Armstrong Williams: By "B-word," Thomas just meant that sexual-harassment plaintiff is "a tough broad"
SUMMARY: On Hardball, during a discussion of a sexual-harassment lawsuit against Isiah Thomas, Armstrong Williams asserted, "I think sometimes guys use it [the word "bitch"], like, let's say, for Isiah Thomas, if the woman did spurn his advances and if she found him offensive and did not give him the kind of attention that he's accustomed to getting from women, because he's supposed to be the celebrated athlete and not president of the New York Knicks, then he referred to her as a B, because he did not get her way. Still, he's implying here she's a tough broad."
On the September 18 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, during a discussion of a sexual-harassment lawsuit brought by a former New York Knicks executive against Knicks coach and president Isiah Thomas and other defendants, conservative commentator and columnist Armstrong Williams asserted, "I think sometimes guys use it [the word "bitch"], like, let's say, for Isiah Thomas, if the woman did spurn his advances and if she found him offensive and did not give him the kind of attention that he's accustomed to getting from women, because he's supposed to be the celebrated athlete and not president of the New York Knicks, then he referred to her as a B, because he did not get her way. Still, he's implying here she's a tough broad."
Host Chris Matthews set up the discussion, which also included National Action Network President Rev. Al Sharpton, by stating, "A female executive from the New York Knicks basketball team has accused coach Isiah Thomas of harassment. In a videotaped statement, Thomas admitted to calling the executive -- and here's a bad word -- 'bitch.' " Matthews then aired a segment of a videotaped deposition in which Thomas testified: "A white man calling a black female that, it's on with me, too. I'm not tolerating that. I'm not accepting that. So, if it's going down that road, with a black female and a white male saying that to her, well, that's a problem for me, and I'm sorry to say. I do make a distinction."
Williams later asserted that "using the B-word or the son of a B, something I would not use, to me has never been offensive, because you use it in so many different contexts."
From the September 18 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: A female executive from the New York Knicks basketball team has accused coach Isiah Thomas of harassment. In a videotaped statement, Thomas admitted to calling the executive -- and here's a bad word -- "bitch." Here's his side of the story.
THOMAS [video clip]: A white man calling a black female that, it's on with me, too. I'm not tolerating that. I'm not accepting that. So, if it's going down that road, with a black female and a white male saying that to her, well, that's a problem for me, and I'm sorry to say. I do make a distinction.
MATTHEWS: Makes a distinction.
[...]
WILLIAMS: You'll have that opportunity. Listen, Reverend Sharpton and I, anybody with common sense, would agree on the double standard. If Isiah Thomas is basing his position on the race of an individual. I think where I differ with Reverend Sharpton is the fact of whether or not the B-word is offensive. I hear guys refer to women oftentimes, "That's my B." They smile about it. They don't find it offensive.
I hear other women accuse other women of being B's. Some women see that as being tough and can do brass knuckles with the boys, and they're just as bad as the boys. In my culture, where I grew up, using the B-word or the son of a B, something I would not use, to me has never been offensive, because you use it in so many different contexts. I think sometimes guys use it, like, let's say, for Isiah Thomas, if the woman did spurn his advances and if she found him offensive and did not give him the kind of attention that he's accustomed to getting from women, because he's supposed to be the celebrated athlete and not president of the New York Knicks, then he referred to her as a B, because he did not get her way. Still, he's implying here she's a tough broad.
I think what Isiah Thomas said about the woman and about the race of the word-caller and the target of the word is much more offensive than Williams using a '50s slang word.
What a ridiculous and offensive rationalization. Does he even realize that he explained away one misogynistic word by using another? That's like saying, "When he called you an idiot, I think he just meant that you were moron."
I meant you're a piece of #*@! in a good way!
"When I say "With all do respect", I mean "with all due respect!"
- Ricky Bobby
How much did Isiah have to pay him to say that?
I do believe that words should be judged in context, many people use the "B" word, or other similarly offensive remarks, in varying ways - they are used and often times taken in a non-offensive manner by friends, etc.
However, in a business or professional setting between colleagues or employers/employees, they are quite different in context. Let the courts figure out this lawsuit and it's merits, but there there should be no double standard as to who uses the "B" word, as Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Thomas suggest.
I agree with Al Sharpton, who said on another program, that he doesn't accept the double standard either.
I think someone used this same rationale when Imus called Ruckers basketball team "nappy-headed hos." I can't remember who the writer was, but it was a female -- a well-known feminist, I believe -- and she said that she took Imus's comments as street slang that someone would use to compliment a woman that's a "tough broad." She thought it was a sad attempt by a white man to be hip and street with his comments, and because they were executed poorly, it backfired on him. The writer then went further with this to say that some women call each other b*tches and whores all the time, similiar to how blacks took the N Word and reversed the meaning when using it among themselves. So I do agree that context means everything, but I think Isiah Thomas looked like a complete fool when he tried to explain that it's okay for him to call a black woman the "B" word but not okay for a white man to do the same. Had it occured to him not only was it extremely sexist for him to make such a suggestion, but also patriarchal, as if black women are the property of black men, and only they -- i.e., black men -- can get away with mistreating black woman more than anyone else because of one's blackness? It's as if Isiah Thomas has this whole master/slave, pimp/hooker view when it comes to how he see the status of men and women.
As for Armstrong Williams, he's a complete joke, and he deserves no comment. A total disgrace in every sense of the word.
Preston,
I find it interesting that you feel comfortable describing Armstrong Williams in a totally negative fashion. (Not that I think one should do so,) but perhaps you can explain to me the difference between what you wrote and calling Williams the "N" word?
It seems to me they both carry about the same meaning. Why is your description acceptable and a one word insult, not?
Wow, AA, that's a HUGE stretch you're making. I had to make sure I read your message properly again to see if you were joking with me or not. So saying that Williams is a "disgrace" and "joke" is equal to the N Word? Are you really trying to make that argument, AA, or you're bullsh*ting with me?
Preston, I'm still trying to find where in your posting you called this guy the "N" word. Maybe AA can help us ALL out with that one. Jeesh, talk about reaching.
I mean, we could call President Bush a complete joke, and a moron, but that doesn't mean we were actually calling him a "cracker" now does it?
Same thing applies here methinks.
I mean, really, AA is known for his strawman tactics here at MMFA that's not that different from Sean Hannity, but even this was below his usual standards. I think he wanted to pick a fight with me. I feel so special! :)
I would agree with you Preston, But let's take this to the next logical step. In our opinion what does the "n" word mean? Not trying to pick a fight, just interested in your opinion.
Naw, Chris, it's cool. I kind of explained, from what I know personally and historically about the 'n' word, it's meaning further down this down. :)
I seen your explanation later in the thread. I have to admit that it is very good. Maybe I have thought of it in that context but never in those words. Thanks for the education on that. Anyway, given that definition, what do think the meaning is when young black men call each other this word either in anger or in jest? Your insight is appreciated.
It’s funny you ask me that because I just posted a response to AA about this very same question you’re asking me. Here’s what I posted: Then, you ask, blacks say the ‘n’ word among themselves, so what’s the problem? This is the same excuse I hear when men complain and whine about being prohibited in calling women sexist epithets but some women use these same epithets within their inner circle jokingly or as a term of endearment. Men have historically been the oppressor of women for centuries, and when they use such sexist epithets like the ‘b’ word and others, those words signify to women that they’re not equal to men and must remain their property. But when women take such a word, bowdlerizing the sting out of it when using it among themselves, the implications aren’t the same. It’s the same with gays when they use homophobic remarks among themselves, but if a heterosexual says the same thing to them, the meaning and effect is different. Every group has words that can be used among themselves, but if used by an outsider, the implications are different. When some of my white friends joke and say that Britney Spears is “white trash” and a “redneck,” they can say it among themselves because their remarks does not hold the same weight if I say the same thing. I've even seen white Southerners get quickly offended if a white Northerner stereotype them as toothless, uneducated "hicks." Some Italians may joke and call each other "guineas," but a non-Italian saying that to an Italian can come off insulting and, yes, racist. Every group has their double-standards and words they can use among themselves, but outsiders can’t because the words would have a different effect and meaning.
And one more thing before I go: All black people aren't fans of the 'n' word used within their circle. I can not go up to any random black person off the street and say "what's up my n*gga," because that person may have a different outlook on the word than, say, the younger Hip Hop generation. So just because SOME say the word among themselves doesn't mean that everyone that's a part of the same group is down with such usage. Same as some women may disagree with feminists and their usage of sexist epithets.
I agree. Words like "disgrace" and "joke" are not injecting race into the argument like the n-word would. They are race neutral terms unless one believes that those descriptors are somehow characteristic solely of black people - which seems utterly ridiculous.
I agree. Words like "disgrace" and "joke" are not injecting race into the argument like the n-word would. They are race neutral terms unless one believes that those descriptors are somehow characteristic solely of black people - which seems utterly ridiculous.
Exactly. Calling a black man the "N" word is criticizing him because of his race, which is beyond his control. Calling a black man like Armstrong Williams a "joke" is criticizing him because of his thoughts, deeds, and actions - all things that are his to control.
I believe that the "N" word in this conversation is "N"it-wit.
In other words, responding to the content of his character (that being nil).
YEs, that's the argument he's trying to make and it's pretty weak at best. I can't believe he even went there.
Preston, I too had to read and re-read and re-read to find where you called or even equated the "N" word with Armstrong. AA, get a pair....no get a few NEW set of glasses.
Are you being serious? You think that calling a black man "a complete joke" is the same as calling him the n-word?
AA,
I hope your next post says "just kidding" or "lighten up." Preston seemed to be attacking the validity of Williams's argument and his past decisions (being on the Bush payroll) and I cannot find a single word he used that would suggest his argument was at all based on race and race being a negative.
Just a friendly suggestion, if you are going to inject racism into a discussion, please provide concrete examples based on the content of what someone has posted.
How did you get racism from what Preston posted?
I think many misinterpreted my comments. I am not trying to inject racism into the discusion. I can see that those who have posted here see a difference in calling a man a "total disgrace in every sense of the word" and using the epithet.
I never use the word and do not encounter it at all. I didn't mean to offend anyone. I just wondered why one can call another the phrase used by Preston and be acceptable while the other cannot? Hope that helps.
"A total disgrace" refers to behavior. The N-word is racially based.
A minor difference, perhaps?
Actually, a "total disgrace in every sense of the word" also goes directly to character, not just behavior.
Minor difference? Maybe.
Unless there's some suggestion on Preston's part that Williams' character is a result of his race, then that is meaningless. Character is typically defined by one's behavior.
I was only completing the quote you cropped for full contextual fairness......but I do agree one's character is a result of their behavior.
I didn't see what was unfair about shortening it to "disgrace". The "every sense of the word" part didn't seem to make any difference as far as AA's comment went.
If it does make a difference, I'll amend my statement to use the whole phrase.
Brab,
I'll accept your explanation here. I was referring to the entire phrase when I asked the original question.
That's fine, but I still don't see the difference. I don't think "every sense of the word" really implies anything about his race. Is that where you're coming from? Otherwise, I don't see the relevance of the entire phrase as opposed to the word "disgrace".
Brab,
I was simply thinking in terms of insults. I considered both to be simply that. I see one is considered a lot worse.
Fair enough
Now, Tommy, I expected better from you. Calling someone "a total disgrace in every sense if the word" is nowhere near as equal as calling someone the N Word, in the Jim Crow sense, which means that no matter how smart, nobel and respected you are, due to your race, you're still a biologically and intellectually subhuman that deserves third-class citizenship. THAT'S what the traditional N-Word means in America, which has its roots in colonialism and Slavery. Me dismissing Williams as a "joke" and a "disgrace" is a far cry from me saying that he's subhuman who doesn't deserve equal rights as a citizen in this country. No matter how much I disagree with Williams and find him to be obnoxious, I don't he deserves less rights than me or anyone else in America.
I mean to say a "biologically and intellectually inferior subhuman."
Preston, Where did you get that from? I never said the two were equivalent. If you got that from my response to Brabantio, that was not my intention.
Many posters have said why the two are vastly different, I completely agree.
I'm sorry then. I guess I read you wrong and thought you were implying that. My bad.
Not a problem, I appreciate you asking me directly.
Are you freakin kidding me? There simply is no way to make the comparison. The N word is about the most hideous epithet in American lexicon for a good reason. It's usage goes in a straight line to race based slavery and is carried along through American history by our worst, most hateful impulses. I think AA stepped in it and properly backtracked and apologized but Tommy showing up to intentionally muddy the debate as usual is unfreakingbelieveable. There is absolutely no way to parse this argument Tommy. There is no 'context' where calling a man a joke and a disgrace for his actions is the same as calling him THAT because he happens to be black as well. Really pathetic.
Do you have a clue how foolish you look here, you have no idea what you are talking about?
(gnat)
There was no way to parse what he said Tommy. It had a direct racial connotation. Maybe he didn't understand that and he apologized. But "full contextual fairness" has nothing to do with this. What the hell is wrong with you?
Not that I care anymore, because to let you twist in the wind in your own clulessness is entertaining, but go back and read the full exchange, before you look even more ridiculous.
I know full well your extreme dislike for me and could care less, but your knee jerk reactions only make you look like a fool......so I guess it's all good.
I read the exchange Tommy and I actually understood it. I'm as usual not clear on how much of it you understand. My point is that your usual methods of "well gosh who's to say you have to understand the contextualization of it it's just a matter of opinion after all and we all have a right to our opinions" Is TOTALLY inappropriate in this case. We don't judge people by their behavior foremost as you said. We judge them by their behavior PERIOD. If you can't understand that or understand the implications of your own words then you should watch out who you call foolish. I suggest you stay away from sensitive topics like this if you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
I used to believe your opinions were just based on faulty reasoning, but now I am convinced they are based on lack of simple reading comprehension. Your exchanges here have left no other impression, I am sorry to say, for you.
It explains it all now, thanks for clarifying...I will treat all subsequent posts of yours accordingly.
Yes Tommy, everyone around here knows how bad my reasoning skills are. I'd call your comment ironic but then I remember no one was ever able to explain to you what that word means.
Just calling me names here isn't covering anything. You tried to put this into context. There is no context that changes the nature of comparing character judgement to a racial epithet because the guy being talked about happens to be black. I'll say it again, we don't judge people by their actions first and foremost. I mean what is second then? Is it their race? Maybe you don't mean that but that's why I say you should stay away from a topic like this.
Ok, I'll play, since you make it so easy, although this is off topic......Do you stick by your statement that you only judge people by their behavior, PERIOD, as you said, exclusively, nothing else? Is that what you say?
Tommy, What else is there to base a judgement on? Are you just having a problem with what behaviour includes?
Lost,
You have never judged someone else initially on their looks, their associates or colleagues, their demeanor, their dress, their car, their neighborhood, their backround, their education.......I am not saying those are fair all the time, but we as humans make judgements all the time.
Look at these boards, we are not "behaving" as such here, we are merely offering our opinions.....and we judge each other all the time.
Tommy, the offering and expressing of opinions is behaviour. It seems there is some disconnect with you regarding what behaviour constitutes. And no Tommy you can't judge people on their physical looks, race, color of their eyes or any of those types of things. It is not a valid basis for judging someone's character...it doesn't indicate anything about their character.
Lost, Sundog specifically said he only judges people based on their behavior alone, PERIOD, nothing else....that is exactly what he said. I am not talking about judging someone's character, we were talking about judging people based on their behavior alone. To which I responded.
I agree with you that a person's character is based on their behavior, but that is not the point of Sundog's ranting on my earlier, read his post.....not only did he get my entire point wrong about the Williams' thing, but he made the behavioral assertion that I asked him to clarify.
Tommy, I think Sundog was commenting on what you said. You went out of your way to respond to Brabantio's post saying that it wasn't just behaviour it was also character. Then in follow up posts you said you judge their behaviour first and foremost...leaving the impression that there was some other criteria you used to judge character. In this post you seem to be acknowledging that behaviour is how you judge character. Sundog was replying to your earlier assertions...I don't think he was out of line.
Lost, He clearly didn't read anything considering he was accusing me of saying a racial epithet was no worse than saying someone is a "total disgrace". I never said that, and you know it.....so how can you say he was fair? Unbelievable.
Never mind, I have said my piece here.
Tommy, as I posted I felt he was fair in his reading of the behaviour/character issue which was the subject of the post I was responding to. I said nothing about the issue you are bringing up...I didn't see where you made that claim...if sundog claims you did he is wrong. There feel better. (-:
You make a good point. We do often judge people by those things. Maybe this is more of a question of how people should act vs. how we do act.
I think we can agree that observing behavior is probably the best way to determine one's character and that the other ways you mention are more superficial and/or prone to faultier conclusions about character.
Absolutely agree. We make unfair judgements based on variables all the time. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are not.
How often are your unfair judgements right exactly? Sorry, maybe I'm having problems with my reading comprehension again. Seems to happen a lot when I'm reading something you've written.
SunDog, I have to give you props for having a brotha's back. It's always good to have an brilliant person -- that's well-grounded in American history -- such as yourself on their side. Thanks for that. :)
Thanks for saying so Preston. We should all have each others back all the time. Can't stand this dishonest bs. Not when we're on a topic like this.
Sundog, congratulations, dude, you absolutely NAILED Tommy. He is not a troll in the strictest sense--he does not start flame wars and he appears to be reasonable in his comments (appears is the key word here). But his whole purpose here is to derail threads, most often by making sure he gets in at the beginning with his famous "why is this here?" posts, but also with what he is doing here, what you accurately describe as "muddying the waters", i.e. moving the discussion into a narrow semantic argument over the interpretation of an extremely trivial point. He does this all the time, so much so that I have believed, and continue to believe that he is a paid shill. What I want to know, sundog, is when I do my doctoral dissertation on Tommy da Shill, will you be my research assistant?
Chimp, I'm not sure what you would teach with his threads beyond what can be done to keep people from reaching any level of understanding by having a logical conversation on any topic. Personally I've given up trying to figure out if he knows what he's doing or if he's just someone who needs attention and learned to mimic certain aspects of conversation without understanding what any of it means. Maybe your dissertation will solve this abiding mystery. Until then, I just felt this was not a topic that could afford that famously aggressive ambiguity. But then I, as a gnat, apparently have problems with my reasoning abilities
SUNDOG,
Seriously, you need to read the exchange again. Preston got it, I got it, AA got it, I would guess everyone else got but you. Back up and admit your mistake, you might learn something.
Thanks a lot Chrisp. Why don't you explaing what I'm not getting? Is it the thing where criticizing someone for his actions is the same thing as calling him a N.. if he happens to be black? Again, as Tommy explained I have a lot of trouble with reading comprehension. But then again, his unfair judgements are only right some of the time. Why don't you help me join in your illustrious company and explain what about this thread I'm not getting. Thanks.
Sundog,
Chris is right. I think you misread what tommy wrote. Tommy is agreeing that the two things are entirely different and has said so explicitly in a previous post:
"Many posters have said why the two are vastly different, I completely agree.
- tommy / Wednesday September 19, 2007 03:08:56 PM EST
Unless I am misreading your criticism of tommy, you seem to be under the impression that tommy is agreeing with AA's original point that calling someone a "total disgrace" is the same as calling someone a racial epithet. Tommy made his disapproval of that idea crystal clear before you even started posting to him.
I am sure in the future tommy will give both of us ample valid opportunities to criticize him. I just think that your criticism here is misplaced.
Thanks open_mind, I appreciate your attempt to set the record straight on my opinion in this matter.
However, Sundog has a personal dislike/vendetta/whatever against me, which is his absolute perfect right - but his knee jerk reaction to misrepresenting my position even after I explained to him he was wrong, as evidenced by my posts on the subject, is uncalled for.
Spirited, even rancorous debate is fine, but to out and out lie about another person's opinion, specifically on such an emotional issue as race, is beyond the pale.
Once again, I truly appreciate your comments, thank you.
Just read OPEN MINDS post below SUNDOG. After that you are more than welcome to join my company, however if you chose to describe it. One thing is for sure, you will be in the company of someone who is able to look past personal hangups and comprehend what was written. Thanks buddy.
I guess I should have said "read OPEN MINDS post ABOVE SUNDOG".
Chris, Thanks for your defense earlier.....Sundog has every right to despise me, for whatever reason, but to lie when there is clear backup to the contrary is pretty pathetic. It's all good....
Well, Tommy, as I said before; I rarely agree with you. I guess I am much more liberal than you. I do have a newfound respect for ya though, the way we kicked Clams a#s in that Couric thread. That was too good my friend. I looked back today and he still couldn't let it go. He continued to try to defend his use of transparent stats. Anyway, I guess I can't let it go either, but it feels damn good knowing you are right.
Thanks Chris.....however CC was so angry over the Couric thread that he retaliated on this thread earlier by gratuitously calling me a vile racist, of course his posts were rightly yanked, but that happens to him alot.
Have a good evening.
Wow, that's a lot of lies for one sentence. No, I wasn't angry over the Couric thread, because any reasonable person can plainly seen that the pair of you are completely delusional about your repeated high-fiving and claims of victory. The idea that you two were right and MMFA and everyone else who posted in thread was wrong should be enough to make you question your conclusions about that debate.
So, no, nothing I wrote in this thread was "retaliation" for anything. And I didn't actually call you a "vile racist," either. Why manufacture a quote, when the real one would do just as fine? What I wrote was that you once posted in every single article on the topic of race, but that for a brief period you stopped posting in those threads. My guess was that even you had recognized that your accumulation of comments on race had made you come across as the most virulently racist conservative on the board. You reached a point somewhere around the "Obama's church" articles where even the people who get along with you were telling you that you needed to step back and take a long look at yourself.
Yes, that post was deleted, but since there are angrier, emptier and more insulting posts still present in this very thread, I'll assume that you or your buddy-with-a-bunch-of-random-numbers-in-his-name flagged me. And of course you'll probably flag this one as well, but that brings us to your last lie. It most definitely does not happen a lot. You claimed that it happened a lot the last time I had a post deleted (in fact, you jumped the gun and claimed that I was going to be "banned"), which was about 9 months ago, and it wasn't true then either. Between then and now I haven't had another deleted, so it still isn't true.
But do have a nice evening.
Tommy, What exactly did you mean by your response to Brabantio? What other then behaviour determins character? AA's question implies that somehow race plays a part in character...and denouncing someones character is the same as using a racial epithet. You make a distinction between character and behaviour so could you explain what else you think determins character.
Lost, I have aleady explained the original reason for my response to Brab, to complete the quote he referenced...which I believe was necessary to extend the meaning to character, not just behavior.
Character can also include one's opinions, one's values, one's reputation, one's qualities, etc. Although I believe that behavior is the strongest determinant, it is not the only one.
Behavior is what determines all of those factors in one way or another, though. You get a reputation through your behavior, people are only able to see your qualities and opinions based on what you do and say, etc. For the purposes used here, the two terms are interchangeable.
Good points, I can't disagree. I judge someone by their behavior first and foremost......interchangeable is cool.
Upon reflection, I think I did not write what I meant in the last comment. I know why the epithet is not acceptable, ever.
My point was that to call a man a "total disgrace in every sense of the word" is pretty strong and I think very insulting. It expresses a highly negative view of Mr. Williams. It seemed to me to be similar in tone to the use of the objectionable word. Maybe it was just a toss away comment by Preston, but I found it pretty glaring and seemed to come out of nowhere.
Brab,
Maybe that is the difference. But as you said, it seems to me to be a small one.
It was sarcastic. It's a huge difference.
The point is that "disgrace" is genuine criticism. It's strong, but there can be a reasonable basis for it. There are people who are actually "disgraces" to their chosen professions, obviously.
The N-word is not a genuine criticism, because it's based on racial prejudice. One charge can be justified, the other can't. That's a whole different ballpark.
Brabatino, hardly surprising that your sarcasm was lost on those who don't understand the distinction in using a racial ephithet. I can't believe this discussion is really taking place...it amazes me that anyone wouldn't get this concept.
Lost,
I do plead ignorance on the use of the epithet. I appreciate everyone's thoughtful answers, (including Preston's above), to explain the difference as they see it.
AA, personally I think it says something about your character that you did so. Others showed way more respect for your question then I thought it deserved but I guess that says something about my character...I am not as nice as some here.
Wait a minute, I thought you just said that character was behavior, not ignorance as confessed by AA on the use of the epithet?
Tommy, AA's actions in asking the question are an example of behavior...thought you got that from Brabantio's explanation...again way nicer then me I wasn't going to bother explaining any further. I don't buy this "ignorance" little act AA is going with to defend AA's actions. AA knew what he/she was asking and even if he/she had a brain hiccup the initial responses should have cleared that up...but it didn't and AA restated the same idiocy.
Lost,
It would be nice if we could put these comments in a chronological order. I am having difficulty understanding which post you are referencing in making your derogatory comments. ;-)
AA, take your pick. My deragatory comments hold for the position you are espousing throughout these posts. In my opnion your continuing to feign ignorance and claiming insulting someones character and using a racial epithet is in your opinion similar. I noticed while you claimed to "understand" everyone's explanations you never agreed with them and you continued in other posts to claim you felt they were similar.
Lost, In AA's defense, he asked a question, cleared up his intentions, apologized if anyone was offended, and fessed up. Seems pretty much in line with a person of good character to me.
Although, to those that never make mistakes, I guess it would not be enough.
Not only that, but I was a boy scout, go to church on Sundays, and say "pardon me" when I hic-cup.
However I must confess, every once in a while I forget to floss.
O:-)
Tommy, as of 3:40pm at least AA was still saying he/she didn't think crtisizing someone's character was any different the calling them a racial epithet. AA never said he/she agreed with the posters who were attempting to explain things to her/him...rather said he/she "understood" the reasoning being given--that is a big difference in my book. Sorry but I don't think someone who would write the things AA did here is someone showing good character in my book. Claiming ingnorance is no excuse. IMO this says alot about AA's character.
Lost,
I understand your point, but I don't think AA is being disingenuous. What may be obvious to some of us may not be obvious to others and (to be fair) vice versa. I think this conversation has gone on about 20 or so posts too long, but I am willing to give AA the benefit of the doubt here.
A recurring theme in AA's posts is to attempt to point out where another poster is providing an ironic example of what they are supposedly denouncing. I just think AA stretched his example too thin here. No harm. No foul.
It seems to me that the gulf between AA and us is one caused by a fairly significant difference in perspective and not anything malicious.
Open, this may be an issue of character that I mentioned before...some of you are just plain nicer then me. I don't agree with your take on AA. I don't buy the ignorance defense. We have interacted with this poster for some time now and the poster has shown an ability to read, write, understand, debate, ect. In my view there is no excuse for AA's supposed ignorance. I don't have much patience or respect for people who still don't get this concept of what it means to use a racial epithet. AA in subsequent posts has continued to express his/her belief that it is similar to comment on someones character as it is to call them a racial epithet...and doesn't understand other poster's reaction to his/her post and why we the same reaction isn't given to Preston's comments.
Lost don't feel bad I too had the same reaction. I thought my GOD it's 2007 and we are STILL explaining to white folks the meaning of the "N" word. How fricking far do we have to get before some in this country get a clue? But I did not say that when I responded to AA post, I tried to explain in what I hope I was a civil manner.
Hi Pearl, gotta say this one had me a wee bit t-ed off. Just don't have the patience for this type of thing. As I said many here are nicer and way more patient then me )-: In my defense I did censor my original reaction...it would have required way too many special characters to replace the letters (-;
"I do plead ignorance on the use of the epithet."
Are you effin' serious? I understand that you're trying to be as polite as possible about this now, but wtf? If there some valid excuse for not knowing about the use of the n-word? Like you've been on some deep space mission for NASA for the past 100 years, or you're two years old, or maybe you're British? (No offense to the British, but they seriously do seem have a problem understanding why certain racial epithets are offensive to the rest of the world.)
My point was that to call a man a "total disgrace in every sense of the word" is pretty strong and I think very insulting. It expresses a highly negative view of Mr. Williams.
IMO saying “total disgrace in every sense of the word” was MEANT to express a dislike and a highly negative view of Armstrong. It was said to express total disregard for Armstrong which I totally agree with.
It seemed to me to be similar in tone to the use of the objectionable word.
It may be similar in tone but NOT in meaning. The objectionable word when used by whites is also meant to express a dislike and highly negative view of a specific race of people. When used by blacks it may be meant in tone to sometimes express dislike but the not at a specific race of people. Through the years white folks have used the “N” word as a derogatory term expressing extreme dislike of BLACK people. Blacks started using the “N” (not pronounced anything like white folks) word to take to sting out of the negative meaning associated when used by whites. It does not have the negative association when used by blacks cause is not pronounced the same nor used in the same situations.
Yes, AA, calling someone a "complete disgrace, in every sense of the word" is insulting. It's supposed to be. On the other hand, as others have attempted to point out to you, you seem incapable of differentiating between insulting someone soley on the basis of race and insulting them on the basis of their behavior and public statements.
One is racism, which I think we can all agree is bad. And one is expressing an opinion about a public figure whose actions or public statements upset you.
I don't know how much clearer it can be made. You can call the comment insulting, and you can call the commenter rude, if you want to, though I'd question that. But there's no way you can equate that statement in any way to racism.
Ironically enough, calling a female executive a b*tch or a broad whatever the context, is sexism. Only women get called b*tches, particularly strong women. Strength and power are still seen as inherently masculine and women who have strength and power, whether it's a personal, political, or business power, are almost always b*tches. Especially when they use their power to prevent a man from getting what he wants.
I don't care what the context. I don't care if you think you're joking. Calling someone a b*tch is always insulting and always sexist.
wonderkitty,
I don't know why you think I can't grasp the difference between the two derogatory comments. I have tried to explain to everyone that I do. Perhaps you wrote you comment before reading my replies.
Be that as it may, I think you are on to something with your comment about the *B* word and it relates back to the other word and phrase used by Preston to express his view of Williams.
I originally considered both derogatory comments to be equally insulting. Preston and many others consider the one to be much more so, (and I understand their reasoning.) What is wrong with that? I put Preston's comments down on the level of the epithet, not the other way around.
So I have a couple of questions for anyone who wants to comment. Maybe I'm hypersensitive at this point but why does it seem that everyone is seemingly outraged and questioning me? Why is everyone giving Preston's comment, calling Preston, (if I remember correctly,) "a total disgrace in every sense of the word" a pass? Why is it okay to disparage Williams character, behavior, and every other sense of the word "disgrace" apparently acceptable?
I'm not trying to pick on Preston, we all know that lots of people use pretty strong and opinionated language here. But I find it curious that a few aimed their barbs at me simply because I asked the question.
oops. "calling Preston" should be "calling Williams". Sorry for the confusion.
Because if you can't judge someone by their actions, words and character, how do you suggest we judge them?
I am of the opinion that you don't have to characterize anyone as a "total disgrace in every sense of the word". Especially if it is based only on political commentary.
I thought liberals/progressives were supposed to be open and accepting. (I'm sure some are.) How come so many here don't accept different points of view but instead seem to constantly question the character and moral fiber of those with whom they disagree?
Williams seems dishonest. Look at what he said about the context of the B-word, regarding "she's my B". That wasn't the context Thomas used at all. It doesn't seem to be "tough broad" either, as opposed to just being derogatory.
So defending this sort of behavior, seemingly dishonestly at that, and while using the not-so-flattering term "broad" to boot...why should anyone accept that? What makes you think that liberals are "open" to sexist apologists?
Brab,
With all of our disagreements and shoutouts on these boards, one thing I rarely see you do is personally attack the topic subject with a slur such as "total disgrace in every word". Now I like and respect Preston for his honest opinions, however I do think comments like that are a little inflammatory and I think that's AA's point.
While I vehemently disagree with Williams in this case, I don't think his political opinions, no matter how rightwing, are indicative of him being labeled a total disgrave in every sense.
But it's only my opinion.
In case nobody knows what a disgrave is, that would be a disgrace.
It's not based purely on politics, though. AA asked why Williams' character was questioned, and I think my answer was relevant to that.
As a question of degree, it's debatable. Preston can give his reasons for his strong disapproval as he sees fit. I'm not familiar with his work outside of this and his undisclosed payments from NCLB (which was also dishonest of him, if I remember the circumstances rightly). However, I was specifically responding to the commentary about why Williams character was called into question, and why aren't liberals open and accepting of his behavior.
Well, Tommy, I didn't want to go here and explain why I dislike Armstrong Williams so much because my feelings towards him should be a non-issue, especially since I was nowhere near as inflammatory as you suggested. I've seen many comments about Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, Savage, etc., on this very site that were far worst than what I've said about Williams, so I take issue with you saying that I was being inflammatory when I was just simply dismissing him as the hack I consider him to be. The reason why I flippantly dismissed Williams the way I did because he has a long history of being dishonest and working against the same people that he pretends to be dear friends with: black folks! I REFUSE to apologize for my statement and feelings towards Williams because I think they are legitimate. Anyway, instead of me going into why I personally dislike him and will never trust anything he says, I'll post this article written by the online magazine TheBlackCommentator which gives a little insight and history as to how I and others feel towards Mr. Williams.
While I vehemently disagree with Williams in this case, I don't think his political opinions, no matter how rightwing, are indicative of him being labeled a total disgrave in every sense. But it's only my opinion.
Tommy, let me tell you why what Armstrong said was sooo offensive. There is no situation where a man, anyone who calls himself a man to call a woman a bitch, PERIOD. If you do not have it in your vocabulary to find another word to express dislike for a woman you need to go back to school.
I think where I differ with Reverend Sharpton is the fact of whether or not the B-word is offensive. I hear guys refer to women oftentimes, "That's my B." They smile about it. They don't find it offensive
For Armstrong to question the fact that the “B” word is offensive cause stupid guys use it IS offensive. He differed with Rev. Shartpon cause some guys use it and smile? How would Armstrong like some guy to call his mother the “B” word and smile about it. I have a feeling that he would find THAT offensive.
I grew up, using the B-word or the son of a B, something I would not use, to me has never been offensive, because you use it in so many different contexts
To use the word when talking about or speaking to a woman is unacceptable and you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Just because he grew up using the word does not make it acceptable PERIOD. Some grew up using the “N” word and that is not acceptable either.
Armstrong Williams has a personal history of dishonesty. Remember when he took all that money from the Bush Misadministration to spread propaganda about Bush's education programs?
Some people around here seem to think that we're not allowed to ever criticize a conservative - especially a black one. If Armstrong William's skin was purple with green stripes, I'd STILL criticize him as being a disgraceful human being, based on his actions.
"the Bush Misadministration"
Lol. Sorry, but I had to laugh at that. Good one.
Thanks. It's nice to know my posts are being read.
:-)
Oh, and I apologize - at the time that I originally wrote my post you hadn't made that comment. Because this is like... my fourth post, everything has to get screened. It doesn't help that I have the slowest computer on the planet either.
Anyhow... I still stand by the rest of my comment.
Not a problem. I enjoyed reading your point of view.
To paraphrase an eloquent man, I guess we still need to look forward to a day when a man is judged by the content of his character and not the color of his skin.
And using that standard, Armstrong Williams is a disgrace in every sense of the word.
Precicely.
I am not really sure what the New York Knicks and Isiah Thomas have to do with conservative misinformation. Am I missing something?
Sue,
Armstrong Williams is a conservative columnist who MMFA doesn't agree with, obviously; although I don't agree with Williams in this instance, this item is here so posters can voice their opinions about him.
Ok, but what if a Sports reporter said these things like Jason Whitlock ? I guess that would not show up on here.
Jason Whitlock is not a political figure like Armstrong Williams, nor does Jason Whitlock has ties with the Bush Administration like Williams. Williams is perhaps the most well-known black conservative in mainstream media today, so I don't see why you have a problem with MMFA posting this when Williams should be called out for rationalizing Thomas's word usage.
Thomas is the coach of the New York Knicks, this story seems silly to me. Jason Whitlock became political because he showed support for Imus and said Sharpton and Jackson were a sham.
Well, I'm not going to get into this whole thing about Jason Whitlock because I have my issues with him, and that would steer this conversation completely off-topic. The point is that Jason Whitlock wasn't the only sportswriter that had something to say about the Imus ordeal, Stephen A. Smith and others also commented about the Imus debacle, and neither Smith nor Whitlock are political commentators -- they're sportswriters. Perhaps you would have a case if Jason Whitlock was also booked on Hardball, The O'Reilly Factor, Larry King Live, etc., to give political commentary on the War in Iraq, Health Care, Education, etc., like Williams, but he's not, so I don't see your point in bringing Whitlock up in all of this.
Preston may I say you have the patience of a saint. ;-)
Awww, thanks for that Pearl. You should've seen how I quickly lost my temper with certain folks when I first started posting here. ;)
Move along. Move along... Nothing to see here, move along people.
Armstrong Williams is a paid agent of the RNC, not a conservative columnist.
When he accepted money to push the administrations agenda he lost any claim to be a "journalist.
Maybe you should be outraged at this as well.
I disagree with his assessment of this situation and have said so. Any further insults directed at him are irrelevant, in my opinion.
And any further defense of Armstrong Williams in this thread is even more irrelevant.
Considering of the 80+ comments and not one in defense of Armstrong Williams, not exactly sure where those posts defending him are??
Those criticizing those of us who are criticizing Williams, particularly the ones that use that old "you liberals are supposed to be tolerant" crap.
Whenever he makes one of his appearances on Hardball I write a letter asking why Matthews doesn't preface any discourse with Armstrong with this question ... "has anybody paid you for your opinion or told you what your opinion will be today?" Then I remember that Matthews called Tom Delay ... "a great guy"
I think this is an example of a conservative who is making a fool of himself (yet again). This time by defending Thomas' statements in a ridiculous and arguably misogynistic way.
I wonder how Isiah Thomas votes.
Only a partisan would even think Thomas' voting record was relevant. A-holes come in many political stripes, colors, gender, sexual orientations.
Lynn,
I agree, but in the interest of full disclosure Isaiah gave $3000 to Democrats over the last few cycles. I am not sure what that has to do with anything. It doesn't make his comments any more appropriate IMO. My post above was only refering to Armstrong's comments.
http://newsmeat.com/sports_political_donations/Isiah_Thomas.php
Lynn, AMEN!
Why is using the *B* word considered sexual harrassment when using SOB is not? Seems rather "ironic" does it not Sundog?
Calling her a b*tch wasn't the basis of the sexual harassment suit. If you read up on it, for instance here, you'll see that Thomas degraded Ms. Sanders and treated her with a disgusting lack of respect or professionalism.
In the article you'll read that a witness testified that Thomas talked about Sanders, in her presence to a third party, saying '“it could be very distracting to work next to someone who was so easy on the eyes,” and that Thomas “couldn’t get any or no love from her.”'
If you continue to read, you'll realize that this whole "b*tch" furor is over Thomas's video-taped deposition, in which he refers to Ms. Sanders as a b*tch.
Calling someone a b*tch doesn't by itself qualify as sexual harassment, but I'm pretty sure it's against most office rules.
Armstrong Williams' (or any other man's) determining whether an epithet hurled at women is offensive or sexist is the same as allowing white people to decide whether an epithet directed at a black person is offensive or racist. While I have no objection to everyone's expressing his/he views on these matters, it's arrogant for a speaker in Williams' position not to note the limitations of his or her own perspective. Matthews should have made this point or ensured that female guests were invited to point this out.
Here Here Spooky!
Mind you they constantly try to change the rules and language so that they can be the ones that determine what is racist and sexist.
They'll cite statistics on crime by ethnicity. They'll say stuff like "she was in a situation just asking for it" or that type of language.
They'll do anything to make it seem like people who have been degraded because of ethnicity or gender (or sexual orientation) aren't deserving of any consideration because of stereotyping and supposed societal roles that dare not be subverted.
This type of stuff makes me sick, angry and sad.
It's 2007 and we still can't do any better...
Spooky3, well said.
Matthews said after the fact that he should have included women in the discussion, but it was after the fact.
Wonderkitty,
Thanks for the explanation. I agree that the behavior seemingly exhibited by Thomas has no place in the workplace.
Why is using the *B* word considered sexual harrassment when using SOB is not? Seems rather "ironic" does it not Sundog?
You know AA I’m agreeing with Lost. You are full of sh*t. You are in no way stupid you just want to act like you are. You have decided to direct this tread by pretending ignorance. Done with you!
Oh no, Pearl...my bad character is rubbing off on others. Well at least Preston is still untainted by my meanness...I agree with you he has a seemingly unending amount of patience for dealing with these issues.
Lost, who on what planet, even right-wing planet, does not understand the difference between "bi*ch" and "son of a bi*ch"? There are not enough symbols for me to use to express what I really feel.
I’ve seen this game played before by those conservatives who deny the existence of racism, sexism, and homophobia. So as a part of this pretense that this race-gender-sexual orientation neutral world exists the B word is no different than calling someone an idiot and the N word is the equivalent of the word moron. Those words have long ugly histories with very very specific meanings and contexts and I like Lost find the people that pretend that they don’t to be very disingenuous.
Thanks Lost and Pearl for the kind words, I do appreciate them. :)
Lynn, you know I agree with you (as I often do). AA has a history of playing this deer-in-the-headlights-I-don't-know-what-you're-talking about game, and it's amazing how he took a few sentences of mine and made this entire thread about how I was being hateful to Armstrong Williams, equating what I said to the "N" Word. To be fair, I thought he was really joking, because even the most dumb-founded conservative wouldn't dare make such a huge leap and compare the two like that; I thought AA was pulling my leg. Damn, was I wrong; the cat was actually serious! I've seen him pull this type of thing in the past many times, but never thought he would reach so hapazardly to build an argument. It's a shame how a few sentences of mine became center of attention because I was expressing my disgust of Armstrong Williams. Black folks are well-aware of Armstrong Williams and his association with many far-right think tanks. AS an African-American, political-junkie, and student of African-American history and culture, my comments came from a personal viewpoint of him, having witness him gradually rising to media personality from the mid 90s to now. Therefore, if my comments came out of nowhere to some regarding Williams, it stems from not just this particular issue, but a long history of watching Williams become the Right's new attack-dog.
Preston,
Sorry I was away. Glad everyone had a chance to chime in.
I think you misunderstood me all along. I was not in any way implying you were using the "n" word. I was just asking how your opinion of Williams was different from the "n" word. But we've already been down that road. I appreciate you and others explaining what you believe to be the differences.
I find it fascinating that so many want to apply negative connotations to my inquiry while I am simply interested in the perceptions by my friends here of certain derogatory comments over others.
As some have suggested, I personally feel that both your comment about Williams and the use of the 'n' word are overly harsh and unjustified. Obviously you and others feel different. I find the use of the 'n' word unacceptable at all times. I simply feel your description of Williams is about as derogatory as the use of the 'n' word. You feel different. Fine.
While nobody I know uses racial epithets I have seen that the offense not comes from the use of this epithet but from the person using it. I would guess you've either seen on TV/movies or listened to certain music or been around black people where blacks are using the "n" word while describing other blacks. So it is acceptable for blacks to use the word in some situations.
Why is it okay for some to use insults like you did toward Williams and ok for some to use the "n" word? I've seen many justifications and so far but they really haven't convinced me that derogatory word usage is acceptable when used by some but not by others.
Heck, I am being raked over the coals simply because I brought up the question. That is where my ignorance lies. I just don't get why some derogatory phrases get a pass and some don't. Sorry if that offends everyone. Thanks for the discussion.
AA, I’m going to be honest with you for a moment, and I hope I don’t offend you with what I’m about to say. I try to avoid you at all cost at MMFA when it comes to the “insensitivity” and “race” issue. Not because I personally dislike you, or that I think you build a strong case that’s hard to refute; on the contrary, the fact that your arguments are so flimsy and one-dimensional, that’s it’s not even worth responding to. You’ve tried this same tactic before when Neil Boortz said very racist things towards Mexican immigrants. Again, playing the I-don’t-think-his-comments-were-racist-just-insensitive role that you’ve mastered so well, you completely rejected any explanation why folks found Boortz comments racist. When I saw that and past comments you made that were similar, I decided not to engage in any debate with you, for either you’re the most isolated person in America who knows nothing about African-American history and culture, or you refuse to learn anything about things beyond your conservative mindset, afraid that what you learn might clash and debunk your predispositions to where you must reassess all your strawman arguments.
Now, here, you try to be open-minded and fair about this issue, saying that, “I find the use of the 'n' word unacceptable at all times. I simply feel your description of Williams is about as derogatory as the use of the 'n' word.” So on the one hand, you say that people misunderstood you comparing the ‘n’ word to the remarks about Williams; then on the other hand, you still hold on to the theory that my remarks were “as derogatory as the use of the ‘n’ word.” Therefore, I ask you, AA, which is? How are we misunderstanding you when you’re slyly trying to have it both ways, saying that both remarks are “as derogatory,” but we’re “misunderstanding” you when we say you’re trying to make both equal? Here you backed yourself into a corner where you want to be in agreement with those who say both “slurs” aren’t equal, while still holding on to the original argument you attempted to make earlier.
If you can’t understand—no, let me rephrase that—if you REFUSE to understand why the ‘n’ word and me calling Williams a “joke” and “disgrace in every sense of the word” are incomparable, then that’s not on me, but on your refusal to learn anything about African-American history and the Black Diaspora. Dismissing Williams because of his deplorable actions and history, and comparing that with calling him the ‘n’ word—the latter having roots in exploitation, segregation, lynching, slave labor, white supremacy etc.—is nowhere near the same thing, or, “as derogatory as the ‘n’ word.” To say otherwise would mean to mutilate race history and twist concepts to make blacks fit into a paradigm that does not represent our experience. The ‘n’ word traditionally in this country means a “biologically and intellectually inferior subhuman.” It means that blacks will never be looked at as equals to whites because through evolution or “God’s will,” we’re not developed morally and mentally as whites. It means because of this blacks deserve third-class citizenship since giving equal rights to blacks would be the same as giving equal rights to a monkey or gorilla. The ‘n’ word represents all those things and even more; that one word signifies to blacks the history that has shaped and defined our experience in this country.
Then, you ask, blacks say the ‘n’ word among themselves, so what’s the problem? This is the same excuse I hear when men complain and whine about being prohibited in calling women sexist epithets but some women use these same epithets within their inner circle jokingly or as a term of endearment. Men have historically been the oppressor of women for centuries, and when they use such sexist epithets like the ‘b’ word and others, those words signify to women that they’re not equal to men and must remain their property. But when women take such a word, bowdlerizing the sting out of it when using it among themselves, the implications aren’t the same. It’s the same with gays when they use homophobic remarks among themselves, but if a heterosexual says the same thing to them, the meaning and effect is different. Every group has words that can be used among themselves, but if used by an outsider, the implications are different. When some of my white friends joke and say that Britney Spears is “white trash” and a “redneck,” they can say it among themselves because their remarks does not hold the same weight if I say the same thing. Every group has their double-standards and words they can use among themselves, but outsiders can’t because the words would have a different effect and meaning.
And one more thing before I go: All black people aren't fans of the 'n' word used within their circle. I can not go up to any random black person off the street and say "what's up my n*gga," because that person may have a different outlook on the word than, say, the younger Hip Hop generation. So just because SOME say the word among themselves doesn't mean that everyone that's a part of the same group is down with such usage.
Great Post!!
"Why is it okay for some to use insults like you did toward Williams and ok for some to use the "n" word?"
Again, "disgrace" is justifiable (even "in every sense of the word"). Some people are disgraces to their professions. I've personally known more than one.
Sorry for invoking Godwin's law, but if you call someone a Nazi, that is obviously harsh. But what if the person has a poster of Hitler in his room and a swastika tattooed on his arm? Then the comment is justified.
Now, if you want to get into the specifics of Williams and whether he personally deserves to be called a "disgrace in every sense of the word" or not, that is one thing. But the questioning of the general use of such a phrase just because it's harsh is not a valid argument.
Ok, so I've fully enjoyed the 5 billion or so posts about AA's ignorance about the difference between words and phrases. I have also enjoyed the talk about Williams and if he is a disgrace. I was really feeling I was in line with everyone unil I heard people saying that B*itch by itself is a sexist word. Come on. Really? Now I will agree that it is an offensive word. It is supposed to be. That is why it is a curse word. In general I put it at the same level as B@stard. Now I know each word is usually directed towards a specific gender. But that in and of itself does not mean the word is sexist. Sure sexist people may use it but the word is used so often in the American culture that you can easily say it on TV.
Now, I am in no way defending what Williams said. To say that the word is not offensive is just plain stupid. But the word, by itself, is used too much in everyday conversation to be considered sexist. In my opinion there is a word that rises to that level. In fact I think it may be the only word that could be seen as worse than the N-word. That is the C-word. Now I know you may be asking...why did he just bring that word up? It's because I believe for B*tch to be seen as a sexist word it needs to be viewed pretty close to the nasty level of the other word I mentioned. (Yes I think it is a horrid word)
I know some of you are going to disagree with and maybe even flame me. However, I had to put this out there. If Isaiah was harassing a co-worker he should be punished. But I think some people have been going a little overboard with associating sexism with the B-word.
So you agree that the word is gender-specific, but you argue that it isn't sexist? Not only is it gender-specific, but it's directed at the historically repressed gender. Which is exactly why "b#stard" and "b#itch" aren't on even ground. Just like the n-word and "h#nky" aren't on even ground. You can argue degrees of offensiveness, but it is sexist. And it doesn't matter that there's an even more offensive epithet directed at women. Are other racial epithets any less racist simply because the n-word is the worst?
Clams,
I'm sorry just because women have been historically repressed does not mean every curse word that could be used is sexist. I think every word needs to be taken individually.
I think you answered your own question about racial epithets when you said h@nky is not on even ground.
If you think that my comment about the word "h#onky" reinforces your opinion, then you must have misunderstood the point I was making. "B#itch" is a gender-specific insult, and therefore, by definition, it is sexist. Again, you can argue degrees of offensiveness if you like, but you can't argue the definition of the word sexist. Since the year 1400 the word "b#tch" has been used to show contempt for women. It's a sexist word, regardless of whether or not you or your friends find it personally offensive.
Clams,
Please go back and read my comments. I never said the word was not offensive. It is a curse word and therefore is supposed to be offensive. Please do not put words in my mouth. We will have to agree to disagree on whether the word is sexist. I am not going to change your opinion (and yes it is an opinion not a fact) and you will not change mine.
I never said that you claimed the word wasn't offensive. In fact, I twice repeated that you were perfectly welcome to argue the degree of offensiveness--which you did. You seem to be misunderstanding my point, which is that just as one cannot argue that the n-word isn't racist, one cannot argue that the word "b#tch" isn't sexist. By definition, it is. Whether or not you're personally offended by it, and to what degree, is a matter of opinion. The definition of sexism is not a matter of opinion (why am I getting a sense of deja vu here?). If the word "b#tch" were not a gender-specific insult, then you might have a point. But it is a word that's defined as a derogatory term for women based on stereotypical gender roles. That's sexism.
From the American Heritage Dictionary (B*tch)
Nowhere in the definition do I find "derogatory term for women based on stereotypical gender roles."
Also from the American Heritage Dictionary. (sexism)
- Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
- Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
The word in and of itself is not stereotyping or promoting social roles. It is also not discriminating based on gender. Just because a word may be offensive does not mean it is discriminating. Therefore, you may personally believe it is sexist but that is your opinion."Nowhere in the definition do I find 'derogatory term for women based on stereotypical gender roles.'"
Well, that's because those are my words. I assume though that since you cut and pasted it, you saw the part of the definition that reads, "Offensive - A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing. A lewd woman." And presumably you also saw that the definition of sexism reads in part, "Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender."
Putting two and two together you should be able to see that using a gender-specific insult to promote the stereotyping of a woman's social role (i.e. "spiteful" or "overbearing") is in fact sexist. I think you also got hung up on the word "discriminate." A word is just word, it can be a sexist word or a racist word, but the people who wield them discriminate. One way a man can discriminate against a woman is by calling her a "b@tch," because the word is sexist.
At the risk of repeating myself (from my earlier post), you as a man are not in a position to determine (though you're free to express your opinions--you just can't make the determination for women or any others) whether something that does not target your group is or is not offensive or sexist. Similarly, whites have no business telling blacks that a term targeting blacks is not offensive or racist.
Clams Casino articulated several good reasons why the term "b*tch" is sexist. Let me add another: it is frequently directed at women who are not behaving in sex-stereotypical ways, that is, at "uppity" women who aren't being "nice". It is a sexist attempt to "put women in their place."
Spooky,
You are right as far as saying that I can not make a determination of what is offensive. But that would not be because I am male. It is because I am entitled to an opinion. I fully noted the word is meant to be offensive. However, just because you are a woman does not mean you get to make a determination of what is sexist.
If you were being "uppity" and "not nice" and I called you a f%ck I don't think it would be any less offensive. Furthermore, the statement could show that I was sexist. But the B-word in and of itself is not the determining factor of sexism. On the other hand I can think of very few times racial epithets can be used without being used for bigotry.
I have told female friends that I think a person is a Bword. I have never had a woman tell me that it was offending them. I also am not a sexist. I believe men and woman are equals. I also don't allow people to talk in a negative manner about women in my presence. Just like I don't let people talk about any group of people.
So I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on this one. I count the Bword as an offensive word but not a sexist word by itself.
It is Thursday morning and I have read every post here.
A lively display of opinions and comments. Thanx to all of you. This is the interaction that should take place on our TV shows so people can learn from others...agreeing or not.