What does it mean when a man says another is his “bitch”? To me it implies that the man is his “woman,” which is intended to be very insulting. Calling a man a woman is contextually negative because being a woman is bad (note the sexism), and being a man who acts like a woman is bad (note the homophobia). Where did this charming expression originate? Most likely in prisons, where an incarcerated man who is in sexual servitude to another man is said to be his bitch. You can read an essay explaining what life is like for a “prison bitch” here.
Here is a video clip of pundit Christopher Hitchens asserting that Richard Armitage was Colin Powell’s “bitch.” I found the link at Eschaton, where Atrios seems to refer to Hitchens as “Bush’s Bitch.” There are probably a plethora of views about pejorative uses of the word “bitch.” There certainly are a wide range of views about insults with the suffix “bag”!
On April 19th, Heart at Women’s Space posted her concern that the term of opprobrium “godbag,” typically aimed at religious hypocrites, was sexist in nature because it was derived from “douchebag.”
Twisty from I Blame the Patriarchy had this response in comments to Heart’s post:
I am the spinster aunt responsible, rightly or wrongly, for inventing the word”godbag.”It does not, I’m afraid, derive from any of the sources you cite. A godbag, if you will permit me the impropriety of quoting from my own rather extensive body of work on the subject, is”a bag full of hate and self-loathing wearing stage makeup that makes it look like a televangelist.”The suffix”-bag”alludes, not to a douche or to a woman whose countenance does not conform to patriarchal beauty standards, but to a”sack”or other sort of carryall.
Amanda at Pandagon took issue with the idea that “douchebag” was sexist, writing:
I want to defend”douchebag”as a perfectly feminist insult. After all, it’s a bag full of douche and we good feminists know that douche is definitely a Tool of the Patriarchy. As such, I would suggest that when people use the term”douchebag”, they’re actually calling them a tool, which is also a fine word that gets wielded often against the slack-jawed morons who reflexively support the patriarchy because they just know their reward is coming for it any day now. For instance, I once knew a guy who thought he was styling when he wore a tie with the Playboy bunny on it. That guy was both a douchebag and a tool, as they are synonymous.
Piny at Feministe seemed to agree, but expressed concern about the use of the word “colostomy bag” or “cobag,” its abbreviation. One of the commenters to Piny’s post noted:
“Colostomy bag”for all its laff value, makes me uncomfortable because it IS a medical device, and all the unfortunate folks out there who have to have one probably feel awful enough about it already. I know a teenage girl who nearly died of Crohn’s disease who has one…..I don’t think she needs to feel any more selfconscious about it than she already does !! For God’s sake she’s ALREADY a teenage girl!!”
Heart responded with this post today, stating in pertinent part:
My thinking is, “douche bag”, used against patriarchists and male supremacists, is an insult, not because we now realize regular douching is bad, or because douching is per se bad, but because the term hearkens to the reasons for which douche bags were invented, namely, to clean what men believed to be women’s foul-smelling, diseased genitalia. When we use the word, the patriarchists we intend to insult are insulted, not because douche bags are bad things, but because of the revulsion over women’s bodies which the term “douche bags” evokes and which inspired their invention. A douche bag is a neutral object with some valid reasons for existing. It is only revolting or disgusting when it is connected with sexist views of women’s vaginas and bodies. And for this reason, using words like “douchebag” as an insult is, I believe, sexist.
I grew up hearing the word “douchebag” invoked by men who also called each other “woman” as an insult, so the two are linked in my mind in a way that makes it hard for me not to react to it as a sexist term. [Update: I note this simply to avoid the false conceit that I speak from a place of abject neutrality. If I had never heard it used I could approach this word more objectively.]
If you are interested, you should read all of the referenced postings in full. There are probably other lefty blog discussions about all this that I haven’t seen. If so, please e-mail links to: feministlawprof (at) yahoo (dot) com. I’m just sitting around listing to one tornado warning after the other on the radio and wishing I had a basement.
I’m interested in this as a law professor, in part because it is relevant to sexual harassment law. Public statements by high profile “feminists” [I put this in quotes to suggest that generalizations about feminists will probably be made, despite the obvious diversity of views] could have a very real impact upon whether or not a given term, when used in a workplace, is held to be “sexist” or “gender-related” by a court. Blog posts have already been cited in court opinions. (See also law review articles that cite blogs). It’s not hard to picture lawyers (or law clerks) involved in a workplace discrimination suit in which “douchebag” has been deployed against a plaintiff googling “douchebag” to see how it is used socially, and coming across the above colloquy, and using it instrumentally.
–Ann Bartow
Update: In an effort to try to avoid being profoundly misunderstood, let me add the following:
I don’t disagree with Twisty, Amanda or Piny.
My reaction to”douchebag”is simply my personal reaction. It seems to basically be the same as Heart’s. As teens, my friends and I used to call each other “wenches,” so I view that term with affection. To someone with different life experiences, it might be hurtful. I understand that Amanda’s reaction to douchebag parallels the way I feel about wench. My reaction to”godbag”is different than Heart’s. It doesn’t bother me at all. Piny’s observation about”cobag”was instructive. I had never considered its problematic associations, so I learned something. I don’t use that word anyway, but if I did, I’d try to stop.
My subjective reactions aren’t really important to anyone but me; but it occurred to me, pace the recent Lyle case outcome, that if the complainant in a sexual harassment case alleged that she was called”douchbag,”her lawyer might introduce Heart’s post as”evidence”that this was sexist, while the defense might introduce Amanda’s post to show that”feminists”didn’t think that it was. Both are legitimate points of view that could effect the law, that’s all I was trying to say.
Also, the quotes around “feminist” in the penultimate sentence in the above paragraph are not to suggest that Amanda is not a feminist, she is a very fine one. The quotes are to suggest that her words will be invoked as if she speaks for all feminists. If this post accomplishes nothing else, it demonstrates that there is no singular feminist view on “douchebag.”
Go to this Feministing post to see a “Summer’s Eve” commercial from the 1980s. Oy.
Also, I periodically use the word “sleazebag.” I am, after all, an attorney.
Hi Ann,
I hear what you’re saying, and I think that this is an important addition to the discussion. But I wonder what the point is of questioning other peoples’ feminist credentials just because they disagree with you. Calling them “feminists” in scare-quotes clearly indicates that, because they disagree with you on a linguistic point, they’re somehow less feminist than you are. I think that’s a really unfair characterization, and not one that Twisty, Amanda or Piny deserves.
I’m all for calling each other out when we’re being sexist or unconsciously prejudiced. But we’re all on the same team here. It doesn’t help anything to try and strip each other of the right to refer to ourselves as feminists.
Um, they aren’t “scare” quotes, they are “generalization” quotes. I’m not questioning anyone’s feminist credentials. Also, I don’t disagree with Twisty, Amanda or Piny.
My reaction to “douchebag” is my personal reaction. It seems to basically be the same as Heart’s. My reaction to “godbag” however is different than Heart’s. It doesn’t bother me at all. Piny’s observation about “cobag” was instructive. I had never considered its problematic associations, so I learned something. I don’t use that word anyway, but if I did, I’d try to stop.
My subjective reactions aren’t really imprtant to anyone but me; but it occurred to me, pace the recent Lyle case outcome, that if the complainant in a sexual harassment case alleged that she was called “douchbag,” her lawyer might introduce Heart’s post as “evidence” that this was sexist, while the defense might introduce Amanda’s post to show that “feminists” didn’t think that it was. Both are legitimate points of view that could effect the law, that’s all I was trying to say.
Dear Ann,
We started using the term “cobag” precisely because douchebag struck us as a little bit you know, not great. If douchebags were of use by both sexes then it wouldn’t be a problem, regardless of its user. There is no existing version of patriarchy against those that have Crohn’s disease, therefore there is no existing societal framework for tarring the user of the device by the devices use as an insult. With douchebag, there is clearly an existing framework for tarring women with all sorts of ridiculousness, thus calling someone a douchebag regardless of the absolute merits of said douchebag (they are probably unsavory without any additional sexist or misogynistic connonation). I therefore make the argument that cobag is an OK insult given that there is not really any user-specific connotation. That being said if someone called someone a “sack of sh*t” that would definitely be OK, because sack of sh*t is not necessarily analogous to a “cobag” as it could be any old sack.
I don’t think there was any suggestion that “cobag” was sexist. The problem articulated by Piny and commenters, at least as I understood it, was that the word/expression was hurtful to some people based on their medical situations. If you disagree that this is likely, or don’t care whether you hurt people or not, that is up to you.
I think my comments were more thoughtful than your response suggests. To go further, I think that douchebag is gendered, and a massive sexist framework exists such that things that have gender associations are likely to be offensive because of patriarchy. No such discriminatory framework exists for the sufferers of Crohn’s disease, thus no obvious connection between the users of the device and the device itself. That being said, in most cases I follow the rule that the offendee determines the offensive nature of the comment, not the “offender”, however if taken to its extreme conclusion there would be no such thing as inoffensive speech. In this case we are having a discussion about possible offense, thus I am allowed to make an argument, even in the face of someone’s visceral reaction that the term might be offensive. I think I have made a reasonble argument that the “could be” offensive argument was not likely to be true.
Let us consider the broader arguments about things that may be deemed offensive, to use a ridiculous case. This past holiday season we had many people claiming to be offended by the phrase “happy holidays” as it was deemed a replacement for “merry Christmas” are these people’s concerns valid? I would not dismiss a Crohn’s disease sufferer’s response as I would these people. Given that the arguments regarding “cobag” circle around “possible offense” and not actual offense, I think I can make a case for the term not being offensive without a seemingly bad faith statement of “if you disagree that this is likely, or don’t care whether you hurt people or not, that is up to you.” Did anything about my statement suggest that I don’t care about hurting people? I’m not being argumentative. I like these discussions (although they are probably considered a waste of your time).
Thanks for responding.
Crohn’s disease is not the only reason that someone might have an ostomy. They are much more common than you might think, but people do not talk about ostomies openly because there is a degree of shame involved, for reasons you can learn about if you research this issue elsewhere.
People have sensitivities which they cannot be “argued” out of. Once someone makes you aware of the pain a word or phrase causes them, you can change your behavior to avoid hurting them, or you can keep hurting them. It’s fairly simple.
Ann, Pinko is the inventor of the term, ‘cobag.’ I wanted to point that out in case there was some doubt as to his authority.
Of course people have some sensitivities they cannot be argued out of, but they might have some sensitivities they can be argued out of. Given that there is not an existing cultural oppression or stigmatization of those with ostomies, I think it is fair to argue that the use of the term cobag does not constitute such. If people can be convinced to be offended by something, they can be convinced to not be offended. I wouldn’t argue such a thing about say, the C-word or the N-word, given that those words represent historical oppression. Is this not a gray area? Or can everything be simplified to “hurt/not hurt”? Given that the arguments here boild down to perception in the absence of context, cannot preceptions be changed?
Given that there is not an existing cultural oppression or stigmatization of those with ostomies…
I don’t think this is a “given” at all. Google the words “ostomy” and “shame” and read some of the sites that turn up. Many people seem to feel very stigmatized. I doubt that you will change their minds by calling people you dislike “cobags,” but hey, you have a blog, devote the rest of your life to it if it seems necessary and appropriate.
Two obvious conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing thread: (1) It appears to be primarily those on the left who use the term “bitch” as an insult; and (2) Feminists would seem to be more concerned with finding the most exquisite politically correct insult, than offer a reasoned rejoinder to those with whom they disagree.
No, I’ll think you’ll find “bitch” used a fair amount by “the right.” Not sure there is any quantitive data on this, as far as who uses it more. Of course, context is important too.
Given that there is not an existing cultural oppression or stigmatization of those with ostomies…
The statement above is probably the most ignorant one in this blog entry. Do you know who “those with ostomies” are? Chances are you already know someone with an ostomy, but they don’t tell you because they are ashamed. And they are afraid of your reaction. Don’t tell me there is no stigmatization. Being unable to control bowel movement is a major taboo that affects more people than any of you could ever imagine.
Torild: I hope it is clear that I agree with you, and it was a commenter, not me, who made the statement you reference.
Yes, obviously I understood that much, you argued very well on “my” behalf and I agree with every word you wrote. As you might have understood, I myself have an ostomy and I work to raise awareness on the subject, though it seems I have a long way to go.
Pingback: Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » When a Man is a “Bitch”
Pingback: On Douchebags | Overthinking It