Now on ScienceBlogs: Oldest Human-Made Object in Space
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« Court Clears Another Gitmo Detainee | Main | Michigan Man Freed on Murder Charge - Without DNA Evidence »
Posted on: November 27, 2009 9:09 AM, by Ed Brayton
From the obviously senile Billy Graham, through his son, about Sarah Palin:
"He's followed her career and likes her strong stand on faith," said son Franklin Graham, who was present for the 2 1/2-hour get-together. "Daddy feels God was using her to wake America up."
Well, it worked. America woke up to the possibility that such an unhinged shrew could actually be in the White House - and prevented it from happening.
Politicsdenialism blog 02.14.2012
respectful insolence 02.14.2012
uncertain principles 02.13.2012
confessions of a science librarian 02.13.2012
starts with a bang! 02.13.2012
Comments
The most disturbing thing she asked was: "She quizzed him on the presidents he's known and wanted his take on what the Bible says about Israel, Iran and Iraq, Franklin Graham reported." Instead of talking with actual policy experts to learn something, she relies on this!? Never forget about the ignorance of this woman!
Posted by: Chris L. | November 27, 2009 9:25 AM
Billy & Franklin Graham . . . another example of an apple that fell far from the tree.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 27, 2009 9:32 AM
As misguided as Billy Graham is, his boy Franklin is all-out insane. Where father at least tries to put on a reasoned front, son's chief strategy is belligerence. I get the sense that the quote in question just might be an example of rhetorical facilitated communication.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 27, 2009 9:41 AM
I love how she went to talk to a senile old Bible thumping televangelist to talk about how the Bible should help her shape a policy for the Middle East. No, she's not f*ckin' nuts Palin supporters, this is a perfectly rational way to develop a policy...
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 27, 2009 11:10 AM
What kind of a grown man calls his father "daddy"?
Posted by: Wes | November 27, 2009 11:39 AM
Dude, you know I love you, but you gotta lay off the misogynist attacks on Palin. She is a despicable vicious ignorant nasty sick-fuck right-wing asshole, but the "shrew" shit does nothing but drag you down.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | November 27, 2009 11:51 AM
That's rught, Ed! You should not use sexist terms to refer to that nasty bitch!
Posted by: Valhar2000 | November 27, 2009 11:59 AM
The one time I had a conversation with Billy Graham (20 years ago, or so) we talked about the Red Sox. He seemed very up to date, especially on their minor league teams.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 27, 2009 12:01 PM
As does your misuse of the term 'misogynist' and the bizarre string of 'logic' that is necessary for you to get from calling a specific woman a 'shrew' (but apparently 'asshole' is a-okay of course) to 'misogyny'.
Posted by: Spartan | November 27, 2009 12:06 PM
The main reason I clicked on this post was to see how long it would to take for someone to complain about "shrew". Longer that I thought, actually.
Posted by: Martin | November 27, 2009 12:16 PM
I have read that Franklin Graham once advised then Israeli Prime MInister Sharon to raze the Al Aksa mosque in Jerusalem in order to rebuild the third temple on the site, which, in his delusional opinion, is necessary for the return of Joshua of Nazareth. The fact that such an action would start a holy war in the Middle East troubled him not at all.
Posted by: SLC | November 27, 2009 12:32 PM
I didn't even notice it on a first reading, but now that it's been mentioned, "shrew" really is an unfortunate word choice. Let's try to stick to the gender-neutral "idiot."
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 27, 2009 12:39 PM
Why exactly Sadie? Would it have been okay if he would have said 'woman of violent temper and speech', the definition of 'shrew'? Because non-gender-neutral words carry with them implicit additional statements about the gender as a whole? That seems like a hell of a leap.
Posted by: Spartan | November 27, 2009 12:53 PM
A shrew is a nasty voracious little mouse like animal. That
description of Sarah is an understatement of her abilities.
If the USA wants to fall back into the bronze age, she'll be the right one to take us there.
Posted by: aspentroll.myid.net | November 27, 2009 12:53 PM
"Shrew" doesn't bother me one bit. (nappy headed hoe is a whole different thing)
I call anybody a "bitch" when they are acting like one, and that includes my husband and son.
Posted by: Sherry Young | November 27, 2009 1:00 PM
I don't buy this. Billy is a lifelong Democrat. Franklin is a neocon nutjob who thinks we should bomb all brown people. Sounds like a political deathbed conversion to me.
Posted by: Pastor Josh | November 27, 2009 1:36 PM
Comparing her to us is really offensive.
Posted by: A shrew | November 27, 2009 1:37 PM
I probably wouldn't refer to her as an "asshole" or a "dickhead". Men and women can both be bitchy, but the conventions of contemporary english confer and entirely different meaning on a female "bitch" than on a male "bitch". I think "shrew" is okay though. Unlike "bitch", by the way, the animal in question remains a shrew whether male or female.
Posted by: Joe | November 27, 2009 1:44 PM
I would have preferred the following language:
"God was using her to arouse America."
Posted by: MadScientist | November 27, 2009 4:02 PM
I'm normally in the camp that thinks it's unwise to use derogatory terms that could provide blowback opportunities; why provide ammunition to your enemy?
I think however when the target of your ire is leveraging an attribute that contributes to what we find repugnant, that's justification and in fact better describes one's criticism. When it comes to Ms. Palin, I think she uses her gender both as a shield to avoid criticism (she's the laziest sponge I've ever encountered in terms of her governorship) and to attract voters - horny conservative loser men and intellectually lazy, delusional, conservative women.
Shrew is an accurate attribution for her behavior when playing offense in terms of how she uses her gender to first make dishonest attacks against others, and then switches to defense to protray herself the victim of liberal mean-spiritedness against a common woman just trying to present how her common constituents feel about that mean scary [black] wolf in the White House. I'm surprised she hasn't started the using the rape word yet, it became all the rage last week with some like-minded talking heads. Palin's still stuck repeating dithering as if everytime she says it, Sean Hannity will up the fawnage five more percent. I predict that will crop up in the next week, at least between either her or Rep. Bachmann.
My ire with her last week was how she kept using her baby as a stage prop to market her anti-abortion rights, working mom bona fides. She'd appear with her baby out of the bus, but then immediately hand her child to an aide right after the initial photos were taken.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 27, 2009 4:31 PM
Honestly, shrews (the insectivores) contribute to a healthy ecology.
Palin certainly does not.
Posted by: Rob Jase | November 27, 2009 5:29 PM
Here I was minding my own business snacking on the odd insect I found and then this! I am absolutely offended that an idiotic moronic brainless pernicious putrid poo of a bitchy twit would be compared to me.
Posted by: Shrew | November 27, 2009 7:16 PM
And what does the on-line dictionary have to say?
Note 'shew' has been around since before time immemorial, yet it became 'gender specific' around 1386 (being derived from 'a spiteful person (male or female)) and that by the mid-16th century it was back to describing a behaviour not he sex of the person exhibiting that behavior.
How dare Ed use a word that is gender-neutral, the complete cad!
Now back to Graham family of congenital idiots and their risible opinions of anencephalic Palin. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 27, 2009 7:53 PM
Michael Heath:
"and to attract voters - horny conservative loser men and intellectually lazy, delusional, conservative women"
What, you don't think there might be some horny, conservative, loser, intellectually lazy, delusional men AND teh GAY women out there?
What does Camille Paglia have to say about the Impalinator?
Posted by: democommie | November 27, 2009 8:44 PM
Oh Jesus!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091127/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_iron_jesus
Posted by: Owen | November 27, 2009 8:59 PM
I love how God gets all of these people to run for office, and then, once they are trounced at the polls, it's all, "God used her to wake America up" or, "Well, I was not successful, but I was able to raise these important issues."
It's a good thing for us that God is a lousy campaign manager.
Posted by: Ick of the East | November 27, 2009 11:52 PM
That's the Mona Lisa on that iron, dammit.
Proof that God loves gay artists.
Posted by: Ick of the East | November 27, 2009 11:54 PM
Ick - That's what happens when you try to iron out the 2K y.o wrinkles on Jesus' face!
-----------
Now that's gonna leave a mark. Shouldda used Botox! :)
Posted by: DingoJack | November 28, 2009 12:02 AM
PhysioProf wrote:
I disagree. There is nothing misogynist about calling a specific woman a shrew, just as there is nothing wrong with calling a specific man an asshole or a dickhead. If I thought that all women, or most women, were shrews, that would be misogynist. But Palin's obvious shortcomings are no reflection on other women at all.
Yes, I know that shrew is a stereotype aimed at a certain archetype of women. But asshole is also a stereotype aimed at a certain archetype of men. That doesn't mean there aren't both women and men who fit that stereotype and deserve the label.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 28, 2009 12:09 AM
Ick, that's what I thought too. Mona Lisa.
Posted by: Owen | November 28, 2009 12:48 AM
False equivalence, my friend. There is a huge difference between referring to a specific woman as a "shrew" and referring to a specific man as an "asshole" or "dickhead". I will leave it to you to do a little homework and discover the difference.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | November 28, 2009 1:51 AM
Comrade! - Nope, sorry I completely disagree with you for many, many reasons. But I'll let you do a little homework and discover why I think this (perhaps now is good time to break-out the crystal ball or the 'Obama mind-control (and reading) Time Travel Device™'. :) - DJ
----------
PS: love the whole 'I might have an argument, but I'll let you develop it for me, 'cause I'm lazy' thing. Learn it from a Fundie?
Posted by: DingoJack | November 28, 2009 2:02 AM
I think everyone complaining about the shrew remark is missing the earlier posting where a woman called Palin just that. Ed seems to be piggybacking on the comment.
Posted by: Aquaria | November 28, 2009 2:24 AM
Calling a person, who you'd actually call an "asshole" or a "prick" if male, a "shrew" or a "bitch," really isn't inherently any more sexist than using the gender-specific pronoun "she." Of course, you're probably perfectly aware of this...
Also, you seem to be well on your way to making "misogynist" the new "Hitler."
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 28, 2009 3:33 AM
Using instances of the former as an excuse to throw your weight around is pretty much a full time pastime for you?
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 28, 2009 3:37 AM
Fortunately we have MISTER PhysioProf here to explain to everyone, male and female, what women ACTUALLY think of the use of the term "shrew."
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 28, 2009 3:43 AM
Re PhysioProf
Mr. Brayton is in pretty good company. The greatest writer in the English language, William Shakespeare, wrote a play entitled, "Taming of the Shrew." There was a movie made of the play starring Richard Burton and his wife, Elizabeth Taylor
Posted by: SLC | November 28, 2009 7:34 AM
I'm less than convinced by your referencing of one of the most misogynistic literary pieces ever written as an attempt to exonerate the use of the term.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 28, 2009 9:56 AM
I just had a chat with my 65 year old mother on the subject. Her first reaction was "Well, that term doesn't apply to Sarah Palin. I don't think she's particularly malicious; she's just stupid and lacks social graces, and nobody should want her to possibly become president." So I asked her about the label "shrew" in general. "Well, it's gender specific...you wouldn't call a man that." True, I said, but women aren't generally called dickheads either. Would she ever call a woman a shrew? "No." Why? "Well, I wouldn't call a woman a spinster just because she's unmarried, even though technically it does apply...the connotation doesn't."
Suggestion: The problem with "shrew" is not that it's almost exclusively applied to women. It's that it's a pretty archaic word, stemming from the days when the idea of what a woman "should" be is very different from today. My mom and I both vastly prefer the word "bitch," as it doesn't carry those associations. She doesn't think that word applies to Sarah Palin either, but she is willing to call a woman a bitch when she thinks it applies.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 28, 2009 10:44 AM
Somehow I'm finding "You're wrong but I'm not going to make an argument as to why" a less than compelling position.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 28, 2009 11:16 AM
An utterly incompetent, ignorant, and unqualified "candidate" for 2012 goes to a senile old televangelist to find out what his "magic book" says so she can construct her middle east "policy" based on the writings of a 2000 year old hermit who might have been totally insane ...
And we're debating whether shrew is appropriate?!?!?!? We're fucked, Palin's going to be elected because we're too fucking stupid as a species...
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 28, 2009 12:19 PM
dogmeatib,
We're arguing whether "shew" is appropriate because the matter of whether Billy Graham is a senile old televangelist endorsing an utterly incompetent, ignorant, and unqualified "candidate" is so obvious as to be beyond argument.
Ed,
I didn't say you were wrong, but I did offer a suggestion as to why you might be.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 28, 2009 6:07 PM
There is nothing misogynist about calling a specific woman a shrew, just as there is nothing wrong with calling a specific man an asshole or a dickhead. If I thought that all women, or most women, were shrews, that would be misogynist. But Palin's obvious shortcomings are no reflection on other women at all.
And there is nothing racist about calling a specific black person a "nigger". Especially if they are acting like one. I mean, sure, if I called *all* black people niggers, that would obviously be racist. But the shortcomings of the relatively few niggers are no reflection on other black folk.
Posted by: BikeMonkey | November 28, 2009 7:31 PM
And you fans of the Bard might want to review this: http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/2009/09/the_taming_of_the_shrew.php
Posted by: BikeMonkey | November 28, 2009 7:41 PM
Just curious, does anyone think there is anything sexist or misandrist about calling a particular man an asshole, a cockbag, a dick, a jerk-off, etc.?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 28, 2009 7:49 PM
I'm just asking because I've actually seen the argument that gender specific insults targeted against men aren't sexist because men aren't oppressed like women are. Taking this especially ridiculous bit of leftardation to its logical conclusion, calling a white guy a "honkey" or a "cracker" wouldn't qualify as racist.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 28, 2009 8:10 PM
Yes I'd recommend reviewing 'Much Ado About Nothing' for love/hate relationships, a standard plot device in rom/coms from when Willy was in short pants.
I read Othello as politically relevant to our current situation. If you going to invade territory held by Muslims, would you put a Moor (either a Morisco, a Muslim who became a 'Catholic convert', or a West African/ Berber Muslim, although most likely the former) in charge? How would junior officers whose ambitions were thwarted fell about that do you think?
As to Shakespeare not knowing about the machinations in Court, well no so much. Shakespeare worked in a company called 'The Lord Chamberlain's Men'. Their 'boss' (well, patron really) was The Lord Chamberlain (the guy who controlled access to the Queen, could censor plays and shut down playhouses, amongst other things), one Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon (he was rumoured to be an illegitimate son of Henry VIII, but never proved, of course). Other patrons included Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. So it's not entirely impossible that Shakespeare might have heard of the machinations of the court. Plus there was plenty of gossip around anyway (the equivalent of today's tabloid newspapers, I suppose) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 28, 2009 8:25 PM
BZZT!!!!!!!! You get nothing, you lose, good day sir!!!!!
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | November 28, 2009 9:46 PM
Gretchen-
Sorry, wasn't referring to what you said. I was referring to PhysioProf's comment.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 28, 2009 9:53 PM
"BZZT!!!!!!!! You get nothing, you lose, good day sir!!!!!"
OMFG EXCLAMATION MARKS UR SO 1337!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FUCK FUCK FUCK NIGGERS JEEEEEEEEEEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 28, 2009 10:34 PM
Seriously guys I think I'm seriously intellectual checkmate after CP's last comment. I will leave it to threadborn consensus to determine whether I have any chance of winning this argument.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 28, 2009 10:39 PM
What fucking planet are you from where you think that this is about "winning" some fucking "argument"? Real life ain't some high school debate tournament. Grow the fuck up, cockwad.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | November 29, 2009 12:45 AM
I think I've found CP's problem you guys.
You laugh, you lose.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 29, 2009 12:53 AM
There seems to be a certain level of vitriol that greets women in politics -- a very good example being the slew of 'shrews' thrown at Hillary Clinton, and here we see an example with Sarah Palin. I'm in no way suggesting that the two women are similarly qualified; imagine that debate! But I do see similarities in the level of vehemence thrown their way, and in both cases, as a woman, it does feel sexist. I can't call out an exact logical string of arguments as to why it 'feels' wrong to call Palin a shrew, but I certainly wish that men who have examined sexism before would recognize it before perpetuating it.
Posted by: gnuma | November 29, 2009 9:03 AM
There is a very simple, straightforward, and undeniably correct reason why calling Palin a "shrew" is not at all like calling some d00d a "dickhead".
Unfortunately, Ed's high-school debate team is too busy furiously jacking off at its "checkmate", and making up non-existing inanities like "misandry", to do a little research. It's interesting, given that these are supposed ADVOCATES OF REASON and FRIENDS OF CHARLES DARWIN.
It's sad to see jokers like Depietro talk that game, yet make it clear that their real game is all about reinforcing their preconceived notions and refusing to consider contrary evidence, done with the purpose of aggrandizing their own superiority and hiding from their own ineffectuality.
These people flock around PZ Myers and Ed Brayton for exactly the same reason that right-wing losers flock around Sarah Palin. The fact that Myers and Brayton are mostly correct and Palin is disastrously wrong in their substantive assertions doesn't alter the emotional and moral degeneracy that underlies this kind of embarrassing and pathetic fan-boy behavior.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | November 29, 2009 9:46 AM
Someone's touched a nerve.
Sarah Palin has referred to herself as a "hockey mom" and then made the comment that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick. Perhaps "hockey mom" and "pitbull" are gender neutral whereas, "shrew" is not gender neutral? Is it okay if we define her as the KKKristianist wetdream of a valkyrie?
Posted by: democommie | November 29, 2009 10:02 AM
I agree with PhysioProf on this one.
Fellas, 'shrew' is a bit like 'bitch': you can use it against either sex, but that just skirts over the fact that in recent history, it carries the connotation of maligning, specifically, women.
Nice attempt at evading being called misogynistic, but no cigar.
As much as I think Sarah Palin is an evil whackjob who is more useful to the country as Soylent Green, using gendered epithets has far too much collateral damage.
Posted by: Katharine | November 29, 2009 11:38 AM
Calling a person, who you'd actually call an "asshole" or a "prick" if male, a "shrew" or a "bitch," really isn't inherently any more sexist than using the gender-specific pronoun "she." Of course, you're probably perfectly aware of this...
Also, you seem to be well on your way to making "misogynist" the new "Hitler."
... did you REALLY equate using the word 'she' with calling a woman a shrew or a bitch? 'asshole' is gender-neutral, and 'prick' carries nowhere near the sexist, bashing-women-who-know-better-than-to-act-like-a-simpering-stupid-conformist-to-traditional-gender-roles-that-aren't-worth-crap connotation that 'shrew' and 'bitch' do!
Grow the fuck up!
Posted by: Katharine | November 29, 2009 11:42 AM
OMFG EXCLAMATION MARKS UR SO 1337!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FUCK FUCK FUCK NIGGERS JEEEEEEEEEEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
Last I heard, this kind of /b/tard-esque bullshit didn't win an argument.
Posted by: Katharine | November 29, 2009 11:44 AM
PhysioProf wrote:
Then please present that reason. Make an argument. I'm perfectly open to having my mind changed by rational argument. So far, not only have you not presented one, you've explicitly refused to present one, telling me to go do some research. That's not exactly convincing.
I think you're being a little melodramatic here. Two people got nasty with you. Given your penchant to get nasty with others in disagreements (and mine too, I might add), this should hardly come as a shock or be declared some moral outrage. The thread is also full of people making perfectly reasonable arguments. You could engage those people (including me) in a dialogue, but instead you're choosing to focus on two people who treated you as nastily as you often treat others and refusing to just make your point so we can talk about it.
You're a very smart guy, PP. I like you a lot. I'm more than willing to carry on a civil, intelligent dialogue with you on this issue. I've stated my position clearly. So far all you've said is "you're wrong but I'm not going to tell you why." This is not exactly conducive to such an dialogue.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 29, 2009 12:33 PM
I couldn't care less if people are nasty at me. My only problem with those d00ds is that they are full of shit. Shrew a an epithet directed against a woman has its power as an epithet precisely because it reiterates a long-standing misogynist stereotype *designed to disparage their honesty and motivations*. Dickhead or asshole do derive their power from this kind of disparagement of men as a class.
Posted by: PhysioProf | November 29, 2009 2:13 PM
And we get the exact same leftarded crap that I outlined earlier. How predictable some people can be.
Women are a "class" only in the sense that they form a group defined by certain characteristics. Shrew applies to them as a "class" in the exact same way as dickhead or asshole applies to men as a "class".
Also, the "power" of "shrew" as an epithet seems to be an awfully subjective quality. I don't see why "shrew" has any more power than dickhead or asshole.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 29, 2009 2:38 PM
Gretchen wrote:
I agree with this, although I might use the term "shrew" to describe a particularly nasty elderly woman. Phyllis Schlafly comes to mind. Or perhaps Mrs. Lovett (from Sweeney Todd).
Palin's overt stupidity just makes the term seem misplaced. She doesn't seem calculating enough to qualify as a shrew.
Posted by: Leni | November 29, 2009 3:26 PM
I'd propose that these epithets are nasty only because the surrounding culture deems them to be so. That is, the difference between calling a woman a shrew and calling them, say, a "cunt" is that our culture deems the latter the be a very, very nasty term to apply to a woman. "Shrew" falls far short of that standard, "bitch" is a borderline case.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 29, 2009 4:02 PM
I take it back, you're all cunts. Now shut the hell up and make my food.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 29, 2009 4:04 PM
PhysioProf wrote:
Thank you, at least now you're actually making an argument. But it's an argument I already answered above. I'll repeat what I said in my first comment:
If I thought that all women, or most women, were shrews, that would be misogynist. But Palin's obvious shortcomings are no reflection on other women at all.
Yes, I know that shrew is a stereotype aimed at a certain archetype of women. But asshole is also a stereotype aimed at a certain archetype of men. That doesn't mean there aren't both women and men who fit that stereotype and deserve the label.
If Sarah Palin's honesty and motivations do not deserve to be disparaged, I can't imagine whose would. That has nothing to do with hating women, which is what misogyny means; it has to do with hating the behavior being displayed.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 29, 2009 4:53 PM
Posted by: Spartan | November 29, 2009 7:11 PM
Alright, ping.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | November 30, 2009 12:48 AM
A woman of aggressive temperament and speech is a shrew and looked down upon, a man with aggressive temperament and speech is seen as taking the lead and given promotions. That is the sexism. The word, when used as an insult, implies that women should be quiet and calm, i.e. submissive. Today these ideas are changing, which is why you rarely see the term "shrew" used. It is becoming more acceptable for women to voice their own opinions and more unacceptable for men to be loud-mouthed and aggressive (at least outside conservative backwaters and executive boardrooms). But the term hearkens back to the time when women were expected to sit at home quietly and never complain, and those that didn't comply were "shrews".
This is also why it is different then calling a man a "dickhead" or an "asshole". Those terms refer to specific characteristics of a particular man, and do not confer a sexist classification of how men are supposed to behave.
Posted by: Clark | November 30, 2009 1:01 AM
Comrade, Katherine, Dr Isis et al. -
Personally I just can't agree with your position. In my opinion:
a) You may say how you interpret something, but you may not tell others what they meant when they said it.
b) You don't don't get to define a word, nor construct it's etymology, to aid your sense of outrage. If you're unsure what a word means or where it comes from, consult a dictionary.
c) Even if you are a member of genus (and particularly if you're not), you don't get to determine the feelings of that whole genus. If you're outraged or offended, own it, say "I am offended, because..".
d) You don't have the right not to be offended, especially if this involves censoring the voices of others. Stop being a pussy, if you're offended then say so and say why by all means, but don't hijack an argument just because some word or words offend your delicate sensibilities.
e) What makes you think that any group are made up of such fragile, weak and delicate little flowers that they have to be protected from words by PC warriors like you anyway? In the case of being PC toward women, who exactly is being a misogynist here?
Just my $0.018. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 30, 2009 2:47 AM
DingoJack, replace the word 'shrew' or 'bitch' with 'uppity negro' or 'pickaninny' and maybe you'll get what we're actually talking about. There's no sort of 'protection' idea here, but we like to know we've got some friends, y'know. I mean, if there was a male equivalent, such as 'walking brainless sack of crap who's only useful as a fleshy dildo', that would be just as bad, I think, if there was an equivalent amount of shit happening to men in the past.
And regarding the right to not be offended, yes, this is true, but do you know just how badly saying shit like that reflects on your character as a (presumably) grown-up who should, if they reflect similar views, know better than to insinuate in their language that women shouldn't be the proud, upstanding, powerful citizens they are today (the way apparent /b/tard transplant Tyler DiPietro does)? Words do, in fact matter; you don't say 'Fuck I hate those spics' and say, later, 'But I meant it in a good way!'
Posted by: Katharine | November 30, 2009 7:37 AM
Here's a point made on the thread at Isis' blog that I want to reiterate:
Sexism is bad because no woman deserves it. No man deserves it (yes, it hurts men too - the insinuation that men can't control themselves implies that men are immature little boys who haven't grown up). Sexism has no good reason behind it other than to verbally claim that half the species, because of what's between their legs (which is a fucking shitty reason), is inferior to the other half, which it isn't inferior to at all.
Being non-sexist, along with being non-racist and non-homophobic and non-other-dumb-prejudices, is part of being a mature adult. America has too few of these.
Posted by: Katharine | November 30, 2009 7:46 AM
Regarding PC, here is an apt quote by Polly Toynbee of the Grauniad:
"The phrase "political correctness" was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic or queer, all those who still want to pick on anyone not like them, playground bullies who never grew up. The politically correct society is the civilised society, however much some may squirm at the more inelegant official circumlocutions designed to avoid offence."
Posted by: Katharine | November 30, 2009 7:56 AM
Dingo is right on, especially point b. Katharine, I do understand your point, but replace shrew with 'dork' or 'jerk' and you'll get what we're also talking about. I find 'shrew' to be more distant from 'uppity negro' than it is from 'dork'.
Posted by: Spartan | November 30, 2009 8:17 AM
Replace 'shrew' with any word you like, all in my post above still applies.
'Shrew' describes a behaviour not a sex*, it may surprise you but even men can behave shrewishly (think Al Gore, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh and many others. Which is odd since none of them look shrewish).
Also criticising one individual, doesn't mean that it follows that all in that genus are being criticised in the same way. If I say that "George Costanza is tightfisted", this doesn't mean all Italians, all men, all New Yorkers and so on, are tightfisted, just him. (for example).
If you're offended I understand that, but you don't get to speak for others, or to silence them. You can only voice your own opinion.
Political correctness is a way of couching an 'offensive' term is another way, which, over time, becomes offensive in itself. Why not deal with the problem by naming it, by taking control of the language, rather than 'sweeping under the carpet' to fester
And that just my opinion. - DJ
------------
* clearly we're not talking about small, mouse-like insectivores of the genus Sorex and related genera, here. Incidentally these do not reproduce paŕthenogenetically, thus they have both males and females.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 30, 2009 8:55 AM
DingoJack, from the Concise Oxford Dictionary of English etymology:
shrew2 †malignant man XIII; person (now, woman) given to railing XIV. perh. transf. use of prec., but poss. spec. application of a word meaning ‘ill-disposed being’.
Hence shrewish †wicked XIV; ill-natured, given to scolding XVI.
Posted by: Katharine | November 30, 2009 9:21 AM
Also criticising one individual, doesn't mean that it follows that all in that genus are being criticised in the same way. If I say that "George Costanza is tightfisted", this doesn't mean all Italians, all men, all New Yorkers and so on, are tightfisted, just him. (for example).
This is... logically bereft and a poor analogy to what we're actually talking about, but I would appreciate it if someone with more patience than me to explain this would.
Posted by: Katharine | November 30, 2009 9:24 AM
Katherine - exactly. a woman in XIV, a person in XVI. Sorry to nag*. :) - DJ
-----------------
* "1815–25 from ON nagga to rub, grumble, quarrel; akin to MLG naggen to irritate. See gnaw", not to be confused with: "1350–1400; late ME nagge; connected with D neg(ge) small horse, itself attested late and of obscure orig.; said to be akin to neigh"
Posted by: DingoJack | November 30, 2009 9:30 AM
"A woman of aggressive temperament and speech is a shrew and looked down upon, a man with aggressive temperament and speech is seen as taking the lead and given promotions. That is the sexism. The word, when used as an insult, implies that women should be quiet and calm, i.e. submissive. Today these ideas are changing, which is why you rarely see the term "shrew" used. It is becoming more acceptable for women to voice their own opinions and more unacceptable for men to be loud-mouthed and aggressive (at least outside conservative backwaters and executive boardrooms). But the term hearkens back to the time when women were expected to sit at home quietly and never complain, and those that didn't comply were "shrews".
This is also why it is different then calling a man a "dickhead" or an "asshole". Those terms refer to specific characteristics of a particular man, and do not confer a sexist classification of how men are supposed to behave".
Clark, you've absolutely nailed the problem here, and in calm, measured tones, too. Thank you.
Posted by: DRK | November 30, 2009 9:38 AM
Isis the Scientist is exactly right. Thank you for an accurate and eloquent analysis of the issue, I learned something today.
Posted by: Maldoror | November 30, 2009 12:32 PM
Spartan- well said. Although, in my idiolect "dork" is a term of endearment, and ergo no more appropriate to Palin than the other phrase. I really don't find shrew per se strongly objectionable.
Still, I can't help but wonder if simply calling Palin a cockweasledouchemonkey wouldn't save us all time, and those of us with delicate sensibilities a little discomfort.
I mean, are "nagging and ill-tempered" really the defining problematic characteristics of Palin? And if they are not the defining problematic characteristics of Palin, what explains why they would come so quickly to mind? Are we just running out of insults for someone who should have slunk off to oblivion long ago? Or could such a phrase represent writing in a way that might possibly expose internal prejudices, much as the 'implicit bias' gut-response rapid word association tests used in psychology aim to do?
Even if the term is appropriate to Palin, can anyone who would term her that and then insist on their right to do that even when it annoys others really use the phrase without a tinge of hypocrisy?
Posted by: becca | November 30, 2009 1:41 PM
Or how about this, from Isis' post?
FWIW, I mostly agree with Isis' post, but I can't read her blog anymore because (almost) any time she disagrees with a man on gender issues, she starts going on about how we're just talking with our dicks or something (and then there was that infamous incident where it turned out to not even be a man....) Don't get me wrong, I don't think I have much of a right to whine about it when I'm (statistically) getting paid more for my job than I would if I had the other equipment. It just makes it difficult to read Isis' blog because, when calling out a man on gender issues, she tends to use rhetoric that is in many ways the inverse of "shrew". The fact that she's talking about a specific man doesn't make it much less grating for me.
(Note that I can't post this on Isis' blog, because surely someone would accuse me of swinging my cock around.)
Oh, the one other thing I want to add is that while I agree "shrew" was not a good choice there, and while I think it's doubly important to take care when talking about someone like Palin who can partially obscure her abject idiocy by claiming (truthfully) that many people are only attacking her so ruthlessly because of her gender... at the same time, I think we tend to overestimate the social effects of word choice, due to the ubiquity and "water cooler" value of social constructivist propaganda.
Ed shouldn't call Palin a "shrew", because it is hurtful to many people, and because it gives more ammo for those who claim that poor Sarah is just being picked on because she's a girl. But I don't actually believe that his use of the word "shrew" does much of anything to reinforce stereotypes. or anything like that. The extent to which words reinforce prejudices is vastly overestimated -- they are more a manifestation of prejudice than a contributing cause. (Which is why the politically correct term for historically oppressed minorities tends to keep changing... racism doesn't persist because the unpleasant word "negro" was used instead of "black" or because the increasingly-unpleasant word "black" is used instead of "African-American" -- rather, the words "negro" and "black" started to sound unpleasant to our ears BECAUSE of racism and their usage by racists, i.e. the causality swings the other way.)
Posted by: James Sweet | November 30, 2009 3:02 PM
Welllll..... While the first sentence is true, I don't think the second sentence necessarily follows, if you look at it honestly. In my previous post, I gave the example of the progression of acceptable terms used for African Americans. However, just because the shift from one word to the next has nothing to do with any intrinsic quality of the words themselves, that doesn't mean we should start throwing around the word "Negro" in protest. That word is deeply hurtful to many people, regardless of the causes, and so its use should be avoided.
Observing that the treadmill of politically correct terminology does nothing to actually reduce prejudice, and instead is just an interminable retreat from prejudice, does not diminish the hurtfulness of those terms which have fallen out of favor. We can point out that this is irrational, but so is a lot of what us humans do. This is the human condition, and even though from a purely objective standpoint it makes no sense, the gradual "offensivization" of terms used for historically oppressed groups will continue to march on.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 30, 2009 3:10 PM
Thanks becca, and I actually find a lot of what you say around SB to be 'well said'. I just don't think we need to continue to wall off words as absolutely forbidden, nor assume offense as the default when other interpretations are available. And I think going after a word like 'shrew' and ascribing additional meanings to it that are not inherent in the word itself is overboard. Yes, it may be worthwhile to avoid such words because of the overly sensitive among us, but another endeavor as worthwhile (or futile) as that is to get people to not be so thin-skinned and assume the worst possible interpretation.
Posted by: Spartan | November 30, 2009 4:50 PM
"The extent to which words reinforce prejudices is vastly overestimated -- they are more a manifestation of prejudice than a contributing cause."
YEah! Take THAT Sapir-Whorf!
Actually, for the record, I neither believe nor disbelieve Sapir-Whorf, but find it one of the most entertaining hypotheses out there to puzzle over. Until my puzzler is sore.
"Yes, it may be worthwhile to avoid such words because of the overly sensitive among us, but another endeavor as worthwhile (or futile) as that is to get people to not be so thin-skinned and assume the worst possible interpretation."
Quite true. But as someone who's snarkery was almost entirely developed out of a need to distance a secretly (read: obviously) thin-skinned ego from a cruel and heartless world, I tend to think we'd be better off if we all just had some more damn cookies. Because I like cookies.
On the other hand, some might argue that my snarkery is a net-benefit to humanity. On the other-other hand, these people are widely regarded as insane.
Today's episode brought to you by the letter "S".
Becca's moral of the story: 'shrew' is not a good word to Forbid, but probably not an optimal choice in this context for many reasons. Also, it's gingerbread cookie season. MMMmmmmm gingerbread. WITH SPRINKLES! (true story!)
Posted by: becca | November 30, 2009 5:35 PM
James Sweet - I didn't make myself very clear, did I? The point I was trying to make in the above post was that words aren't hurtful in themselves, nevertheless some feel hurt. So instead of saying "this word is too hurtful let's use another, more neutral, word", how about finding out why it's hurtful and doing something about that, instead of shuffling off to a new formulation. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 30, 2009 8:04 PM
Clark:
Pfft! Not by me, not even close. I have a whole bucket full of things I might call such a man, and about 30 friends who would join me.
No, it doesn't imply that at all. It implies that no woman should be nasty and ill-tempered for no good reason. Which is socially reasonable. Pleasant does not equal submissive, except in the minds of Neanderthals (I'm not calling you that; I'm saying only really backward men would think that non-shrewish = submissive).
Well, if The Taming of the Shrew is any indication, Kate was not merely someone who didn't sit home quietly, she was a chronically angry and acid-tongued person.
Those terms are just general terms for disapproval of anti-social, mean, selfish, aggressive behavior, but are more often aimed at men. In that sense they are a sexist classification for how men are supposed to behave: not like that. "Shrew" is a related concept, but applied to a unnecessarily nasty woman.
This is much ado over nothing.
Posted by: cm | November 30, 2009 8:09 PM
cm - "Neanderthal"? Oooh how 'speciesist' of you to assume that all Homo neanderthalis were stupid, brutish and short! & etc. [eye roll]
Clark - I don't know where you work or the kind of management training they do but rude, aggressive, acid-tongued, sarcastic, autocratic persons (of either sex) are not considered to be good managers. They promote high staff turn over and higher training costs, more work-place accidents thus more sick-days, greater inefficiency, greater loss/damage of equipment and so on.
This is hardly a new concept, it has been known since 1960's at least. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJAck | November 30, 2009 8:32 PM
Cm @87 is absolutely correct. I'm tired of the PC language police, which really is a form of bullying in and of itself,
Agreed with whoever said Isis the Scientist's chronic denigration of men she perceives to be sexist is grating. I can't read her posts on feminism for that reason either. She has the language facilities and the wit to write razor sharp and zinging prose, but when going off on a man or men she perceives as sexist, she all throws in references to dick stroking or swinging dicks around. I think *that* is sexist, quite frankly. Or at least infantile.
Also, FWIW, I don't think Sarah Palin should be called a shrew. She can put on a very pleasant facade (which, to my mind, shrews usually don't) and I don't see her as chronically nasty and scolding.
She's more like the person who smiles at you while sticking you with a knife, although in SP's case, it would be using a butterknife because she didn't realize how to find something that cuts properly.
I thought the epithets "Caribou Barbie" and "Bible Spice" were much more apropos.
Posted by: Adrienne | November 30, 2009 9:34 PM
A woman of aggressive temperament and speech is a shrew and looked down upon, a man with aggressive temperament and speech is seen as taking the lead and given promotions.
Not true for about 99% of white collar jobs, I think. Maybe a few exceptions where supremely aggressive and harsh "alphaness" is the norm, but then those exceptions would apply to women as well.
I can say for sure that losing your cool and blowing your top is absolutely not tolerated at all the white collar-type companies (and I've worked for a bunch). One manager I worked with blew his stack at a meeting once and yelled at everyone present. He was fired and sent packing the next day. Maybe in some blue collar jobs (auto mechanics?) you can get away with occasionally yelling at each other (or maybe not), but then someone who did it relentlessly would become very unpopular very quickly, I would think. Being able to get along with your coworkers almost all of the time is an important skill for any job.
Besides, who would want to be managed by or even want to tolerate a super aggressive, harsh, and loud person day in and day out? Someone behaving super aggressively--male or female-- would be a detriment to most companies. Surveys have shown that men and women in white collar jobs tend to prefer female managers, btw....maybe because female managers tend to have better "people skills" and come across less aggressively?
Posted by: Adrienne | November 30, 2009 9:46 PM
Adrienne, #89, good points, all. I agree with all of that. On your point of "shrew", while not offensive to women, not fitting Palin, definitely; in fact, it might more generally be said that no politician who is also a (public) shrew could ever survive. Shrews seem like they should be uncontrolled hotheads. "Witch" might be better, but it suggests too much cunning.
Is there an antonym for the Yiddish word mensch?
Posted by: cm | November 30, 2009 10:13 PM
DingoJack- for me personally, I think of it as a bit hurtful because of two reasons:
1) It makes me sad that the quickest phrases that come to mind for poor female leaders are so female-focused. It's not like there aren't plenty of grounds you can discount Palin on without bringing up her femaleness, even indirectly. In fact, in some ways, it's especially disappointing to see it come up for Palin. It's like, you've got all these *good* insults to use, why force one that doesn't quite fit and that draws attention to her gender? It's like being a woman is more important a disqualification than being ignorant.
2) There have been countless times I've been trying to adopt the local social tone and gone awry because I picked male models of behavior, and those weren't "ok" for me. I don't mind being a bitch, if I'm *aiming* to be a bitch. But if I'm *aiming* to be an assertive, pro-active, organizing leader, and I get called a bitch for behavior that appears *to me* to be exactly what is approved of in males, it gets really, really frustrating.
Now. How would you propose addressing those issues?
"Being able to get along with your coworkers almost all of the time is an important skill for any job."
Until you've got tenure.
:-P
The most relevant question is what Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Joe Biden would be like to work for. My guess? VP is a job where you can be an aggressive asshole. It's not necessary, or even necessarily advantageous, but you can get away with it.
Posted by: becca | November 30, 2009 10:36 PM
BikeMonkey @43 nailed it. Face it, "shrew" is a sexist insult. Ed could have written something like "unhinged idiot" but he decided to go the "non-gender-neutral" route in criticizing Palin, and he's rightly being called on it.
Posted by: daniel rotter | November 30, 2009 11:09 PM
"Ed could have written something like "unhinged idiot" but he decided to go the "non-gender-neutral" route in criticizing Palin, and he's rightly being called on it."
So far I haven't seen anyone in this thread take the position that all insults should be gender neutral. No matter how you slice it, it's downright hypocritical to tolerate gender-specific insults aimed at men while going off with ostentatious outrage when they're aimed at women.
Perhaps Gretchen has a point when she says that "shrew", being an antiquated insult, was primarily used in a time when what we would consider egregious sexism was the norm. Thus you can argue that it's likely to reflect that usage. But I highly doubt that Ed intended it in such a way. In any case it doesn't have anywhere near the force or connotations for women that "nigger" has for black people, as BikeMonkey ridiculously suggested.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 30, 2009 11:36 PM
"So far I haven't seen anyone in this thread take the position that all insults should be gender neutral."
I'll be the first to take that position. And if that makes me "politically correct," big deal.
Posted by: daniel rotter | November 30, 2009 11:53 PM
So how about just referring to everyone as an asshole?
And who'd like some cookies?
Posted by: Mike K. | December 1, 2009 12:04 AM
becca - the issue that muddies the waters here is that it seems that Palin was hired because she was female over other, possibly more qualified, candidates, as a way of
titillatingenergizing the base. Look at the figures, among self-identifying Republicans about two-thirds of men, but only four-tenths of women support Palin. Women seem to think of her as a member of 'the Heathers', and men seem to think she's the hot head cheer-leader. It seems as if that was the Republican strategy going in the last Presidential elections.However post-election, it's her whiny, insistent, self-identifying martyrdom (a behaviour that could also be called 'shrewish' in my opinion) that has come to define her.
If, say, Mitt Romney had exhibited such behavior in defeat would it be equally sexist to criticise him? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 1, 2009 12:38 AM
"I'll be the first to take that position. And if that makes me "politically correct," big deal."
Fair enough. I won't preclude myself the ability to use such insults when the target is deserving.
Look, in this thread I see a lot of appeals to gut feelings about where the "power" of insults like "shrew" come from, and very little factual content other than the plausible argument I mentioned in my last post. Might I suggest that this obsessing over language and the supposed collective victimhood of all women at the behest of such language is a much unneeded distraction from the actual content of Ed's post, i.e., the dubious character of Sarah Palin as an individual?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 1, 2009 1:12 AM
I don't immediately see why that ought be the case, and I would not want to give up, nor have writers give up, apt terms for certain kinds of people, male or female. I'm certain one can do this and not be sexist. So your argument to the contrary is welcome.
Posted by: cm | December 1, 2009 2:48 AM
I read the thread on this over at Isis's blog, and actually I will say I thought some of the "anti-shrewists" made some good points, especially in the later comments.
But I disagree with the contention that "shrew" was an insult used "to put uppity women in their place". Even in "Taming of the Shrew", as someone else in this comment thread pointed out, Kate was more than a strong and outspoken woman. She was outright nasty in some scenes. Granted, I haven't seen the play in over ten years, but I remember a scene where Kate is very ugly to her sister Bianca. In the staging I saw, Kate drags her sister out on stage with Bianca's hands tied.
I do think that "bitch" is a word that has indeed historically been used to put outspoken women in their place, though. If Ed had called Palin a "bitch", I think the anti-sexism brigade would have had a more convincing case for their castigation of Ed for using a gendered insult with a long history of misogynist use.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 1, 2009 7:55 AM
DingoJack- at least you're consistent- you think criticizing a behavior always = criticizing a person. That is, in order to object to "whiny, insistent, self-identifying martyrdom" (which doesn't *quite* fit with my image of her, but it's certainly a reasonable view) we have to think of her as a shrew.
Whereas I'm inclined to think that in the best of all possible worlds, most objections would focus on behavior rather than identity. What's the point in objecting to behavior if it's a permanent fixture of one's identity? You're not going to change it, by definition.
Anyway, why does what Palin is muddy the water? It's a bit old fashioned, but two wrongs don't make a right. If 'shrew' isn't a nice word in this context, something else should be used. You wanted to focus on *why* it was hurtful- I explained my own perspective on that. I am not of the opinion the reason it was hurtful had anything to do with Palin whatsoever (unless, as I pointed out, it makes the use of the word *worse* since there are plenty of other less emotionally loaded, and perhaps more accurate, words for her).
Posted by: becca | December 1, 2009 8:41 AM
Becca - Stalin* was a homicidal paranoiac, but what's the point of criticising his behaviour since he can't change, so carry on Comrade Stalin, kill and send to the gulags as many as you want, it would be rude of us to point out your immutable character flaws**. Ridiculous wouldn't you agree?
I've never met Sarah Plain (perhaps you have) therefore I can't criticise her personally, so I criticise all that I know of her, her behaviour. And from what little I know of her behaviour (out of the public spotlight) 'shrewish' would not be too inaccurate a description, I would say#.
However I defer to your better judgement (particullarly in reference to the emotionally loaded nature of certain words in US culture), since you are more likely to know than I. - DJ
-------------------
* I in no way am comparing Stalin to Palin, merely taking your argument to an absurd end
** behaviours (except innate ones) are not really fixed, one can learn to modify them even at Sarah Palin's age (whatever that might be, a gentleman doesn't ask :))
# again only based on the limited information in the public domain. It may be wildly inaccurate.
PS: I am always open to correction, as I am well aware of the limitations of my knowledge.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 1, 2009 10:03 AM
Dingo, I'm assuming from my [oft-admiring] impression of you as a bit of a Trickster that you purposefully phrased: "Stop being a pussy"... in #70?
ok, I'll bite. "pussy" is hurtful because it's using a word for female genitalia as an insult for being weak. In that sense, "prick", meaning a jerk, could also be hurtful. Except, I have to admit that since women have been traditionally, culturally viewed as weak (i.e., Tyler @94's "egregious sexism was the norm"), "pussy" bothers me more, none the least because I'm a strong woman, physically and otherwise.
And "shrew" is hurtful to me because of the connotations I get from the word, which in my mind is inextricably linked to Shakespeare's "Taming of the Shrew", which I think is dreadfully misogynistic in many ways and brings to mind the analogy of "breaking a wild mustang".
Posted by: marnk | December 1, 2009 12:37 PM
sorry, had to point out that punctuation is crucial, e.g., my sentence
I think I just took the discussion down many notches...
Posted by: marnk | December 1, 2009 12:41 PM
You're saying the overall tone went down on that one?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 1, 2009 2:32 PM
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, guys. Seriously. There are women who have to wear burqas, and women who get "circumcised" AKA mutilated at eight or nine, and women who can't drive or vote or wear slacks. In the US, women are still passed over for promotion, not taken seriously at work because they are women, let go after maternity leave, and viewed as heartless bitches if they feed their babies formula or drop them off at daycare. You guys are making a mountain out of a shrewhill here. Go make a real difference for women in the world instead of picking at ed. As a woman, I find the word "shrew" gender specific, but then again, so is the word "layman", and out of all the things in the world that could possibly hurt my tender female feelings, this is pretty damn low on the list.
I would also propose that the term "catty bitch" be used to describe Palin since she reminds me of everyone I hated in highschool.
Posted by: scrabcake | December 1, 2009 4:09 PM
As an addendum, there is a large segment of people who use expletives without giving much thought to their original meaning. When people say "fuck you", very few people really mean "I hope you get raped," and when you say "God Damn It", very few people really mean "I hope that god condemns it or you to an eternity of torture in Hell." For these people, such statements merely mean. "you are irritating me" or "this really makes me angry." To assume that everyone who swears means the exact meaning of the swearword looking for reasons to get righteously indignant. When a person tells you to "fuck off", I would think the proper response would be to consider why they told you to do so rather than to brood that this person really wants you to go fornicate.
That being said, there are a few words that are tied to a cultural history of subjugation. One could argue that Shrew is one of those words, along with certain racial epithets. I would argue that most people have not analyzed "The Taming of the Shrew" in a feminist literary context, and that most people understand the word as meaning "a contrary and disagreeable woman", in other words, interchangeable with "bitch" but a little less crass due to its archaism. Very few people would object to me calling a man a "rake", because it is archaic and because a lot of people don't understand its literary history. I don't think we can blame them for using "rake" as a word meaning "a disreputable man" instead of the more specific "man who takes advantage (perhaps sexually) of women and then goes drinking and partying with his mates."
Posted by: scrabcake | December 1, 2009 4:34 PM
"Catty" being another adjective (like "shrewish") that is never applied to males. Or at any rate, almost never. My read of "catty" is a bit more upfront than "shrewish," but it's obvious that we're not all on the same page of the dictionary.
I'm still looking for a good, succinct, alternative to describe a petty, spiteful, backstabbing, two-faced, "smile, and smile, and be a villain," Iago-but-less-honest manipulator. The one we all know from several examples in our teen years (if we're lucky and don't know several today.)
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 1, 2009 5:36 PM
malefactor?
couldn't resist...
Posted by: marnk | December 1, 2009 7:38 PM
Apologies for taking time to return to post.
Yes I was being deliberately provocative, but for a didactic purpose.
Although two words might have the same spelling and sound they may come from totally different antecedents.
'Pussy' as slang for the female pudenda is found only as early as the last quarter of the 19th century, about the same time as the meaning of face or mouth (as in: "I outta smack you in the puss for that!") appears from the Gaelic.
'Pussy' with the meaning of weak or ineffectual dates back to the mid 16th century around the same time it acquired the meaning of cat (although rabbit in 1715, small and fuzzy, such as the catkin of a Pussy Willow, in 1869 and 'pussy foot' 1905)
As you can see, the sense that I used (which has to be deduced from the context) predates the form you inferred by over 300 years.
I used it to demonstrate the dangers of jumping straight into the outrage position without considering the context and intent of the writer or speaker. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 2, 2009 6:41 AM