UPDATED: CNN's Castellanos on Clinton as "white bitch": "[S]ome women, by the way, are named that and it's accurate"
SUMMARY: Discussing Sen. Hillary Clinton's comments regarding sexism in the media's coverage of her presidential campaign, CNN's Jeffrey Toobin referred to a New York Times column that "talked about some of the humor in the campaign, and the punch line was a line that was -- that Hillary Clinton was a 'white bitch.' " CNN political contributor Alex Castellanos asserted, "And some women, by the way, are named that and it's accurate."
UPDATE: Castellanos apologizes
Discussing Sen. Hillary Clinton's comments regarding sexism in the media's coverage of her presidential campaign, CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin noted on the May 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room that "[t]here was a column in The New York Times not too long ago where it talked about some of the humor in the campaign, and the punch line was a line that was -- that Hillary Clinton was a 'white bitch.' " Moments later, as TPM Media reporter-blogger Greg Sargent noted, CNN political contributor Alex Castellanos interrupted, asserting, "And some women, by the way, are named that and it's accurate," adding of Clinton, "[S]he is a tough -- that tough lady, tough in politics, that's been her great strength. But let's face it, she can be a very abrasive, aggressive, irritating person, and a lot of voters, I think, see her that way."
CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger responded: "Yeah, but a lot of voters don't, you know." Castellanos interjected: "It doesn't have to be unanimous." Later in the conversation, Castellanos asserted that Clinton is "very good at playing the professional victim until she gets up closely ... and then can put a knife in your ribs. ... [T]here is no weakness in this lady." He also said: "I have a problem with Hillary Clinton playing victim when it's convenient. I have a problem -- it's not a problem at all when she's doing well. It's not a problem. But the minute she's trapped in the corner, it doesn't look like the math adds up, she doesn't look like she has her way to get -- then all of a sudden, she's the ... poor, weak ... cookie-baking lady."
On the May 13 edition of The Situation Room, Castellanos suggested that if Clinton were Sen. Barack Obama's vice president, "I think Barack Obama would have to hire a food tester ... because these are the most politically ambitious people on the scene in America today." Castellanos made his "food tester" remarks one week after falsely linking the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and Iraq during CNN's May 6 coverage of returns from the Democratic primaries.
As Media Matters for America noted, Castellanos created the racially charged "Hands" advertisement, which ran on behalf of former Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) during his 1990 re-election campaign against Harvey Gantt, the first black mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina.
In his May 20 post on TPM Election Central, Sargent wrote of Castellanos' May 20 comments: "Hard to imagine that CNN would invite this gallant and chivalrous fellow back on the air, isn't it..."
The New York Times reported on May 12 that Castellanos is "now an outside adviser to McCain's advertising team."
From the May 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
CLINTON [audio clip]: The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable or at least more accepted. And I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism, when and if it ever raises its ugly head. But it does seem as though the press, at least, is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists.
BLITZER: Let's discuss these provocative words from Senator Clinton with the best political team on television. Gloria, what do you think?
BORGER: Well, I think that Hillary Clinton probably -- I don't know what she's referring to, but I do think that if she says that there's incredible sexism, a woman knows it when she sees it. And so I'm sure there is.
However, I don't think it's smart or good or right, right now, to be talking about that, because she's the iron lady. She's the tough fighter. She's the one who's continuing. And you can't be both the iron lady and the one who feels besieged at the same time. I think it's probably not the right tone she wants to strike now. I'm not doubting what she feels in her head about the way she's been attacked.
BLITZER: Because a lot of the so-called pundits have said racism, you can -- you know when there's racism. Sexism --
BORGER: You know when there's --
BLITZER: -- it's a little bit more difficult to discern.
BRAZILE: Well, as a black and a woman, I've seen them both, Wolf. And, yes, there's a -- there's undercurrents of racism and sexism in every presidential campaign. And, clearly, in this historic election season, with two unconventional candidates, we've seen subtle forms of racism as well as sexism, but I don't think that that defines Senator Clinton's candidacy, nor Senator Obama.
They have been two exceptional candidates. That's why they're in the finals. They're in the finals because they are the very best. And I think to blame their standing right now in the polls among delegates on racism or sexism will not give credit to the American people, who have put these two unique human beings in the position of becoming the next president of the United States.
TOOBIN: I think Hillary Clinton is dead right. There was a column in The New York Times not too long ago where it talked about some of the humor in the campaign, and the punch line was a line that was -- that Hillary Clinton was a "white bitch." You couldn't say that. I mean, that is acceptable about a woman. You couldn't --
BORGER: No.
TOOBIN: -- say the equivalent thing about a man, and I mean about a black person. And I think it's appalling, but I think she's absolutely right that there has --
CASTELLANOS: By the way, though --
TOOBIN: -- been a level of sexism --
BLITZER: Let Alex go.
TOOBIN: -- that is not --
CASTELLANOS: If I can -- if I can --
TOOBIN: Yeah.
CASTELLANOS: If I can disagree, I think you're dead wrong. She's dead wrong. And I think she thinks her problem is she's a woman; her problem is she's Hillary Clinton. And some women, by the way, are named that and it's accurate. So, it's --
TOOBIN: Well --
CASTELLANOS: She is -- she could -- she is a tough -- that tough lady, tough in politics, that's been her great strength. But let's face it, she can be a very abrasive, aggressive, irritating person, and a lot of voters, I think, see her that way.
TOOBIN: Well, I --
BORGER: Yeah, but a lot of voters don't, you know. And you can't -- are you --
CASTELLANOS: It doesn't have to be unanimous.
BORGER: Look, I mean, she can't --
CASTELLANOS: But, look --
BORGER: -- blame --
CASTELLANOS: -- she's very good at playing the professional victim until she gets up closely --
BORGER: Right.
CASTELLANOS: -- and then can put a knife in your ribs.
TOOBIN: I don't -- I don't think she's saying --
CASTELLANOS: She is -- there is no weakness in this lady.
TOOBIN: I don't think she's saying that the whole problem with her campaign is due to sexism.
BORGER: Right. She can't say that.
TOOBIN: And it isn't. Clearly, she had many problems in this campaign. But was there sexism, and is there sexism, in the coverage of her? You bet.
BRAZILE: Absolutely. No one would disagree with that. But I would hope --
TOOBIN: Well, Alex does.
BRAZILE: Well -- but Alex has a problem with this woman. But, clearly, I don't think that's the issue. I think Senator Clinton has been able to break so many barriers, but at the same time, she has faced some unique hurdles and a double standard that --
CASTELLANOS: I don't --
BRAZILE: -- applies to women in leadership positions.
CASTELLANOS: I have a problem -- I have a problem with Hillary Clinton playing victim when it's convenient. I have a problem -- it's not a problem at all when she's doing well. It's not a problem. But the minute she's trapped in the corner, it doesn't look like the math adds up, she doesn't look like she has her way to get -- then all of a sudden, she's the --
BORGER: But here's the thing --
CASTELLANOS: -- poor, weak --
BORGER: Here's the thing -- but we don't know --
CASTELLANOS: -- cookie-baking lady.
BORGER: But what we don't know about this interview is whether she's saying I have lost in these states, or I didn't do well enough, because there was sexism out there and that was held against me. I doubt she's saying that. What she's saying is, "Look, there are some people who treated me differently because I'm a woman. I think every woman in America understands that that occurs."
BLITZER: Let me just -- let me just --
BORGER: You know --
BLITZER: Let me just move to one quick subject, because we're almost out of time.
SPOILER ALERT!! SPOILER ALERT!! SPOILER ALERT!!
As always-- even though this MMFA article is about Clinton, the Obama-maniacs here have hijacked much of the rest of the thread to talk about Obama.
So be forewarned.
Why do they always do this? Well, they just don't like any kind of Hillary-sympathetic articles, do they?
As a supposed discussion about this presidential election, the CNN stuff transcribed above is worthless. Not a single National Policy issue is mentioned, nor any real mention of any qualification or ability in the candidates ("she is a tough -- that tough lady, tough in politics, that's been her great strength" doesn't count as mentioning an ability, when it seems it was said simply in order to follow it with "let's face it, she can be a very abrasive, aggressive, irritating person")... no, no National Policy issues or any of the candidate's abilities were invoked in the CNN transcript: just a variety of cartoonish perceptions of the Democratic candidates. Who needs that? Average dopes standing on line at the checkout counter in the market, or sitting around the laundromat or the hair salon, make more sense... the funniest part of the transcript was that it was prefaced by someone named "wolf blitzer" in this manner...
BLITZER: Let's discuss these provocative words from Senator Clinton with the best political team on television.
...he may as well have just went to a live remote at the supermarket or the laundromat or the beauty parlor, as to his team of "all-stars", for what was then said.
As far as racism is concerned in what remains in this presidential campaign, and whether any racist words will be broadcast (even as supposed political ads) regarding any of the candidates: I do not believe you will hear even a single reference to a certain word (which has it's origin from the Spanish word for black, and from the Latin word for the same)... no, you won't hear it on television, or even see it in print I don't think. It's mention could cause a Titanic shift of weight in the political mood of the American People, and that shift would not be in favor of the Republican candidate left in the presidential campaign, that's for sure.
But why say that word, when you need only say "African-American" to imply it, in the minds of people who think in terms of that word, and use it also (mostly in private, among other white birds of a like feather)... you see what I mean here? No racist word needs to be said, only just to instead continuously and gratuitously invoke the race or heritage or color or whatever, of the candidates... you see what I mean?
Why is it necessary to do that?
It isn't.
Then why are they continuously and gratuitously invoking the race or heritage of the presidential candidates?
Because I already said: every mention of "African-American" they unessecarily make in these matters, suggests to the minds of racists and other discriminatory types, that other word, which they rarely themselves say in public, and so why would the campaigns use it either?
Again, why are 'pundits' and other televised idiots still gratuitously (unecessarily) invoking any of the presidential candidate's race or heritage or color or whatever?
It's not necessary to do that... it's a subtle form of racism, is what it is... let's get past the race or heritage or color or whatever, of the presidential candidates... let's move on, because it really doesn't matter, does it... there really is no reason to keep mentioning it (or no reason other than the one I cited).
Even people at the checkout at the supermarket, and in the laundromat and the beauty salon, have gotten past the fact that there is an African-American man running for President of the United States of America... even they don't keep mentioning that fact, as the 'pundits' and many other televised idiots continuously and gratuitously do.
I learned that these people were not monsters, in fact they were no different than the rest of the folks I knew...minus the money. They had the same fears and hopes that I did. They were spun out about 'dating' just like the rest of my friends.
Bottom line is that, 'just like they say' no one is much different than anyone else.
Some of these friends would visit me at school across the bay. They were just like us. Drink too much beer, say dumb stuff, fall down...wake up in pain. Girls, boys, beer, parties, fun...and no one seemed to give much of a damn who went home with whom...but sure the next day everyone laughed and poked fun. I remember thinking after reading 'Black, Like Me'...wow how freakin' cool that it isn't like that anymore! Like...it's all over...and then...then there is this.
I find that really sad. The guy is smarter, richer, and better spoken than me or about 90% of America. Oh...he's black...hell he's half black...like that could even be an issue.
Sorry fellow posters...just bums me out when i read evidence that pops my bubble. (and no offence to those of the shade-ier persuasion if i sound niavie...but for a long time i really did think it had changed, if just a bit.
Surprising that Obama isn't called the N-word...
I'm sure he's called that at GOP meetings......
I'm sure he's called that at GOP meetings......
Yea, but I'm sure you're taking that out of context... ;>)
Yea, but I'm sure you're taking that out of context... ;>)
You're right - I'm sure that at GOP meetings, that "N" word is preceded by the word "uppity". :-)
I'm old enough to remember when words like this would not have made it past the network censors. Ah the good old days.
LBJ was often referred to as a bastard in private or in books.. But not on the air. I don't happen to think of Hillary Clinton as being a bitch, though there are certain women I might attach that description to.
I happen to own a female dog (lit a "bitch") and I would not demean my beloved pet by elevating Coulter into the same category.
-Jeter2
Well then, you and Castellanos are on the same page. To mean, this is just a way to timidly call women "bitches".
I love it when you lecture someone on the use of inappropriate language or the importance of decorum and respect, considering the vile links and classless schoolyard slurs you have used on this very website.
You have no leg to stand on, much less any moral authority.
I assume he meant exactly what he said.
Perhaps if you'd examine your own reasons for hurling expletives you wouldn't have time to be so concerned about someone else. Self reflection is good for the soul.
What's to handle Gov?
It's pretty self-explanatory.
Well to everyone else but you of course....
And just for the record let me add, what Tommy wrote is fine with me.
Well, sometimes sexism, such as Castellanos' (and yours) requires a spotlight.
Of course a woman could just say "little Prick" and it might be apt for some men too......
Does that make it ok to say that on national tv? I guess in these days and times it does....too bad I can get on national tv and call some men little pricks and for some it's true.
heh....how does it feel? Women get tired of having names called by men that don't think it is a bad thing!
Jeter, No need to explain youself, it's perfectly reasonable and understood.....to people who don't prop themselves on some pedestal and hypocritically denounce inappropriate name calling, all the while engaging in it themselves on this very website, "fcuk you", and linking to cartoons bashing men's genitals, which by the way could easily be viewed as extremely sexist towards men.....both of which the Governor has done here.
Very interesting Tommy. Thanks for that info.
The only reason I even bother responding to some of Gov's inane posts is to set the little twerp straight after he purposely twists my words or misinterprets what I wrote.
I wonder if he's related to Clams ;-)
(chills........)
J, He can't argue unless he twists intentionally, how pathetic.
TOMMY: In other words, be a man.
Jeez, Tommy, some people might regard that as a pretty sexist remark. Do you mean to imply that women don't own up to things...only a man does? A manly man...? Women don't share the same qualities of personal responsibility?
Is it sexist? No. Some women deserve the title.
I think you're dead wrong on this. It is sexist. Just as it would be racist if you thought that some black people deserve the title of 'n*gger'.
Bingo!
Tommy,
Why does Gov continue to keep showing us all what a frigin moron he is?
Geez, if I was as numb as he is, I wouldn't put it out there for everyone to read. LOL!
Blew another argument eh Gov?
Tommy just handed you your head.
Now go away. It's way past your naptime
That you think certain women deserve the title "b*tch" and that it's not a sexist statement because it's about behavior? I blew that? Ok, have a pleasant evening...
TOMMY: How ridiculous, "bitch" goes to behavior...
Sorry, that's not entirely true...it may or may not go to behavior. Calling women bitches and hos in some circles has nothing to do with their behavior...those are just insulting references to women in general.
Irony let me give you some history behind this silly exchange with Gov.
Here's the post that got Gov's panties in a twist:
I'm old enough to remember when words like this would not have made it past the network censors. Ah the good old days.
LBJ was often referred to as a bastard in private or in books.. But not on the air. I don't happen to think of Hillary Clinton as being a bitch, though there are certain women I might attach that description to.- jeter2 / Wednesday May 21, 2008 12:27:56 PM EDT
As you can cleary see I in no way advocate calling women bitches. However I admit I & I'm sure many have thought some woman was a bitch. That in no way means this term should be used in public. Some women are nasty creatures. Bitches. Some guys are assholes. Bastards.
Gov took what I said out of context. Typical of the little twerp.
Now I'm sure there are a few bitches & bastards in West Virginia & Palm Beach. Wouldn'y you agree? ;-)
Some guys are assholes. Bastards.
Some guys are bitches, too... ;>)
You claim that there are certain women you might attach the description “b*tch” to and you claim that it's not sexist because some women deserve the title.
Again, I have misrepresented nothing.
I am in agreement with your sentiments about sexism, Guv, and bitch is sexist and offensive...but apparently there is some gray area in the usage of the term and sometimes it can slide, depending on the context. I understood what Jeter was saying. On the other hand, Tommy was just being his usual bitchy self. ;>)
Lighten up, man... it's cool.
You're right Irony, I can be bitchy, which invalidates the term being exclusively sexist, as is the Governor's ridiculous claim. The term has been expanded in today's vernacular to convey nastiness, or a foul mood, regardless of gender.
It's no more sexist than jerk, or moron, or jacka$$........perhaps the Governor has been jusitifiably called those names before so he can attest to their gender-less uses as well, I don't know. As for the term "bitch", offensive as it may be, is not indicitive of someone who despises or is bigoted towards women, only a child would paint with that broad a brush, I mean really......
The term has been expanded in today's vernacular to convey nastiness, or a foul mood, regardless of gender.
Jeter's use of the term, which I chose to comment on - were most certainly - gender specific. So you are wrong.
Irony, Perhaps you misunderstood, I never said it was acceptable, I said it is not automatically, knee-jerky reflective of its user being sexist. For it encompasses a more broad meaning in various contexts, that was my point.
Governor, in his typical knee-jerkiness fashion, called Jeter a sexist based on his original comments, which is ludicrous. Jeter was very clear that he was speaking of the term "bitch" as it relates to behavior - Governor ran with it and hauled out his usual accusations from his shaky moral highground steeped on quicksand.
Do you think Jeter, based on his long history of posts here, is sexist? Of course he's not. Governor should apologize.
"Deserve", why Governor? Wholly because they are women?, or because of a certain type of behavior exhibited.
You know the answer.
Have a good night....
Somehow, Gov, people have decided it's OK to lower the discourse and go back to the school-yard taunting that we all grew up with.
It's just immaturity - and in my opinion, those who uphold the values of both genders will refrain from referring to others as "bitches". So let the right-wingers defend their use of the slur. It's all they have.
Call my sister a bitch and see how many teeth you have left after she clocks you.
It's a nasty word - that's why it's considered one of those words you wouldn't say before kissing your grandmother good-night. It demeans, and in most, it is sexist. Either way, it's inappropriate, especially for Castellanos. Hillary hasn't done anything to Castellanos. For him to paint her as a bitch is just wrong - and he has no supporting evidence of her being the definition of a bitch. I'm sure Castellanos wouldn't like it if people on national television referred to him as Bush's (or Rove's or Cheney's) bitch...
But as Jeter described the term it is based on behavior, which validates Tommy's comment. We are talking about Jeter's original post, right?
It can be used to generally describe women, which is unacceptable. But saying that some women deserve that title is hardly controversial. Leona Helmsley, Imelda Marcos, Anne Coulter, Marie Antoinette...these are not angelic sweethearts. By any standard some women can be criticized for their behavior.
I understand the issue that it's gender-specific, and the difference between that and a term like "prick" is that men have been in control and so generalized derogatory terms about men haven't had as much of a chance to be established. But as long as it is obviously about specific behavior then Governor's charges of "sexist" fall flat because it's not about the gender itself. I could believe that most men are a-holes and only a small percentage of women deserve to be called bitches at the same time. Obviously that attitude couldn't be considered to be sexism against women.
But as long as it is obviously about specific behavior then Governor's charges of "sexist" fall flat because it's not about the gender itself.
I disagree, being a woman was the first critria used before claiming that certain ones are derseving of the title "bitch".
By your logic if you called Clarence Thomas an "Uncle Tom" you would be a racist, since that term is dependent on his race.
I agree.
"As a white man, I can't refer to a certain black man as an "Uncle Tom" without it being racist. As a man, I can't refer to a certain woman as a "bitch" without it being sexist. This is, of course, my opinion. I don't need other people to agree with it, but I also don't need to consult a dictionary."
Sure you can, as long as you're not denigrating a large group of people. It's really not a matter of your opinion, there are established meanings of words. You're not Humpty Dumpty who uses a word to mean what he wants it to, nothing more and nothing less.
"Disparaging and offensive" wasn't your point, now was it? No, it was "sexist". If you want to say what Jeter said was rude or mean or whatever, make that argument. But don't come up with your own definition of a word to bolster your point. I never accept that when conservatives try it, and I won't make an exception because it's you. It makes your argument invalid, plain and simple.
To answer your question below, the C-word is much more severe and much less accepted, but if it is used to refer to specific women instead of the gender itself then it isn't sexist either.
Brab, Welcome to the circular inane nonsensical word twisting games of the Governor, I know I play along too but I will learn someday, and, if I EVER get this bad, no matter how heated you and I get, please tell me.....
Your points are dead on.
It changes everything. Go to dictionary.com or something and see for yourself.
Words have specific meanings. This concept is not controversial.
Dictionary.com does not state that the N-Word is "racist" - but it is.
And "b*tch" is sexist.
Who asked you to look that up? Look up "racist" and "sexist" and see if it tells you it's just about race-specific or gender-specific commentary. Pointing out that it doesn't explicitly say the N-word is racist is utterly irrelevant to the point. Incidentally, it does say it's disparaging and the main definition refers to any black person, so you do the math.
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc
That's the second listing on the page. Believing a race is inferior is racism. Therefore it's a racist term. I have no idea what you think you're talking about.
Perhaps you could have tried to answer Lorelei's question below:
What specifically would you call behavior deserving of the appellation "Bitch"?
"[S]ome women, by the way, are named that and it's accurate."
"Some women deserve the title."
What's perfectly clear is that both of these statements above are sexist.
Gov, We went round and round on this yesterday and you have your opinion, and I have mine. If you have never used the term, and never intend to, then you are to be admired for that. I have used the term, under my breath, on occasion as it went to a person's specific behavior, not to their gender. If you want to call me sexist, you are free to do that.......another difference of opinion.
Enjoy your day....
Stop twisting my words, I never said any of it was ever "Ok". We are not discussing the appropriateness of these words, your insistence on that angle just illustrates your dishonesty.
As I said, you have your opinion, which is irrelevant to me.
That using the word "bitch" is somehow "Ok" with us, when none of us ever even remotely suggested that. We specifically said it's not automatically sexist, however it is always offensive. Big difference.
You may pat yourself on the back for not using your "sexist" words, but you should really examine why you take such delicious pride in your personal dishonesty. Wow....
You guys might be pleased to know that you're in disagreement with MMFA on this:
http://mediamatters.org/action_center/castellanos/indexWell, there's a novelty for me.
Gov, I have four words for ya > GI - IVE U - UP!
Give what up?
It's sexist to believe that certain woman can in certain situations be aptly called a "bitch". I'm happy to disagree with you on this.
Well thats just BS!!!
What specifically would you call behavior deserving of the appellation "Bitch"?
What? No dinner when you get home? That time of the month, making a woman "Bitchy"? A women not taking BS from people? What behavior actually should have the name "Bitch" added to it, please tell me.
It's a little hard to tell this far down the thread, but if you're talking to me I'm glad to answer your question:Being mean-spirited, vindictive, vengeful.
Let me give you an example. Some years ago I dated a woman on a very casual basis. She found out my parents had some money. Then she got pregnant and told me it was mine. It wasn't, and I was sure of it, especially since I knew she was seeing her on-again-off-again boyfriend as well. She sued me for paternity, even though I told her I knew what her game was and wasn't going to support someone else's kid. She made all efforts to look innocent and vulnerable and hopelessly wronged by me. I got aggressive letters from her lawyer (her uncle) at least three times a week. Of course, she lost because she wouldn't make an effort to prove it, and she didn't find anyone stupid or sympathetic enough to women to buy her BS.
Really, is anyone going to blame me for calling her a nasty name? And not just in anger, I mean calmly and flat to her face telling her she's a psychotic lying bitch? Is anyone going to debate the merits of that judgment on my part, honestly? It seems highly unlikely.
Now most women I respect completely, just like I respect most men, and I don't agree with using the term as a label for women in general. I'm more pro-women's rights than my wife is. But to suggest that there are no women who can be criticized in harsh terms is completely absurd. Of course there are, just like there are men who deserve to be called a-holes or pricks (also largely considered to be gender-specific terms). Mean, yes, derogatory, yes, but not always without merit. If you've dealt with men who have called you that name for the reasons you cite, then those men are pricks.
And of course being assertive or acting like one can do anything a man can do doesn't merit the term, which is usually why it's used to describe women in positions of power. So I also agree that there's no cause to refer to Hillary this way.
If I call you a "dumb a$$", is that based first on your gender or would it be on your incredibly unbelievably stupid reasonings?
When you answer that question, you have your answer.
Well, since you never did answer my question about how Brab's scenario displayed prejudice or discrimination, which is the very definition of sexism, then there is no point to continue. Because you can't answer it, because it is not there. And rather than admit that, you talk about cutting crap or some nonsense.
We disagree.
So if I cheat on my wife and she calls me a "prick", is that sexist of her to do so? It's gender-specific, right? The entire argument is ludicrous. She can call me a name for that without making a comment about all men. You'd understand this simple concept if you didn't think that your own opinion was more credible than a dictionary.
How does the dictionary make the assertion that certain women can be called "bitch" non-sexist?
Because it defines a sexist comment as one about all women, about the gender in general. A comment based on someone's individual behavior is not a comment on all women. In my example, my use of the word was based on one woman, it's not something I say about all women.
Get it yet?
The term "bitch" applies that certain woman's behavior to all women.
Get it?
How exactly does that work? If I'm angry at one woman for something, then I'm attributing her behavior to all women?
What precisely is this fantasy based on?
It's based on the term we're discussing, which was born out of sexism.
"Born" out of sexism? Your argument gets stranger and stranger. First off, even if it was originally used to describe women in general, language evolves. So the usage of it doesn't have to be as it was originally done. More importantly it could be that the term was adopted to characterize specific women (check out some of the definitions of "bitch", regarding being malicious, unpleasant, spiteful, overbearing) and was corrupted to apply to all women. That wouldn't be "born" out of sexism because it wouldn't be regarding all women even in its original usage.
Incidentally, I just noticed that it's been used to insult women since 1400...and used for men since 1500. So after five hundred years of it being used for both genders, I'm supposed to believe that using it for one woman applies to all women because of how it was "born"? Why doesn't that long history make that comment applicable to everyone on earth?
Not gender specific. Look it up.
So you would really criticize a victim of infidelity for using a "sexist" term in such a situation. The mind reels.
And truly, I'm laughing out loud that you say it's not gender-specific in one post and that it's sexist three minutes later, when your entire argument is that the sexism is due to a term being gender-specific. And I'm laughing even more that someone who believes their opinion is more valuable than a dictionary is telling me to look up a word. Why don't I just say I don't need a dictionary, since you seem to think that's fair for you to do?
No, fair enough, although one entry clearly defines as "especially a male". I've never heard anyone call a woman a prick. How about "dick"? Is that really supposed to be fitting for a woman? How about if a woman uses the term exclusively for males and the man who is called the name knows it? Obviously that would be gender-specific. And I've heard men called "bitches", yet that is supposedly exclusive to women.
On that note, it occured to me to look up the word "bitch".
a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman.
"esp." a woman? Just as the term "prick" is being used "especially" for men.
A man considered to be weak or contemptible
Interesting!
a person (usually but not necessarily a woman) who is thoroughly disliked
So why didn't it occur to you to look up this word before you made so many declarations about how the use of it must be sexism against women?
So you would really criticize a victim of infidelity for using a "sexist" term in such a situation. The mind reels.
I would not criticize the person. Did not say I would. You asked me my opinion and I gave it.
But that would be your opinion of that person, since circumstances don't matter. The mind still reels.
And that's your full response? You can't address anything else I'm saying?
That's funny. Did you look around the room after calling her what you accurately called her and also calmly say "lamp" and "futon" to the other objects in the room?
Your above comment is one of the stupidest I've seen on this board. Obviously it's an important distinction whether the intent is to describe behavior or to offend based on her gender, but you brush it off as if such a thing is not possible. I must talk to lamps and futons if I don't use the word with the express purpose to offend, right. Incredibly idiotic, on a par with Philib's posts, in all honesty.
I'm not personally offended, just my respect for logic and common sense. You have a personal issue with Jeter and Tommy. That much I understand, I have issues with certain people too. But your clinging to a phony sanctimonious argument in the face of all facts and logic because of it is ridiculous. I have issues with Tommy, but when he's right he's right. When he's treated unfairly I'll back him up. The issue is that he makes phony, self-serving, baseless arguments too often (not always), and like I said above that's exactly what you are doing here. "That's my opinion" doesn't in and of itself validate your position whatsoever, because your opinion of what the word "sexist" means doesn't mean squat.
It would serve you well to realize that people you think often make questionable comments don't always do so. It's not wrong just because it's Jeter saying it. Pick your battles. Otherwise you become exactly what you despise, and that's something you should really spend some time thinking about.
It remains your opinion in direct contradiction to every definition of the word "sexism". It goes beyond "other posters".
Seriously, think about what I said. I'm not a partisan conservative backing Jeter because he's on my side, you know.
No, you still will not address the definition of "sexism". It's about all women, not some women. That's what the word means. If I were to say "women aren't smart enough to be president", that would be sexist. If i were to say "that woman isn't smart enough to be president", that wouldn't be sexist, even though it specifies I'm talking about a woman.
Your opinion that the word means "gender-specific" is worthless.
I guess I can't do it. Don't have the time or ability. But if you really want an answer, I sincerely suggest you ask MMFA:
http://mediamatters.org/static/images/sidecar/cnn_sidecar.jpg
So I guess that's your final argument, then, since you admit you can't do it. You'll just pass the ball to MMfA.
Is that supposed to embarrass me or something? I don't work for MMfA. If they want to argue that he shouldn't justify the "bitch" label regarding Hillary, that's a fair point. But if they're saying that to say "some women" deserve the title is sexist, then I will argue with David Brock over it if he likes. He won't fare a lot better than you did, because there's no argument there.
Ebarrass you? Absolutely not. It simply appears to me that MMFA also maintains that this...
"[S]ome women, by the way, are named that and it's accurate"
...is sexist. If you seriously want to know why, that you can ask them. I, obviously, have failed to make the case.
They may be saying so because he's validating the idea that confident and assertive women are bitches. That would be sexist, since it would mean that women are supposed to be weak and subservient. If that's their reasoning, it would be irrelevant to your argument.
Otherwise, I would argue that they're wrong just as you are. It's not like their viewpoint is going to trump the dictionary either.
I already said I don't use it to describe all women. And since you admit you can't show how it's sexist to use under any circumstances then I don't see why I should forbid myself from ever using it in the future.
Your dishonest suggestion that I'm making this argument because I enjoy using the word has been noted. Weren't you criticizing Tommy earlier for making a "pot shot"?
Are you kidding me? You abandoned your argument about how calling one woman the name somehow applies to every woman. You never showed how that worked, or how the term was "born" from sexism. How am I supposed to see it if you don't answer the questions?
I explained it. Your argument is phony. It's not acceptable when right-wingers make up their own definitions of words, and it's not when you do it either.
Are you claiming I'm making a dishonest argument? If so, that's also a pot shot (since you haven't justified the charge). If not, then I have zero reasons to abandon an honest argument. Which is it?
I explained it. Your argument is phony.
I disagree.
Well, of course you do. And considering you've abandoned every point here, your assertion that you have a genuine argument is less than compelling.
Do you have something to say besides "I disagree"?
I forgot to comment on this last night, I sort of figured someone else would point out the obvious.
The original comment of controversy here was Jeter saying that some women deserve to be called that. Supposedly that comment is sexist. Let's see how far you carried this particular idea:
"I simply think it's inappropriate to call women "bitches"."
"That you think certain women deserve the title "b*tch" and that it's not a sexist statement because it's about behavior? I blew that?"
"You claim that there are certain women you might attach the description “b*tch” to and you claim that it's not sexist because some women deserve the title."
"His comment that certain women derserve the title "bitch" was and is sexist."
But if you can't blame me for using the term under those conditions...then it was deserved. You can't very well say "I can't blame you, but she didn't deserve that", now can you? And your acceptance of my actions because of the circumstances proves that it can be referring to behavior.
It's amazing how quickly real life examples can blow theoretical nonsense out of the water. No woman deserves to be called that, ever, under any circumstances...right.
Then Rush and the gang decided we were all too PC and since then its been one long Archie Bunker fest.
Nice post. I concur. It's sexist and inappropriate - imho, in any situation.
Castellanos once referred to Democrats as "rats":
Nevertheless the advert has been pulled to save the Bush campaign from any further embarrassment.
Conspiracy theories abound in American politics, but I don't think we need to be subliminal about prescription drugs
George W Bush
Alex Castellanos, who made the ad for the Republican National Committee, has fuelled the controversy by apparently changing his explanation as to how the word "rats" came to appear in his advert.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americas/2000/us_elections/election_news/923335.stm
Today is a great day in Media Matters' history. I, Truthseeker, haved become the first person who discovered (though accidentally) how to post images in the comments section:
Neat photo.
Is that you truthseeker?
Did anyone ever tell you that you look at lot like Anne Coulter?
So he can't be a bastard in the literal sense.
King,
That post was specifically for Gov.
I'd written earlier that I didn't think Hillary was a bitch. That I didn't think any woman should be referred to as a bitch in public. But that there are women out there I might consider the title appropriate. Just as I would the word bastard for some guys. Gov got his panties in a twist.
And now he's just being his usual childish self.
"I think there's a difference between just using the word and thinking that certain women deserve to be called that. It's not the word so much as the 'she had it coming' attitude that worries me."
Yes, it's actually worse to use the word without thinking it to be personally deserved. You can respect women in general and abhor violence while labeling certain women that way. "She had the name coming" doesn't necessarily lead to "she had a slap coming".
In your example that person is very much more likely to beat his wife since he obviously has serious impulse control issues. That is surely more of a factor than just using an insulting term itself.
I've never hit a woman, but I've dated a couple that I've called some very derogatory names, deservedly so. It's not nice, I know, but then their actions make it sort of hard to feel really bad about it.
Yea, I agree, we're talking about impulse control...like an old man who is reported to have such a volatile temper that he wants to fight colleagues over disagreements and who insults and curses other colleagues. If that guy also has such little impulse control that he, a public figure, can't even stop himself from calling his wife the C-word in public then I would wonder if he's capable of more than just verbal abuse towards his spouse. And, my God, I certainly wouldn't want an individual like that to be making important decisions for my country such as war. ;>)
..use of disrespectful names directed towards a spouse and actual violence. Irony101
It is called verbal abuse. And while I can't find a study now, everything I have read states that left unchecked, verbal abuse can (often?) lead to physical abuse.
I think we will have hit a milestone in gender relations when we can call people names they deserve that aren't gender-specific.
To me, the term "bitch" is specific to a woman who is acting like a jerk, but it is framing it in the way that a proper woman should not act like that. It is demeaning to all women, even if that specific woman is a jerk.
My point is that if someone is an a$$hole, then call them one whether they are a man or a woman. It is appropriate to criticize someone's poor behavior, but no gender specific framing is necessary.
I have a problem with Hillary Clinton playing victim when it's convenient. I have a problem -- it's not a problem at all when she's doing well. It's not a problem. But the minute she's trapped in the corner, it doesn't look like the math adds up, she doesn't look like she has her way to get -- then all of a sudden, she's the --
No problems at all however, when it is a republican man who is crying his apology at his various and sundry downfalls, be it homosexuality that he has sponsored bills on, to cheating on that B*tchy wife, or whatever.....
BTW, what act of HC is considered "playing the victim"?
Abusers work hard to distort our reality to make their reality feel safer.
On the other hand,
The US feminist magazine BITCH explains it like this on its website: "When it's being used as an insult, bitch is an epithet hurled at women who speak their minds, who have opinions and do not shy away from expressing them and who do not sit by and smile uncomfortably if they are bothered or offended. If being an outspoken woman means being a bitch, we will take that as a compliment, thanks."
So, bearing that in mind, Cast... the guy is more than likely an abuser....but I guess it really does in some ways explain some women, lol.
then again:
Many of us are still so constrained by conventional stereotypes of how women should be - selfless, kind, enabling of others, calm and supportive - the good girl essentially, that the real girl inside gets denied. We take insults on the chin and say nothing. We find it hard to compete or ask for that pay rise because we are not sure we deserve it. We are not supposed to shout or get angry about all the inequities we face as women. We become the bitch, the bad girl, when we want more, when we are not prepared to make do with what we have and when being heard is more important than being liked. That is a liberating feeling. If we fear being labelled as a bitch, we still seek validation from men on their terms rather than ours.
read the rest here
Obviously, this is a misogynistic man who only desires his 'bitches' in the arena of 'cash or credit'...
Thigh-high spiked heels and cat 'o ninetails anyone? *lol*
Castellanos is what we hate in politics!!!
CNN is not noted as a progressive network; at one time they were. CNN had all these very professional men and women working for them and the network was taken very seriously. Never, do I ever remember filth and degortory name calling as being acceptable or even tolerated. There may have been some racism and some sexism, but not as overt as it is now.
The likes of Castallanos, Blitzer and yes even Borger would not be in evidence for long. I rarely watch CNN now just because it has become so offensive and irrelevant.
When networks call prominent, powerful, publically elected women sexist, filfthy names, then one knows the lack of quality and professionalism inherent in the operation. I will take PBS and the News Hour anyday. They do not offend the senses, the intellect, they are not emotionally abusive, they are respectful of their subjects and guest as well as viewers and the racism and overt sexism are generally absent from the presentation. I think America no longer needs what CNN offers and the sooner they are off the air, the better.
This Has Really Angered Me
There are a few associated angles to look at when it comes to Hillary Clinton's campaign. In the end, it has taken a would be front runner and lowered her standings in the Democratic primary. The media is 80% responsible for this tragic negative influence.
This seem to start with Chris Matthews, who devoted 90% of his show to bringing Clinton down. Matthews went from asking whether Barack Obama could beat Clinton to making sure it happened. We all know the special negative attention Matthews gave Clinton. I ask the question: What if Obama had to pay for the attacks made on his behalf by Matthews? Would he have the funding advantage he enjoys now? I think not.
CNN, who is supposed to be the "BEST" in the business, has a obvious ratio problem when covering the candidates that has always favored Obama. The worst of this one sided reality comes during every election coverage. However, I have scene other times when the ratio was 3/1 in favor of Obama, with the one also being associated with George Bush. Talk about throwing a dog a bone.
The funding issue amounted to Clinton trying to counter media attacks along with Obama's attacks. This amounts to undue influence in the Democratic primaries. I am sadden at the amount of influence the media had a hand in.
Much should come out of this year's primaries. One is how much influence and manipulation should the media be allowed to engage in.
Finally, I have wondered why the conservative media is so much in a hurry to have Obama be the Democratic candidate -- this very dynamic was stolen and used by the Obama camp. I lied; I know why the conservative media wants Obama to run against John McCain. Its not hard to figure out. They want the weakest candidate to run in the general election. This fact will come to reality when the bias Obama now enjoys turns into a bias McCain will enjoy.
Joseph
Give up, you aren't answering it. Last time, I said prejudice or discrimination, perhaps you should look up those words too while you're looking up sexism.
Giving Alex the benefit of the doubt, I guess he thinks he’s scoring “cute” points with the audience, and maybe that will keep him on the payroll longer.
Maybe CNN thinks on-air nastiness is fun, or maybe they just have to fill up hours and hours without enough news to cover by putting on these endless, self-serving speculation sessions where a bunch of otherwise well-informed people yatter on and on - mostly about media-created “issues”.
I don’t think it’s funny, or entertaining, or interesting, and it’s certainly not informative or enlightening. It’s definitely not journalism.
I am, of course, insulted at having to listen to this bigoted-sounding jerk offering his personal opinions about Hillary Clinton (and unnamed other females). CNN gave him the time (too much time) and the opportunity (permission) to cross the line between responsible editorial commentary and ugliness. But let’s face it, even without the Castellanos’ nastiness, nobody else on the panel had anything substantive to say either. If this back page story had to be brought up at all in a so-called “news” format, then playing Hillary’s clip where she complained about sexism would have been quite enough. If her comments were directly inspired by a specific incident, they could have reported it. Otherwise, we all know what sexism is, and we can all make up our own minds whether we agree with sexist attitudes and displays or not. Why do we have to listen when even the more well-intentioned commentators can only offer speculation about utter trivia like: “Is this the right time for Hillary to object to sexist attitudes and language?” Like when would be the right time – 100 years from now when it doesn’t exist?
bitch 1. the female of the dog, wolf fox, etc. 2. s woman, esp. a bad tempered, malicious, or promiscuous woman; a coarse term of contempt or hostility. 3. slang-anything especially unpleasant or difficult. Of course, this is an old (1986) edition. I was not aware of the "promiscuous" part, although I have certainly known women of whom I could have said were "bitches" as in the joke, "What's the difference between a slut and a bitch? A slut will sleep with anybody. A bitch will sleep with anybody but ME!" There was no corresponding definition for, in my humble opinion, the word for a contemptible male, "prick". "Bastard", while certainly pungent, does not come close to a description of a particularly unpleasant male. "Son of a bitch" merely means the son of a dog. Women often refer to promiscuous males as "dogs", but only if they are involved with them. A desirable "dog" can be considered a "stud" or
"hunk" until which time a woman "hooks up" with him in a relationship, at which time he becomes a "dog". Possession is, after all, 9/10ths of the law.
One of my personal favorites is "skank", a term applied to women who hang out in bars, flirting, teasing, and often going home with just about anyone. The "skankiness" come from the frequency of their presence and the ease with which they can be "obtained". There is also a decided reference to a laxity in personal hygiene.
The Yiddish word, "mensch", on the other hand is about the best word to describe a singularly honorable, dependable, fair, and substantive person, either male or female. The German word, "mensch" is in reference to a male, and "madchen" for a woman. To be called a mensch is perhaps the highest compliment one could be paid.
I am extremely anxious to read any replies to THIS post...
I just read an excellent analysis on this whole issue.
Please google search: Andrew Stephen of the New Statesman and read his article "Hating Hillary"
It's fascinating.
It is never acceptable to use the term "bitch" to describe a woman on what is professed to be "news" programming.
CNN political contributor Alex Castellanos thinks it is OKAY to call "some" women bitches on national television. It is offensive to every woman I know, and to most women by the way.
The man should be fired. He comes across looking like a misogynist. As a woman, I am sick unto death of some of the attitudes I have seen voiced in so called political and news programming regarding women. Castellono's is only one of the people that cast women in disparaging words.
Just what in your opinions makes calling a woman a "Bitch" accurate when you are discussing politics?
Referencing the example that was given here regarding the pregnant woman....YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS CONVERSATION IS ABOUT. It is about what was said on national tv. CNN.
For you to call the pregnant woman a bitch....was still wrong. She was not a nice person, she was trying to use you.
Because I am a woman I understand, I think, a little better than some of you men how it feels to be called a bitch...in any situation....and I have been called a bitch. A "Bitch" for standing up for what I believe in, for speaking my mind, when a MAN thought I should be seen and not heard.
Bitch is a demeaning word used by men, mostly, to berate women, individually OR generally.
Most of you know this but refuse to admit it. Why?
Even describing the pregnant woman as a bitch, just because the "dictionary" says you can...har har. You know its wrong, she was just a woman using you for her own gain. You know that. You could have simply called her a liar, and that would have been more than accurate. You don't call a man a "bitch" for using someone do you.....OH NO YOU DON'T so don't tell me you do.
It is getting harder and harder to watch these "news and political" programs without a pinch of disgust for the opinions voiced on air.
I'm with Gov on this issue...it is sexist, it is based in sexism and I don't give a damn that you can trot out the dictionary and try to say it isn't.
It is. You are not a woman, and you don't deal with it the same way. Women have had to deal with it for years and years.....and until you deal with it on the same level you will not understand the sexism behind the words.
"It is never acceptable to use the term "bitch" to describe a woman on what is professed to be "news" programming...CNN political contributor Alex Castellanos thinks it is OKAY to call "some" women bitches on national television. It is offensive to every woman I know, and to most women by the way."
Who's arguing otherwise? You forget the context was Jeter's comment. Castellanos making that comment in reference to Hillary is a whole different story, Jeter and I have both explicitly said so.
"The man should be fired. He comes across looking like a misogynist. As a woman, I am sick unto death of some of the attitudes I have seen voiced in so called political and news programming regarding women. Castellono's is only one of the people that cast women in disparaging words."
No argument there either.
"Just what in your opinions makes calling a woman a "Bitch" accurate when you are discussing politics?"
Probably nothing. That wasn't the question.
"Referencing the example that was given here regarding the pregnant woman....YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS CONVERSATION IS ABOUT. It is about what was said on national tv. CNN."
No, that particular conversation was about what Jeter said. Go back and read the thread again. It was about using the term under any circumstances, not just on CNN.
"For you to call the pregnant woman a bitch....was still wrong. She was not a nice person, she was trying to use you."
Why was it wrong? Your empty assertion is not compelling.
"Because I am a woman I understand, I think, a little better than some of you men how it feels to be called a bitch...in any situation....and I have been called a bitch. A "Bitch" for standing up for what I believe in, for speaking my mind, when a MAN thought I should be seen and not heard."
Like I said, that man is a prick. Nobody is taking his position here.
"Bitch is a demeaning word used by men, mostly, to berate women, individually OR generally. Most of you know this but refuse to admit it. Why?"
Everyone's admitted it. But it's not sexist if used individually, that's the point.
"Even describing the pregnant woman as a bitch, just because the "dictionary" says you can...har har. You know its wrong, she was just a woman using you for her own gain. You know that. You could have simply called her a liar, and that would have been more than accurate. You don't call a man a "bitch" for using someone do you.....OH NO YOU DON'T so don't tell me you do."
Why not? Just because I could have said something else doesn't mean it was wrong. You can call a man a prick for using you, I don't have any issues with that, even if you could have said something else. I don't care if it hurts his feelings or not.
"It is getting harder and harder to watch these "news and political" programs without a pinch of disgust for the opinions voiced on air."
Again, no disagreements there.
"I'm with Gov on this issue...it is sexist, it is based in sexism and I don't give a damn that you can trot out the dictionary and try to say it isn't...It is. You are not a woman, and you don't deal with it the same way. Women have had to deal with it for years and years.....and until you deal with it on the same level you will not understand the sexism behind the words."
I'm not "trying" to say it isn't, I've shown it isn't beyond any argument. Your emotional reaction to a word does not trump established usage of the English language.
I empathize with the treatment of women, it is awful that you even have a word that can be generally used to demean you. Women are owed equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunity. The lack of balance is based completely on man's superior upper body strength, which is a standard that's been out of date for a couple of thousand years. As a gender you've been wronged, subjugated and discriminated against far too much and for far too long.
But all that doesn't grant every woman on earth a free license to do whatever she wants no matter how harmful or vicious and then cry foul when she's called a name. That is unbelievably absurd. "Yes I tried to extort money from your family by lying and dragging you through court proceedings, but don't you dare call me a nasty name because I'm a WOMAN and you don't know how it feels!" Pardon me if I don't take your emotional reaction as a guideline for what's a fair comment in such a situation.
"Let's face it, she can be a very abrasive, aggressive, and uh, irritating person..."
The dial on my rage-o-meter flies off every time I hear one of these assholian MSM commentators (think Chris Matthews) use these kinds of derogatory, negative, adjectives to describe a woman. They're all code words for bitch.
Well Shrillary just jumped the shark...
She compared herself staying in the race to RFK and his assassination in '68.
I think Shrill just assassinated herself...
Olberman just reported this.
So, let me get this straight . . .according to the inane rantings of this has-been political huckster Castellanos, it's OK to call someone, in particular, Hillary Clinton, a "white bitch" as long as it's accurate? But my real question is, just whom is it then that gets to decide who qualifies as a "white bitch" and when? By what measures are these atttributes of "whiteness" and "bitchiness" determined? Does this then mean that there are times when it's OK to call Obama a "bastard”, Cheney a "dick" or a black man a "nigger"?
Equally disturbing however was the fact that CNN's Wolf Blitzer stood idly by with nothing of consequence to contribute while this so-called "clarification" was elucidated. I was also dumbfounded by the near total lack of outrage expressed by either of the female panelists Borger and Brazile. Granted it was Toobin that tossed the inflammatory statement on the table and Castellano that took the bait, but wouldn't it have been refreshing instead to see one or both of the women pound their fists on the table or rise up and tell Castellano to shut his stupid pie hole unless he had something intelligent to say. "Stupid" and "pie-hole" according to Castellano's barometer of discourse are accurate after all.
Sadder still is the fact that CNN has apparently hired this thug as a "contributor" when what he has to contribute is beyond me, not to mention the glaring lie of omission on CNN's part for failing to alert viewers of Castellano's infamous past and current post on McCain's Ad Council. Talk about false advertising!