being gay is bad is because of language...? :confused:


I don't think that, but when I was at school the word "gay" was used all the time to describe something bad, and I think that contributed to the atmosphere of general homophobia that normalised homophobic bullying and made people afraid to come out. Same with people using homophobic slurs as general insults.

--

I also think there is some fundamental misunderstanding here of why people are bothered by hearing sexist/homophobic/etc slurs casually thrown around. Speaking for myself, I'm not "offended" by it. Seeing the word b-tch written down in reference to something other than a female dog doesn't make me gasp at the obscenity. It's a reminder that we still live in a sexist society where women aren't always treated like human beings and reinforces that sense of being lesser. You could say that I am "offended" and angry that we live in a world where sexist slurs are acceptable, but I'm not "offended" by the goddamn word itself.

[Quail]

Again, I reemphasize my only point:

It's irrelevant whether the person uses "*****", "dumbass", "moron", "dick", or any other word. What is sexist, is the reason the man feels he has the right to shut the woman down.

Tackle the disease, not the symptoms.

Questioning why people feel the need to use sexist slurs does tackle the disease because it leads to questioning why such words are seen as insulting.

Until we live in a society free from discrimination, marginalised people shouldn't have to put up with hearing slurs left right and centre because people don't care about them enough to find a different word.

[xnecron101x]

There's not an analogous word for men that is used in the same way the b-word is used for women, because the traits that people associate with a b-word are not seen as undesirable in men whereas they are in women.

I don't believe this is the case. And with all due respect, I don't agree with most of the people in this thread. People are incredibly touchy about semantics, and I'm not exactly a fan of that. Keeping that in mind, however, saying "the b-word" may not be the most politically correct action, but I think it would be a jump to say it's sexist.

To touch on RedAnarchist's point, I don't think the word in and of itself denotes any qualities at all. I, for one, have called men and women of all creeds and colors this word for a number of different reasons; the meaning doesnt change because of the gender of the person. And as much I don't like using words like nigger or faggot, the words by themselves are not (or rather, shouldn't be) offensive. It's context that gives a word power. There are obviously ways to use both words in inoffensive ways. Beyond that, when was the last time you heard someone get called a faggot for being gay? the word faggot has evolved into being a sort of a general slur.

Tangent aside, I think it's a massive waste of time to attempt to label words when it would be more effective to tackle the underlying issues. Don't attack the words nigger and faggot, attack racism and homophobia. The words are harmless.

[Sea]

I posted a reply a few days ago, or at least I thought I did...
Nor am I saying the reverse can occur.For ideology to enforce anything, it must be able have an effect on the source of the thing that it is enforcing, so yes, yes you are.
Mode of production creates ideology, ideology is the programming that flows through all aspects of culture, including languageYes.

and which is constantly reinforced.Yes, but not by ideology.

[synthesis]

People are incredibly touchy about semantics, and I'm not exactly a fan of that. Keeping that in mind, however, saying "the b-word" may not be the most politically correct action, but I think it would be a jump to say it's sexist.

Ugh, go away.

[xnecron101x]

Ugh, go away.

Well gee. And thus concludes the intellectual exchange of ideas that I have come to love about the internet.

[Ele'ill]

Tangent aside, I think it's a massive waste of time to attempt to label words when it would be more effective to tackle the underlying issues.

pretty sure it's easier to just not use the words at all

[Brotto Rühle]

Questioning why people feel the need to use sexist slurs does tackle the disease because it leads to questioning why such words are seen as insulting.It really doesn't. Not everyone gives a shit about the origins of the word "*****". A lot more people would be concerned that a group of women at a job site received a pay cut, but nobody else did.


Until we live in a society free from discrimination, marginalised people shouldn't have to put up with hearing slurs left right and centre because people don't care about them enough to find a different word.You are never going to eliminate the language, until you eliminate the root cause.

[Quail]

It really doesn't. Not everyone gives a shit about the origins of the word "*****". A lot more people would be concerned that a group of women at a job site received a pay cut, but nobody else did.
How does explaining the connotations of a slur not make the link to the wider context of it? I think we agree that words don't exist in a vacuum, but criticising the use of certain words can draw attention to the wider context. It's not the be all and end all, but I think we should challenge everything oppressive, even if it does seem fairly small in the grand scheme of things.


You are never going to eliminate the language, until you eliminate the root cause.
... Okay. But I expect people who want to eliminate the root cause, such as people claiming to be revolutionary communists, not to use "you are never going to eliminate the language, until you eliminate the root cause" as an excuse to keep on using slurs because they're too fucking lazy to bother to examine how their language might affect other people.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

There is a noted feminist musician who uses that word as her name. If you don't believe me look up "Pussy Manifesto" on youtube. She does come off a little TERFy though.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Beyond that, when was the last time you heard someone get called a faggot for being gay?
All the time. It's still the most common slur to be tossed around when someone perceived as gay is being bullied or bashed.

[Lily Briscoe]

I don't think that, but when I was at school the word "gay" was used all the time to describe something bad, and I think that contributed to the atmosphere of general homophobia that normalised homophobic bullying and made people afraid to come out. Same with people using homophobic slurs as general insults.

I think this gets to the heart of the disagreement I have with some of what's being argued in this thread. IMO, the fact that the word "gay" is used to denote something bad is a reflection, rather than a cause, of a general atmosphere of homophobia and homophobic bullying. That obviously isn't a justification for anyone to go around using homophobic slurs, but I also don't think some out gay kid jokingly using the word "gay" in that sense is "reinforcing" anything.

Also, I want to be clear that the point I was trying to make in my previous posts wasn't to 'justify' the use of sexist slurs by men or anything like that, but simply that context is important, e.g. who is saying it, who are they saying it to and why, what meaning are they conveying with it, etc. And I feel like if some of the arguments in this thread about the need to unconditionally oppose 'slurs' because they're inherently oppressive/problematic (irrespective of nuance/context) are taken to their logical conclusion, you end up with a position where its acceptable (and, arguably, essential) for leftists (regardless if they are white middle class leftists) to admonish black working class youth who use the word 'nigger', and for feminists (regardless if they are middle class male feminists) to criticize working class women who use the word '*****' as an analogue to 'dick'/'asshole', etc (and people who have been the target of bullying using whatever applicable word--e.g. 'slut', 'faggot', etc.--affirmatively will obviously need to be told to stop). Which hopefully people here see the problem with, but I'm honestly not sure...

I'm super tired so I think this post isn't very articulate, but hopefully you can fish a coherent point or two out of there...

[Quail]

Context is important, but the reason I'm generally opposed to people using certain slurs is that there are very few contexts in which they are acceptable. By their nature, a lot of slurs are kind of designed to only really fit in oppressive sentences.

Having said that, while I hold people who are actively and explicitly trying to fight oppression to high standards and expect them not to casually toss various slurs around in conversation, I understand that not everyone has spent a lot of time thinking about this stuff. I'm not going to drive people out of an organisation for using one slur (in a derogatory context), but I am going to call them out on it.

Finally, I agree that equating "gay" with "bad" reflects general homophobic attitudes, but hearing it used constantly serves as a reminder that we live in a homophobic society. In turn, this serves as a reminder to LGBT people that they won't be accepted, that they're somehow abnormal and bad, and so on, which adds to the oppression they face. It's constantly reinforcing the idea that gay is a bad thing to be. In this case, calling out the use of "gay" means not only asking someone to refrain from using the word, but also asking them to question why they make the association between "gay" and "bad" in the first place, so I think calling out language and questioning oppressive structures go hand in hand.

[Luís Henrique]

It's not sexist ... if you're using it to describe your breeding golden retriever.

Which, of course, we cannot do in revleft. We have to call it a doguess, I suppose.


Generally the power of such words comes from a history of violent oppression and exploitation, not just from their literal meaning.

Indeed. And just like we acknowledge the power of Yaweh by not saying his name, we acknowledge the power of these words by not uttering them.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I dunno if I'd say it's on par with slurs like that, but I'd definitely say it's sexist, even when it's used against men.

Its use is probably even more sexist when it is against men.

Because calling someone a female is an insult, and that is the real problem.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Is there a gentile equivalent for kike?

Goy, I suppose. Anyway, I am pretty sure that people always have derogatory words to use against those they think that their daughters shouldn't marry.


Is there a pro-dialectical equivalent to ************************?

This one I must admit is above my comprehension...


(I do agree it's stupid that revleft censors it, since obviously it's doing jack diddly to prevent sexist fucks like you.)

There is only one thing wrong with voodoo: it doesn't work.

Luís Henrique

[KobeB]

I don't know man, but if you say it, surely your tongue won't dry or swell and you probably won't even get smacked your brains out from a female .
Women control themselves far better than us men, so they might let you get away with b-word, just to think about what youjust said to her.
Thats all from me.
Yours sincerely KobeB

[Wuggums47]

I personally think it's sexist to say "all women are *****es" or "that woman is a *****", but I'm not sure it's sexist just to say the word. There is a feminist magazine called *****, so I think there has been some reclaiming going on.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Basketball is such a sexist word

[TheFox]

It depends on what you mean when you say it. If you mean a female dog, you're good. If you use b*tch and woman interchangeably then it's probably sexist. If you call someone that without regard for their gender then it's not sexist.

[consuming negativity]

It depends on what you mean when you say it. If you mean a female dog, you're good. If you use b*tch and woman interchangeably then it's probably sexist. If you call someone that without regard for their gender then it's not sexist.

Did you even bother to read the posts here already before you repeated the same bad opinions? Is there any person on earth who refers to female dogs as *****es? The answer is one and the same.

[Comrade Jacob]

I think it's all to do with the content and the intent.
If you say "B**** please" as a joke reaction or to quote then that fine in my view. I'm not a word-policeman. Or if you use it to refer to a female dog, that is also fine. But if it's used in a derogatory way than that's just wrong.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I will sometimes use the word to refer to myself. But the only time I'm okay with a man calling me that is in intimate situations where it aint nobody's fucking business but mine and whatever man I choose to consent to such stuff with. Leavin' it at that.

Edit: Come to think of it there are two words that I specifically identify with that are usually considered sexist slurs. My blog is "The Riot Slut Rage" and I actually have RIOT SLUT tattoo'd on my knuckles. I also identify pretty strongly with the word specifically being discussed in this thread. I am really not the ***** to fuck with.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Goy, I suppose. Anyway, I am pretty sure that people always have derogatory words to use against those they think that their daughters shouldn't marry.

Is there one derogatory word for just everyone?

With my father, that might mean there is a derogatory word for everyone. He thinks nobody is good enough for me. Acting like I'm the virgin Mary when I am a lot more like Mary Magdalene. The point is, some father's are opposed to their daughters marrying, especially when they are the youngest like me.

[Monkey Queen]

The closest male analogy to the term b-word is "dick", which reduces the male party to genetilia. In my observation though, "dick" is more often to men by other men than it is by women. Thus it is true to say that there is no true male analogy to the b-word.

[Lily Briscoe]

In my observation though, "dick" is more often to men by other men than it is by women.
I hear women use it all the time...

[TheFox]

Did you even bother to read the posts here already before you repeated the same bad opinions? Is there any person on earth who refers to female dogs as *****es? The answer is one and the same.
Bad opinions? Since when can an opinion be bad? I'm asking because an opinion is an opinion. Just because you agree or disagree doesn't make it good or bad.
Now to answer your questions, no and yes. I didn't read them because I just came to the question to give my answer. I didn't know it was a fucking crime have the same opinion as someone. Sorry god.
And most young people don't call female dogs that, but a lot of older people do. (Like people in their 70's and 80's)
Anyway, are you always so pissy? Or are you just in a bad mood?:)