wandering around one of my personal favorite websites, jezebel.com today, i found a link to the following story: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bitch-evolved-girls-cruel
It’s basically the same old spin on how women use social aggression (gossip, cliques, etc.) while men use physical aggression (punching, kicking, etc.). And yeah, yeah, I’ve heard it before and I’m not denying that it’s true, generally speaking. Women are socialized to use a different set of tools when dealing with aggression, tools that draw on traits that are considered feminine, like social interaction. Men are taught to use typically masculine tools like physical force to deal with their aggression.
My problem lies in the fact that the (male) author of the article titled it “The “Bitch” Evolved: Why Girls Are So Cruel to Each Other”. “Bitch”, really? Bitch, please! First, I don’t think it’s ever appropriate to refer to those belonging to a large demographic (over 50% of the planet!) as a “bitch” when writing for a nationally respected magazine, and I’m shocked that they would print something like this, even online.
Second, using that term only serves to further reinforce the stereotypes of women being socially aggressive to each other. The reader automatically starts out the article being biased with the image of a certain type of female burned into their mind. It’s completely leading, and hardly an example of factual journalism.
Third, it’s sexist and reactionary. Even the author acknowledges this when he says, “And if this little pigtailed girl is anything like the rest of her gender, in just a few years’ time she will unfortunately morph into an eye-rolling, gossiping, ostracizing, sarcastic, dismissive, cliquish ninth-grader, embroiled in the classic cafeteria style bitchery of adolescent female social politics. If that strikes you as misogynistic, rest assured it’s merely an empirical statement.”
Right, completely empirical! I’m sure all great behavioral scientists use the term “classic cafeteria style bitchery of adolescent female social politics”. Just because you couched your statement in big sociological words doesn’t mean you’re not a misogynist, buddy. Using words like bitch to refer to women and their interactions is a not-so-subtle attempt to hold them back. I don’t think anyone could argue that the term “bitch” was orginally coined as a derogatory phrase for women. And no matter whether or not you believe in the reappropriate of words, there’s no argument here that the intention behind this “bitch” is negative. The author’s blanket use of the term for all women who ever engage in social interaction becomes even more frustrating because there really exists no term for men that can equal it. Calling a guy a dick, an asshole, or a prick still pales in comparison to the forcefulness that “bitch” has been imbued with in our culture.
Of course I don’t personally know the author but I can guarantee you it all comes down to money. What’s the most sensationalist, most marketable thing ever? CUSS WORDS. When you can put one in a book title, publishers love it. Cheap, yes, but apparently it works.