The New York City Council, which drew national headlines when it passed a symbolic citywide ban earlier this year on the use of the so-called n-word, has turned its linguistic (and legislative) lance toward a different slur: bitch.
The term is hateful and deeply sexist, said Councilwoman Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn, who has introduced a measure against the word, saying it creates “a paradigm of shame and indignity” for all women.
Even though the ban is mostly symbolic and therefore useless except as a swipe at freedom of speech and an easy gotcha card for wingnuts to play against the P.C. police, it does raise some questions. If the word “bitch” is so bad for women, then would it be better to ban Bitch magazine, even though it’s such a great source of feminist pop culture analysis? Presumably yes, which goes to show why the banning of specific words is stupid as well as wrong. Can you use bitching as a verb? Is it more acceptable than the noun? Can you use it as an adjective? (”We’re just getting together for a bitch fest.”) Is it wrong if women say it? What if they say it ironically?
No matter. The dreaded “rappers” have been brought into the debate, which is basically a badly concealed code word for “young black men” at this point, who are presumably the only people who’ve ever called anyone a “bitch”.
The measure, which 19 of the 51 council members have signed onto, was prompted in part by the frequent use of the word in hip-hop music. Ten rappers were cited in the legislation, along with an excerpt from an 1811 dictionary that defined the word as “A she dog, or doggess; the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman.”
While the bill also bans the slang word “ho,” the b-word appears to have acquired more shades of meaning among various groups, ranging from a term of camaraderie to, in a gerund form, an expression of emphatic approval.
“Bitch” and “ho”, being popular in a form of music where a solid majority of the artists are black, are wrong, but “cunt”, which is the favorite word of Bill O’Reilly fans when they’re writing me, somehow passed the notice of the council. Funny how that works, but I guess an 1811 dictionary swears “bitch” is worse than “cunt” in terms of being called names, and we all know that the further in the past a document is, the truer it is. Like the Bible. Exception: Any older mythology the Bible borrows heavily from.
To make the irony even deeper, they’ve also gone after the word “nigger”, because it’s all over the place in rap music, too. I’m getting the impression they’re trying to ban hip-hop word by word. The sound of scratching records is an assault on my womanhood, I say, and that should help the process along.
Okay, I’m kidding a bit. It’s clearly not cool that there’s so much disrespect for women in pop culture, but the attempts to get rid of concepts about the inferiority of this race or that gender by banning words will not work. Bill “Falafel” O’Reilly can manage to get through many a diatribe about the evil female menace threatening our nation this week without calling anyone a word on the banned list, but again, my email makes it clear that he gets the message across all the same. Liberals need to be fierce in protecting free speech rights, not just because it’s the right thing to do, but to cover our own asses. As we all know, sins against mere social customs about polite language are held against liberals far, far, far more than conservatives already, and with the government power behind speech restrictions, we can expect a legal shutting out of the already disempowered. In fact, you see it here—the evil conglomerate of “rappers” is being held accountable for the nasty language towards women, when of course misogynist diatribes know no race, color or class. Really, how did that 1811 dictionary even know about the word “bitch” before the advent of audio recording equipment to spread it through hip-hop?
57 Responses to “For some reason, the city council has the word “MC” next on its ban list”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
“Doggess”? Doggess???
LOL I love that word. That word is offensive on poor-constructions bases alone, regardless of its age.
Pardon me, I have to go feed my cattess now. And my tarantuless. (My birdess, alas, is deceased. Or would that be “parakeetess”?)
Wow. This is one of the few times I get to take the mantle of all you “I apologize on behalf of Texas” folks.
The funny thing is that, reading this, I was almost certain Mealey would turn out to be the councilmember from a district encompassing one of the white enclaves like Park Slope or Brooklyn Heights, where her constituents would quite literally be the sort of people who are easily made nervous by scary black people saying words that might burn their precious babies’ virgin ears, which OMG, never used to happen when they lived in Manhattan, or in Connecticut when they were kids… I mean you can’t take little Henry and Sophia to the park anymore without hearing “Bitch” this and “Ho” that from that certain element that comes over from Crown Heights to play basketball on our courts…
But it turns out Mealey’s district is one of the last surviving seriously dangerous ghettos in the city (Flatbush, Brownsville, East New York, and the really bad parts of Bed Stuy). Shouldn’t she have more pressing concerns than trying to alienate her own constituents?
Back in my high school and college punk rock days I had a button that I wore on my jacket that said “Vicious, power-hungry bitch” that I wore with pride.
Naturally, my mother was appalled.
Yes, they’re trying to outlaw feminizzle.
*snerk*
I’ve got a new mission in life.
Just stupid. Language is fluid and adaptive; you cannot outlaw words any more then you can outlaw the concepts that they transmit.
People who try to control language ultimately fail because language must offer a representation of a changing reality. I recall the French trying to outlaw Le Weekend –because the word was not French enough. It didn’t work. It is the connotative, or signifier, which must change meaning in order to eliminate a negative value. The word ‘queer’ is a good example of this — though not yet entirely a successful one.
Yay! They’ve found a cure for misogyny!
the opoponax: right on the money.
“Mealey’s district is one of the last surviving seriously dangerous ghettos in the city (Flatbush, Brownsville, East New York, and the really bad parts of Bed Stuy). Shouldn’t she have more pressing concerns than trying to alienate her own constituents?
If you asked her that, she’d probably respond that those constituents are alienated already. Which of course gives an easy out for not giving a rat’s ass about them. In fact, its apparent that the New York Times couldn’t give a damn about rappers or the black culture either, not bothering to quote or talk to one single person of color in their story about the issue. Even making a simple passing reference to rappers.
Just once, just once could the NYT bother to cover people other than upper middle whites? I swear I’d fall over right here in my chair.
She’s doing a Bill Cosby.
Next thing you know, they’ll be banning words that don’t mean nuttin’… like “looptid.”
norbizness, I can NOT believe you don’t know what that means! You’ll get bunnied for sure!
(South Park did a great spoof of language along these lines once…) I think it was the Brown Noise episode.
Obviously, you can’t ban slurs by legislation (bitch, ‘ho, etc.) but we–the public–need to stop legitimizing them by accepting their casual use (Forget hip-hop. Gossip sites are horribly bigoted against women and girls). Instead, you get even so-called “feminists” wrapping their arms around such slurs as some desperate attempt to come off as “edgy” (Yeah, because perpetuating the status quo is so rebellious).
Miller, we live in a country where a rich white radio shockjock basically got fired for calling a women’s baskeball team hos. This isn’t to say that America is totally 100% fixed on race/gender oppression (obvs I wouldn’t be here on this site if I thought so), but seriously, I doubt there’s really much more we can accomplish via self-righteous PC completely un-nuanced word banning. It’s not 1992 anymore.
The Gray Lady published this Judith Warner op-ed today:
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/opinion/07warner.html
TimesSelect Poisonous Choices, Women at Risk
and
Not much related to this particular post, Arun, but yeah, that Judith Warner piece on the D&X ban was really good.
I do think this is a bit silly, but since Mealey grew up, went to school and has organized block groups in the area I think she might know more about her constituents than we do (she was also a worker for the NYC Transit Authority, so she’s not rich; she’s also not white).
the opoponax,
What? I didn’t favor censorship (In fact, I stated that it’s obvious you can’t). I merely stated we should stop accepting its casual, everyday use. There’s no mention of criminalizing slurs.
And you need to realize that being “politically correct” is not about disagreeing with opinion, but fact. Last time, I checked bigotry isn’t fact, so it’s not being “PC” to oppose their opinion.
Lastly, Imus didn’t get fired for calling a women’s basketball team “hos.” He got fired for calling a predominately black women’s basketball team “nappy headed hos.” The racist element is what truly outraged people.
There are only two circumstances in which I think the word bitch is okay:
1. In a reclaimed sense (ie, BitchPhd, Bitch magazine)
2. When it’s coming from the mouth of Molly Weasley.
Banning the term, however, it not on, for the reasons you state above. We need to bring about change by attacking the social structures that mean that terms like “bitch” can be used to demean women, rather than attacking the words themselves. This isn’t to say that banning them in certain circumstances isn’t appropriate– for instance, in schools and other spaces that are supposed to be safe. But in the law… no.
OK, the noun, conceivably–but when you ban the noun you ban the verb, too–and that is a crime against the mother tongue.
I may give up f*ck you but not f*ckup, sh¡t but not bullsh¡t, p¡ss but not p¡ssed off. Those are valuable lexical items. And where would we be without the term asshole?
In the same way, to bitch occupies a place different from complain, whine, moan, and even kvetch–and there’s no mistaking a bitchfest, which needs no females present.
You’ll get my profanity when you pry it from my stiff, cold fingers.
Don’t you understand: they’re trying to ban Pandagon!
I’m just hoping that one of my favorite Picoisms, “combitch,™” (a verb, meaning to complain about loudly) remains legal.
Actually, my first impression was that whoever came up with this was trying to show how ridiculous the banning of “nigger” was.
All long term readers here are familiar with the exhortation to overcome being accused of being a slut by being a slut. Well, I believe in bitch pride. An old friend of mine would call me a bitch when I was getting in his face, and I’d always respond “Darn right, you asshole.” Whereupon we’d both suppress laughter while people around us gasped at our supposed fight.
Any woman who stands up for herself will get called a bitch from time to time. I’ll admit there are other meanings, but a woman in politics surely must be acquainted with her backbone offending others.
If the word bitch was removed, misogyny would still be almost omnipresent. Let the word be used, and the context be scrutinized. Where there is respect for women, the word holds no sting. Where there is disdain for women, any word can be made ugly.
The word ‘bitch’ occurs frequently in the poems of Robert Burns (1759–1796). I suppose he was the Snoop Dogg of his day.
If I can’t use “bitch” then I’m going to be severely curtailed in my workplace expression. There is no other word that is as satisfying and all-encompassing of the gossipy, ricebowl-y, politicky, and above all backstabby nature of my co-workers.
I propose to reserve the right to refer to some of my female co-workers as “bitch” with the caveats that A) some adjective (”heinous,” “callous,” etc.) must be affixed to specify what kind of bitch and why, and B) so long as it equates to “asshole” as applied to males.
Unacceptable: Did you see Marie disputed my results? What a bitch.
Acceptable: Marie took the handicapped space again, ate my lunch, and didn’t refill the coffee. What a callous bitch!
Honestly, I think until you work with the government, you have no idea how essential this word is to your sanity. If you english major types can supply something as descriptive and satisfying then I’m all ears.
Kate asked:
Why should they? The upper middle class whites are the only people who read it!
Surely you remember the standard joke, that New Yorkers buy the Times so that they’ll look serious, but that it’s just a cover to hide what they are really reading, the Post.
“bitch” is used by both men and women to describe some men as well. So is “cunt”. Mealy-mouthed Darlene should perhaps listen to The Fugs first and second albums to find some more “offensive” language.
“Collateral damage” is an acceptable phrase, but that is much more offensive. There is plenty of other terms which relate to murder but don’t seem to offend the guardians of moral virtue.
But Bernarda, when used against men “bitch” and “cunt” are still misogynist. It’s insulting them by comparing them to women or women’s body parts. And it works.
Sarah, so what is calling a guy a “dick” or a “prick”? That is not referring to a body part?
Political correctness pisses me off. Well, since everyone pisses, I guess that is ok. Usually PC is simply puritan correctness.
I do think this is a bit silly, but since Mealey grew up, went to school and has organized block groups in the area I think she might know more about her constituents than we do (she was also a worker for the NYC Transit Authority, so she’s not rich; she’s also not white).
This is pretty lame. Certainly we’re all aware that someone can be non-white and non-rich and still do stupid counterproductive crap that isn’t helping anyone. And you really can’t deny that it’s interesting that this proposal is coming from one of the last remaining truly dire parts of the city, and one where this particular bit of city policy is much more likely to piss people off than actually help anyone.
And if you really think that because someone grew up in the area or has payed their dues as a grassroots organizer, that means they are 100% free of any stupid waste-of-time crap politics, you are seriously naive. Democratic politics in Brooklyn are so inscrutable that even though I live here and follow it, I still rarely understand exactly what’s going on.
Oh, and I live in the next district over from Mealy’s (also a working class predominantly black area) so it’s not like I’m sitting across the country making random assumptions about what’s likely to be meaningful or helpful for her constituents.
I never condoned calling men “dicks” and “pricks.” :shrug:
But calling a man a woman or some variation thereof (”pussy,” “girl,” “bitch,” “cunt”) as an insult is hateful to women.
In most cases, political correctness is simply being respectful. Do you go around calling the mentally challenged “retards?” If not, you’re being PC!! Oh no! I don’t see how refraining from using misogynist language is “PC” anyway.
I do actually think this is more stupid than silly, but I wouldn’t be surprised if her constituents support her on this. I’m from Boston where politics can also get more than a bit weird. In fact, since the city council here has little real power this can come up quite a bit. Googling her, it seems she also does work for affordable housing, legal aid, and immigration. A little demagogery doesn’t take long.
I hope I didn’t imply that Mealy’s paranoia about the Rapper Menace meant she was white. A lot of black people have understandable concerns about thug imagery in rap, but what people of all colors fail to understand is that it’s about the money more than the music. The record industry is white controlled mainly and there’s a strong systematic funneling of record contracts and money to rappers that fit the racist image of what young black men are (thugs). Attacking rappers themselves—or specific words—doesn’t get to the heart of the problem and only reinforces the smug white racist belief that young black men are the cause of the black underclass, not the victims of the system.
“Doggess”? Doggess???
I really want to know if they used to call a large female aquatic lizard an “alligatrix”.
Ah yes, banning “bitch” will work because the rap and hip hop communities wouldn’t possibly just create new terms with the same thrust and meaning of bitch, incorporate them into their music and then wait for them to filter through youth markets into pop culture.
No siree.
I think we also suffer from “bitch” being so easily rhymed. So many words end in something that sounds like “itch” or have that syllable in them, it’s easy for any MC to use it when he needs to put a word on a beat. Too bad we couldn’t swap the meanings of “bitch” and “orange”.
In fact, its apparent that the New York Times couldn’t give a damn about rappers or the black culture either, not bothering to quote or talk to one single person of color in their story about the issue.
Kate, given that two people quoted in the article are people of color, your comment does not make sense. What gave you the impression that all the people the reporter talked to were white?
Just once, just once could the NYT bother to cover people other than upper middle whites? I swear I’d fall over right here in my chair.
Have you fallen over yet?
Amanda wrote:
The record industry is controlled by people who want to make money; they give contracts to people whose music sells. If this stuff didn’t sell, the record companies would have stopped producing it a long time ago.
And there you have it.
APS
I think Dana’s right and wrong at the same time. The whole premise is flawed. This is a complicated topic.
There’s a lot of great hip-hop out there that’s not got anything to do with being hard and shooting people. It’s not like Common (sense) can’t get a record deal. Hell, his record is in Starbucks right now.
The trouble is that’s not the hip-hop that’s at the forefront of what you might call the hip-hop brand. And THAT problem is definitely at least in part a result of the structure of the music industry, and the fact that the people doing the marketing and branding for hip-hop don’t really understand hip-hop culture all that well. (This is in part because they are largely white and in part just because they are executives.)
When record execs can’t figure out how to sell something, they fall back on unimaginitive, cliche ideas. Lupe Fiasco (who is part of Jay-Z’s empire) puts it very well in the song “Daydream” off “Food & Liquor”:
Anyone who’s ever seen a rap video will recognize the parody - they really are almost all exactly like that.
How does this happen? People who don’t understand the music industry mostly think it’s because hip-hop artists themselves are unimaginative.
But really, that’s not the problem. Look at Q-Tip. When he first went solo, Arista thugged him up and put him in a bunch of videos just like the one Lupe was describing above. This is one of the most imaginative, lyrically innovative rap artists in history, and there he was on a black leather couch, partying in his video.
Then his second record he got fed up and recorded a jazz-heavy, strange set that he called “Kamaal the Abstract.” It was supposed to be a departure from the first one and be a launching pad to exploring more interesting and unusual stuff.
Arista refused to release the record, which remains mothballed to this day. They said “we can’t figure out how to market this.”
And there’s your problem, which is itself somewhat bullshit. Quoting Immortal Technique now:
Indeed.
APS
They don’t sell music–they sell an image. That is, they don’t sell phat beats and sweet lyrics, they sell Escalades with chrome feet, grillz, violence, drug abuse, misogyny, and contempt for things like “literacy” and “being a responsible member of society.” And the demand for this has largely been created by exploiting peoples’ base natures…like, everyone wants to get laid, but you can’t excuse someone selling rohypnol just because there’s a high demand for sex.
By banning the words ‘bitch’ and ‘ho’ (which I use on occasion), I think that NYC is trying to clean up its act, as it was the city in which hip-hop was born in 1979. But this is ill-advised as Amanda says, primarily because it would most likely drive the magazine called Bitch out of Nassau County, New York or at least, force the magazine to change its name.
Why the explicit mention of Nassau County?
Nassau is not part of the NYC 5 boroughs and thus would not be subject to this law.
Bitch is produced out of Portland, OR.
I’m pretty sure this ordinance wouldn’t force Bitch Magazine to go under or change its name, or even prevent its sale in NYC. All it could really do is enable a cop to ticket someone reading it. Which probably would never happen, or not in any real numbers, because seriously, the NYPD has better things to do with their time. Like shooting for Driving While Black.
Wouldn’t happen, because (a) Nassau County isn’t in New York City, and (b) the law is so obviously unconstitutional that no one would ever try to enforce it, or if anyone ever did a court would strike it down in 5 minutes.
I would go to New York and play “Startin’ up a Posse” by Anthrax on my Radio Rahim boombox if this were enacted. Caught in a mosh!
Sarah, “In most cases, political correctness is simply being respectful.”
That is always the excuse for limiting speech. Just what does “respectful” mean? When Tony Snow blatantly lies, is that being “respectful”? The same for his masters Bush and Cheney.
Give me a break. The Bushies treat us all as pricks and cunts. They just don’t use the words openly. So hiding vocabulary is better?
Personally, I can’t remember the last time any sort of insult directed at me bothered me.
It’s the rare government action that gives me flashbacks to both 1984 AND The Handmaid’s Tale. Good job, NYC.
Mr Wheatstraw wrote:
We could debate all day about just what exactly is being sold, and never reach the right answer, because different purchasers have varying motivations for purchasing the CDs.
I happen to think that the stuff is crap, but there are enough people who disagree with me to keep the hip-hop stuff selling; obviously some people like it, regardless of for what or how many reasons they have.
It has occurred to me that some of our greatest orators of the past century were black, primarily Southern black preachers. That time seems to have passed, but now we have an entirely new form of oratory, created by primarily young black men. I have to wonder if there is some sort of cultural continuum in this, although I’m not sure how to put it without someone saying, “Oh, he’s just using the ‘blacks have rythem’ stereotype.”
Bernarda,
Tony Snow lies. Refraining from calling an uppity woman a bitch is not lying. Calling a dude a “pussy” is not an act of brave truth-telling. It’s just misogynist: calling him a woman in order to bring him down a few notches. Language matters. Certain words reinforce power structures. Calling a man you dislike “gay” is not PC, right? That doesn’t mean it’s an honorable, truthful statement. It’s just using hatred against gays to insult someone.
Again, do you call the mentally challenged “retards?” If not, why?
“mentally challenged”. That is exactly the type of PC BS that I had in mind. What is wrong with “retards”? That is a more accurate description. It is what we used to say when I was a kid. Before that they were called “morons”. And so?
Such an expression reminds me of an article I once read where Wonder Bread was described as “nutritionally challenged”, in jest.
What is wrong with saying “crippled” instead of “handicapped” or “disabled” or (horror)”mobility challenged”?
A word like “cunt” can be a term of endearment in Ireland, the UK, and Australia. Look it up at Wiki. It is used in papers like the Village Voice.
http://www.villagevoice.com/gallery/0728,28choice,77165,30.html
Notice that the Voice also uses “queers”.
What is wrong with “queen” or “queer” for an effeminate man or “dyke” or “butch” for a masculine woman? Everyone immediately knows what is meant.
There was also a famous incident a few years ago where then French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac described Margaret Thatcher as a “ball-breaker”. That has the advantage of clarity.
As for myself, I rarely use such terms. Occasionally for emphasis or to make a point quickly. But there is the danger of over-use, which then reflects more on the speaker than on the subject.
PS. Here is a little video that plays on words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmsOIjzQ1V8
By the Asylum Street Spankers.
If the mentally retarded don’t appreciate being called “retards,” why is it OK to continue doing so?
And calling a stupid person a “retard” is offensive to the mentally retarded. It’s just marginalizing them further.
People can decide for themselves what they’d like to be called. What is the point of using derogatory names to describe people? “Queer” is an accepted term in the gay community AFAIK. But calling someone a “queer” as an insult is not OK. How do you not get that? Calling women “dykes” in order to insult them is not OK. Put yourself in other people’s shoes.
If someone is a retard, how can they think that it is offensive unless some PC person tells them that it is?
“Marginalizing them further”, Oh my zeus! Further than what? PC gone madder than I could imagine.
As to “dyke” or “queer”, it seems that according to you no insults at all are permissible. That might be alright in a perfect world, but everyone gets pissed off at some time or another.
Maybe we shouldn’t use “macho” as an insult for men, even if they deserve it. We might hurt their feelings.
bernarda sure is one dumb motherfucker.
Ah, clarity.
APS
As I said ape man, some vocabulary reveals more about the commenter than the subject. Thank you for sharing though.
“If someone is a retard, how can they think that it is offensive unless some PC person tells them that it is?”
The word “retard” isn’t just directed AT retarded people. Would you ask a retarded person’s mother how her little “retard” is doing? Calling a “normal” person a “retard” is just as insulting to retarded people as you intend it to be to whomever you’re insulting.
“As to “dyke” or “queer”, it seems that according to you no insults at all are permissible. That might be alright in a perfect world, but everyone gets pissed off at some time or another.”
And if you get pissed off at someone, why use another group’s maligned status (actual queers, dykes) to insult that person?
“As I said ape man, some vocabulary reveals more about the commenter than the subject.”
Kinda like when someone uses words like “retard,” “gay,” or “woman” as insults.
sarah, “And if you get pissed off at someone, why use another group’s maligned status (actual queers, dykes) to insult that person?”
“Maligned status”? You are a live one sarah. Where did I ever say that such descriptions were to malign someone?
That is all your images. I suppose that you have never called some jerk a “macho”. That is not in your vocabulary, is it? You have never said to your girlfriends that some guy is a “prick”, not even Bush or Cheney(a dick in his case).
And oh yeah, and like you or I are going to say to some family, “how is your mentally-challenged child”?
Futhermore, I don’t think I have ever called a “normal” person a “retard” except for liberetardians.
You see, it’s ironic… When I…
Never mind.
APS
Nevermind, indeed.