So the only thing wrong with that headline is that it hasn't been enough elapsed time since Newsweek's famous cover, "Rhymes With Witch"?
I take it from your closing that you believe that there will come a moment in history when we are proud of "women who stand up for themselves and bust through feminine stereotypes." How about that time is already now, and the reason for not running the headline doesn't have anything to do with the evolution of words? It's about showing the proper decorum and seriousness at covering the selection process for the most important job in the country, and that means genuine respect for the woman who is asking us for our vote.
The country is 250 years old, and our democratic practice wasn't invented to give clever Twitter branders a platform for saying shocking things to suck in eyeballs.
I take it from your closing that you believe that there will come a moment in history when we are proud of "women who stand up for themselves and bust through feminine stereotypes." How about that time is already now, and the reason for not running the headline doesn't have anything to do with the evolution of words? It's about showing the proper decorum and seriousness at covering the selection process for the most important job in the country, and that means genuine respect for the woman who is asking us for our vote.
The country is 250 years old, and our democratic practice wasn't invented to give clever Twitter branders a platform for saying shocking things to suck in eyeballs.
I think the NYT generally and the Public Editor in particular need to take a deep breath.
I came to this discussion direct from the NYT column discussing why it's good to pussyfoot around the use of the word "lie" when reporting on Donald Trump (If others haven't read it, it's about appearing "non-partisan").
The Times seems to be having a schizophrenic breakdown this election cycle; first (in a totally non-partisan way, of course), your editors and columnists blatantly deep-six Bernie Sanders in favor of "your girl," HRC. Then you turn around and bury HRC's policy prowess under a mountain of garbage being spewed by a serial liar who almost certainly cannot distinguish truth from his latest fantasy.
I was a political junky before my age was measured in double digits; a precocious literate, I read and weighed and questioned during the second Eisenhower-Stevens Contest. The NYT was my gold standard then...today, like the SCOTUS, your feet of clay make me weary.
Now take a deep breath and get out there and act like real journalists!
I came to this discussion direct from the NYT column discussing why it's good to pussyfoot around the use of the word "lie" when reporting on Donald Trump (If others haven't read it, it's about appearing "non-partisan").
The Times seems to be having a schizophrenic breakdown this election cycle; first (in a totally non-partisan way, of course), your editors and columnists blatantly deep-six Bernie Sanders in favor of "your girl," HRC. Then you turn around and bury HRC's policy prowess under a mountain of garbage being spewed by a serial liar who almost certainly cannot distinguish truth from his latest fantasy.
I was a political junky before my age was measured in double digits; a precocious literate, I read and weighed and questioned during the second Eisenhower-Stevens Contest. The NYT was my gold standard then...today, like the SCOTUS, your feet of clay make me weary.
Now take a deep breath and get out there and act like real journalists!
3
I can't stand all this equivocation about this word. It is so obvious that The Times and all other press, with one or two exceptions, are determined to vilify and dismiss Hillary Clinton while pandering to this piece of human garbage Trump. It's impossible to open a newspaper or turn on the television without having him shoved in our faces as if nothing else was happening in the world. And people who write funny pieces about how awful he is, thereby giving him more free press, will they still be having fun when he is voted president?
5
In 1999, Elizabeth Wurtzel wrote a book called "Bitch: In Praise of Difficult Women." The book was better than the title. The Op-ed piece, “The Bitch America Needs,” wasn't as good as its title. I think the difference is that we have started to appropriate the word and to have different expectations of it. Wurtzel's book title gave the impression of introducing fluff when instead it was intellectual. The opposite is true of last week's NYT piece; I thought it was going to be insightful but it wasn't. My own response to each title was different, and I think that's because we can and do already use bitch in ways that aren't pejorative.
1
The headline in question was perhaps the ultimate expression of the ideas in the piece itself, and thus should be regarded as integral with it. To alter that headline would have substantially weakened the piece--would have bastardized it, if it's permissible to use that term. On these grounds alone, it was essential that the headline be left unaltered. Was the writer (or whoever wrote the headline) aware that's the piece's publication in the Times would play a part in creating its meaning? No doubt she was, and quite appropriately so. It was, rhetorically, the perfect move.
1
The sputtering of a "bitch" is always followed by defeat. "Bitch" is the last resort of a flailing opponent. "Bitch" is music to my ears. Bring it on.
Proud to be an American Bitch.
Proud to be an American Bitch.
2
Liz Spayd is the equivalent of 'David Brooks' for their "Public Editors."
I hesitated to weigh in here after the previous article. The problem I have is that if one ignores the headline - more about that later - the article was more understanding of Secretary Clinton's work and position and humanity than much NYTimes and press coverage. Misdirection is common in the press, always quoting how "untrustworthy" and "unpopular" she is and then acting unctuous about not using language like "bitch" and the n word.
To me, this is hypocritical.
Given the promotion of the idea that Hillary is not a nice woman, doesn't have ideals, and isn't working very hard to do her best for us, it's a cheap shot to get all precious about labeling her. The labels used are much more hurtful than this single syllable.
Now about those headlines. They are used for clickbait, and they often misrepresent content. In our media-driven world, a whole lot of people only read the headline and a paragraph or two, if that. So the headline IS the content.
Still I'd rather see the word used than all the other underhanded failures of proper reporting. For example:
The New York Times still has not reported on the good the Clinton Foundation does, though it let Bill have an OpEd.
The NYT weaseled on the Trump Foundation because of a date on a check, which is not proof.
The NYT hasn't reported on far right Koch ally Judicial Watch, which suckered it into condemning Hillary by it, with buried apology.
The NYT doesn't mention that Chaffetz and Republicans defunded embassy security.
To me, this is hypocritical.
Given the promotion of the idea that Hillary is not a nice woman, doesn't have ideals, and isn't working very hard to do her best for us, it's a cheap shot to get all precious about labeling her. The labels used are much more hurtful than this single syllable.
Now about those headlines. They are used for clickbait, and they often misrepresent content. In our media-driven world, a whole lot of people only read the headline and a paragraph or two, if that. So the headline IS the content.
Still I'd rather see the word used than all the other underhanded failures of proper reporting. For example:
The New York Times still has not reported on the good the Clinton Foundation does, though it let Bill have an OpEd.
The NYT weaseled on the Trump Foundation because of a date on a check, which is not proof.
The NYT hasn't reported on far right Koch ally Judicial Watch, which suckered it into condemning Hillary by it, with buried apology.
The NYT doesn't mention that Chaffetz and Republicans defunded embassy security.
6
Unbelievable. The word needs to be owned and subdued. What woman hasn't heard it? In its worst use it's nowhere near the n word.
Clickbait or no, it was a worthwhile read, pro-Clinton & pro-woman.
That we're still so hung up on such trifles when the world's on fire is taking offense at the wrong targets; that the public editor would is dismaying.
Clickbait or no, it was a worthwhile read, pro-Clinton & pro-woman.
That we're still so hung up on such trifles when the world's on fire is taking offense at the wrong targets; that the public editor would is dismaying.
4
I take offense at the headline but if they had to use it, why didn't they include the author's name and a colon before the title as they often do for other articles?
5
.
.
Ms. Spayd, the word "bitch" has been used in several NYT (print) headlines. Why would you ask the Opinion Editor such a question?
But more to the point, the NYT Magazine ran a short piece in 2006 about Andi Zeisler. The writer was Deborah Solomon; the headline read "Pop Goes the Feminist". Ms. Solomon's disapproval of Ms. Zeisler's magazine title came through loud and clear.
Two weeks later (August 20, 2006 - just a shade more than a decade ago), the Magazine ran a letter from a reader in California whose name I have omitted. (It can be discovered the same way one finds out whether a word has been used in a headline in the past.)
This is the printed version of the letter, in its entirety. With slight modifications, it could be a response to the Public Editor's post:
================================================
"I am a 19-year-old Bitch magazine reader and have always found its columns to be thoughtful critiques of pop culture (Aug. 6). Deborah Solomon didn't ask exactly why Bitch columnists ''bitch'' or what they focus on, but she seemed full of doubting questions. Instead of devoting a third of the page to criticizing the magazine's founders for choosing such a ''screaming'' title, she could have asked about the magazine's history, subject matter and audience.
Solomon's tone and attitude were representative of the way so many seem to react to the word ''feminism'' today. For shame."
.
Ms. Spayd, the word "bitch" has been used in several NYT (print) headlines. Why would you ask the Opinion Editor such a question?
But more to the point, the NYT Magazine ran a short piece in 2006 about Andi Zeisler. The writer was Deborah Solomon; the headline read "Pop Goes the Feminist". Ms. Solomon's disapproval of Ms. Zeisler's magazine title came through loud and clear.
Two weeks later (August 20, 2006 - just a shade more than a decade ago), the Magazine ran a letter from a reader in California whose name I have omitted. (It can be discovered the same way one finds out whether a word has been used in a headline in the past.)
This is the printed version of the letter, in its entirety. With slight modifications, it could be a response to the Public Editor's post:
================================================
"I am a 19-year-old Bitch magazine reader and have always found its columns to be thoughtful critiques of pop culture (Aug. 6). Deborah Solomon didn't ask exactly why Bitch columnists ''bitch'' or what they focus on, but she seemed full of doubting questions. Instead of devoting a third of the page to criticizing the magazine's founders for choosing such a ''screaming'' title, she could have asked about the magazine's history, subject matter and audience.
Solomon's tone and attitude were representative of the way so many seem to react to the word ''feminism'' today. For shame."
4
Thanks, after the fact. This was a poor choice of the Opinion editor. I agree with others who view the headline as click bait. Distressing.
6
I had a mixture of feelings, reading that headline:
- Cringing at its innate "click-bait" feel... in our country's foremost newspaper of record.
- Anger that our dialogue has taken such a nosedive during this election, the term is ubiquitous across all social and digital media.
- Rage that a major Presidential candidate seems quite "comfortable" with its use for his opponent, the first female Presidential candidate of a major party.
- Fierce pride the article's author is urging women to take back the term's power, much as LGBTQ have taken back the label "queer."
Ultimately, your editor's decision to use the term in a headline just seems a cynical, profit-oriented, misogynistic press taking advantage of a woman's true feelings, once again.
Yes, I know the editor is female.
... you have heard of the Stockholm Syndrome, I take it?
- Cringing at its innate "click-bait" feel... in our country's foremost newspaper of record.
- Anger that our dialogue has taken such a nosedive during this election, the term is ubiquitous across all social and digital media.
- Rage that a major Presidential candidate seems quite "comfortable" with its use for his opponent, the first female Presidential candidate of a major party.
- Fierce pride the article's author is urging women to take back the term's power, much as LGBTQ have taken back the label "queer."
Ultimately, your editor's decision to use the term in a headline just seems a cynical, profit-oriented, misogynistic press taking advantage of a woman's true feelings, once again.
Yes, I know the editor is female.
... you have heard of the Stockholm Syndrome, I take it?
11
so was Shaley
This is a lot like the Headline of the article about Weiner's emails. It is click bait and the Times knows it. Interestingly, this is only done about Mrs. Clinton. All we ask is fair coverage, and the fact within two weeks the Times chose or permitted incendiary headlines demonstrates the Times lack of fairness.
6
If we legitimize the "B" word then the "C" word will be come the new "B" word. Yuck!
"Ohhhhh, what a word, what a word. Who would have thought that some little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness."
"Ohhhhh, what a word, what a word. Who would have thought that some little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness."
3
#1, T shirts using the C word have already been sold and worn widely at Trump rallies. #2, I don't get what's wrong with clickbait. The job of a newspaper is to be accurate and arresting; the job of a writer is to find an audience. A piece as sharp and on target as Zeisler's about the language and culture we inhabit deserves a wide readership, and as we know from Clinton's campaign, the ideas don't always find an audience if they can't fight through the empty racket. Kudos to the Times for NOT being The Grey Lady on this one, but for bein bitchin.
2
I loved the Op Ed piece so much that I created this pink tshirt to wear all campaign season:
Picture of Hilary in those fab red sunglasses with this as txt:
I'm With THAT Bitch!
Picture of Hilary in those fab red sunglasses with this as txt:
I'm With THAT Bitch!
5
The Times commissioned the "bitch" article? Has the paper entirely lost its senses? or did the Times get bought out by Vice last week, and I didn't notice? This is just another pathetic attempt to seem "cool", while readers must continue to suffer Maureen Dowd's ravings about Clinton and "clouds" and "shadows" over Clinton's campaign. I guess the Times' business model believes older, more sedate readers have nowhere to go, so they will try this psuedo-hip sarcasm/too cool to care/smart ass posture in the hope of getting younger readers. But be careful of continuing to insult your long-time readers; we can cancel our subscriptions.
15
As one of the younger readers of the Times, the quote seemed, to me, to play off the line about Batman from The Dark Knight:
"...he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now, so we'll hunt him. Because he can take it, because he's not a hero."
Replacing "hero" with "bitch" and "Gotham" with "America", I thought it nicely summed up the political realities of our time as well as the "glutton for punishment" nature of Sec. Clinton.
https://youtu.be/U9uDUnywMu0?t=355
-----
But maybe we should just stick to talking about e-mails and likability for the 541st time, just to play it safe.
"...he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now, so we'll hunt him. Because he can take it, because he's not a hero."
Replacing "hero" with "bitch" and "Gotham" with "America", I thought it nicely summed up the political realities of our time as well as the "glutton for punishment" nature of Sec. Clinton.
https://youtu.be/U9uDUnywMu0?t=355
-----
But maybe we should just stick to talking about e-mails and likability for the 541st time, just to play it safe.
3
Females taking empowering control over this offensive word seems to mirror the control that African Americans have seized over the word that has historically been the most offensive for them.
So that begs the question. would the NY Times use that word in a similar headline to a similar op-ed about the current Presdent? Mr. Obama himself used the word rather routinely in a podcaster conversation with Marc Maron and seemed to have no problem with Larry Wilmore using it affectionately in a public setting.
I honestly don't know if the Times would treat it the same. It is interesting to see how the rules governing public discourse have evolved.
So that begs the question. would the NY Times use that word in a similar headline to a similar op-ed about the current Presdent? Mr. Obama himself used the word rather routinely in a podcaster conversation with Marc Maron and seemed to have no problem with Larry Wilmore using it affectionately in a public setting.
I honestly don't know if the Times would treat it the same. It is interesting to see how the rules governing public discourse have evolved.
9
Easy essay assignment for future high school history students: "To what extent did our country's 'paper of record' promote President Trump's election victory? Cite examples."
13
First, plenty of people used the N-word to denigrate Obama, but I don't think we would have seen the same formulation in an Op-Ed about his critics.
I wonder if even just having the word in quotes would have softened it enough for a headline: The "Bitch" America Needs... I am in my early 40s and was unsettled by the headline as it appeared.
I wonder if even just having the word in quotes would have softened it enough for a headline: The "Bitch" America Needs... I am in my early 40s and was unsettled by the headline as it appeared.
16
One more drip in the slow drip, drip, drip erosion of public discourse in America. Sad to see this in any publication of worth. Tragic to see it in an institution as venerable of the NYT.
14
I too was momentarily taken aback by the headline, but also found the article smart and insightful. BY the end, I decided that I liked it.
HOWEVER, I also see headlines as emanating from the institution called the NYT, not as part of the writers' articles. Isn't it correct that writers still don't write their headlines?
(Back in the old pre-computer newspaper days, I remember that headline-writing was one of the last steps in building an article, written right before page layout, and even written BY layout people sometimes.)
In that case, perhaps the NYT's standards should apply to any headline, and that HC shouldn't be referred to as a bitch in a headline.
This would detract from the presentation of the article though. Interesting issue.
HOWEVER, I also see headlines as emanating from the institution called the NYT, not as part of the writers' articles. Isn't it correct that writers still don't write their headlines?
(Back in the old pre-computer newspaper days, I remember that headline-writing was one of the last steps in building an article, written right before page layout, and even written BY layout people sometimes.)
In that case, perhaps the NYT's standards should apply to any headline, and that HC shouldn't be referred to as a bitch in a headline.
This would detract from the presentation of the article though. Interesting issue.
2
Babe
In
Total
Control of
Herself
In
Total
Control of
Herself
6
I don't understand why Hillary Clinton isn't compared to Theresa May or Angela Merkel. They're all strong women, yet the latter two don't get the name-calling that Clinton does.
11
It's a halfhearted apology, at best. I'm all for tolerance and open mindedness, but sometimes there aren't two sides to an issue. Somethings are just wrong.
Would you ever calmly debate the appropriateness of a headline that says "Obama, the N--- we needed?"
Would you ever calmly debate the appropriateness of a headline that says "Obama, the N--- we needed?"
14
The political discourse in this election is already coarse enough. It's regrettable that this word appeared in a headline in our country's most authoritative news source. It lends acceptability to a word that is still seen as perjorative by many. When are we going to see a headline referring to the Republican candidate as a "lying scumbag"?
12
Possibly previous commentators have raised this issue and I missed the thread. If so, I apologize.
So are the NYTimes' editors equally comfortable referring to men in positions of power as bastards? For example, "The Bastard America Does Not Need"?
If the editors are not comfortable casually referring to men in power as bastards, why should women accept the casual use of the term: bitch?
I realize that the term has become edgy and seemingly sophisticated. However, It is a loaded term that should have sent out warning flags immediately to the editors, who (in turn) should have determined a provisional policy on the use of the word -- especially in a title. Yet, I get the impression very little thought was given to the use of the word (in a title, no less) at all.
Personally, it is hard for me to imagine that the term "bitch" carries with it any sense of dignity or gravitas.
So are the NYTimes' editors equally comfortable referring to men in positions of power as bastards? For example, "The Bastard America Does Not Need"?
If the editors are not comfortable casually referring to men in power as bastards, why should women accept the casual use of the term: bitch?
I realize that the term has become edgy and seemingly sophisticated. However, It is a loaded term that should have sent out warning flags immediately to the editors, who (in turn) should have determined a provisional policy on the use of the word -- especially in a title. Yet, I get the impression very little thought was given to the use of the word (in a title, no less) at all.
Personally, it is hard for me to imagine that the term "bitch" carries with it any sense of dignity or gravitas.
10
Using the word "bitch" in a headline struck me as bold departure from The Times' journalistic standards and motto to publish what's "fit" to print. Maybe the attention getting hed is part of The Gray Lady's effort to compete with the tabloids and the Internet as broad sheets decline.
4
I understand the objections, but I wasn't bothered by the headline or the article. Maybe the B-word should be appropriated and reserved for fellow members of the gender as denoting dogged strength. Loved the pic, by the way.
1
I thought the headline appropriate, and perhaps even necessary given the compelling argument in the piece.
The comparisons with the N word are not apt. The B word has connotations of a women who acts like someone we would stereotypically admire if she were male. The N word connotes no such thing with respect to race.
The comparisons with the N word are not apt. The B word has connotations of a women who acts like someone we would stereotypically admire if she were male. The N word connotes no such thing with respect to race.
2
I strongly disagree with your assessment of the word. In no way does it imply a woman who acts like a typical male. It connotates very negative attributes that are not admirable at all.
1
As a man, I respect the opinions of women on this matter. But as a gay man, I saw how we re-claimed the word queer, which was a vile term of hate. Some people love "queer" and some are offended by it. The word has been redefined.
2
The word you refer to, and the word under discussion here, are it seems to me, words best used by the speaker to refer to themselves. Same for the word that is not being spelled out that has been used against President Obama. I think someone calling himself "queer" is much different than someone else using the word to describe or refer to another. I think it holds for the words women use to refer to themselves, including "girl". I, as a man, could be chastised for calling women "girls" even if they call themselves "girls". That is exactly the problem with the headline here. The writer refers to herself as "bitch". Fine, we know she is owning what was once an epithet as a symbol of pride. But when the headline shrieks the word and we don't yet know who is using it, it sends a different message. Not a good message, not a message of self-identity and pride.
7
Thoughtfully critical response to a controversial article/headline which is precisely (one of) the functions of the Public Editor for the NYT.
1
I'm with the public editor (and I'm with Hillary). For many on both sides of election spectrum it elicits a negative stereotype. Let's work on reclaiming it, but for now, "the word is beyond where we are at this moment in history."
5
As a father of a 12 years old girl, I completely agree with every word in the column. Appeasing the haters will not make things easier for today's little girls. if a schooled age girl uses the word and is defended by her mother, why being afraid of using the word to describe a smart and decisive woman?
1
I think some readers have missed the point of the op-ed piece. I believe Ziesler is appropriating the term "bitch" to counter its misogenistic meaning, in much the same way as the LGBT movement has appropriated the word "queer."
2
Mansplanation unnecessary. We understood it, same as you did.
2
I find it extremely offensive, and incompatible with what I thought were The Times own standards.
5
Really?
In your article, The truth about 'false balance' you reprimand readers for being irrational and ideologically biased regarding their concerns over accurate reporting.
Here, you assume we are so fragile that we can't distinguish the difference between a sexist insult and the reappropriation of the term 'bitch'.
One could easily come to the conclusion that you have a very low regard for the readership. Not a good look for public editor.
In your article, The truth about 'false balance' you reprimand readers for being irrational and ideologically biased regarding their concerns over accurate reporting.
Here, you assume we are so fragile that we can't distinguish the difference between a sexist insult and the reappropriation of the term 'bitch'.
One could easily come to the conclusion that you have a very low regard for the readership. Not a good look for public editor.
5
The headline was fine; it fit the piece. Stop having a case of the vapors over it. What you should be looking at are headlines that convey the impression of improper influence from the Clinton Foundation with respect to diplomatic passports. The passport was never issued. You, the NYT, had a non story and ran it anyway. It should have been spiked. You have a blatant lier and madman running for President and you refuse to investigate him because doing so -- as you wrote on Sunday-- is partisan. Alas there were no WMD in Iraq were there?
3
It would vbe great if the NY Times could worry less about using the word "bitch" in an article that clearly indicates how the word has been used to demean and delegitimize powerful women and worry more about continually creating the appearance of equivalence between the faux Clinton scandals (e.g. Benghazi, the private email server, and the Clinton Foundation, for all of which HRC has been found - after ridiculously extended investigations - to have committed no wrongdoing) and the Trump scandals (defrauding poor and desperate people, keeping people of color out of his buildings, bribing a Florida DA to stop an investigation).
Worry about that huge difference in reporting instead of agonizing over this tiny issue.
Worry about that huge difference in reporting instead of agonizing over this tiny issue.
6
The B and Wh words have become way too common. They still indicate hostility toward women, as do such phrases as "like a girl." There are no equivalent words or expressions for men that are in regular use.
1
Absolutely agree! RIDICULOUS! No similar word has been used for D. Trump though godknowz he's tested the dictionary for synonyms for outrageous behavior.
4
Hillary-haters use many offensive, misogynistic words, including the "c" word. Is that also considered for use in the Times, to show feminist cred?
An obscenity is just an obscenity.
An obscenity is just an obscenity.
4
I thought the idea behind the column was to take back the B-Word. Sort of like rappers et al do with the N-Word.
2
Is the Times now going to call its female reporters and columnist "bitch"?
How would Mo Dowd like that moniker?
I'm sure she's heard it more times than she cares to.
How would Mo Dowd like that moniker?
I'm sure she's heard it more times than she cares to.
4
Bluntly, the Times's coverage of Hillary Clinton has been abysmal. Has the way-past-her-sell-by-date Maureen Dowd taken over the newsroom? You should take a cue from the Washington Post and do some balanced reporting about what a fraud Trump is, beginning with his complete fabrications about charitable donations. But no, all we get is Hillary is a bitch and we're supposed to question her trustworthiness.
Come on, NYT, you can do better. Much better.
Come on, NYT, you can do better. Much better.
9
I liked it, and didn't misread it; it would have been hard for me to do so, since the NYT is so clearly on Hillary's side. Maybe it's a generational thing; I'm in my 30s, and actually do feel that "bitch" has been as successfully reclaimed as has any other slur. All that means is that it has a positive connotation *when it's used by the right people*, people who actually *do* esteem the referent; of course it will still be offensive when it's used with hostility. But can you think of any reclaimed slur of which that isn't true?
PERFECT. HRC should run with it. Turn it all around. Next HRC ad should be: "The Bitch is Back"
--John 09/13/16 - 4:09PM
--John 09/13/16 - 4:09PM
1
The motivation of the author in this title is seems like she is trying to take the wind out of the sails when opponents call her this. To be honest, its very clever. And it got enough attention to get the Public Editor writing about it.
1
The Times right now has much bigger coverage and tone issues that using the b-word in an op-ed piece from a non-staffer. Direct your focus elsewhere.
Surely NYT headlines are vetted by top editors prior to publication...so why this backtracking article?
9
That is what public editors are supposed to do.
1
Because Liz Spayd is independent of the Times and comments about their choices after the fact?
3
This is The Public Editor column, which follows up on reader criticism of The Times.
3
I wonder if that headline and story would've appeared if Jill Abramson was still at the helm.
13
She had no authority over the opinion pages.
1
I'm with her, I'm with the Bitch!
12
Good lord what has my beautiful country come to?
11
I think the complaints are a bit squeamish. To have left it out of the headline would have been to acknowledge the vitriol behind the name calling directed at Clinton, to enforce one use of the term over the other use, undermining the call to infuse the term with the positives that Clinton brings to it. I have no doubt there was similar squeamishness with regard to other words, queer, gay and the like.
8
Babe In Total Control of Herself
20
I agree. It's a particularly demeaning word used against women to call up a long list of pejoratives - cold, bossy, mean, conniving, slutty, stupid, and so on - without the need to say those awful things. One giant, hateful insult rolled into one, all aimed at a woman for being a woman. Impossible to defend yourself against. There's no word for men that's equally insulting.
It was very upsetting to see the Times choosing to allow the word in a headline. I find it such an offensive slur, I would never use it against another woman, no matter how much I disagreed with her.
Some people will have seen that headline, not bothered to read on, and think to themselves, "She must really be a b...., even the Times thinks so." You've done Secretary Clinton a great disservice by choosing to refer to her in such a degrading way.
It was very upsetting to see the Times choosing to allow the word in a headline. I find it such an offensive slur, I would never use it against another woman, no matter how much I disagreed with her.
Some people will have seen that headline, not bothered to read on, and think to themselves, "She must really be a b...., even the Times thinks so." You've done Secretary Clinton a great disservice by choosing to refer to her in such a degrading way.
27
A new low for the NYT... in the lowest most uncivil and disrespectful public discourse in American history. No excuses.
29
As a former female executive, I though the article has merit. A consistent piece of advice I've given to women who have worked for me or to whom I've mentored is to "get in touch with and embrace you inner bitch - she's your friend. There is nothing wrong with being the opposite of a bitch, whatever that is, but unfortunately in an alpha male environment a nice woman who smiles and makes everyone comfortable almost assuredly cannot succeed. Until that changes, and I'm not holding my breath here, female assertiveness will typically evoke a pejorative. Considering the above, I'd rather be thought of as a bitch than a proper lady. Maybe someday women will be able to be both without societies prejudices creating a distinction.
8
Somewhat of a sexist take, eh, Ms W.R.?
As long as you continue to view all of yur transactions through a sexist Fresnel prism, you are going to get an extremely focused, not-very inclusive viewpiont.
As long as you continue to view all of yur transactions through a sexist Fresnel prism, you are going to get an extremely focused, not-very inclusive viewpiont.
1
I'm sympathetic to the Public Editor's position-- leave the crudeness to Donald Trump's tweet and keep the Times and its headlines classier!
However, having written that, I have to ask the P.E. to offer an alternative headline that she feels would be acceptable.
Perhaps, putting "Bitch" in quotes would cushion its jarring nature and make it clear that others have applied the term to Hillary.
Yet, it's like what happened with "queer"--an epithet that was embraced by the gay community and was quite effective in promoting a new consciousness about its inappropriateness and cruelty when used by straights to demean gays.
So, I'm left in a quandary--and one that the Public Editor could hep resolve! She has pondered this at greater length than most of us and it would be good if she could provide an alternative headline!
However, having written that, I have to ask the P.E. to offer an alternative headline that she feels would be acceptable.
Perhaps, putting "Bitch" in quotes would cushion its jarring nature and make it clear that others have applied the term to Hillary.
Yet, it's like what happened with "queer"--an epithet that was embraced by the gay community and was quite effective in promoting a new consciousness about its inappropriateness and cruelty when used by straights to demean gays.
So, I'm left in a quandary--and one that the Public Editor could hep resolve! She has pondered this at greater length than most of us and it would be good if she could provide an alternative headline!
8
"Perhaps, putting "Bitch" in quotes would cushion its jarring nature and make it clear that others have applied the term to Hillary."
I think an elegant compromise: since the article treats how that word has been used against Mrs Clinton for as many years as she has been in politics, I think it's fair to use it in the headline, but the quotation marks remove the imprimatur of the NY Times.
Thank you.
I think an elegant compromise: since the article treats how that word has been used against Mrs Clinton for as many years as she has been in politics, I think it's fair to use it in the headline, but the quotation marks remove the imprimatur of the NY Times.
Thank you.
3
No, let it stand. My only qualification is that the entire media be allowed to use the 'Eh-whole' for Trump, which is little enough to label the biggest (expletive for the primary male genitalia)-coward-con-man-bag-of-wind fraud who EVER threw a hat in the ring.
11
The Times headline plays directly into the suspicion of many - that the editors and journalists, secretly, behind closed doors, pejoratively refer to their perceived antagonists with smug superiority (one of your columnists comes especially to mind).
In my town, back when a local activist was re-elected over our local paper's the sagely ill-considered opponent's endorsement, celebrating campaign staffers created a framed slug mockup of that newspaper with the top headline "The Bitch is Back!!". Whenever it is shown anew it is rarely considered a spoof. Instead, it's remembered as the actual tone of coverage in editorial enmity of the editors.
Oh, and, until recently, that paper was owned and operated by the NYTimes, hence not far from the tree. You do yourself no favors by creating long-term grudges in the headlines OR the stories (or the back office where the tone is set).
In my town, back when a local activist was re-elected over our local paper's the sagely ill-considered opponent's endorsement, celebrating campaign staffers created a framed slug mockup of that newspaper with the top headline "The Bitch is Back!!". Whenever it is shown anew it is rarely considered a spoof. Instead, it's remembered as the actual tone of coverage in editorial enmity of the editors.
Oh, and, until recently, that paper was owned and operated by the NYTimes, hence not far from the tree. You do yourself no favors by creating long-term grudges in the headlines OR the stories (or the back office where the tone is set).
7
There are many swear words available, I guess pretty soon all will be in common parlance. Many people feel clever and iconoclastic using them, showing no one tells them what to do. Independent thinkers them.
.
.
5
I'm the editor of the 2002 NY Times bestselling anthology "The Bitch in the House" and the sequel, "The Bitch is Back," coming out later this month. (www.bitchisbackbook.com) Virginia Woolf, referring in 1931 to an earlier poem by Coventry Patmore, spoke about the "angel in the house" as being "immensely sympathetic, utterly unselfish...if there was chicken, she took the leg; if there was a draft, she sat in it--in short, she was so constituted that she never had a mind or a wish of her own, but preferred to sympathize always with the minds and wishes of others." Hence, "The Bitch in the House": a strong-minded, independent woman who might be angry, but for all the right reasons; who is strong and smart and independent and not afraid to speak her mind. No wonder a man like Donald Trump is threatened by that! To him, a woman should be an angel in the house, with fake boobs to boot--not a presidential candidate who will likely defeat him for all the right reasons. Is that something to be ashamed of? Only if you're Donald Trump. Still, it's just plain not nice to call someone a bitch, until the term is used less derogatorily; it's more something we bitches can (proudly) call ourselves. At any rate, it seems to me the Times could have avoided the whole controversy by simply putting quote marks around the word "bitch" in the title, making it clear that it was someone else using that word, and they were merely reporting (or editorializing) on that.
21
A show of hands, please. Anyone here jolted by Antonio Brown's touchdown celebration in the end zone Monday night? Yes? Jolted by both -- are we all over 65? Wait . . . someone was jolted by one but not by the other? Put an investigative reporter on that one.
I admit I had no problem with this headline. I'm 46 years old, far from the "child who just got permission to use curse words" referenced by your commenter, and I continue to be baffled that the use of words like bitch are still somehow considered even remotely problematic in a professional setting. Come on, now--cuss words aren't edgy for most of us who use them every day in ordinary discourse. Words are words--and choosing the right word for the right application is exactly what good writers do. If bitch is what you mean, then bitch is what you say.
3
Use of a vugarity where there are plenty of acceptable alternatives is either an example of an unstated agenda or an inacceptable level of immaturity...
Or both.
Or both.
3
Have people forgotten the 24 years ago headline making comment on live TV by the old southern belle where HRC was called out as "rhymes with witch"?
3
Is that true? I remember Barbara Bush saying that she couldn't say what Geraldine Ferraro was, but it rhymed with "rich." That wasn't very funny. It left me only in stitch.
1
Ms Spayd, your paper's contempt for the more qualified, sane, and dignified candidate is once again on full display. Your paper becomes more misogynist daily, and is past the point of parody.
Would that the same kind of language and "dogged and determined reporting" be focused on her lackluster and ignorant opponent.
More false equivalence from the NYT. You're hemorrhaging subscribers, and your attempts to prop up Mr Trump while pulling down Ms Clinton is apparent to the most casual observer. You've been called out by almost every major news outlet. Perhaps you're playing it all up, in hopes of a buyout by Mr Murdoch.
Coming soon: The Fox News Times!
Would that the same kind of language and "dogged and determined reporting" be focused on her lackluster and ignorant opponent.
More false equivalence from the NYT. You're hemorrhaging subscribers, and your attempts to prop up Mr Trump while pulling down Ms Clinton is apparent to the most casual observer. You've been called out by almost every major news outlet. Perhaps you're playing it all up, in hopes of a buyout by Mr Murdoch.
Coming soon: The Fox News Times!
14
The word, while insulting and intended to be degrading, is not profane. Moreover, it's use in this piece purposely magnified the hypocrisy of traditional views of femininity. The writer's purpose was to highlight how women are negatively stereotyped for behaviors that are viewed positively in men. The use of the term was integral to the point of the piece.
7
As a woman who has been called a "bitch" in reference to making strong decisions not everyone was happy with, I wasn't offended. I'm not offended when someone calls me that. I cannot imagine that Sec. Clinton hasn't been called much, much worse, to her face over the years; not to say that hurling epithets at other people is okay so long as that person isn't offended, but consider that the person, sometimes, is trying to use that word against that person to get them to back down, to cower. Especially a woman. Who wants to be considered a "bitch", right? I think it depends on the context for every individual. If I don't allow "bitch" to bother me, then what power does the person trying to use it against me have?
3
THere is absolutely NO excuse for this opinion piece or the headline. NYT has stooped to horrifying new lows in every regard. Will have to stop reading it if this much trash continues to appear daily. What a shame. WHERE are the grown ups in charge who are supposed to assure we are receiving worthy news and quality writing instead of trash talking and garbage trend stories?
10
The headline did exactly what a good headline is supposed to do: Accurately reflect the piece--and do so in a way that will engage readers. The word bitch was central to the essay and was thus appropriate for the headline. Criticizing the headline writer is akin to shooting the messenger.
7
You're right, Mr. Kimelman, Effective click bait.
Agreed. I curse like a trucker when I'm with my buddies and was not offended by the piece, but I come to The Times as a place of respite and aspirational discourse. I can find the bitch-talk anywhere.
9
This campaign is exhausting me. Context is all but lost.
This was the perfect headline for this article—it indicated the author's advocacy for a positive use of the word, while also nicely encompassing the tone and message of the piece.
Headlines are supposed to grab the reader. That's their job. And especially in an opinion piece, the headline should give the reader a taste of the writer's style.
Plus, the great thing about headlines is that once you've read the article, you can then understand the context they're written in, and that can (and I know this is a strange concept in today's political climate) change your feelings about it.
Unclutch your pearls, Times readers. In fact, maybe ditch the pearls altogether. They're so 80's.
This was the perfect headline for this article—it indicated the author's advocacy for a positive use of the word, while also nicely encompassing the tone and message of the piece.
Headlines are supposed to grab the reader. That's their job. And especially in an opinion piece, the headline should give the reader a taste of the writer's style.
Plus, the great thing about headlines is that once you've read the article, you can then understand the context they're written in, and that can (and I know this is a strange concept in today's political climate) change your feelings about it.
Unclutch your pearls, Times readers. In fact, maybe ditch the pearls altogether. They're so 80's.
12
In a pep talk to his troops George Patton once said he wanted the Germans to say “Jesus Christ, it’s that goddam son of a bitch Patton again.” Clinton is a woman of character and strength, not whatever degrading image the odious word “bitch” is supposed to evoke. Nevertheless, her supporters can be forgiven for occasionally basking in the tremors of fear her presence inspires in the Republican ranks, and gloating on the hateful word "bitch."
4
I am beginning to believe that the NYT is doing us a great disservice in their coverage of the Clintons. I hope they stop and turn it around. Meanwhile Trump and the Deplorables benefit.
Read this and understand a lot of people agree with it.
Daily Kos
"'Bold and dogged reporting' on Clinton and Trump, New York Times-style"
By Laura Clawson
Tuesday Sep 13, 2016
Read this and understand a lot of people agree with it.
Daily Kos
"'Bold and dogged reporting' on Clinton and Trump, New York Times-style"
By Laura Clawson
Tuesday Sep 13, 2016
1
While this column in response to that awfully titled op-ed is somewhat helpful in rationalizing the use of the title, the New York Times should apologize to Mrs. Clinton PRONTO in a separate opinion column. After all, the Times seems to be sinking to the level of that narcissistic bully with the creamsicle comb-over. Just because epithets have become commonly used in a society fast approaching the breakdown of almost all civil discourse, The New York Times doesn't need to exacerbate the problem.
8
Sorta like when the Times allows the use of the alliteration BFF. Do they consider that a part of that is an obscenity they would never allow to be printed in full?
1
I realize that you are new on the job Ms. Spayd, but you are hopelessly naïve or misleading with your claim that the NYT "Op-Ed pages are intended to throw out the welcome mat to all views".
As a long time Times reader, it is clear to all of us that only Establishment Democrat, Progressive, Socialist, and Marxist viewpoints are printed. The Times lost it's journalistic integrity about 15 years ago.
As a long time Times reader, it is clear to all of us that only Establishment Democrat, Progressive, Socialist, and Marxist viewpoints are printed. The Times lost it's journalistic integrity about 15 years ago.
3
This is an example of the public editor being far more concerned with form rather than substance. The use of a pejorative term is far less demeaning than articles explaining why Anthony Weiner's latest sexcapade casts a "shadow" over the Clinton campaign while there is absolutely nothing about the fact that Melania Trump has done soft core porn photoshoots and may have been working in this country before she got a very questionable work visa that are only supposed to be given when there is a shortage of Americans able to do certain jobs. Do we have a shortage of American porn stars and why hasn't that cast a shadow over Trump's campaign? How much of the Clinton Foundation's non-story do we need to read about while the single article about the illegal use of the Trump Foundation to bribe the Florida Attorney general barely scratched the surface of that particular issue. Why all the brouhaha over Clinton's e-mails that the FBI Director has repeatedly said did not even come close to a crime while saying nothing about the civil RICO charges filed against Trump U. for being a corrupt enterprise? The NY Times needs to stop being the Matt Lauer of print journalism.
16
"Bitch" and "need" in the title shows that "bitch" is not a perjorative.
1
I agree with you, but I also have to say I really adored Bill Maher's closing dialog on exactly that theme on August 2, 2016 in which he tells how he wishes Hillary would adopt the persona of a "super villain", the Notorious HRC. I laughed so hard that I couldn't delete it from my Tivo after I watched it. Zeisler is using the term in a more modern way than we are used to. Whether the word should be in a headline or not -- I am not sure, but its time is coming.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-maher-hillary-clinton-supervill...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-maher-hillary-clinton-supervill...
3
I'm glad someone within the Times put this out - it was cringe-worthy and too big an effort by the paper to come on as 'cool and hip' by accepting the piece with the click-bait title. If the subject of the piece was a twenty-or-thirty someone in the entertainment business, it can be 'appreciated'. But to use it for the first woman nominee for POTUS was disrespectful and coarse - particularly in the political climate of this election year where we have already had too much of that.
I don't fault the author of the essay, who is clearly identified as a feminist group named BitchMedia. Lately, I have found the NYT coverage - its' tone and reporting of Clinton events - unnecessarily judgemental, and the acceptance of this piece is in keeping with their perceived view of Mrs. Clinton. A source of disappointment for a long time subscriber to a paper I had always relied on for fair representation of news and facts.
I don't fault the author of the essay, who is clearly identified as a feminist group named BitchMedia. Lately, I have found the NYT coverage - its' tone and reporting of Clinton events - unnecessarily judgemental, and the acceptance of this piece is in keeping with their perceived view of Mrs. Clinton. A source of disappointment for a long time subscriber to a paper I had always relied on for fair representation of news and facts.
39
now that every one has a voice, its anything goes.
1
Whatever happened to the Age of Enlightenment? Or, does freedom of expression offer license to erode all manner of ideals and inspiration associated with intelligence and tolerance? The use of the term is an abominable illustration of what we have wrought from any attempt at rational discourse in American society.
9
"Whatever happened to the Age of Enlightenment?"
During the so-called "Age of Enlightenment", Marie Antoinette was the target of numerous libels involving her alleged sexual promiscuity. See any biography.
For graphic examples, do a Google images search for "marie antoinette libelles".
During the so-called "Age of Enlightenment", Marie Antoinette was the target of numerous libels involving her alleged sexual promiscuity. See any biography.
For graphic examples, do a Google images search for "marie antoinette libelles".
I think the expression needs a comma - Trump, That Bitch
31
Typical of the liberal hate speech found at the Times. Think any post calling a Democrat a name would be posted? What a joke.
This is the direction of our language, shock value supplanting precision of denotation. HRCs litany of her her basket of deplorables, "homophobes, xenophobes, "Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it" Was more than insulting, but a display of how specific terms have been replaced by epithets, done as simply as adding a suffix of "ist" or "phobic."
In many areas, unlike the term "gerontologist" which does not mean degrading old people, these suffixes have taken a political context. "Phobic" which does have a specific psychiatric meaning, which is a visceral fear (not antipathy) for any object or setting - now vilifies anyone who dares objectively analyze the social norms of the root object. So it was easy for HRC to finish her statement with, " you name it," This is a simplistic manufactured suffix, actually intentionally distorted according to Wikipedia :
Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s,...... a blend of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear".[12][13][14] Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech.[9] The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American pornographic magazine ....
In diminishing gay bashing, turning fear into hatred, we have degraded our language and given birth to Donald Trump
AlRodbell.com
In many areas, unlike the term "gerontologist" which does not mean degrading old people, these suffixes have taken a political context. "Phobic" which does have a specific psychiatric meaning, which is a visceral fear (not antipathy) for any object or setting - now vilifies anyone who dares objectively analyze the social norms of the root object. So it was easy for HRC to finish her statement with, " you name it," This is a simplistic manufactured suffix, actually intentionally distorted according to Wikipedia :
Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s,...... a blend of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear".[12][13][14] Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech.[9] The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American pornographic magazine ....
In diminishing gay bashing, turning fear into hatred, we have degraded our language and given birth to Donald Trump
AlRodbell.com
3
Click Bait, yes. But that regrettable headline would not have been published if the NYT editorial staff had not wanted to pander to "the young crowd." Our current youth, being young way too long, are under the delusion that bad isn't really bad -- not if they get their hands on it. They can make anything mean anything.
And so a curse word screamed at rallies that also purport to want to "make America great again," but who's real intention is to make America white and uber-macho again, has been echoed by a silly trendy Times editorial staff.
How foolish can even the NYT get?
And so a curse word screamed at rallies that also purport to want to "make America great again," but who's real intention is to make America white and uber-macho again, has been echoed by a silly trendy Times editorial staff.
How foolish can even the NYT get?
23
The headline that I thought was gratuitously offensive was the one that implied that President Obama was rude while on the trip to Asia. A very bad article all around both it and the headline were demeaning and lacking in respect for the President and all his hard work on that trip and during this last very difficult year of his presidency. Article and headline were worthy of the National Enquirer.
Headlines tell a story in brief. Some editiors lose sight of the purpose of headlines and should not be allowed to write them. I have seen headlines that use plays on words that contradict the meanings of the articles they head. So tacky.
Headlines tell a story in brief. Some editiors lose sight of the purpose of headlines and should not be allowed to write them. I have seen headlines that use plays on words that contradict the meanings of the articles they head. So tacky.
19
Agreed. It was a terrible decision. Just because other media companies have decided to join the stampede to produce click-bait, why the Times? Ugly and demeaning.
35
While I don't have issues with the B word in the headline, if, like the N word, it becomes a term that only a segment of the population can use in an empowering/positive light, does it then become a further stumbling block to helping us all communicate clearly about race, gender and other differences that we all wish didn't make a difference in how we get along? Especially as I think those of us who embrace and reappropriate these words do it partially to make others feel uncomfortable and not just to empower themselves.
9
I was surprised to learn from this that article an (or the) editorial page editor commissions articles ... mistakenly thought that they sifted through stacks of submissions. That would make their job easier, since they wouldn't also be looking for ways to get their own perspective or ideas into print.
Thank you for your clarifications and perspective, which is reassuring. We have enough shock-em journalism out there w/out the NYTimes flipping over to it as well.
Thank you for your clarifications and perspective, which is reassuring. We have enough shock-em journalism out there w/out the NYTimes flipping over to it as well.
5
Is no one in charge over there? First, bitch in a headline about Ms. Clinton and then a picture of an African American to illustrate a headline about returning to the Stone Age.
12
"What bothered me about the headline was that it seemed to come from the voice of The Times, at least when you come on it cold, as all readers do."
ALL reader? No, Ms. Spayd, when I pick up the Review section of the Times, I EXPECT the headlines to reflect the words of the writer, just as Ms. Dry explained. Recently, there was a headline on the opinion page to the effect that Trump's election would be good for the economy. That's certainly not a sentiment I agree with, but it got my attention. And I knew before even checking the writer's bio that it was written by someone from the Trump campaign. Give the Times's readers a little more credit for discernment.
In the case of Ms. Zeisler's piece, it's hard to see how the B-word could have been avoided in the headline, given how central it is to her premise.
ALL reader? No, Ms. Spayd, when I pick up the Review section of the Times, I EXPECT the headlines to reflect the words of the writer, just as Ms. Dry explained. Recently, there was a headline on the opinion page to the effect that Trump's election would be good for the economy. That's certainly not a sentiment I agree with, but it got my attention. And I knew before even checking the writer's bio that it was written by someone from the Trump campaign. Give the Times's readers a little more credit for discernment.
In the case of Ms. Zeisler's piece, it's hard to see how the B-word could have been avoided in the headline, given how central it is to her premise.
11
I imagine Trump will soon be calling Mrs. Clinton a b**** in his speeches. Any criticism? He will just point to the NY Times and say, "well, the NY Times thinks it is OK to call her that".
22
Article was a relatively thoughtful piece overall.
It is the Headline that is crass, titillation based, a clickbait stunt unworthy of the times. The very same article could have been just as effective under a more gracious, more mature Title heading.
WHO wrote the headline ? Is that established ? It needs to be amplified that if the Author isn't writing the headline, if questions of taste arise and issues come up-- we don't need a long article from the public editor dealing with the author or her piece.
If the issue is trashy click-bait headlines, where many like the public editor feel that "What bothered me about the headline was that it seemed to come from the voice of The Times"--- don't spend the corrective article glossing or obscuring the fact that the Opinion Editors inserted the offending title.
Tell us more, please, about how and why a basic tabloid ploy (clickbait) is finding its way into the editorial decision making of the Times.
And who approved the idea.
Thanks.
It is the Headline that is crass, titillation based, a clickbait stunt unworthy of the times. The very same article could have been just as effective under a more gracious, more mature Title heading.
WHO wrote the headline ? Is that established ? It needs to be amplified that if the Author isn't writing the headline, if questions of taste arise and issues come up-- we don't need a long article from the public editor dealing with the author or her piece.
If the issue is trashy click-bait headlines, where many like the public editor feel that "What bothered me about the headline was that it seemed to come from the voice of The Times"--- don't spend the corrective article glossing or obscuring the fact that the Opinion Editors inserted the offending title.
Tell us more, please, about how and why a basic tabloid ploy (clickbait) is finding its way into the editorial decision making of the Times.
And who approved the idea.
Thanks.
16
Well, sumbitch. The last time I checked, the "b" word is being applied to both women and men, as well as to situations that can be either positive or negative.
Was there a better headline word? Probably. There often is.
Was there a better headline word? Probably. There often is.
3
Wow. Believe it or not, I didn't even notice the use or think to question its presence in the Times. And I am a woman. I guess maybe some of us have moved past it as shock value--but until I read this piece, I wouldn't have thought of myself as someone who had.
I'm just so sick and tired of name-calling as a substitute for reasoned debate that I probably just tuned it out. And, as Zeisler points out, being called a bitch is nothing to be ashamed of. It means someone is feeling threatened by your strength and assertiveness---and can't think of a more effective response to that fear.
And that's on them, not you.
I'm just so sick and tired of name-calling as a substitute for reasoned debate that I probably just tuned it out. And, as Zeisler points out, being called a bitch is nothing to be ashamed of. It means someone is feeling threatened by your strength and assertiveness---and can't think of a more effective response to that fear.
And that's on them, not you.
11
Oh, woman up! Words only hurt if you agree to it. Bitch is a common biological name for the female of a species. But I'm a strong, opinionated woman who can laugh and reply "you say bitch like it's a BAD thing!". That backs people right off.
I'll only buy the outrage when the same is applied to the word "bastard". Women use that word all the time.
I'll only buy the outrage when the same is applied to the word "bastard". Women use that word all the time.
12
I commend your strength and self regard, seriously. But the word bitch is not a "common biological name for the female of a species". Its typical "common" use is for female dogs. And bastard is not the male equivalent. That word refers to an illegitimate child.
Words are powerful and derogatory words should be used with care and precision, or preferably, not at all.
Words are powerful and derogatory words should be used with care and precision, or preferably, not at all.
5
Get over it. The author was demarcating a word, a concept, that is regularly used against women. She turned "bitch" around on us and we readers got scared. Oh, my God, sacriledge: The Times used the word in a headline! What if being a bitch wasn't a bad thing to be? What if it became a badge of honor? It doesn't matter what Hillary does, some, even children at Trump rallies, will call out that she is a bitch. Ah, wouldn't the world be sweet if Hillary could reply, as the op-ed writer implied, "I'm the biggest toughest smartest bitch around, a hell of lot bitchier than The Donald could ever think of being." Last note: How many times do you think, behind her back, famous politicians have, with a smirk on their faces, called Hillary a bitch? Common? Uncommon?
13
There's no other headline that serves that op-ed. It distills the message perfectly: that the qualities many Americans see in her that fit their label of "bitch" are many of the same qualities that will make her a strong, resilient leader. That it "brings an air of legitimacy to the word that seems beyond where we are at this moment in history" is a nice secondary benefit -- I mean, God forbid the New York Times does more than just capture the sensibilities of the moment! One might begin to see the "Old Gray Lady" as a tough, cool bitch herself.
9
This reminds me of a word that Larry Wilmore can use, but I can't.
Also, interesting that all the people in the article are women.
Where is Mark Twain when we need him?
Also, interesting that all the people in the article are women.
Where is Mark Twain when we need him?
4
I said on FACEBOOK that I did not approve of that word in a headline....I hate the B word and think it is derogatory towards women. I never use the N word...
5
A pair of 'quotes' would have served admirably...
12
I was aghast. The word is as shocking and painful as ever to many readers, and should never have been printed in a headline. My father used that word once to my sister - it changed their relationship. He muttered the word many times while my mother was at the edge of earshot. It changed my relationship with him. While words do elicit changing responses over time, the Times ought to have the decency to not use the word in a headline while any of us who have known its vile power are still alive. The NYT editorial board should apologize.
10
Fortunately, for this nation and world, Hillary has thick skin, unlike her delicate skinned opponent. All the vitriol said against her by her opponents only shows how scarred they are of her - in particular Mr. T is of her - in spite of all of his braggadocio and tanTrumps he uses to cover up his insecurities.
All Hillary needs to do is to laugh at him during the debates to put him in is place - as the dangerous caricature he is.
Oh, has Jimmy Kimmel's "Unnecessary Censorship" come to the Times?
All Hillary needs to do is to laugh at him during the debates to put him in is place - as the dangerous caricature he is.
Oh, has Jimmy Kimmel's "Unnecessary Censorship" come to the Times?
3
I was pleased and celebrated/shared that the NYT used the B-Word, because only one person could have and that was Andi Zeisler. She founded Bitch magazine 20 years ago, and used that title to say, hey we are going to get called that anyway, let's own it. She has fought for the use of the word in a different context. Using the word both recognizes its power, but also delegitimizes its negative impact, much like the phrase "B***s get thongs done". Public editor is wrong in this case, and surprisingly out of the present zeitgeist, the word was used appropriately.
10
Turn it around.
What if the headline head read "The Bastard America Needs" (or Doesn't Need)?
Does that affect your opinion?
The term bastard also has several denotations and connotations - mostly derogatory - but some used in an admiring manner ("You bastard" versus "He's a crafty ole bastard all right").
Both headlines express the opinion, as a given, that person referred to IS what the headline states - and from there the conversation can take place.
Somehow I do not think that the Times would have used that as a headline in any section - opinion or not.
What if the headline head read "The Bastard America Needs" (or Doesn't Need)?
Does that affect your opinion?
The term bastard also has several denotations and connotations - mostly derogatory - but some used in an admiring manner ("You bastard" versus "He's a crafty ole bastard all right").
Both headlines express the opinion, as a given, that person referred to IS what the headline states - and from there the conversation can take place.
Somehow I do not think that the Times would have used that as a headline in any section - opinion or not.
3
Poor job of spin control folks!
The NYT put this title out just to get people to click on the article. "Bitch" is still large used as a pejorative word, as any Trump rally will tell you.
If the anti-Obama ranters could get away with it, they would happily use the "N" word to describe him. Does that mean the NYT would use it in a headline arbitrarily? This was just a way to make some clcks and generate some churn at Clinton's expense.
Exceedingly unimpressed!
The NYT put this title out just to get people to click on the article. "Bitch" is still large used as a pejorative word, as any Trump rally will tell you.
If the anti-Obama ranters could get away with it, they would happily use the "N" word to describe him. Does that mean the NYT would use it in a headline arbitrarily? This was just a way to make some clcks and generate some churn at Clinton's expense.
Exceedingly unimpressed!
85
Thank you. The B-word makes me cringe. It is the sexist equivalent to the racist N-word. Does this mean that the NYT has heard the criticism that their coverage of the Clintons has a negative bias? It is most obvious in headlines like "Hillary Clinton is Set Back by Decision to Keep Illness Secret" and the non-story that follows. I've been reading the NYT longer than you have been alive and I've always worried that the unremitting negative slant on Hillary would lead to a narrative widely accepted and almost never challenged that she is "unlikable" or "untrustworthy". NYT had a lot to do with that. So thanks for protesting the B-word usage. It's too little, too late, but it is something.
38
You must be joking, the NYT with a ani-clinton bias. The NYT "hates" everything Republican, disliked Bernie and belittled him and is "bombastic in their personal hatred of Trump.
There will be 2-3 positive Hillary articles above the fold, 2 negative Trump and Hillary's "deplorable" comments on page 14 of the Sunday NYT paper.
The NYT is the New York branch of the DNC!
Jimmie Reston and Abe Rosenthal would turn over in their graves to see what you have turned the NYT into- a shrill left-wing Post!
There will be 2-3 positive Hillary articles above the fold, 2 negative Trump and Hillary's "deplorable" comments on page 14 of the Sunday NYT paper.
The NYT is the New York branch of the DNC!
Jimmie Reston and Abe Rosenthal would turn over in their graves to see what you have turned the NYT into- a shrill left-wing Post!
2
Who saw the Vagina Monologues??? Eve Ensler wanted woman to start using the C word casually at parties and the like...she suggested we ask our girlfriends "how's your c___?" because she understood that the populace can transform words by commandeering them and thereby prevent their use as hate speech...Many readers have already pointed this out. I loved the article, Eve probably chuckled when she read it...
6
But, as far as I can tell, the "C word" hasn't been transformed by the populace. So no one should be chuckling about the ugly B word just yet either.
5
"... she [Eve Ensler] understood that the populace can transform words by commandeering them and thereby prevent their use as hate speech ..."
I cannot find any evidence that Ensler has ever used the phrase "hate speech". Please cite a source.
Per Google search for 'Eve Ensler "hate speech"'.
I cannot find any evidence that Ensler has ever used the phrase "hate speech". Please cite a source.
Per Google search for 'Eve Ensler "hate speech"'.
1
The word "bitch" was central to the story and, I believe, belonged in the headline. But it should have been surrounded by quotation marks or written as "b----."
7
I am glad for this comment on the opinion piece, which I found distasteful.
I prefer to use this word for misogynistic men, and then, not in public.
I prefer to use this word for misogynistic men, and then, not in public.
9
What better way to diminish the force of a denigrating word than to reappropriate its meaning into an empowering one?
Though the NY Times is a mainstream publication, it is also known for presenting ideas in its Opinion pieces that man to foster further reflection on subjects of interest to its readers. It's high time this word be stripped of its belittling power and evolve into its sense of something or someone formidable and difficult to tackle.
How else could this evolution be accomplished, if not acknowledging it publicly, in mainstream media, when it's already in the air?
Though the NY Times is a mainstream publication, it is also known for presenting ideas in its Opinion pieces that man to foster further reflection on subjects of interest to its readers. It's high time this word be stripped of its belittling power and evolve into its sense of something or someone formidable and difficult to tackle.
How else could this evolution be accomplished, if not acknowledging it publicly, in mainstream media, when it's already in the air?
7
And shall we now turn "fatso" and "sissy" and "trailer trash" and "redneck" and all the other ugly names we call each other that won't be printed here into empowering words?
The word for the female dog has been used to denigrate women for centuries. If this word should lose its power, then men who hate us will replace it with something else. And that's why we call them pigs.
The word for the female dog has been used to denigrate women for centuries. If this word should lose its power, then men who hate us will replace it with something else. And that's why we call them pigs.
7
Agreed.
3
I keep hearing Meredith Brooks song ring through my head. While this may seem disrespectful to a certain generation, I think it could hardly resonate more with younger women.
So to that end, I like it.
Whether it is appropriate for the NY Times? I don't know. I've been a very harsh critic about colloquialisms like "junk" and "boobs" which I think have no place in a serious article in the NY Times or anywhere else for that matter.
OTOH this is OpEd. And OpEd is the writers voice. Very few outlets offer actual news any longer. Most everything is OpEd these days and consumers seemed to have lost the ability to distinguish between opinion and fact when it come to the news they consume. The Times must keep up with the times if it expects to continue. I'm just not as certain as most everyone else.
So to that end, I like it.
Whether it is appropriate for the NY Times? I don't know. I've been a very harsh critic about colloquialisms like "junk" and "boobs" which I think have no place in a serious article in the NY Times or anywhere else for that matter.
OTOH this is OpEd. And OpEd is the writers voice. Very few outlets offer actual news any longer. Most everything is OpEd these days and consumers seemed to have lost the ability to distinguish between opinion and fact when it come to the news they consume. The Times must keep up with the times if it expects to continue. I'm just not as certain as most everyone else.
2
The public editor writes:
"I did find the essay readable and smart, and given that the Op-Ed pages are intended to throw out the welcome mat to all views, it’s hard to argue that this wasn’t a worthy offering."
Wrong. The oped was ugly, insulting, and a disgrace to The Times. Will the next oped that Ms Dry commissions headline epithets against Blacks? Against Asians? All justified because someone uses them against politicians somewhere? And excused because the opinion pages "are intended to throw out the welcome mat for all views"?
It is outrageous that the public editor could possibly suggest that it was a "worthy offering." It wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination. Further, it is all the more offensive because it was The Times' opinion editor who commissioned it in the first place. And coming on the heels of Ms Spayd's misguided comments regarding "false equivalency", it shows us a disturbing pattern of defending the indefensible.
"I did find the essay readable and smart, and given that the Op-Ed pages are intended to throw out the welcome mat to all views, it’s hard to argue that this wasn’t a worthy offering."
Wrong. The oped was ugly, insulting, and a disgrace to The Times. Will the next oped that Ms Dry commissions headline epithets against Blacks? Against Asians? All justified because someone uses them against politicians somewhere? And excused because the opinion pages "are intended to throw out the welcome mat for all views"?
It is outrageous that the public editor could possibly suggest that it was a "worthy offering." It wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination. Further, it is all the more offensive because it was The Times' opinion editor who commissioned it in the first place. And coming on the heels of Ms Spayd's misguided comments regarding "false equivalency", it shows us a disturbing pattern of defending the indefensible.
27
Shoe fits?
"Shoe fits?"
So. There you go, Public Editor: some evidence that it was fuel to the fire.
The word should not have been in the headline, although quote marks would have softened it.
So. There you go, Public Editor: some evidence that it was fuel to the fire.
The word should not have been in the headline, although quote marks would have softened it.
Perhaps parentheses might have softened the headline, as in "The 'Bitch' America Needs." The reader would then have been alerted to the fact that the article is not castigating Hillary Clinton herself but is, instead, etymologically exploring in a political sense the word often used by some to describe her.
6
Those are apostrophes. Parentheses are ().
3
Nope, again. Those are quotation marks. Single and double.
3
You are correct, Rea Tarr. Although they look just like apostrophes.
I found that headline offensive. I understood what they were trying to say perhaps, but the way they did it only massively reinforced the negative connotations. Shame on the Times.
25
I thought it was an excellent article and headline. The negative reaction of many people says more about how in or out of touch with the zeitgeist particular readers are than the editors' judgement. I suspect there is a generation and class gap at play here.
2
Pul-eese, America, headlines are designed to be provacative.
2
I also found this headline offensive. One of the aspects of the Times that I have always valued is that the comments are moderated so that one doesn't have to read through comments which simply insult. Another aspect I have always appreciated is that the language of the Times is civil and can be read by any age group.
10
Any word is "appropriate" if it is employed in a proper context and that one was.
In fact, it was clearly referent.
Journalists and those who guide them should be very careful when policing word usage.
In fact, it was clearly referent.
Journalists and those who guide them should be very careful when policing word usage.
3
It was "clearly referent" only for those who read the entire article.
It was reinforcement (and encouragement) of a negative stereotype for many of those who did not.
It was reinforcement (and encouragement) of a negative stereotype for many of those who did not.
First, Ms. Spayd, thank you for the follow-up and explication from several angles. Second, I am in full agreement with Opinion editor Rachel Dry: The word is both appropriate to the headline and to the article. Imagine trying to discuss any loaded term without its explicit mention: The resulting anemia would foreclose anyone's reading the piece let alone taking anything away from it. Third, although I understand your intent when you say that "the word bitch — particularly when it's lobbed at you across a room or on the street or in social media — is surely intended as crude and demeaning," Zeisler and the Times performed journalistic service by bringing the term forward in discussion both to weaken its sting and to show it for what it is, which in my opinion is a Trump supporter's handle to exclaim rudely against someone he or she would love to dismiss knowing full well that doing so is both out of the question and beyond direct control. Brava for a well-written op-ed! Thank you.
3
"Bitch" is no longer misogynistic. It is a word of self-empowerment. English is a fluid language, and we are at one of those points with the word bitch.
4
PrairieFlax, You can only speak for yourself and your friends. Not for me or my friends.
7
No, you want to believe the word is no longer misogynistic. If may feel like "self-empowerment" to you, but when most people use it with regard to powerful women, they are trying to take the women down a few pegs. And don't call my mother one, either. No telling what my response might be to that.
8
I perceive the word -- which has been used to demean and cow women for centuries -- as mysogynistic. It is not "self-empowering," whateverthehell that means.
When men enjoy being called "pig" or "goat," then we can talk about accepting "bitch" as a lovely epithet.
When men enjoy being called "pig" or "goat," then we can talk about accepting "bitch" as a lovely epithet.
7
Wow. This is one time I have been all the map on my feelings on this subject. On one hand, I have accepted the term when assigned to me with my chin stuck out and proud to have the mettle to plow through the slander. This while under the surface feeling wounded but proud I can handle the slings and arrows. But after reading the other side, I feel the need to stand up and protest the word's use which is hurtful and derogatory. Either way, the piece really made me ponder deeply on the subject...unlike those people who hurl the insult and who often don't have the intelligence to do anything else.
4
The word "bitch" was provocative. I, for one, didn't feel like being provoked. I skimmed the article and didn't grasp the nuances and moved on.
The larger issue is about people referring to the "tabloidization" of the Times and its use of "click bait."
[[Dry says that when opinion editors write the headlines, they are distilling the author’s perspective, not the view or the voice of The Times.]]
I'll accept that statement. And the people who read the Times obsessively and complain about tabloidization had better have a subscription. That or pipe down.
The larger issue is about people referring to the "tabloidization" of the Times and its use of "click bait."
[[Dry says that when opinion editors write the headlines, they are distilling the author’s perspective, not the view or the voice of The Times.]]
I'll accept that statement. And the people who read the Times obsessively and complain about tabloidization had better have a subscription. That or pipe down.
4
What's next -- an opinion piece saying "Obama, the 'N' we need"?
27
OK. Now use the other word used in some quarters to describe Mrs. Clinton, the one the rhymes with (age alert!) the man who invented the TV show "Candid Camera". It's a word definitely not fit to print.
7
"It's a word definitely not fit to print."
The Times has published the c-word in literary excerpts, although it is not clear if those excerpts appeared in the print edition. Here is an example:
Glory Goes and Gets Some: Stories
By EMILY CARTER
Coffee House Press
https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/carter-glory.html
BTW, you can use a web search engine to find rhymes: "hunt rhymes".
The Times has published the c-word in literary excerpts, although it is not clear if those excerpts appeared in the print edition. Here is an example:
Glory Goes and Gets Some: Stories
By EMILY CARTER
Coffee House Press
https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/carter-glory.html
BTW, you can use a web search engine to find rhymes: "hunt rhymes".
I'm a former daily newspaper reporter, so I like to think I have a bit of an understanding of the nuance and art that often goes into writing good headlines. Unlike many of the commenters, I didn't read the commentary precisely because of the headline. I'm a reluctant Hillary supporter for a number of reasons and my choice not to read the op-Ed wasn't fueled by deep anger or offense, but by fatigue. I'm tired of the mental gymnastics that I feel must go into assessing reports like this: Would this have been acceptable if it had been written about a male candidate? Is there a way to evaluate the importance of Hillary's clothes, vocal tenor or bitchiness in a way that's not demeaning to women? Should any of this even matter in the world's most powerful democracy in the 21sr Century? This election is such a hot mess that the intricacies of gender politics seem like something we almost don't have time to ponder.
12
Haven't you read the NY Times in the past 20 years?
It's new editors appeal to prurient interests even more than The National Enquirer.
They should think of changing their slogan from
"All The News That's Fit to Print" to "All The Filth That Fits We Print."
Try searching the Times archives for key words like orgasm (Julie Andrews interview), four letter words, etc. sex coverage in the Book Review (Gloria Vanderbilt describes one lover as the "Nijinsky of …), reviews of pornographic art films with live copulation (actor/director Gallo's film), and “art” photos of naked ballet dancers, hundreds of crouching naked people on Park Avenue in the early morning, etc. This has got to be worse than The Inquirer or The Star tabloids.
Arthur S. Brisbane in his final column as The New York Times public editor (ombudsman, a position solely created in the wake of the Times 2003’s Jayson Blair scandal) said this, “Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.”
Wake up and smell the roses and climb out of the cesspool that the Times has become. Every page is turned by the reader with trepidation as to what affront to common decency they will make on the next page.
6
The ONLY thing that could be done differently with Zeisler's column would be a clearer headline. If a less ambiguous headline had indicated her support of Clinton the piece would have been perhaps less obscure for some readers who think concretely. I loved the column and appreciated that a journalist took on the blatant sexism that many, many women have , and are, facing every day. If Clinton were a man she would be treated very differently by the media. This campaign has shown that widespread rampant sexism sadly is alive and sick.
6
Grow up, you children. It's just a word with no magic powers other than what prudes give it
1
It is derogatory towards women. I bet you aren't one
6
I disagree BH - if you consider use of this word acceptable, you are probably the one who needs to grow up. I find the use of this word to be offensive and dismissive; it lowers the level of discourse to that of schoolyard taunts. I prefer that the lowest common denominator not set the standards for the selection process of my president. Words matter and clearly use of this word serves to demean Candidate Clinton while adding nothing to the conversation.
1
My view is that the word is and always has been used as an insult. Or, when it's used by gays -- another word that's an insult on another plane -- it is both insult and mockery.
Any woman who thinks it's acceptable to be called a name that's has been used for centuries as an insult might wonder what obscenity will be "reclaimed" next for us. There's one comes to my mind; it has four letters, starts with "c." And another, and another, and another. Through the alphabet.
Stop being weak, sisters.
Any woman who thinks it's acceptable to be called a name that's has been used for centuries as an insult might wonder what obscenity will be "reclaimed" next for us. There's one comes to my mind; it has four letters, starts with "c." And another, and another, and another. Through the alphabet.
Stop being weak, sisters.
9
"when it is used by gays"...how is it that gay men (I assume) using a word makes it so special?
1
I find offensive such a word being used against HRC. I am appalled at the Times and it's time to accept Women as equals. I hope to see Hillary as President of the US.
11
stands for Babe In Total Control of Herself
4
And what kind of woman wants to be called "babe?"
4
Yes, the topic is ripe for discussion in the opinion pages of The Times. But I think a headline is in a different class of editorial content from the body of the article. A headline is the calling card with which the text will meet the wider world, whether on the pages of The Times or republished as a standalone on countless social media feeds. Whether or not The Times opinion editor thinks so, by using the b-word in the headline, The Times bestows its imprimatur on this usage -- allowing other publications to later justify their usage of it based on the precedent set by The Times. In so doing, The Times communicates that insults and misogyny are acceptable means when used to pursue vigorous public debate.
13
My heart sank just a little bit when I saw the word in the headline. I would leave such terms to the NY Daily News or the Post. I believe it was a misstep by the Times. I sadly suspect at some point I'll be seeing an F-bomb in the op-ed page.
9
for a spell i dated a woman very involved with the AKC and over time i never got used to hearing the word thrown around like that. there is something about little old ladies and their dog handlers using the word that after a while it is easy to forget that bitch also has bad uses. the headline was off putting but i read the article and found it o k. the uproar is valid however. too many uses of the word are proceeded by words like stupid dumb old young. other than at dog gatherings i don't see if it has many other useful purposes. sorry i'll quit bitchin' now.
5
Although I know it isn't generally intended as such, personally, I take 'bitch' as a compliment; to compare a human to a dog is actually an insult to the dog, not the other way around. And when I am called a 'bitch', which has never happened to my face but I'm confident has happened often behind my back, it's shorthand for a woman who declines to be submissive, girly, weak, and pliant. A woman who stands up for herself, or won't lie down for a man, is a 'bitch' (or any of the pejorative terms for a lesbian, which I have been called, as has Hillary Clinton, come to think of it). So I actually read the headline as the op-ed writer intended the term to be read. But I can see how many would have a problem with it; nuance and irony are lost on the average reader, even of a publication like the NYT where a degree of sophistication and literary sensibility used to be a given. So there should at least have been sneer quotes around the word.
5
I am not submissive, girly, weak or pliant. And I am not willing to be called a bitch. The man who calls me that hates me for who I am; he will always hate me. If the word "bitch" suddenly disappeared, another nasty epithet would takes its place.
Any word intended as an insult is an insult. There is nothing to gain by "taking" the insult as a compliment. It makes no impression on the person who insulted you.
Now let's discuss the use of "average reader" as an insult.
Any word intended as an insult is an insult. There is nothing to gain by "taking" the insult as a compliment. It makes no impression on the person who insulted you.
Now let's discuss the use of "average reader" as an insult.
4
I was very disappointed in the Times for using the word in a headline. I have always liked to believe that the Times had standards of dignity.
11
The word is insulting and degrading whether used by Democrats referring to Sarah Palin or Fiorina or by others referring to Hillary Clinton or Pelosi.
14
I am a sixty year old party animal and no shrinking violet, but I was really taken back by seeing that headline in the NYT and am glad you pointed it out publically. For me it was the last of the great newspapers in the states to fall to the idea that it was being "modern" when all it was doing was being juvenile. I saw the article yesterday that said the average reading age in high school grads was about the 6th grade level. I am not average and I don't appreciate this high school tongue and cheek writing.
15
I understand what the author was attempting to do in the article, but once the bar on discourse is lowered in this manner, it seems to create a new norm - making what was previously too crude to be acceptable, now OK. Was it worth it?
13
Fair enough. But leave some responsibility for the reader, too. If one accepts the premise of this op ed piece in the first place, then one must look past the headline.
2
"Have we really reached the point that it’s O.K. for The Times to refer to Clinton in bold type as 'The Bitch America Needs'?" This was my reaction as well. I thought, can't at least ONE newspaper maintain civility and decorum? I "get" the piece. I really do. But for heaven's sake, can we please keep our standards up, at least where headlines are concerned? What's next? I hate to think what word(s) might become acceptable next.
9
Bitch is a fighting word to me - it's never OK to me and if I use it, it's an expletive meant to convey something deeply uncomplimentary. No different than the N word. Picture that in a headline.
18
Please don't use the word again. It just lowers the Times to tabloid standards.
15
Count me as one of the many offended that the Times would use this word in a headline. Bad example for kids, and demeaning to the general public, but above all, an insult to women.
14
Speaking of words, some of us have been begging the Times public editor to address use of the term 'conservative' to describe radical partisan & deliberately obstructive Republicans.
10
I have always found the term "bitch" vaguely icky/borderline misogynist. My solution, whenever speaking about a woman who is being a jerk (and let's not pretend that doesn't happen), is to say she's being an "a**hole", just as I would were the jerk of the male persuasion.
6
Why not accurately describe the article and its demeaning headline for what it really was: clickbait.
13
I agree with these sentiments. It bears mentioning the origin of the word bitch. No matter how comfortable Ms. Zeisler hopes we become saying it, the word still means a dog. We need to move past this conversation, just as we did years ago when some tried to re-normalize the n-word. I also can't help feeling that Ms. Zeisler has personal reasons for trying to have the word bitch be welcomed into the lexicon, given that it's part of the name of her company. Perhaps she's had difficulty getting her clients to feel comfortable with it.
6
Thank you, Public Editor. I also was uncomfortable with not just the headline but also the point of the piece. "Reclaiming" the term gives legitimacy to a derogatory term --- and derogatory (even abusive) thinking, speech, and behavior. That's not progress.
8
I find the headline neither appropriate nor amusing. Right now, and until a strong female head of state is customary in this country, it's just too soon to appropriate the misogynistic language of the Alt-Right. How will we react when the word begins to be used contemptuously in Trump's rallies, justified by him as acceptable because the NYT used it in a headline? What's wrong with "strong woman?" I just hate to see this remarkable woman be labeled "bitch" for history. It does her and all of us a huge disservice.
10
I wanted to bitch about your stupid piece on Sunday, but.....
The First Amendment, which every American must support, gives the NY Times the total right to turn its total editorial efforts to elect Hillary this November.
It's just sad to see it in operation, how the opinions editor deliberately sought a fresh way to portray Hillary in a fresh light, rather than using her position to give readers a range of opinions that challenge both candidates.
I know you have assigned no investigative team to look into the Clinton Foundation or into her health.
As recently as the 1992 presidential election, Democratic candidate Paul Tsongas influenced his doctor to affirm he was cancer free. He died of cancer two days before Bill Clinton's first term ended, and spent much of the intervening years in intensive treatment that would've immobilized his presidency.
But the NY Times takes as face value the assurances of Ms. Clinton's staff that she has no underlying health issues, not wanting to rock the ship.
It's a disservice even to the massive percentage of your readership who also support Hillary.
It's just sad to see it in operation, how the opinions editor deliberately sought a fresh way to portray Hillary in a fresh light, rather than using her position to give readers a range of opinions that challenge both candidates.
I know you have assigned no investigative team to look into the Clinton Foundation or into her health.
As recently as the 1992 presidential election, Democratic candidate Paul Tsongas influenced his doctor to affirm he was cancer free. He died of cancer two days before Bill Clinton's first term ended, and spent much of the intervening years in intensive treatment that would've immobilized his presidency.
But the NY Times takes as face value the assurances of Ms. Clinton's staff that she has no underlying health issues, not wanting to rock the ship.
It's a disservice even to the massive percentage of your readership who also support Hillary.
1
Amazing to me that, for a paper that has been so shamelessly pro-Clinton since the primaries, to a downright embarrassing extent, you have chosen to write a column about how a strongly pro-Hillary op-Ed might have offended some Hillary supporters with its choice of pro-Hillary words. Come on. You are the public editor, charged with probing issues of journalistic integrity. If anyone at this paper should be above pandering to the HRC crowd, it should really be you.
1
The article, the picture, the headline was hostile. This article normalized hostility. It does not deflate the power of a word; it certifies the word and the mindset that accompanies it
This article was not about strength or assertiveness or resiliency. The subtext was all about hostility and degradation, all with a phony protest that it was not.
This article was not about strength or assertiveness or resiliency. The subtext was all about hostility and degradation, all with a phony protest that it was not.
12
Gee, anyone slightly out of date? Listen to young folks if you want an update on linguistic barriers. This entire brouhaha seems like it might have been written 30 years ago.
1
When I saw, then read the article referring to Hillary Clinton (whom i don't think should be president) as a bitch, I could barely believe my eyes. Bitch is a bad, name-calling word no matter how you look at it. I can't think of any context in which it is a good, uplifting word.
We've seen 'get the bitch' at Trump rallies, and 'kill the bitch' and arrest the....along with some pretty unspeakable pictures.
I think the author of this article, being the editor of a magazine with the word bitch in it has become desensitized to its meaning. The NY Times did very very wrong putting it in the paper at all. It offers nothing positive.
We've seen 'get the bitch' at Trump rallies, and 'kill the bitch' and arrest the....along with some pretty unspeakable pictures.
I think the author of this article, being the editor of a magazine with the word bitch in it has become desensitized to its meaning. The NY Times did very very wrong putting it in the paper at all. It offers nothing positive.
27
Please, can we all grow up already?
1
Hello All:
I call "foul." This headline had one simple goal: click bait. How do I know? Within the last two years this very column wrote about the Times' policy of not using coarse language even when the word was part of a newsworthy story. This required readers to search elsewhere for less genteel sources in order to fill in the "blanks."
And now this, and this is different precisely because the word was not news on that particular day; no one of consequence had publicly uttered it in reference to Clinton. This was a crass attempt by the Times to MAKE news. Unfortunately for the journalist - who may have had a valid point worth reading - I refused to reward this new low of journalistic standards. I still do.
Cheers,
Jeff Pucillo
I call "foul." This headline had one simple goal: click bait. How do I know? Within the last two years this very column wrote about the Times' policy of not using coarse language even when the word was part of a newsworthy story. This required readers to search elsewhere for less genteel sources in order to fill in the "blanks."
And now this, and this is different precisely because the word was not news on that particular day; no one of consequence had publicly uttered it in reference to Clinton. This was a crass attempt by the Times to MAKE news. Unfortunately for the journalist - who may have had a valid point worth reading - I refused to reward this new low of journalistic standards. I still do.
Cheers,
Jeff Pucillo
21
I didn't read it for the same reasons. I would have thought the NY Times would not need to stoop to the level of clickbait. I'm looking forward to the next Clinton article, "Seven moments when Hillary Clinton lost her cool -- number three will shock you!!!!"
12
Clickbait chasing is, sadly, the new Times Prime Directive.
10
"Within the last two years this very column wrote about the Times' policy of not using coarse language even when the word was part of a newsworthy story."
For the record, the column quotes "Philip B. Corbett, the standards editor", who does not clearly distinguish between news and opinion.
Zeisler's essay is opinion, not news, but Corbett seems to restrict himself to "exceptions in cases where the offensive language seems to editors to be crucial to a newsworthy story."
My interpretation of Corbett's comments is that Zeisler's OPINION essay should not have been published at all, because it is not a "newsworthy story".
Perfectly Reasonable Question: Why Allow a Racial Slur but Remove an Obscenity?
By Margaret Sullivan
September 21, 2015
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/perfectly-reasonable-qu...
For the record, the column quotes "Philip B. Corbett, the standards editor", who does not clearly distinguish between news and opinion.
Zeisler's essay is opinion, not news, but Corbett seems to restrict himself to "exceptions in cases where the offensive language seems to editors to be crucial to a newsworthy story."
My interpretation of Corbett's comments is that Zeisler's OPINION essay should not have been published at all, because it is not a "newsworthy story".
Perfectly Reasonable Question: Why Allow a Racial Slur but Remove an Obscenity?
By Margaret Sullivan
September 21, 2015
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/perfectly-reasonable-qu...
How, exactly, does the word go from being "an insult, degrading and misogynistic" to being a term for "women who stand up for themselves and bust through feminine stereotypes" if we're afraid to use it as such?
3
Why use it at all?
4
Just another cloud Clinton didn't need shadowing her campaign.
14
I agree with the public editor: it's crude language. If the Times chooses to go there, it's lowering its standards even further than they've already been lowered.
13
In an historic election season in which all normal discourse has been drowned out by outrageous, off-the-cuff commentary from a totally unqualified presidential candidate, even jokingly referring to the other candidate with this term seems like a kind of consent to the boor's primary objective: a sinking standard -- the end of decency.
13
Maybe regional and cultural differences come into play here. I can't see that word as anything but the most degrading sort of insult. I realize in some quarters that word has come to mean something like a smart, savvy, fearless woman. But it also implies a certain heartlessness. That is not a compliment. I was disheartened that the Times stooped to provocative, degrading language.
15
That regrettable headline placed what was up until that moment "the newspaper of record" firmly in the ranks of Gen Xers to Millenials. They are the silly youth who believe they can rewrite reality according to their whim.
No, a curse word is a vile thing. It cannot be made over. Even blacks who use the "n" word know that much. Try using it if you're not black.
No, a curse word is a vile thing. It cannot be made over. Even blacks who use the "n" word know that much. Try using it if you're not black.
6
Storm. Teacup. Please get back to reporting news.
4
It bears repeating, because the Times so often institutionally forgets.
News
--------------
Opinion
News
--------------
Opinion
2
In addition, why is The Times covering Ms. Clinton, both in number of articles and tone that appears to suggest that she is inferior to Mr. Trump?
A huge change from its constant uplifting her above Mr. Sanders. So, we have seen that The Times knows how to treat her favorably when it chooses to do so.
And so many of the articles seem to emphasize candidate style over substance. Of course, there are many exceptions in opinion articles. But the tone of reporting almost suggests that The Times is about to endorse Trump.
A huge change from its constant uplifting her above Mr. Sanders. So, we have seen that The Times knows how to treat her favorably when it chooses to do so.
And so many of the articles seem to emphasize candidate style over substance. Of course, there are many exceptions in opinion articles. But the tone of reporting almost suggests that The Times is about to endorse Trump.
7
The nuance of the "bitch" article was not lost on me. I grasped the point, just from reading the headline, that our society still expects women to be "nice" in circumstances where being a "hard ass" is deemed acceptable for a man. Calling a woman a "bitch" is to try to put her in her place, as viewed by a male chauvinist. While traditional feminine identity still (I hope) has a place in the intimacy of romantic relationship, the modern citizen of any gender is or at least should be sophisticated enough to separate their sexuality out of professional and political life. It's hard to write a piece that speaks to everyone, but I applaud the article, which I feel challenges all of us to move forward and let go of old attitudes, and old wounds.
3
I'm far less concerned about the use of the word "bitch" to describe Hillary Clinton in one op-Ed piece, than I am about the relentlessly negative coverage of Hillary, by the Times and other media outlets, over the past year(s). From seemingly endless and borderline obsessive coverage of various non-scandals such as her email server (of course lacking appropriate context...see Colin Powell and Condi Rice), to innuendos about her truthfulness and trustworthiness (again without context...she is ranked one of the most truthful politicians by fact checkers), to hyperbolic reporting on her health, to an utter lack of any substantive discussion of issues, the Times has done a disgraceful job of covering her campaign. I'm genuinely surprised this hasn't yet been a topic taken up by the Public Editor. Especially since the anti-Clinton bias has been well documented by a number of non-partisan experts, including in a recent research article out of Harvard. Worse still, her coverage has been in stark contrast to the relatively light treatment and billions in free publicity for her chief rival. Forget false equivalence, there is a genuine double standard afoot
12
When a disfavored minority "reclaims" a slur others have hurled at it, *only* members of that minority are reasonably at liberty to use it. That's because the only way to avoid ambiguity as to whether the word is being used with pride, or to demean, is for the person uttering it to be a member of the group.
That's why black Americans can freely use their reclaimed version of the n-word (which, btw, is always spelled with an "-a" at the end in this usage, rather than the "-er" ending with which the original slur was spelled), but very few white Americans can use this word and successfully "pull it off." Different context, different social meaning.
In the same way, a female essayist who's a women's rights advocate (the term "feminist" is inaccurate and has caused much mischief, so I don't use it) can reclaim the b-word. But a headline can't. Readers who first come to the website (or turn a page in the newspaper) scan the headlines first. Headlines, taken alone, appear to be the words of the NYT itself -- its editors and staff. Regardless of whether the Times staff includes women and women's rights advocates, the Times *itself* is supposed to be the voice of gender-free journalistic impartiality.
In fact, because of its long history and institutional nature (the "paper of record"), readers may, on a gut level, perceive The Times as "straight white male." Its headlines are therefore not the right context for reclaiming a slur used against women.
That's why black Americans can freely use their reclaimed version of the n-word (which, btw, is always spelled with an "-a" at the end in this usage, rather than the "-er" ending with which the original slur was spelled), but very few white Americans can use this word and successfully "pull it off." Different context, different social meaning.
In the same way, a female essayist who's a women's rights advocate (the term "feminist" is inaccurate and has caused much mischief, so I don't use it) can reclaim the b-word. But a headline can't. Readers who first come to the website (or turn a page in the newspaper) scan the headlines first. Headlines, taken alone, appear to be the words of the NYT itself -- its editors and staff. Regardless of whether the Times staff includes women and women's rights advocates, the Times *itself* is supposed to be the voice of gender-free journalistic impartiality.
In fact, because of its long history and institutional nature (the "paper of record"), readers may, on a gut level, perceive The Times as "straight white male." Its headlines are therefore not the right context for reclaiming a slur used against women.
5
*eyeroll*
Someone remind me which era we're living in? The 'B' word is used so often today, from sitcoms to political rallies, that the word has so little bite left. In the words of one of my favorite memes of Mrs. Clinton, in sunglasses while looking at her cellphone, "Bitch, please!"
Someone remind me which era we're living in? The 'B' word is used so often today, from sitcoms to political rallies, that the word has so little bite left. In the words of one of my favorite memes of Mrs. Clinton, in sunglasses while looking at her cellphone, "Bitch, please!"
5
As the wonderful musical group, Saffire-The Uppity Blues Women explained: BITCH stands for Being In Total Control of Herself, and if someone calls you a bitch you should say, "Thank you very much!"
4
Instead of explaining something most readers already understand I would have preferred to hear why the NYT has done no (as in Zero, Zilch, Nada) reporting on the TRUMP foundation. The Washington Post is killing it on this important matter, so please tell me why am I paying a small fortune subscribing to THIS paper?
17
David Fahrenthold's articles are excellent. He deserves a Pulitzer for the work he has done.
2
I'm glad to see that the Times can retain a reputation for the stuffiest readers on the planet, exceeding even the London Times. The newspaper that for years substituted "mal de mer" for "seasick" lest readers have to conjure visions of upswallowing with their morning crumpets and jam now has to back down from a word that it wouldn't hesitate to use in a column about pup-producing female dogs.
Like "queer," "bitch" is the kind of put-down that has — and that should have — been reappropriated by the group against whom it was directed. It's both hilarious and tragic that such prissy readers still exist who can get their knickers in such a twist about a word, thereby giving it more power than its detracting users could ever dream of.
Like "queer," "bitch" is the kind of put-down that has — and that should have — been reappropriated by the group against whom it was directed. It's both hilarious and tragic that such prissy readers still exist who can get their knickers in such a twist about a word, thereby giving it more power than its detracting users could ever dream of.
2
I am happily voting for that bitch!
If people throw lemons at you, make lemonade. The whole point is that Trumpists call Hillary a bitch in a derogatory way. I say, make 'bitch' into a strong woman who doesn't suffer fools.
So yes, I'm voting for that bitch. And I hope she takes down that lemon-coiffed fool.
If people throw lemons at you, make lemonade. The whole point is that Trumpists call Hillary a bitch in a derogatory way. I say, make 'bitch' into a strong woman who doesn't suffer fools.
So yes, I'm voting for that bitch. And I hope she takes down that lemon-coiffed fool.
7
The word "bitch" is insulting. Using it in some attempt to reclaim it for some feminists is a great way to alienate many people, particularly other women. There are many other slurs that aim at religious and racial groups that while employed by some to declare in group membership are equally offensive to others.
I want Hillary to win the election for many reasons. Calling her a bitch will not help to achieve that goal.
I want Hillary to win the election for many reasons. Calling her a bitch will not help to achieve that goal.
4
"that particular bit of obscenity"
However much someone dislikes the word "bitch," it is not an obscenity as that word is widely understood. Calling it such does not make it true. And using an emotionally charged inaccurate word like "obscenity" is not a convincing way to make an argument.
However much someone dislikes the word "bitch," it is not an obscenity as that word is widely understood. Calling it such does not make it true. And using an emotionally charged inaccurate word like "obscenity" is not a convincing way to make an argument.
3
Gosh, it doesn't come close to George Carlin's Seven Words You Can't Say on TV (now reduced to three or four).
1
When I saw that headline on the front page of the Times online, I lost some respect for the Times. There is no need to affect a populist sort of casual vulgarity to try to win readers. All you do is alienate your own core constituency, Have some manners and show some respect, for yourselves as an organization first and foremost.
17
Considering the author's pro-HRC intentions, and the irony of the headline-message, perhaps "The 'Bitch' America Needs" would have signaled the ironic or take-back-the-insult use of the word. Perhaps more accurate grammatically, even.
6
I hit send before I finished editing so the end is a little disjointed. But you get my point. I know the standards for public discourse have been blown out of the water during this election cycle. But believe me the complete obliteration of common standards of decency in public discourse did not need any help from the New York Times.
1
I think you're missing the point. If we are to successfully reappropriate the term we have to use it and use it positively. I for one feel like there's nothing wrong with being a bitch, if the definition of bitch is being a strong woman who doesn't care what others think. I personally do think Hillary's a bitch, but I love that about her. And I would much rather hear the word used positively to support her good traits than hear it used negatively by sexist, misogynistic Trump supporters. If you're not comfortable with the word, maybe it's the Trump supporters who initiated its liberal usage that you should be railing against, not someone trying to turn it on its head.
3
I, too thought the headline was demeaning. But to be honest at this point in this election cycle I am so very weary. Bone tired. I do get what the author was trying to do, in trying to reclaim that word. But think about this, have we ever heard Mrs Clinton refer to herself in that way in the public space? Has anyone? And even if we had, that headline would still be disrespectful and demeaning. The NYT lowered themselves by printing it. Mrs Clinton will very likely be the next president of the United States of America. It would be one thing to think that the headline could possibly be alright if we had ever heard her refer to herself in that manner, but we have not. This not huffpost. This is the New York Times. Did this paper really want that to be a part of its legacy.
5
Use of the provocative word, "bitch," in the aforementioned title is part and parcel of the larger general lapse in judgement the New York Times is routinely demonstrating with headlines. That is, headlines are being sensationalized (the more tasteless the better), in order to serve as click-bait, often to the detriment of the story.
6
The point of the op-ed, as I took it, was to use the force of a disparaging word against itself, so that it becomes a positive, a denotation of pride. I think it succeeded brilliantly. This has been done with other words: “queer” comes to mind, as well as attempts to reclaim “fat,” just as a couple examples. The word is defanged, and consequently becomes ineffective for those who hurl it in hatred or insult.
I had no problem at all with the headline. It obviously caught my eye, which led me to read the piece. And its use seemed to be real-life, right-in-front-of-you example of liberating the word. I made no connection to The Times officialdom. And what would an alternative headline read? If it said “the b-word,” that would seem to play right into the hands of the insulters, reinforcing the word’s negative power.
And here’s the thing: After reading the op-ed, the next time I hear a Trump supporter call Secretary Clinton a bitch, I’m going to say to myself, “Damn right she’s a bitch,” meaning, go get ‘em Hillary, win and show them you’ve got the right stuff, the absolutely best stuff, for the White House. Then we can use “Madam President” in the headlines, which will be a fine thing, indeed.
I had no problem at all with the headline. It obviously caught my eye, which led me to read the piece. And its use seemed to be real-life, right-in-front-of-you example of liberating the word. I made no connection to The Times officialdom. And what would an alternative headline read? If it said “the b-word,” that would seem to play right into the hands of the insulters, reinforcing the word’s negative power.
And here’s the thing: After reading the op-ed, the next time I hear a Trump supporter call Secretary Clinton a bitch, I’m going to say to myself, “Damn right she’s a bitch,” meaning, go get ‘em Hillary, win and show them you’ve got the right stuff, the absolutely best stuff, for the White House. Then we can use “Madam President” in the headlines, which will be a fine thing, indeed.
7
I cannot call a man "queer" and believe he wouldn't be offended. I cannot say someone is "fat" and not hurt his or her feelings. I cannot say "you are a nerd" and expect someone to thank me for that.
Save yourself a smack in the face, Alan. Forget calling any woman a bitch.
Save yourself a smack in the face, Alan. Forget calling any woman a bitch.
3
I agree. I found the headline jolting. But I understand why the editorial page editor thought using it was OK -- and it may not have been her motivation, but let's not forget the #1 concern of most newspapers these days: It was most likely good click-bait. (Sigh)
1
I couldn't agree more with the Public Editor. My first thought when I saw the piece was not that it is demeaning to Clinton (that was a later thought). My first thought, as someone who met her once, is that it was inaccurate. Clinton is not a bitch, actually.
3
I'm actually surprised it got passed Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Time, especially when he censored the Times story on the Charlie Hebdo massacre by not publishing the Muhammed cartoons that got all those magazine folks killed by Islamic extremists because he didn't want to offend Muslims.
I can see how the term "bitch" might rub some people the wrong way, while other comments support its use. I would go with the opinion article's author. It's an opinion piece and she should be able to express her views, especially when the over-the-top headline does it so perfectly.
People have a right to criticize the opinion editor and the author just as other people, like myself have a right to express our support. To have not published the article or at least watered down the headline would have been one more example of self-censorship.
If the Times wanted to protect all of its reader's sensibilities, it wouldn't have an opinion section.
I can see how the term "bitch" might rub some people the wrong way, while other comments support its use. I would go with the opinion article's author. It's an opinion piece and she should be able to express her views, especially when the over-the-top headline does it so perfectly.
People have a right to criticize the opinion editor and the author just as other people, like myself have a right to express our support. To have not published the article or at least watered down the headline would have been one more example of self-censorship.
If the Times wanted to protect all of its reader's sensibilities, it wouldn't have an opinion section.
1
I conjecture that the decision on the Muhammad cartoons was prompted less by a decision not to offend than one not to have a suicide bomber invite himself to visit the NYT offices, which are pretty easy to find. Bodies, not sensibilities, were what was being protected. And frankly I don't blame them.
4
English has taken big hits in the past 50 years, and particularly iln the last 20 or so. When I was trained as a print journalist in the 60s, I nearly memorized the AP Style Manual, the Chicago Manual of Style, and various tomes on usage--and as a copy editor, used them all to protect and preserve "correct," "proper," and "elegant" writing under my review. Beginning with my Baby Boom generation, challenges emerged to 'regular' and 'scatalogical' usage: Gradually, but without apology, the CULTURE laid claim to the people's right to examine all aspects of life in all manners of expression. The former guardians of style, spelling, usage, and related matters were ignored, and their rules flouted--so editors, grammarians, style manuals, purveyors of etiquette, schoolmarms and the sober-minded, strait-laced and humorless, were adjudged irrelevant. Now, just about anything goes--and if it weren't for the Times' antediluvian censors, I could add a string of expletives to prove it. Our times have sunk into a people's mosh pit of Anything Goes--and only the hopelessly old-fashioned and insecure have even slight reservations. Bitch? As in "bitch-slapped"? As in any number of other variants on the word? It's too late to apply outdated rules of propriety, gentility, gender-neutrality, or anything else that protects you and your sensibility from the culture you live in--that mare has left the barn, and all you can do is regret that you'll have to ride the stud into town.
"Now, just about anything goes--and if it weren't for the Times' antediluvian censors, I could add a string of expletives to prove it."
A "string of expletives" won't "prove" anything. Assuming you are not being ironic, you can "prove" your point by citing articles in the Times or other newspapers.
A "string of expletives" won't "prove" anything. Assuming you are not being ironic, you can "prove" your point by citing articles in the Times or other newspapers.
1
I've been reading the "Times" for 50 years. I've often disagreed with it, but that headline made me, for the first time, despise it.
5
Bullies call names. Appropriating such names empowers the bully's object not by the use of the name but through the fearlessness of facing with humor and strength the name caller. Think of the "n" word. Would you use that in a headline? I thought not. So while some women might use the "b" word between them either as friends or as competitors, and other women might take pride in being indomitable, the word belongs to a more vulgar or colloquial level.
A potential future president of the United States deserves to be treated with dignity, not as a stuffy, empty act, but as an act that respects the office she seeks. Hillary Clinton deserves respect for so many reasons, not the least of which is her lengthy experience as a public servant. I'm disappointed in the Times. It wasn't an edgy, trendy thing to do. It wasn't feminist. It was insulting. It showed a misunderstanding of the importance of context. It reflects not on Ms. Clinton, fortunately, but it does reflect on the newspaper.
A potential future president of the United States deserves to be treated with dignity, not as a stuffy, empty act, but as an act that respects the office she seeks. Hillary Clinton deserves respect for so many reasons, not the least of which is her lengthy experience as a public servant. I'm disappointed in the Times. It wasn't an edgy, trendy thing to do. It wasn't feminist. It was insulting. It showed a misunderstanding of the importance of context. It reflects not on Ms. Clinton, fortunately, but it does reflect on the newspaper.
6
Women have tried to claim the word already and I can personally say they are not succeeding. 99.9% of the men who use it are not doing so positively. This was beneath the NYT. This campaign has been coarse enough. We'll be hearing enough of it after she is elected.
6
Paula, are you sure that .1% of men might be using the word positively? That many?
4
Would you headline an article about Trump as The Dick or The Prick or another similar descriptive word? Men who are aggressive are called assertive or CEO.
6
I didn't like the opinion piece, but that's not the point. The writer has an opinion and hopefully it made readers think. I asked myself why I didn't agree. I asked myself why I found it offensive. It challenged me to defend my positions better. Isn't that point? Perhaps such a piece will allow a stronger public consensus to emerge that the word "bitch" even in the context described isn't a word we want to embrace. Censoring such a piece won't allow for such a result, especially when the word has unfortunately gained the traction in culture it has.
Read the headline and immediately suspected where the article was going. Reading the article confirmed my suspicion.
The article belonged in a different section of the newspaper - maybe fashion and style, or art.
Analysis and opinions like this have relevance but not at the expense of articles dealing with the substantive issues in this election. What the NY Times is NOT covering in this election is as interesting and informative as what it is covering. How many articles do we need about Clinton's pneumonia?
Compare the pneumonia coverage to the coverage about allegations of Russian interference in our election In favor of Trump coupled with his strange attraction to the Russian leader. I wonder what the coverage would be like if Trump had pneumonia and Clinton had the Russia ties.
The article belonged in a different section of the newspaper - maybe fashion and style, or art.
Analysis and opinions like this have relevance but not at the expense of articles dealing with the substantive issues in this election. What the NY Times is NOT covering in this election is as interesting and informative as what it is covering. How many articles do we need about Clinton's pneumonia?
Compare the pneumonia coverage to the coverage about allegations of Russian interference in our election In favor of Trump coupled with his strange attraction to the Russian leader. I wonder what the coverage would be like if Trump had pneumonia and Clinton had the Russia ties.
11
I'm 73 years old, and looking forward to the day when she takes the oath of office and I can yell, "The bitch is back!"
133
And do you suppose the President would thank you for your insult, carrobin?
2
Don't be surprised if people think you are a Hillary hater. Because that's how they speak.
Calling Hillary a bitch in the headline is one more example, with the Times' coverage of Clinton's alleged (by the Times) misconduct in keeping her illness "secret" being another, of the paper's evident effort to denigrate her whenever possible.
200
Haven't you noticed? Everything Hillary does is misconduct according to the mainstream media. If she sneezes she needs to be replaced as a candidate.
5
Charles, I have also taken issue with the Times' overall coverage of Clinton.
But I have to disagree with you here. The Times did not "call Hillary a bitch." The AUTHOR of the editorial used the word -- very consciously and deliberately -- precisely to illustrate its insidious power, and to reclaim it from a feminist perspective.
One can agree or disagree with her strategy, but personally I have no problem with using it in the headline. It was provocation with a purpose.
But I have to disagree with you here. The Times did not "call Hillary a bitch." The AUTHOR of the editorial used the word -- very consciously and deliberately -- precisely to illustrate its insidious power, and to reclaim it from a feminist perspective.
One can agree or disagree with her strategy, but personally I have no problem with using it in the headline. It was provocation with a purpose.
1
I find that during this political season, reporting by the NYT borders on editorializing and headlines are often shaped to create a buzz that is not necessarily fulfilled by the content of the article itself. Getting pneumonia does not indicate that a candidate is fundamentally unhealthy and consequently categorizing of her illness as a "secret" that the campaign failed to disclose as though she had cancer or something on that level is ridiculous. She's a strong woman who has never made a fuss about being ill and who has always powered through, and it's unfortunate that her unwillingness to blare out her illness was not reframed in that light.
4
Not all feminists will agree on whether reclaiming the word "bitch" is either possible or even desirable. For that reason I am inclined to say that publishing the article under the—accurate to the author's intention—headline was the right decision.
A reader of the Times will be able to distinguish a feminist opinion piece from the voice of the Times itself. The solution to any perceived issue with the article is to publish a rebuttal or commentary. This article sadly only highlighted the controversy without much resolution.
A reader of the Times will be able to distinguish a feminist opinion piece from the voice of the Times itself. The solution to any perceived issue with the article is to publish a rebuttal or commentary. This article sadly only highlighted the controversy without much resolution.
46
it is an "opinion" piece
how about a piece on President Obama using the "N" word? Would that be a nice way to reclaim language?
"Owning" an insult is just another way of accepting it as true. It's a tactic used by those who would rather acquiesce than stand and fight back. It's weak. It's pathetic. And it insults anew a woman who does not need to hear it from those who should be on her side. Hillary Clinton is a strong determined woman but she is NO bitch!
144
Actually, 'owning' an insult is a primarily a way of establishing it as a shibboleth, to draw a line between those who are allowed to use it and those who are not. Prime examples would also include the 'n-word', as well as certain terms for gay persons, beginning with 'f' for men, 'd' for women. (I'd specify, but I'm not sure whether it would get my comment discarded.) Women can call each other bitches as a term of praise and affection or in a jocular sense; but men, don't you even think of it.
1
Hillary can take it. What so many men mean by that word is that they fall short of the intelligence and ability of the woman who stands accused. Same with so many other epithets reserved for strong, competent, intelligent women who "don't know their place."
I simply can't agree that owning it acquiesces to the insulting thoughts behind it, thoughts that tell women to go home and leave statecraft to the menfolk who are somehow deemed competent based on the often faulty equipment that comes with a Y chromosome. Somehow, even with the frailty that comes with such equipment, men feel superior. I find nothing weak or pathetic about a woman who accepts such nonsense for what it is and "owns" it. Men, and others profanely inclined, may mean it as an insult but they actually demeans themselves. "Bitch" indicates a formidable woman who is almost always superior to the people who fling vile insults when they can't compete at her level.
I believe it says so much more about the people wearing the vile t shirts and shouting the vile slogans of a megalomaniac than the woman they mindlessly denigrate. Attempts to turn that into a "weakness" for the woman who is the object of the insult is rather ridiculous.
Sorry, Charlie. Get your head out of the sandbox. These insults aren't going away. The C word was a particular favorite of Chaucer's so it may just be about time to own all the insults regularly hurled at good women and redefine them once and for all.
I simply can't agree that owning it acquiesces to the insulting thoughts behind it, thoughts that tell women to go home and leave statecraft to the menfolk who are somehow deemed competent based on the often faulty equipment that comes with a Y chromosome. Somehow, even with the frailty that comes with such equipment, men feel superior. I find nothing weak or pathetic about a woman who accepts such nonsense for what it is and "owns" it. Men, and others profanely inclined, may mean it as an insult but they actually demeans themselves. "Bitch" indicates a formidable woman who is almost always superior to the people who fling vile insults when they can't compete at her level.
I believe it says so much more about the people wearing the vile t shirts and shouting the vile slogans of a megalomaniac than the woman they mindlessly denigrate. Attempts to turn that into a "weakness" for the woman who is the object of the insult is rather ridiculous.
Sorry, Charlie. Get your head out of the sandbox. These insults aren't going away. The C word was a particular favorite of Chaucer's so it may just be about time to own all the insults regularly hurled at good women and redefine them once and for all.
I think you've got it wrong, Charlie. We're picking it up and throwing it back in their faces.
2
Well said, public editor! The bitch this newspaper needs!
12
I loved the bitch article. I am queer Transgender woman in a polyamorous relationship....I'm a bad ass bitch and I believe that is a compliment. Take the word back, that's what I say. Also, if a bitch were a man than he'd be a CEO and would be profiled in Forbes.
45
A Transgender in a polyamorous relationship.. Is this "The Game" for the new century? Give me a break!
2
To be proud to be a "bitch" is the same as being proud to be labeled "sissy," "coward," "redneck," "weakling," or any other pejorative.
Ugly words don't become beautiful just because you want them to be. And as to that "take the word back" nonsense -- sounds like when the kids yell, "You take that back!" Is that it?
Ugly words don't become beautiful just because you want them to be. And as to that "take the word back" nonsense -- sounds like when the kids yell, "You take that back!" Is that it?
1
Dear Liz,
I was truly heartened by your reaction to this article. Having been at the receiving end of this hateful, demeaning word, I still have a visceral reaction to it. No woman should be treated in this fashion, least of all a woman of Hillary Clinton's stature. The NYTimes should set the standard of excellence in its use of language, particularly in this fractious campaign year, and common doggerel is completely inappropriate. Thank you for speaking up!
I was truly heartened by your reaction to this article. Having been at the receiving end of this hateful, demeaning word, I still have a visceral reaction to it. No woman should be treated in this fashion, least of all a woman of Hillary Clinton's stature. The NYTimes should set the standard of excellence in its use of language, particularly in this fractious campaign year, and common doggerel is completely inappropriate. Thank you for speaking up!
168
I think the headline is "deplorable", don't you?
55
It was a bad editorial decision. It is an insult, although we have to admit it grabbed our attention. NYT editors had the last word, so it was ultimately their decision.
1
No I don't.
one of a basket of insults
I am far more concerned that The New York Times covers Secretary Clinton as though she is, indeed, a "bitch." And once upon a time, The Times's op-ed page was supposed to be provocative, rather than publishing the racist ramblings of Maureen Dowd or what Tom Friedman found out from his latest cab driver.
257
^^^^ This!! ^^^^
The Public Editor found the essay "The Bitch America Needs" 'readable,smart and…a worthy offering'. If there were ever a pro-Trump essay published in the Times, would she find that "smart" too?
7
The definition should broaden. Trump certainly qualifies as a bitch by behavior. Preibus too for his "smile more" comment. This is the pose of asserting unearned power that depends on our culture and media to do most of the "one-down" work by hooking into lazy stereotypes that aim to diminish someone else's right to define themselves without first checking in mentally with the likes of Reince Preibus which is of course, absurd. This is how the twisted Trump thinks he can demand an apology to white nationalists or demand a president show proof of his own birthplace.
Clinton is called bitchy as a territorial dig- a political competitive tactic by reminding her who gets to say what.
Clinton is called bitchy as a territorial dig- a political competitive tactic by reminding her who gets to say what.
Is it not the case that reclaiming pejorative language is a radical means to regain power? Think of the term 'queer' or even "Obama Care." Language is malleable. It is always in play. Controlling it removes its audacious currency.
74
I still contend the 'B' word is perfectly appropriate for her. I've been using it for quite some time ...
... It's 'Boring' for me.
I never thought of using the other 'B' word and now I'll take it into consideration under advisement of the NYTimes.
... It's 'Boring' for me.
I never thought of using the other 'B' word and now I'll take it into consideration under advisement of the NYTimes.
3
Reporting on the use of the word, overwhelmingly by the target candidate's detractors, provided a relevant insight into the minds of its users. It is every bit as legitimate as The Times' excellent recent website video of Trump supporters' shouted obscenities at their candidate's rallies, with unedited audio and un-asterisked captions of much more caustic words, such as f*** and n*****. That also provided a public service by reporting the mindsets of individuals who support Trump and the temerity of the candidate who encourages it. Not to report these forms of expression does a disservice to a public which is entitled to know the whole story about the candidates and their motivations.
15
Agree; the Times needs to show the deplorables for what they are.
2
I like that people are appropriating "bitch" to instill a more positive meaning...similar to how "queer" was hijacked from homophobes.
69
Really? So, you walk in a room in Madison and say, "Hey, look at all those queers!" no problem?
3
It does everyone a disservice when these kinds of terms are used for any group, be it racial, religious, or gender-based in the context of support or reclamation by the affected group. If we want these words to go away, then why perpetuate their use? I don't see it as empowering; I find it hypocritical. How do you fight against something when you are engaging in the exact activity you are fighting against?
52
You've got to be kidding. You're saying the word Bitch didn't belong in the headline of an opinion piece that perfectly made the point. I wouldn't have read this article amidst a glut of articles and opinions too little too late when it comes to real journalism in this deplorable election cycle if the headline hadn't caught me by surprise. I expected not to be pleased with what I read. Well, as a Chairman of the Board (who constantly has to say, no, I'm not the Chairperson or the Chairwoman or the Chair) and a President and a Treasurer, who has lead boards to great achievements working collaboratively, I finally read something that resonated. Thanks to the headline I didn't miss the great read.
74
Glad you're taking this on. I was shocked, dismayed and offended at the headline, and the Times' use of it, knowing as you correctly infer, that the Right will make use of it to legitimiaize their own hate-speech.
48
What an absolutely trivial piece. Hillary Clinton is an historic personage, who will go alongside other greats who managed America through cataclysmic change, and did so with grace. And somehow, this opinion article debates a truly meaningless column about "bitch"?
I truly hope I am the only comment.
I truly hope I am the only comment.
29
Trivial is right.
I don't think Clinton is at all great. Neither do I think she should be called a bitch by anyone in the NY Times or by printing this thing in the New York Times.
And BTW, the picture ot her in big sunglasses, with both sides reflecting an angry crowd is way wrong. It should show one side cheering and one not. What's wrong with the NY Times?
I don't think Clinton is at all great. Neither do I think she should be called a bitch by anyone in the NY Times or by printing this thing in the New York Times.
And BTW, the picture ot her in big sunglasses, with both sides reflecting an angry crowd is way wrong. It should show one side cheering and one not. What's wrong with the NY Times?
1
I agree! It was a strange & disturbing headline.
48
And the headline will be what sticks in readers' minds; not what comes after.
4
I recall writing to the previous Public Editor about an opinion column only to be told that the op-ed page is outside the PE's brief. I'm glad to see that is not the current interpretation.
I must take issue, however, with calling the word "bitch" an obscenity. Far from it.
It is a word that refers to an actual thing- a female dog- and is applied at times to women who people believe embody the qualities of such.
From her piece I see that Ms Zeisler does not view the word as an obscenity, and identifies with the positive connotations- tough, strong, threatening, dangerous, with a nasty bite. There are others who use the word in a negative way. But that is usage, not the word itself.
George Carlin rightly skewered those who separate out certain words as "bad words." And while I don't expect the Times to include any one of his herd of "bad" words in its headlines anytime soon, excluding "bitch" from a story about the word "bitch" seems a bit too Victorian, even by the musty dusty standards of the Times.
I must take issue, however, with calling the word "bitch" an obscenity. Far from it.
It is a word that refers to an actual thing- a female dog- and is applied at times to women who people believe embody the qualities of such.
From her piece I see that Ms Zeisler does not view the word as an obscenity, and identifies with the positive connotations- tough, strong, threatening, dangerous, with a nasty bite. There are others who use the word in a negative way. But that is usage, not the word itself.
George Carlin rightly skewered those who separate out certain words as "bad words." And while I don't expect the Times to include any one of his herd of "bad" words in its headlines anytime soon, excluding "bitch" from a story about the word "bitch" seems a bit too Victorian, even by the musty dusty standards of the Times.
12
Most humans could only aspire enviously to embody the qualities of a dog of either sex. As Lord Byron put it in his epitaph to a beloved friend:
Near this Spot
are deposited the Remains of one
who possessed Beauty without Vanity,
Strength without Insolence,
Courage without Ferocity,
and all the virtues of Man without his Vices.
This praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery
if inscribed over human Ashes,
is but a just tribute to the Memory of
Boatswain, a Dog
who was born in Newfoundland May 1803
and died at Newstead Nov. 18th, 1808
Near this Spot
are deposited the Remains of one
who possessed Beauty without Vanity,
Strength without Insolence,
Courage without Ferocity,
and all the virtues of Man without his Vices.
This praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery
if inscribed over human Ashes,
is but a just tribute to the Memory of
Boatswain, a Dog
who was born in Newfoundland May 1803
and died at Newstead Nov. 18th, 1808
The headline was jarring and useful. Women need to detoxify the 'b' word (see, it's too toxic for this middle aged white guy to write), and claim it as a badge of honor signifying strength, ferocity, and commitment to feminist values.
43
It's not.
From a longtime feminist.
From a longtime feminist.
3
Spot on!
I hear and respect that. Perhaps the term will mean different things to different generations.
"Have we really reached the point that it’s O.K. for The Times to refer to Clinton in bold type as 'The Bitch America Needs'?"
Yes, if that's what the piece is about. The Times has until recently forbidden the use of profanities-- even in important quotes from prominent newsmakers, and even in stories that are *about* the use of profanities. An article about Bono's blurting out an intensifier more or less rhyming with "Huck Fin" a few years ago at an awards ceremony comes to mind. This is an extremely silly and patronizing attempt to protect the reader's refined mid-20th century sensibilities from ... what? Words that are at the center of pieces The Times' editors and publisher think are important enough for us to read? That's a policy that makes no sense today, if it ever did (and it didn't).
The fact that "bitch" was used in a headline might make it more jarring, but no less justified because, as the editor stated, that's what the piece was about! If you don't think the word is suitable for your readers, why publish an entire story about it? That was optional, and you opted in.
Over the past few months, I've been happy to see The Times loosening up a bit on its prudishness. Sadly, it's probably the only change in policy for the better I've seen on these pages in recent years.
Yes, if that's what the piece is about. The Times has until recently forbidden the use of profanities-- even in important quotes from prominent newsmakers, and even in stories that are *about* the use of profanities. An article about Bono's blurting out an intensifier more or less rhyming with "Huck Fin" a few years ago at an awards ceremony comes to mind. This is an extremely silly and patronizing attempt to protect the reader's refined mid-20th century sensibilities from ... what? Words that are at the center of pieces The Times' editors and publisher think are important enough for us to read? That's a policy that makes no sense today, if it ever did (and it didn't).
The fact that "bitch" was used in a headline might make it more jarring, but no less justified because, as the editor stated, that's what the piece was about! If you don't think the word is suitable for your readers, why publish an entire story about it? That was optional, and you opted in.
Over the past few months, I've been happy to see The Times loosening up a bit on its prudishness. Sadly, it's probably the only change in policy for the better I've seen on these pages in recent years.
18
It's demeaning to the readership to have say write something like "He then said he 'didn't give a [where he used a word for excrement] about the [and here he used a gerundive for copulation] [here a strongly pejorative word to describe a headstrong woman]."
1
OTOH, it seems to me the four-letter words should be used only when they are essential to the story. That all-purpose intensifying gerund referring to sexual congress has become ubiquitous; it no longer conveys meaning, it replaces it. I have found that once these words creep in, a floodgate opens, and if you've ever tried to conduct a conversation with someone devoid of 'prudishness' you'll find it's like being hit repeatedly over the head with a mallet - the four-letter words, insults, pejoratives, and other substitutes for meaning multiply like kudzu, choking out all other vocabulary. Much of the rest of the Internet has become unreadable and devoid of intellectual content largely because invective has replaced discourse. I really do not need to know some rock star blurted it out at one or another award ceremony, any more than I need to know every time Anthony Weiner unzips his fly.
Say this!
1
I agree with your assessment and share your discomfort. I happened to be reading the piece online when my 20-year-old son peered over my shoulder and said, "What??" upon seeing the headline.
(As I said in a comment), to me, the article perpetuates a male/female divide. Or even a female/female divide. Why do we feel so compelled to assign labels/monikers to women in power – and in general? As we’ve seen throughout history, leadership looks different on different people. FDR, MLK, JFK, Eleanor Roosevelt, Gandhi, Ann Richards, Rosalynn Carter, Rosa Parks, …
All too often I want to say, “Quit telling us how to be.” What is it today? Embrace your inner bitch (reframed and reclaimed?), smile, don’t smile, do this, don’t do that, the likeable aren’t tough, and on. At the end of the day, don’t we want women to be who they are. The introverted, the extroverted, the linear, the visionary, the gentle, the bold, the empathic, the analytical, the decisive. We need diverse perspectives and personalities at the table.
I felt the article -- and the headline/pic -- did a disservice to Hillary Clinton.
(As I said in a comment), to me, the article perpetuates a male/female divide. Or even a female/female divide. Why do we feel so compelled to assign labels/monikers to women in power – and in general? As we’ve seen throughout history, leadership looks different on different people. FDR, MLK, JFK, Eleanor Roosevelt, Gandhi, Ann Richards, Rosalynn Carter, Rosa Parks, …
All too often I want to say, “Quit telling us how to be.” What is it today? Embrace your inner bitch (reframed and reclaimed?), smile, don’t smile, do this, don’t do that, the likeable aren’t tough, and on. At the end of the day, don’t we want women to be who they are. The introverted, the extroverted, the linear, the visionary, the gentle, the bold, the empathic, the analytical, the decisive. We need diverse perspectives and personalities at the table.
I felt the article -- and the headline/pic -- did a disservice to Hillary Clinton.
123
No. The whole point is that we DO NOT want women to be who they are. We want laundry maids, cooks, and valets who smile while they cook and dust and get out of the way any time any man wants anything from them. A Palo Alto judge literally let a man walk after getting caught in the act of raping an unconscious woman because HIS life might be negatively impacted by being punished for his crime. "Bitch" tells us to shut up, go home, and bake cookies.
It's about time we take it back and make it more accurate. Bitch: a competent, intelligent, high powered woman who makes men feel weak and feels no need to apologize for it.
It's about time we take it back and make it more accurate. Bitch: a competent, intelligent, high powered woman who makes men feel weak and feels no need to apologize for it.
Having read the first piece, this op-op-ed actually raised some definite points I only briefly contemplated earlier. I agree with trying to wrest the word back, but also think use of it in the title was gratuitous. However, I also don't think the essence of the story could be "distilled" any better than how they did. And to be honest, I don't know that I would have actually read the article and thought about its points had the headline not grabbed me.
6
I can't imagine telling someone that Clinton is the ..... America Needs. Who cares how smart the article is? The headline steered me away from the article (knowing full well what the author's intention is didn't matter a bit to me).
12
I understood the word, its history and its usage in the context of this article. And septuagenarian that I am, I thought it made the point about how powerful and intelligent women have been perceived and put down in our society. These days the m.o. of opposition to prejudicial stereotypes is "if you've got it, assert it!" To my mind, the public editor and the objecting readers are just a bit too prissy in this instance.
20
I very much agree with this opinion of the Public Editor. The article itself was good, but its headline should have been much improved. I believe that I have seen a growing problem in the Times these last couple of years about how headlines are assigned, especially around the political campaigns. Sometimes misleading or juvenile ones are re-written after several hours; sometimes they are not. I suggest that the Public Editor might find how headlines are written a process worthy of review. Thank you very much, Public Editor, for your article.
9
Eh, I disagree. I'm a 40-year-old feminist and don't use the word casually. It was obvious to me, however, that the headline uses the word "bitch" in order to reappropriate the derogatory language, just as the meaning of "queer" has been flipped. There's a feminist magazine called "Bitch" whose title I read with the same valence: tongue-in-cheek, brash, self-aware. It's true that the headline has a certain clickbait quality--and I may not have have noticed the piece without the attention grabbing word--but to me that doesn't invalidate its power and legitimacy.
17
Clickbait. Sell papers, so to speak, by insulting the first female candidate for president from a major party, a person with no small amount of capability and experience. It's what is done to women. Discussion of the use of the word is one thing. Using it the way it was used in a headline is something altogether different.
6
Do Hillary's proponents, followers, fans, voters get visceral pleasure from this labeling? I didn't think so. How about DJT's followers? I thought so.
The media keeps searching for and finding ways to sabotage HRCs campaign.
Why? Fox I understand. All the rest of you, NYT included, I simply don't. Do you really think your jobs are going to be unaffected by a Trump administration? He's already told us, so think on that again.
I know it's an op-ed piece. All above applies all the same.
The media keeps searching for and finding ways to sabotage HRCs campaign.
Why? Fox I understand. All the rest of you, NYT included, I simply don't. Do you really think your jobs are going to be unaffected by a Trump administration? He's already told us, so think on that again.
I know it's an op-ed piece. All above applies all the same.
60
I thought this was The New York Times. Your standards are slipping, so too, your credibility.
66
I agree that the headline is inappropriate for the Times. It is ugly and misogonistic. If one substitutes the "N" word or common anti-Semitic or gay words out there it would never be used. Why is it OK when referring to a powerful woman?
244
Interesting you should point that out. Although blacks, women, and gays all have factions advocating the 'reappropriation' of insulting terms, Jews have never embraced this logic (at least, not that I know of). Both arguments, however, depend on acknowledging the power of words to define and label people and phenomena and to frame arguments. Philosophers from Aristotle through Locke and Voltaire to the present day have written of the importance of defining terms, and more importantly of shared definitions. Carroll's Humpty Dumpty said that when he used a word, it meant what he intended, regardless of how anyone else would construe it. Most of us take Humpty's argument as absurd, yet that seems to be, in part, what defenders of 'bitch' (including me, to some extent) are saying here. I think 'The Stone' could explore this.
3
Farron - Why is it OK when referring to any woman?
1
Nancy - you are correct. I was thinking iin the context of this article but It shoulf apply for all women.
1
In a sense, the headline has the same subtext as Hillary Clinton's allusion to "Deplorables." Like Andi Zeisler's commentary, it acknowledges, forthrightly and powerfully, that words and ideas cannot be separated from those who employ them. A significant number of Trump supporters -- the screamers at at Republican campaign rallies who allude to Clinton as a "that bitch," wave the flag of white supremacy and act on their candidate's obscene endorsements of violence -- are in fact utterly deplorable. Trump has enabled them, institutionalizing public space for their mindless bigotry at the heart of our political process. That extraordinarily perilous development must be confronted directly. If courage, intelligence, decades of public service and matchless experience in every aspect of government are what defines a "bitch" for the most deplorable cohort in American society, then a bitch is most definitely what the nation and the world need in the White House.
13
I'm glad you wrote this - I found the use of the word 'Bitch' in the context of the headline to be highly disrespectful of the first major-party female Presidential candidate in the U.S.
But I cannot say it was surprising, especially following as it does more than a years' worth of unbalanced coverage of the campaigns, as confirmed by researchers at Harvard University earlier this year.
I am deeply disappointed in the quality of political journalism today - including what I read in this paper - and alarmed at the effect it is having on political discourse and potentially, our very government.
But I cannot say it was surprising, especially following as it does more than a years' worth of unbalanced coverage of the campaigns, as confirmed by researchers at Harvard University earlier this year.
I am deeply disappointed in the quality of political journalism today - including what I read in this paper - and alarmed at the effect it is having on political discourse and potentially, our very government.
33
You (and the other tut-tutters) are a little behind the times. Check out the name of this (closed, private) group on Facebook: Bitches for Hillary. Earlier tonight a Facebook acquaintance and Trump supporter in the Midwest called Clinton "this evil, evil bitch" to the applause and approval of his (small) circle of fans. I just smiled. Flipping the word around truly does rob it of its power.
6
This is silly: nobody would argue for a moment that the word is not insulting.
The word obviously was inserted into the headline as sarcasm, and I can't imagine that Hillary herself would be anything but flattered by the piece and it's title.
The word obviously was inserted into the headline as sarcasm, and I can't imagine that Hillary herself would be anything but flattered by the piece and it's title.
5
I am not a Trump supporter, but this article is a good example of the nauseating political correctness that his supporters rail against.
Clinton is a "bitch." If it's patriarchal shorthand for assertive, smart, and powerful, I'll $@&#%ing take it.
By using the word over and over, and even-gasp!-in a headline, we utterly and completely drain the power of the word to insult and intimidate.
I have proudly come out of the modest, discrete, politically correct closet of feminine propriety and proudly declare myself a bitch as well.
Clinton is a "bitch." If it's patriarchal shorthand for assertive, smart, and powerful, I'll $@&#%ing take it.
By using the word over and over, and even-gasp!-in a headline, we utterly and completely drain the power of the word to insult and intimidate.
I have proudly come out of the modest, discrete, politically correct closet of feminine propriety and proudly declare myself a bitch as well.
17
I like the idea of co-opting the word "bitch" to render it an impotent, limp weapon against any and all women.
13
I agree. Let's render the word "bitch" as impotent as the "men"...and that deplorable boy... who feel bigger and better when shouting epithets at their betters.
On another word, I think "deplorable" is a great word to describe both this election season and its coverage by the Fourth Estate.
On another word, I think "deplorable" is a great word to describe both this election season and its coverage by the Fourth Estate.
2
With you all the way, Phyllis! As a very young person 9about 13), I discovered by accident that laughter - and ridicule - is a powerful weapon. Once, when called a derogatory ethnic slur - there's a slur for every group - watching the expectant expression on the speaker's face was a revelation. She was practically salivating, waiting for me to be devastated by her cleverness. Did she expect me to run away? Burst into tears? What? But my reaction was totally unexpected: I burst out laughing. And within moments, the other onlookers joined me. Once when called a bitch I replied, "No, I'm not a bitch. I'm a Holy Terror. There's a big difference. " The confused expressions were priceless, as they tried to figure out what I meant.
3
Oh, ffs. In the same way that queer people have reclaimed that word, women are reclaiming "bitch". Even if it makes you uncomfortable or you disagree with the politics of reclaiming pejoratives, you should at least recognize that this is what the writer was doing.
12
In my seventy-four and half years on this planet, I have been called a bitch hundreds of times. I am, of course, a very outspoken woman who stood up to bullies, charged into situations where people were being hurt and shielded the victim while dressing down the perpetrators. When called a bitch, my usual response was, "Yup. Best bitch in town, don't mess with me." I'd love to live long enough to attend the funeral of that word, but I think that's unlikely. Still I wonder why being couragious, smart and hard working while being female is so threatening.
54
Should be met with an op-ed piece entitled: Trump: The Prick America Doesn't Need
369
@Neil S.: Well said!
I was thinking the Times should do a piece on "Trump: The F*cking B*stard America Doesn't Need." That would help break down the barriers on another two unacceptable words.
I was thinking the Times should do a piece on "Trump: The F*cking B*stard America Doesn't Need." That would help break down the barriers on another two unacceptable words.
7
Exactly! You're the best, Neil S.
4
Thank you! I laughed out loud about American politics for the first time in months. Good one.
2
I can see both sides of the argument. As a woman, I do not care for the use of the term, particularly as a headline. If I was Secretary Clinton's daughter I wouldn't want anyone calling my mother that term: it's just not nice. How would President Obama or his family feel if a divisive, demeaning word was used in a headline to describe his race?
41
The word is worthy of Rush Limbaugh, "crude and demeaning" and ugly, just like his other words, "slut" and "whore". Rush is still on the air-waves, spewing out his hate-speech, has been for decades. No one has ever stopped him and no one intends to. The major sports associations will never be flexing their muscle to shut him up, the Republican Party will never censor him, and Trump thinks he's funny.... but then Trump has his own words, doesn't he: "dogs, pigs, slobs, disgusting".
Why wasn't the word "pig" used in the headline? "The Pig America Needs".
Oh, yes, that sounds empowering, too, doesn't it?
I don't know how old Zeisler is, but she has a lot to learn.
Part of ridding oneself of the Patriarchal Misogynists of the Universe is by CHANGING the language, booting it out along with the offenders themselves.
Recycling the offending words would be the same as, say, after winning the battle, deciding to place the offenders in high political office to rule over, say, women's reproductive matters. Why, that would work, wouldn't it? After all, we won, right?
No, the battle for legal equality has not been won, and given that young boy shouting in public, "Take the bitch down!" it is not going to be won for more generations. That boy will be screaming that for the next 60 years and he will be teaching others.
No more, Zeisler.
There are no battles or rights that have been won.
No corporations support us.
The cavalry isn't coming.
I am not a bitch.
And neither is Hillary.
Why wasn't the word "pig" used in the headline? "The Pig America Needs".
Oh, yes, that sounds empowering, too, doesn't it?
I don't know how old Zeisler is, but she has a lot to learn.
Part of ridding oneself of the Patriarchal Misogynists of the Universe is by CHANGING the language, booting it out along with the offenders themselves.
Recycling the offending words would be the same as, say, after winning the battle, deciding to place the offenders in high political office to rule over, say, women's reproductive matters. Why, that would work, wouldn't it? After all, we won, right?
No, the battle for legal equality has not been won, and given that young boy shouting in public, "Take the bitch down!" it is not going to be won for more generations. That boy will be screaming that for the next 60 years and he will be teaching others.
No more, Zeisler.
There are no battles or rights that have been won.
No corporations support us.
The cavalry isn't coming.
I am not a bitch.
And neither is Hillary.
26
So seems -- based on this column -- that there wasn't much discussion about this headline. That surprises me. I'm waiting for the headline with the male equivalent. Pretty sure I'll never see it.
26
What is the male equivalent word?
1
"I'm waiting for the headline with the male equivalent. Pretty sure I'll never see it."
If you mean "bastard", the word has appeared in headlines numerous times. Here are two examples:
“I’ve just stood up to the bastards”: Mary Beard on modern trolls and misogyny’s ancient origins
The distinguished professor of classics argues that misogyny in ancient Greece and Rome has shaped modern attitudes toward women
Brigit Katz
04.07.16
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/04/07/ive-just-stood-up-...
Review: ‘Art Bastard’ Depicts Robert Cenedella, a Rebel Artist
By STEPHEN HOLDEN
JUNE 2, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/03/movies/review-art-bastard-depicts-robe...
A Google search for "bastard site:nytimes.com" will find more examples.
If you mean "bastard", the word has appeared in headlines numerous times. Here are two examples:
“I’ve just stood up to the bastards”: Mary Beard on modern trolls and misogyny’s ancient origins
The distinguished professor of classics argues that misogyny in ancient Greece and Rome has shaped modern attitudes toward women
Brigit Katz
04.07.16
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/04/07/ive-just-stood-up-...
Review: ‘Art Bastard’ Depicts Robert Cenedella, a Rebel Artist
By STEPHEN HOLDEN
JUNE 2, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/03/movies/review-art-bastard-depicts-robe...
A Google search for "bastard site:nytimes.com" will find more examples.
Another stellar headline, accompanying the video of Mrs. Clinton's collapse as she tried to enter the vehicle Sunday morning:
"Clinton Loses Balance at 9/11 Memorial"
"Loses Balance"? Yeah, right. Is anyone at The Times embarrassed by this kind of weasel wording?
"Clinton Loses Balance at 9/11 Memorial"
"Loses Balance"? Yeah, right. Is anyone at The Times embarrassed by this kind of weasel wording?
9
I think Ms. Spaydl misinterprets what is being communicated by the use of 'bitch' in this article. It is not being used as a denigrative epithet, but as a characterization of attributes the author thinks are desirable in a woman president. Its meaning should be clear in this context. The fact that the word is also used as an insult and is not traditionally used in certain company is irrelevant.
(I made a small corrective edit to the comment I just submitted.)
(I made a small corrective edit to the comment I just submitted.)
4
And I have a bridge I want to sell you. (It is mostly men who twist this doublespeak.)
Read about denial. You have it in spades.
Read 'The Handmaid's Tale'. And other stories by feminist writers which show, chillingly, how some men make women into what they want them to be. Red is green. Sky is red. Bitch is -- good!
Read about denial. You have it in spades.
Read 'The Handmaid's Tale'. And other stories by feminist writers which show, chillingly, how some men make women into what they want them to be. Red is green. Sky is red. Bitch is -- good!
5
Totally agree with the public editor. The headline diminished the power of the opinion essay.
8
" Until then, it remains an insult, degrading and misogynistic."
Even if and when the venerable New York Times decides to apply its editorial imprimatur and stamp of approval...
And - while we're at it - one can only imagine the spicy monocles which many readers here would gleefully use to describe that son of -- er -- Mrs. Clinton's esteemed opponent --
Even if and when the venerable New York Times decides to apply its editorial imprimatur and stamp of approval...
And - while we're at it - one can only imagine the spicy monocles which many readers here would gleefully use to describe that son of -- er -- Mrs. Clinton's esteemed opponent --
I think Ms. Spaydl misinterprets what is being communicated by the use of 'bitch' in this article. It is not being used as a denigrative epithet, but as a characterization of attributes the author thinks are desirable in a woman president. Its meaning should be clear in this context. The fact that the word is also used as an insult and is not traditionally used certain company is irrelevant.
2
we've reached a new low. truly we have no decency left. the media has brought us down to a point devoid of human kindness. i personally hope they choke on every single dollar derived from all the political ads that degrade our country. to print the word "bitch" in relation to hillary clinton has made this newspaper into a rag. with the world is laughing at us, laughing from fear, the NYT takes the pols money and wallows in its vileness. shame on you. shame on all of us for not stopping this truly disgusting show of false leadership.
15
If to repeat a vulgar insult is to insult again as some of us believe, then you manage to do that seven times in this essay.
11
So much of the Times careful coverage is calculated by "equivalency" -- you say something about one candidate then you find a way to balance that comment with a similar description. How could bitch be balanced with a word to describe Trump? It's not really in my vocabulary, I guess, so let me say this. Can we just stop this war of words? This election is about who is the best, most intelligent, stable, experienced person to be president and no amount of tabloid shrieks and giggles is helping us make that decision. Shape up Times, please!
15
Make it legitimate by using it, over and over and over. That takes away the power that word is supposed to have. I've been called a bitch, more than once. Because I don't suffer fools. Because I don't believe in simpering and wimpering to get what I want, but by demanding it. Because it's my right and it's my due and I earned it, whatever 'it' is at the moment. I wear the label of bitch proudly. And so should Mrs. Clinton, whom I will vote for without reservation.
6
Hon, you don't have to 'wear the label of bitch' to keep on standing up for yourself and speaking out. That is exactly what you don't have to and shouldn't do!
7
I wear that label proudly. I consider it a compliment.
Free speech doesn't give you the right to shout "Bitch!" in a crowded theater. This lowers you to the gutter level of Trump.
31
The Times has long prided itself on the absolute freedom of expression on the op-ed page, with the notorious exception of Abe Rosenthal taking Sydney Schanberg's column over the late great Schanberg's refusal to temper his criticism of Rosenthal pal Ed Koch, and this opinion piece is no exception.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/us/hillary-clinton-pneumonia.html?hp&a...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
But there's just as much opinion loaded into this Amy Chozick/Patrick Healy anonymously sourced front page "news" article. So much for the claim made by Abe's son (to Times Insider) about an "absolute separation" between news and opinion...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/us/hillary-clinton-pneumonia.html?hp&a...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
But there's just as much opinion loaded into this Amy Chozick/Patrick Healy anonymously sourced front page "news" article. So much for the claim made by Abe's son (to Times Insider) about an "absolute separation" between news and opinion...
5
Trivial compared to everything else going on. Almost reads like the Public Editor is trying to find SOMETHING to criticize the Times for, since she dismisses most substantive criticisms and insults readers' intelligence in the process.
5
A wasted ink PE column about a HRC campaign screed. See my comment to the column.
“Hillary Clinton is called a bitch, which lets this columnist indulge her presumed expertise on the subject--Ms. Zeisler founded ‘Bitch Media’—to shout support for Ms. Clinton.
Let’s take off the ‘bitch’ mask.
Hillary Clinton (and her cheating impeached husband) lives by one principle: No matter what, do what’s best for Hillary Clinton and the Clintons. That means Clinton actions which violate the law, or are masked to appear that they only come up to violating the law; lying so much that her lies criss-cross one another to the point where Ms. Clinton wouldn’t know the truth if it hit her in the face: throwing anyone under the bus if called for to further the Clinton interests: massive cover-ups aided by the best legal and other talent, devoted Clinton loyalists who have honed their Clinton cover-up skills as they covered up one scandal after another; Democratic protectors in the highest places--Loretta Lynch, the president, Congressional Democratic protectors--and even supposedly independent protectors, e. g., FBI director Comey.
Did I mention the mainstream media—Exhibit A, the New York Times.
Credit to Ms. Zeisler for this reverse sexist column. Take ‘bitch’ and make it a badge of honor for the cheating, lying Hillary Clinton, who, were it not for the evil clown on the GOP ticket would be sure to lose the election, and even with that clown opposing her, might still lose.”
“Hillary Clinton is called a bitch, which lets this columnist indulge her presumed expertise on the subject--Ms. Zeisler founded ‘Bitch Media’—to shout support for Ms. Clinton.
Let’s take off the ‘bitch’ mask.
Hillary Clinton (and her cheating impeached husband) lives by one principle: No matter what, do what’s best for Hillary Clinton and the Clintons. That means Clinton actions which violate the law, or are masked to appear that they only come up to violating the law; lying so much that her lies criss-cross one another to the point where Ms. Clinton wouldn’t know the truth if it hit her in the face: throwing anyone under the bus if called for to further the Clinton interests: massive cover-ups aided by the best legal and other talent, devoted Clinton loyalists who have honed their Clinton cover-up skills as they covered up one scandal after another; Democratic protectors in the highest places--Loretta Lynch, the president, Congressional Democratic protectors--and even supposedly independent protectors, e. g., FBI director Comey.
Did I mention the mainstream media—Exhibit A, the New York Times.
Credit to Ms. Zeisler for this reverse sexist column. Take ‘bitch’ and make it a badge of honor for the cheating, lying Hillary Clinton, who, were it not for the evil clown on the GOP ticket would be sure to lose the election, and even with that clown opposing her, might still lose.”
You mention many criticism of Hillary Clinton, but you don't mention her behavior effecting the Iraq war; the coup in Honduras; her intervention in Libya; her strong and vocal support for the Welfare Reform Bill -- from all of which she left destruction in her wake. Why do people pick out ethical violations to not love, Why leave out her lethal violations?
And still no one should call a woman a bitch!
And still no one should call a woman a bitch!
1
I read the piece specifically because of the headline, and really enjoyed it. Intelligent and beautifully written.
If I was as tough and smart as Secretary Clinton, I would be proud to be called bitch, but I'm a wuss, and all I do is bitch.
If I was as tough and smart as Secretary Clinton, I would be proud to be called bitch, but I'm a wuss, and all I do is bitch.
11
Sorry, Liz Spayd, but you are wrong on this. I cheered when I read Andi Zeisler's article. If ever a word needed to be reclaimed, 'bitch' is the one. I wish Hillary Clinton would reclaim it for herself and for every woman who has ever been called a bitch. And, that's most of us.
7
The word may be reclaimed, but that still doesn't make it worthy of use in a headline referring to a presidential candidate.
13
Here we go again with Liz Spayd doubling down by going into her typical defensive shell.
Unlike what Liz Spayd may believe, words do have meaning.
In the New York Times and educated society we not call male leaders who are career focused "bastards" or "son of bitches," do we?
But, try telling that to Liz Spayd and the rest of the Times staff who think we should apply low-brow derogatory terms only that career-minded person happens to be a woman.
Unlike what Liz Spayd may believe, words do have meaning.
In the New York Times and educated society we not call male leaders who are career focused "bastards" or "son of bitches," do we?
But, try telling that to Liz Spayd and the rest of the Times staff who think we should apply low-brow derogatory terms only that career-minded person happens to be a woman.
21
Thank you, Mike M. My thoughts exactly.
And this is why we still need a Gawker.
3
I couldn't agree more. It bothers me, in fact, to see the Times generally dumbing down and/or sensationalizing online copy, presumably in order to compete with some of the more sensational "news" offerings on the internet.
I like your elegantly understated phrase that use of the word in a Times headline "seems beyond where we are at this moment in history." One can only hope that but for this lapse, it will remain so.
I like your elegantly understated phrase that use of the word in a Times headline "seems beyond where we are at this moment in history." One can only hope that but for this lapse, it will remain so.
7
The word "bitch" shocks, traumatizes, insults, and for many, is a really hard word to use. Even talking about dogs, I have a hard time calling a female dog a bitch. The emotions raised by the word are cultural in derivation. Our culture has assigned to that word exactly what Liz Spayd states: it is intended as an insult, to degrade and to insult females. Usually hurled as an invective by males.
17
An unfortunate latest example of the coarsening of public discourse. Maybe it grabbed eyeballs online, but it was unworthy of a wide circulation newspaper...let alone the NY Times.
27
Agreed. The NYT is letting us, it's subscribers and us the American people down time and time again during this election. Stop. Count. Print the headlines from the past 6 months and take an honest look. Sort the headlines and you will see your commitment to impartiality has become an excuse for not doing hard, investigative journalism. It is late but hopefully not too late. Get out there, do your work and don't ever call our next president bitch again. Earn back our respect and trust. America and the world needs you to do your job.
93
Thank you for this comment. I so wish the NYT would get back on the horse and print real depth and analysis rather than the daily drivel it has been giving us through this election. I used to read pretty much only the Times each morning. Now I read nine or ten other news sources. Our wish that the Times would step back up may not be heeded. Your good comment is one of many along these lines, over weeks and weeks.
6
I'm with you on this one, and lets hope that other words, long consigned to the playground but found lately in certain areas of the mainstream, never appear in a Times' headline. Try an anonymous survey of all the editors at the Times -- ask them which words are inappropriate for the 'voice of the Times' (which is what your headlines are). That should clear up the matter.
And thanks for this well written piece.
And thanks for this well written piece.
9
Thank you. Too bad the editors were too tone-deaf to realize this before publication. What planet are they on?
20
The term is traditionally a pejorative. It definitely has been used as such by the Trumpkins. Personally I would prefer the name calling to stop. As it probably won't, I definitely would prefer to see commentary from the Times that is more thoughtful. I don't think we need to "own" every common comment. I get the meaning of the article but you are trying to gild a lily while the other side is presenting you with skunk cabbage.
8
Perhaps it is not hard to understand why female college students, who are aggravated by microaggressions, preferred Mr. Sanders. By embracing "bitch," older women like Andi Zeisler just sound offensive rather than inspiring.
Apparently Andi Zeisler and the Times' Editor(s) may watched or listen but did not hear the First Lady, Michelle Obama's speech which was given with class and compassion at the convention. ".....When they go LOW, we go HIGH...."
29
Looks like the Times going the way of the Washington Post. So sad.
9
At least the WaPo covers impropriety at the Trumpty Dumpty Foundation, unlike the Times.
11
I wasn't shocked to see the word used in relation to a former First Lady, former US Senator, former Secretary of State and current Presidential candidate. That is, I wasn't shocked to see it used by the New York Times.
The Times has chosen to throw its lot in with those who feel it necessary to cheapen and degrade a fine Lady who has done much for this country and its people. Certainly she is far from perfect, the same for most of us. But her flaws do not merit the indignity that the Times now finds appropriate.
The Times has joined the herd. Sadly this election reminds me more and more of 2000 when the press decided almost as one that Al Gore was an inveterate liar. This year the theme is Hillary's secret corruption.
And yet not one scintilla of evidence of any misused secret information or of the paying to play that her opponent clearly has indulged in.
Perhaps, Ms. Spayd, you could now turn your attention to The Times heroic efforts to keep the email "scandal" alive and pierce the ominous but vaporous clouds in which it wraps the actually worthwhile Clinton Global Initiative.
The Times has chosen to throw its lot in with those who feel it necessary to cheapen and degrade a fine Lady who has done much for this country and its people. Certainly she is far from perfect, the same for most of us. But her flaws do not merit the indignity that the Times now finds appropriate.
The Times has joined the herd. Sadly this election reminds me more and more of 2000 when the press decided almost as one that Al Gore was an inveterate liar. This year the theme is Hillary's secret corruption.
And yet not one scintilla of evidence of any misused secret information or of the paying to play that her opponent clearly has indulged in.
Perhaps, Ms. Spayd, you could now turn your attention to The Times heroic efforts to keep the email "scandal" alive and pierce the ominous but vaporous clouds in which it wraps the actually worthwhile Clinton Global Initiative.
38
This is just another example of the increased tendency of headline writers in the Times to be provocative rather than simply informative. Presumably this goes back to the need to increase click-through rates and increase ad revenue. After all, the Times is in the business of selling the news and not in simply providing the news.
15
The Times headline writers are incredibly patronizing with the increasingly common use a headline which beings "What You Need to Know about .... "
4
Much of the NYT staff seems to want to work at Salon. They should go do that.
73
or Vice...Salon may be a little too analytic for the way the Times is going.
1
Yes! The New York Times is usually a Gray Lady who clutches her pearls upon hearing the mildest profanity. But that longtime boundary--rarely breached before--is cast aside with glee to assist the founder of Bitch Media with her self-promotion, and to further the degradation of our first serious female candidate for president.
22
Sad that the increasingly tabloid Times thought that this particular essay had enough merit to outweigh the use of a word indicative of a female canine to describe an oval office nominee.
19
You framed it precisely. Thanks.
2
Get over it. I found it refreshing to see the word in this context.
5
During the 1970s, when New Yorker, Geraldine Ferraro, was the Democratic VP candidate, FL Barbara Bush called her a Bitch and NYC papers for the most part enjoyed the spectacle. When I read the headline on the Opinion Pages of the New York Times, ironically I was not as offended as I have continued to be since Maureen Dowd called Hillary Clinton a Dominatrix.
During her previous campaign, Hillary Clinton was called a Bitch many times, and by Democrats no less. Tina Fey lessened its impact by stating on TV one Saturday night that "Bitch" was the new "Black". (We got the joke then, and now.) Therefore, Bitch on front page for Hillary Clinton is not nearly offensive to many of us as Criminal and Dominatrix.
During her previous campaign, Hillary Clinton was called a Bitch many times, and by Democrats no less. Tina Fey lessened its impact by stating on TV one Saturday night that "Bitch" was the new "Black". (We got the joke then, and now.) Therefore, Bitch on front page for Hillary Clinton is not nearly offensive to many of us as Criminal and Dominatrix.
10
The year was 1984, not the 70s.
2
Little by little, the Times is losing their audience. I find its no longer the newspaper of record.