|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/2/2007 8:14:34 PM | Calling a woman a b!tch is the equivalent of calling a man machiavellian, or disloyal, or a traitor.
These are the qualities that earn a woman the title of b!tch, in my experience.
They are qualities I hope I don't have. | |
|
| |
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/2/2007 11:02:57 PM | The first time I heard this was from my wonderful son! A few years ago we were talking and he said I was a ****! WELL!!! He realized his blunder (can't spell "foopah") and then explained it to me.
He...now this is coming from my son whom I love and he loves his momma...he said it was cool. He then began to tell me how strong I was and I could make it on my own. Later, some girls who are about the same age as my son told me about all the new meanings.
So, I just consider the source. If its coming out of the mouth of a young man and he's looking at me with those sexey smokin eyes...I'll flutter my eyelashes at him. If its coming from a guy my age...he better talk fast!!!! | |
|
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/3/2007 8:53:54 AM | First of all, obviously, as with all things wrong and addle-brained in the realm of female thought, feminists are to blame for this "I'm a b*tch and I'm proud" phenomenon.
Why should anyone be proud of being a nasty tempered, rude shrew of a woman? They shouldn't. But if a woman defines herself as a b*tch, she seems to think that this definition exempts her from the "worse" labels, i.e., sl*t, wh*re, or, seemingly worst of all in many women's minds, *submissive*.
You know the Madonna/Wh*re complex? A man desires to marry a Virgin Mary type, and have wildly animal carnal relations with the prototypical Sl*t, and keep both things completely seperate from one another, basically. Women tend to find this theoretical complex insulting. Who wants to be a maternal figure of purity (something that seemingly excludes the possibility of an active and exploratory sex life?) Who wants to be a loose, disposable female that can hope for nothing more than a life of use and abuse? Not many women would enjoy filling either of those categories. So, what's to be done? Oh, I know! Let's all call ourselves B*tches! That'll throw off the men! They'll be intimidated and incapable of pigeon-holing us into one of their horrible, simple little labels! Of course, we've labelled ourselves now...and we've pigeon-holed ourselves into filling an undesirable position...but we did it all by ourselves! Great!
Somehow the word "B*tch" has become synonymous with being strong and capable...and somehow, since it's used largely by women referring to themselves, it indicates that chicks think they've got to be all the things a b*tch is to be strong and capable. It's stupid and largely a knee-jerk response to what women perceive as men's ideas of the female figure. I can't stand it, personally, and I hope that the word as it's currently used dies a swift death. | |
|
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/5/2007 4:17:40 AM | My daughter moved out this week, and i was going through what she left behind, found a button with the word B I T C H on it and next to each letter read:
Babe
In
Total
Control of
Herself
I love it! | |
|
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/5/2007 5:23:31 AM |
"I'm a ****, and proud of it" as if it gives them higher status.
It's usually not us that are defining ourselves as ****es... but others. I stand up for myself by being assertive and aggressive, I'm considered a b!tch. I mean there's going to be at least one person who will turn around and say "What a b!tch!".
I don't consider it to be a badge of honor, but it's certainly better than being a door mat for everyone to walk on. I speak my mind and can be quite "in your face" sometimes, but that's only if I have to in order to be heard and get my point across.
I met alot of b!tches who need to tone it down as well. Speaking your mind and not letting anyone take you for granted is a great thing, but at the end of the day, do you really want to be known as a b!tch? | |
|
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/5/2007 2:37:12 PM | There is a fine line between being assertive enough to not be a doormat, and being so assertive that you are obnoxious.
Consider this: Maybe, just maybe, if guys are calling you that you might have crossed that line.
When people chalk up the way others treat them to discrimination (such as sexism or racism), they have a tendency not to examine their own behavior to see if they are maybe the problem | |
|
mizbex
|
Joined: 12/17/2006
Msg: 37 | |
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/6/2007 3:53:05 AM | There is assertive and there is aggressive. I work with a lot of high level male executives and it is expected that I be assertive, because truth be told, that is what they respect.
Aggressive and obnoxious is not acceptable, women need to learn to rule with a "velvet hammer" assertiveness mixed with brains, charm and humor is the winning ticket, learning that comes with experience and pays off big time. Plus, when you learn those skills, you will never be called a Bitc& you will be respected and taken seriously, the key is leaning those skills. | |
|
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/6/2007 11:03:43 AM | Women seem to see b!tch as a word to somehow keep them down or in their place.
I, for one, don't use it that way. I use it against women who are nasty or mean, don't care much about others, or are obnoxiously aggressive. These are things I don't like in either gender. If a man is that way, I use the word ***hole; if a woman is that way, I use the word ****. But I mean the same thing by it. | |
|
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/6/2007 12:31:03 PM |
I'm not terribly interested in any woman who considers it a badge of honor.
Given the dearth of women willing to date you are you sure you want to reduce that pool even further?
Calling a woman a b!tch is the equivalent of calling a man machiavellian, or disloyal, or a traitor.
Thank you Smith for your definition however, why don’t we use a learned definition of b*tch which is “a woman who is considered to be malicious or unpleasant” [Oxford].
Now the title of B*tch becomes a badge of honour when people will consider a woman to be malicious or unpleasant purely because she is asserting herself.
Chauvinistic men decry the feminist movement as it eroded the traditional role of a woman. Women were socialised to believe their role in life was to be the enabler; to facilitate others either as a wife or a mother. The feminist movement taught women that they don’t have to take a back seat – they can be what they want to be.
These same chauvinistic men lament the loss of women who performed that traditional role. They cannot assimilate this new breed of woman who is confident, self-assured, forceful and assertive.
They translate this behaviour as being malicious or unpleasant or b*tchy. This is, ultimately, why it has become a bad of honour. Because what men see as being malicious and unpleasant is, in actual fact, assertiveness, confidence, self assurance and poise.
If being a b*tch means no longer being submissive, compliant and docile then certainly it is a title borne with pride.
Consider this: Maybe, just maybe, if guys are calling you that you might have crossed that line.
No sh*t – Sherlock! Of course they’ve crossed the line with that man. What is material is whether the act that led that man to think that woman had crossed the line is something that could be considered malicious or unpleasant.
Scenario:
A woman is in a bar being harassed by an unrelenting suitor. The woman repeatedly advises this admirer that she is not interested. Eventually, unable to take his clumsy advances any longer, she says “get away from me you creep.”
The man walks away muttering “B*tch!”
Now if I was that woman and some guy could not take the hint that I was not interested and, ultimately, I had to be unpleasant or, a b*tch, then I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.
To quote a remarkably intuitive and insightful man “when most men call a woman a b*tch it’s because she didn’t do what he wanted her to do” and that is, largely, why women do not see that term as derogatory. Because, essentially, being a b*tch equates to not being a pushover.
| |
|
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/6/2007 12:34:59 PM | A couple more things....
When people chalk up the way others treat them to discrimination (such as sexism or racism), they have a tendency not to examine their own behavior to see if they are maybe the problem
This is so random I have to ask. What bearing does this have on the topic?
Women seem to see b!tch as a word to somehow keep them down or in their place.
Considering the subject matter being discussed is why women do not consider b*tch to be derogatory and, in actual fact, it has become a badge of honour I, again, don’t know what bearing this has. If women saw b*tch as a word to keep them down or in their place they would hardly consider it a badge of honour - am I missing something here....?? | |
|
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/6/2007 12:35:39 PM | Good god, where do I start?
>>If women saw b*tch as a word to kep them down or in their place they would hardly consider it a badge of honour.
That's exactly what some feminists are doing. They are embracing the word as a way (in their minds) of taking it away from men who are (once again in their minds) using it to oppress them.
Do I have to spell everything out for you?
>>am I missing something here....??
Um...yes.
>>When people chalk up the way others treat them to discrimination (such as sexism or racism), they have a tendency not to examine their own behavior to see if they are maybe the problem
This is so random I have to ask. What bearing does this have on the topic?
Sigh...1. the embracing of the word b!tch as a badge of honor is something feminists are doing, or at least they started it.
2. they see it as a discriminatory, sexist term.
3. By embracing it as a badge of honor, they seek to take the sting out of it.
4. My point--rather obviously I think--is that it is not always sexist; sometimes it is used to describe someone's truly bad behavior.
| |
|
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/6/2007 12:46:41 PM |
Do I have to spell everything out for you?
Easy there, let's not run before we can walk. Why don't we just start with you being coherent, lucid and reasoned and we'll take it from there.
Women see b*tch as a word to keep them down so women are embracing it as a way of taking it away from men who are using it to oppress them??
So can you please explain (and this is where that whole lucid, coherent rationale thing that we talked about comes in....) how you have made that leap? | |
|
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/6/2007 12:56:28 PM | To Address Edit to Message 41 by Author:
the embracing of the word b!tch as a badge of honor is something feminists are doing, or at least they started it.
2. they see it as a discriminatory, sexist term.
3. By embracing it as a badge of honor, they seek to take the sting out of it.
4. My point--rather obviously I think--is that it is not always sexist; sometimes it is used to describe someone's truly bad behavior.
So you seem to think that some women are so proud now to be called a b*tch that they fail to examine their own behaviour to see whether it is objectionable or not.
You make this statement despite the many comments, prior to your posts, from women who state that they have claimed b*tch as a complimentary term because to be referred to as a b*tch means you are not submissive or docile.
Your posts to this thread, therefore, are entirely redundant. They are, essentially, the question after the answer has already been given, which leads me to believe you post to the forums purely for the sake of posting.
Is there some prize for posting on these forums that I'm not aware of? Or am I witnessing, first hand, the phenomenon some people describe as "profile raising" - essentially loitering in the forums hoping to scare up a date. | |
|
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/6/2007 1:28:29 PM | It's great that everyone here can state different opinions, right? That's what these forums are for!
In the spirit of that, I'd just like to mention that not all women see "submissive" or "docile" as undesirable traits. Also, since what is being argued here is the *attributed* meaning of "b*tch", rather than some dictionary-borne definition, there is no right answer, no matter how much one or another of us might feel there is.
I can't help but feel it's incorrect to state that "the answer has already been given". People have offered a number of different response-types to this topic. Some have given what they believe to be other's definiton of the word, others have attempted to define it as they use it, still others have given their opinion on their observations of its use/abuse, etc. Whether or not someone's responses have been redundant in some people's views, it doesn't really make a difference, because no one person's opinion here is going to accepted as the inviolate Truth.
I have to say that I have no real desire to become involved in what is developing into a squabble here, but I must point something out. It was mentioned that some people have made comments that haven't been relevant to the topic at hand...
"Is there some prize for posting on these forums that I'm not aware of? Or am I witnessing, first hand, the phenomenon some people describe as "profile raising" - essentially loitering in the forums hoping to scare up a date."
I think that (regardless of the opinions of the person it's directed at) this is completely without relevance to the topic, and, if anything, is simply killing the topic by reducing this thread to a clash of personalities, rather a discussion of opinions. | |
|
| |
| |
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/6/2007 3:23:50 PM |
Also, since what is being argued here is the *attributed* meaning of "b*tch", rather than some dictionary-borne definition, there is no right answer, no matter how much one or another of us might feel there is.
Actually no! The definition is static. What is being argued is the implication of that definition. The meaning is not subjective; it is perfectly clear.
An analogous example would be the word “Machiavellian”. All agree on the meaning of the term however, it is frequently open to interpretation as to whether this is a bad trait or a good trait. There are some who would consider it to be an insult to be considered devious, cunning and sly and there are others who consider these attributes a boon.
I can't help but feel it's incorrect to state that "the answer has already been given".
Indeed it would be incorrect. Fortunately, no one has done that. What has been said is that there are posts which seek to pose a question that the OP has already mooted which is, indeed, redundant. Once the flow of answers has commenced it is rare that the OP’s question needs to be posed again.
I have to say that I have no real desire to become involved in what is developing into a squabble here, but I must point something out. It was mentioned that some people have made comments that haven't been relevant to the topic at hand...
For someone who has no desire to become involved you are doing an admirable job of exactly the opposite.
Exactly to whom do you refer? It has been mentioned that some comments are nothing more than a rewording of the OP’s question. Please, educate us on the posts that have been considered to not be relevant!!
That said, I do appreciate the forum education – there’s nothing quite like a self appointed mediator; particularly one who has a tenuous grasp of debate.
Just one word of admonishment – do not paraphrase the posts of others; it tends to adjust the content and is usually not welcomed. | |
|
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/6/2007 7:40:22 PM | I think that if we're talking about the implications of a word, its definition is absolutely bound to come into question. The number of variant definitions that have come up over the course of this thread's being open suggests to me that the meaning of "b*tch" is not static -- it has changed, is changing, and differs from person to person. I obviously can't agree, therefore, with its being analogous to "Machiavellian", because I disagree with "b*tch" as having a fixed and inarguable meaning. That being said, I believe that I understand your view, and I appreciate it as such.
I felt as though several of your posts, dana_scully, were implying that a definitive answer had been given. I do apologise if my putting the statement "the answer has already been given" in quotation marks gave you the impression that I was trying to falsely attribute it to you. I also apologise if my using that expression gave the impression that I misunderstood the meaning of your previous posts, and was responding to you from an wrongly informed perspective.
I truly had, and have no desire to involve myself in a distracting, personality-based argument/debate here. I said what I did because I disagreed with what I interpreted as the logic of your posts, and I didn't like to see the OP's topic be overtaken by the kind of limited, back-and-forth additions that I'm currently writing.
I'd prefer you didn't refer to me as a "self appointed mediator" or someone with "a tenuous grasp of debate". I've seen no reason to give you any labels you didn't ask for, and I don't see the value in your doing it to me. I was not trying to educate you as to the nature or practises of the forums. I was not trying to mediate so much as I was stating my opinion, and suggesting that focussing on issues tangential to the thread's topic (which I, perhaps mistakenly, thought you were doing) wasn't conducive to an interesting, open discussion. My grasp of debate may be tenuous, but I don't think that belittling me helps to prove your point.
I don't apologise for paraphrasing the content of any of your posts. Anyone suspecting me of taking your points out of context could have easily scrolled up barely an inch or two and found out for themselves whether I was manipulating or misunderstanding your points.
I feel like you've been confrontational in your approach to dealing with people, including myself, on this thread. It's possible that I'm misreading your intended tone, if so, I do hope you'll disregard my assessment of it. I accept that maybe we disagree, and that's fine with me. If you want to find holes in logic and flaws in the presentation of my points here, you're welcome to voice them -- but I'm finished with this. I respect your right to hold an opinion, and to take issue with other respondants' views, and I accept that you may dislike my approach to responding to you.
That said, I don't like that this exchange might dissuade other people from responding to the OP's initial question, and I'm sorry for my part in it if people are distracted from responding with their own thoughts now. | |
|
| |
| When did the title of B***h become a badge of honor?
Posted: 3/7/2007 12:25:17 AM | >>So can you please explain (and this is where that whole lucid, coherent rationale thing that we talked about comes in....) how you have made that leap?
Ok, let's dance.
How about: a self proclaimed feminist magazine titled "****"?
Here is where you can subscribe to it:
http://www.****magazine.com/about.shtml
Do you accept that as evidence that the embracement of the word "bitch" as a badge of honor got it's start among feminists?
And are feminists not, by definition, people who get upset about the perceived oppression of women?
That is how I made my "leap" to assuming they embraced the word as a way to take it away froom men who they perceive as trying to oppress them.
Cn you put forth a better explanation?
>>So you seem to think that some women are so proud now to be called a b*tch that they fail to examine their own behaviour to see whether it is objectionable or not.
You make this statement despite the many comments, prior to your posts, from women who state that they have claimed b*tch as a complimentary term because to be referred to as a b*tch means you are not submissive or docile.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Those women think men who call women "bitches"
are putting them down, in your words, "because they are not submissive or docile."
I am saying that, the term is being applied to some of them not because they are "not submissive or docile"; but rather, in some cases, because they are obnoxious and aggressive.
And they fail to realize that, because they think anyone applying the term to them is merely being sexist, and they (the women being called bitches) can't really be at fault.
Don't try to have a battle of wits with me unless you are certain you are armed.
Maybe I am not dumbing it down enough.
Okay: women in group A are being called bitches by some men.
Women in group A think that they are being called bitches simply because they are not submissive and docile.
Women in group A fail to realize that some of them are being called bitches because of their nasty behavior. When they decide that they are being called bitches because sexist men are resenting their not acting submissive and docile, then they have no motivation to examine their own behavior to see if they are being called bitches because they are acting mean and nasty.
Was that simple enough? | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
