GOP advisor Alex Castellanos wants “bitch” in vernacular political-speak

If Alex Castellanos, GOP political strategist, has his way, by the time your daughters run for political office, the word “bitch” will be in the vernacular and taught as a synonym in grade school for “people who are abrasive, aggressive, irritating.” Tell you what Alex, as soon as I hear you call George Bush, Dick Cheney or Karl Rove a bitch, I’ll think about it.

This is why “it’s unpleasant but it happens” is not an acceptable approach to sexism.

Sphere: Related Content

By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:13 am May 22nd, 2008 in Hillary Clinton, Republicans, Gender, Campaigning, WH2008, Elections, Women, Media

Comments

6 Responses to “GOP advisor Alex Castellanos wants “bitch” in vernacular political-speak”

1 P. Springer on May 22nd, 2008 11:00 am

Jill Miller Zimon: Tell you what Alex, as soon as I hear you call George Bush, Dick Cheney or Karl Rove a bitch, I’ll think about it.

I’ve heard all of these guys referred to as ‘dicks’ (or far worse) but not on TV. On TV, only Cheney has been called ‘Dick.’

It only seems fair that if the term ‘bitch’ is okay to use on the air then ‘dick’ should be okay as well. Or, perhaps we could dispense with the gender component of the slur and use a word like ‘asshole’.

Hmmm, after doing a bit of research, Ive found that the phrase “he’s an asshole” is six times more common than the phrase “she’s an asshole” so perhaps ‘asshole’ suffers from a slight male gender association. Well, either that or men are six times more likely to be ‘assholes’. I jest, of course.
2 Jill Miller Zimon on May 22nd, 2008 11:57 am

Ah - I got a good smile out of your comment. Sigh - yeah - you know, I heard NPR use a quote from someone today in which the person calls someone else “assanine” - my kids were eating breakfast. It angered me - but then what?

I don’t know anymore, sometimes…maybe… lol
3 tiredofvotingformen on May 22nd, 2008 12:02 pm

What also strikes me about this clip is the inability (?) unwillingness (?) of the women on the panel to directly confront the sexism in the way you have done, Jill, or indeed to express any outrage over it–Toobin did a far better job. The phenomenon is not unique, alas. During “sweetiegate,” I watched in some amazement, for example, as Diane Sawyer bent over backwards to make clear she was not offended by Obama’s remarks, and didn’t understand why anyone would be concerned about them, while her two male colleagues gently tried to explain to her why it might be offensive to some women (and men), since Obama only directs this epithet toward women. Toobin’s point should be carried farther: sexism is still so ingrained in our culture that intelligent women and men are having a hard time confronting it–people just don’t spend much time polishing their responses to something they’ve become inured to, or are perhaps reluctant to confront (because it makes you look so 70’s, retrograde), or, if you’re a woman, because it might remind everybody that you’re–a woman. The gals in this clip seem stymied by all this to me–like deer in the headlights. Jill Zimon, thank goodness, ain’t no deer, and she ain’t no sweetie either.
4 Jill Miller Zimon on May 22nd, 2008 12:38 pm

Tx, TOVM - my new acronym for you.

I agree about how Brazille and I’m not sure who the other one is - not Gloria Borger I don’t think but I’m not sure who - completely say nothing. This is very much in line with how only now women are speaking about Clinton’s failure to really tackle this from the get-go the way Obama eventually got to talking about race - although even he hasn’t talked about it as much as everyone around him.

Anyway - there is a lot of chatter about Clinton missing a big opportunity here, and in part, it’s an enduring question I have and I left a comment about this last night on one of the threads re: why are some voters say NOW it’s now or never? Why has it never been now or never before? Why hasn’t more of that been mentioned all along?

My answer is - because it is NOT now or never, even if it feels that way. Saying it’s now or never is really just another expression for the extreme disappointment that may come by August 29 if not before re: Clinton and the nomination.

But to turn that into now or never, well, as I’ve argued, that is just disrespectful of everyone’s efforts to eradicate sexism. Well - that’s how I feel.
5 tiredofvotingformen on May 22nd, 2008 2:18 pm

Hey, I like the acronym!

I can’t speak for the Now-or-Never mindset, which I suppose is the CSCToo mindset. My current position is a no-less-insistent: How About Now? Why Not Now? re: my argument that Obama could unify a great measure of the Party by, for example, choosing a highly qualified woman VP. I see no defensible position in “Ya’ll just wait, someday it will happen.” Why not now? Why keep making excuses? We have all worked hard. And while it may be true that Hillary is coming late to the gender-party (probably for some of the reasons I stated above, i.e. the onus on women who point out they are women), it wouldn’t be accurate to say other people haven’t been raising the issue of sexism all along; the mainstream media simply hasn’t been hearing it. If Hillary had secured the nomination, obviously we wouldn’t be discussing this, because the ceiling would be broken. Instead, many African-Americans, people of all colors, and mixed-race folk like me, would be confronting that ceiling and saying: How About Now? We have all worked hard. Why Not Now? What Is The Excuse Now?
6 Oengus on May 22nd, 2008 10:40 pm

Not any woman, make Clinton the VP!

I feel strongly that will happen, and I think it should.

Then focus all your racial and sexism issues on the opponents. Actually, do not, just address it as it get thrown up, but not to the point that everyone feels like they want to throw up.

Clinton will never embarrass the nation; she will always be a good representative particularly abroad. She is quick witted resilient and resourceful.

If we do not see this happen, we may not win, it happening will heal the party riff nearly instantaneously.

You should never assume gender or race will make a difference, doing so is a false expectation.

I believe and from what I have been gathering independently is that Obama wants Clinton to balance the equation, she can see trouble on the horizon and fortify for battles, he can quell her and her instances of going negative publicly.

The process of defining a cabinet, defining issues, specifically addressing change, face it this woman has influence, even as senator she will have his ear, it should be more formal and she should be in the inner circle.

The issue of race and gender gets a positive with them being there, the major issues of today go beyond race and gender.

These people may not be focused on after the primary, they may be focused on the primary and we had better hope it is not a focus on Michigan and Florida. If that happens and it could we all will have open sore in November.