Sara,

I think it is unfair to generalize from a right wing campaign event to the whole society.

At a right wing love-fest, you could hear all manner of disparaging remarks leveled at anyone who is not a white, Protestant, violent, male. All muslims are terrorists. All liberals are idiots, wimps, Jesus killers. Et cetera.

The right spouts vitriol about everyone else, 24 hours per day, and has an entire major network dedicated to this task. There is nothing special about singling out Hillary Clinton and calling her a "bitch."

The second point is: she is a bitch. That's not necessarily a bad thing given the office she is running for. But, Hillary Clinton is a badass, aggressive woman. The derogatory term for a woman with those qualities is "bitch."

The third point again has to do with the right. The right is the party of regression and resistance to the inclusion of the dispossessed in the political process. There are probably many right wingers who would love to return to the time when women had no vote and had no political presence whatsoever.

The most disturbing part of this story for me is that Hillary versus GOP candidate is presented as some sort of important battle. Since Hillary is a war candidate, with a corporate pedigree through Wal Mart, and began her political life as a conservative -- I would argue that Hillary versus McCain would be two right wing candidates and the GOP could not lose the election.

Hillary as the Democratic candidate guarantees that the right will win the election. So, they have an interest in advancing the idea that Hillary will be the candidate as a foregone conclusion.

What's worse is that the "how do we beat the bitch" question was asked not by a man, but by a woman!

First "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and now laughing in agreement with "how do we beat the bitch". Yep, that McCain sure is a morally fine man.

I recently tried to have a conversation with a republican washington bureaucrat who works for Veterans Affairs. I asked him to please explain to me how real republicans could align themselves with this thieving, immoral group and what I got back was "9/11" and "I'm a misogynist." I said there was no reason to try to converse and so I left. It made me really sad for women all over the world. I long for the days before patriarchy created such horribleness.

we believe it is everyone's responsibility-from elected officials to each member of a community-to confront the sexism, racism and homophobia that excludes so many from positions of power and policy-making arenas, not to mention access to living-wage jobs, affordable housing and health care.

you will do this by electing clinton.

I was thinking about the women's US Bridge team as I read this article
and thought about how many called them girls or ladies.
I thought the teams title was evident, but still only to a few of us.
Women's Team, not Ladies Team, or Girls Team. And this comes from
people who are in support of these women's right to speak out.

Then I thought when name calling on the national level is acceptable
and when it's "unacceptable". Ms v Miss was a hard won battle. My
generation seems pretty oblivious to this fact. What other titles are out there?

African-American males are no longer called, boy, yet an African-
American males "manhood" continues to be subjugated to racist stereotypes.
What the hell is keeping manhood from all men? Who is telling me what it is to
be a man? I am a man, and when I regress, I act like a child. What

People still go around calling one another, sir. But I despise the title. I'm not
a white knight, I am not noble, nor do I ever want to be thought of that way.
I do not adhere to the social system "sir" glorifies. I shun the power
that comes with the title even when others aspire to be given power.
So often people argue the title is a sign of respect and civility.
I argue, why is the title of royalty a sign of respect in today's world?
Few see my point, and shrug their shoulders.

Perhaps when men and women stop using the titles glorifying white male hierarchy
we will also see a change in labeling women and nonwhite men as bitches, or beeatch,
or boy, or dog. Everyone accepts the title sir, but nobody wants to be called bitch.

"I've got mine. Go get yours, bitch"
ˇ

RichM, that's two exceptions, and not perhaps but absolutely. Please don't minimalize the candidacies of Kucinich and Gravel. The corporate media doesn't need any help doing that.

And actually, it's part of the main problem. Subjugation of women is part of the larger issue.

Let me make this perfectly clear. I am not a sexist, a mysoginist, or a McCaine supporter. But how do we beat the bitch?

It sounds like a song title.

A more appropriate questiin would have been. "How do we insure we don't have another four to eight or more years of Republican stupity, criminality and domination".

Has Senator Clinton done anything that would contribute to doing away with this sort of language in the political arena?

For example, has she done anything about the kind of generalized hate mongering, be it towards fellow citizens or towards peoples of other nations (such as the Iranians, Senator Clinton), of which this kind of language is symptomatic?

Is she not one of the most belligerent presidential candidates?

Please do not impute to me the belief that she somehow deserved or sought the epithet in question; that is not at all what I am saying; nor is it implied by the above remarks. What I am saying is that Senator Clinton's behavior and public utterances are certainly not taking us away from the prejudicial attitudes, the narrow mindedness, the lack of analysis of the facts of international and domestic political life, that give rise to this sort of facile, dismissive, and contemptuous language.

There is nothing wrong with America today that hasn't been wrong with it since Day #1.

I agree with Richard M that there are far more important things to concern ourselves with.

Truthfully, Bitch is a word with a real definition to it. Sometimes it fits a person (and of either gender), and other times it doesn't. It certainly doesn't seem to me to fit Hillary Clinton. I do not like or support her candidacy, but she hasn't exhibited any of the behavior that would fit the definition. Simply not liking her doesn't justify the use of the word. That it was used by another woman only shows the lack of charcter of the user more than anything else.

I strongly disagree that there is anything wrong with using the terms 'ladies' or 'sir.' LOL.. Good grief. Both are intended as respectful titles.

I'm shrugging my shoulders here...

A classic match-up, a compassionate conservative woman speaking about a compassionate liberal woman. It doesn't get any better than this !

ezeflyer:

That's an excellent question!

Ramsay

It's standard Repugnishit practice to get women to attack women, to get minority members to defend and propagate racism. They think it's both clever & funny because they are beasts who think that they're above the common run of the human race & not subject to any sort of reciprocity. Imagine if someone publically referred to the Smirk's mommy as a bitch -- the roar would have been deafening.

The unaddressed issue here is: Why does the lunatic McCain respect Hillary? and why does she reciprocate?

I was truly offended by the woman who asked the question. I did not find it even remotely funny. She is supposedly a Southern woman who apparently was taught no manners; and really should be ostracised from society. Her mother should be ashamed of her. To denigrate another person because of the sex of the person should not be funny; but, it apparently is--even to some of the commenters above. Other commentary has indicated that it is okay to talk about Hillary that way if you are a Republican. As a woman who has been on the front lines of the woman's movement, I am aware that some of our worst enemies are other women; and, they are most often Republican women. But, I am still appalled at the crassness of the statement and McCain's response. Where is Miss Manners when we need her most?

Calling Hillery a bitch is a disservice to female dogs everywhere.

Female dogs are honest, loyal, caring, loving and do not eat their young. They protect their "pack" and would give their lives to protect them. Hillary has none of their attributes.

From what I can tell, Hillary is an asexual, lying, pompous, wannabe corporate shill who has and will sacrifce the youth of america for her own advantage.

Is this REALLY that important?! Please....

In case you don't know it, Ms. Gould, people are dying daily in hellstorms called Iraq and Afghanistan with the possibility of an up and coming hellstorm called Iran.

Also, the country is up to its ass in debt, more and more are entering the ranks of the homeless, the Earth is heading towards a Global Warming disaster, people are turned away from medical treatment because of no insurance, and on and on and....

Are you aware, Ms. Gould, that your sister organization--N.O.W.--through their support to Clinton JUST BECAUSE she is a woman? Gender bias or utter stupidity given the current climate in this country?

What if a MALE had stood up referring to Giuliani or Edwards and asked, "How do we beat the cocksucker?" Where would you have been on THAT? Is that something you would have ranted over too or does your pendulum only swing in one direction? Get over it! Try focusing your obvious intelligent energy on one of the above-mentioned issues.

What's in a Word??? This debacle says it all. These are the kind of Atavistic Paleo-Types that are our 'Leaders' Hahahahahahahahahah... When are we ever going to learn. What you see, is exactly what you get.

Has anyone considered the idea that McCain is simply being used as a kind of shill/catch-all? I can't see how any serious follower of his farce of a campaign can accept McCain as a viable Republican presidential nominee. As the perpetrator of one gaffe after another, it seems as if he's actually been set up as a diversionary tactic
to take the heat and the scrutiny from the real eventual nominee, "worse than bush clone", Rudolph Pinochio Giuliani.

Funny, I thought that moron was asking how to beat Rudy...

Imagine what people say about Hilary NOT in public earshot.

But this is all a red herring. Which fascist will be elected in '08, if there even is an election?

Good point Frank... Why have we all assumed (including McCain by his response), that the nut who asked the question was referring to Hillary Clinton. It could have been Rudy.

RichM - "That Hillary is the leading Democratic candidate — and that she doesn't have a principled bone in her body, and is not really different from the Republicans."

I applaud this point. Yes, Republicans are a deplorable people when it comes to just about anything, but to disregard an attempt by them to frame the race is folly on our part.

If there's something wrong with referring to the members of that Bridge Team as "ladies," then I'm a monkey's uncle!

Misogyny aside, there is little real choice between Hawkish Hillary and Militaristic McCain.

well,I mind that there are actually people posting here who can find a way to rationalize the use of the epithet "bitch" in this sillyass country. It's wrong, and I'm no friend of Hillary Clinton's. If the word "kike" had been used in someone's criticisms of Joseph Lieberman, we'd be hard pressed to see rationalization of that the way some people here have offered up rationalization of the "bitch" epithet. It's bullshit, folks. Hillary Clinton might be a warmonging imperialist thug, but a thug like her needs to be outed for the fact that she uses the hard work and sacrifice that a lot of women have accomplished in order to advance the rights of all women, and not just the privileged caste that Clinton represents. That's the issue.

While I am (sadly) not entirely surprised to see how the comments unfolded here, I think most everybody here is missing a crucial point. Sure, it's easy to dismiss or trivialize this article for whatever your particular reason.

Are there worse things to be worried about? RichM makes a very eloquent case that there are. Is Hillary someone many of us feel inclined to defend or champion? Clearly, not. So why then does this woman's nasty allusion matter? Why does McCain's response matter even more?

They matter because our willingness to tolerate, even excuse the disrespectful treatment of ANYONE, diminishes all of us--male or female. That this particular event was a public one and singled out a woman, and did not elicit universal condemnation tells me that patriarchy is alive and well. It is why Don Imus may have had his hand slapped but will be back on the air before we know it.

Until we come to understand and accept that what ails all of us here on this planet is the gross imbalance of the male and female energies, nothing is going to change. Raw power will be worshipped and emulated; winner takes all.

The dismissive attitudes toward women that permeate cultures and their institutions everywhere are what contribute in large part to all those larger issues we lament and condemn as inhuman and unjust. So that is why this incident matters--it is a mirror held up for us. WIll we see what is there? Or just what we want to see?

When an obvious misogynistic/sexist incident occurs and ugly names and comments are directed at Hillary, a Ms 'click' goes on in my head and I'm prompted to run to the computer and send Hillary another campaign donation!
Most women hear the "clicks" and take it personally. Some men are beginning to hear the "clicks" and think about their daughters ...

Mencken said it best. "A misogynist is a man who hates women just about as much as they hate one another."

@ starofthesea...."while I am (sadly) not entirely surprised to se how the comments unfolded here...."

I am routinely surprised by the comments here on commondreams, and that might speak more of about the idealist in me feeling let down. I reluctantly acknowledge there is a minority here who agree Gould's message and see the bigger picture. I

@Joan Utah: You put it in terms few could possibly misunderstand. "click", and "click"
-----------------------

H L Mencken said, "Misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate one another." He also said women should be in the background of politics. Even in the 1920s he wasn't all that damn progressive.

e

Hope you don't mind my repeating this, but it's only fundamentally important. The longest continuous period of peace and progress on the factual (demonstrable, archaeological) record is Minoan Crete: from about 4000 to 1450 BCE, you'll see across the evidences the ABSOLUTE CENTRALITY OF WOMEN to that human and cultural achievement (unmatched by ANY later period including Greece, Rome and Israel). And why does "education" completely ignore this? For the same reason The West still "has to" denigrate women----because if you put those achievements where they belong, first in the facts, then the "heroic ages" of male control that come afterward (called history) appear for what they are: a long nightmare of repeated and failed "experiment" using violence to control people and the world. History is the biography of a serial killer who "must" get more violent each time the act of murder fails to make life obey delusion. This is not about "matriarchy" or "utopia" or "good women/bad men," but a society in which people recognized their obligations and limitations in each other; whereas capitalism and male-centered power recognize NO limit---"profit at any cost," and a blood-soaked lie that short-term violent selfishness is somehow mystically the engine of progress for all. So when somebody tells you about "historical necessity" or the "weakness of women," you know they're either brainwashed or lying.....http://ancientgreece-earlyamerica.com . The Left is going nowhere until its feet are anchored in the DEMONSTRABLE FACTS that, for the longest period of our civilization, we were getting it RIGHT---and that's why the weasels who've led us again and again to disaster keep refreshing the lie. The defeat of the enemy lies in TIME first of all, rather than in space....for you cannot change the world until you change your thoughts....

I have to say again, that the word is a legitimate word with a definition that fits some people. It just is. It's not nice to use maybe, but ....

Example: I work with a woman who goes out of her way to make other people feel stupid. She has had several complaints filed against her in HR. They likely would have fired her by now except that she is the only one that knows a particular vital function of the company.

Everyone is afraid to approach her for anything because she is so nasty. And I am talking about people on the managerial level.

One day when she took a simple question I asked and raked me over the coals, I was completely deflated. I could feel the heat coming off my face it upset me so much. I went over to a woman I am friendly with, who happens to be the manager of another department, and I repeated what had happened. She looked at me, and said, 'She's such a bitch.'

And frankly, she is. The fact is - the way she relates to and treats others fits the definition. The term is not a nice term, but by it's very definition, it was meant to describe people who act a certain way. And unfortunately, in this case, it fits...

If she had said, 'she's such an asshole,' that would have been technically correct as well. That doesn't meant the use of that word is good. If this woman had said to McCain, 'how do we beat the asshole,' it wouldn't have been anymore acceptable. But the term itself has a definition and will fit some people.

My problem with this particular incident is that she used the word solely because she doesn't like Hillary Clinton's politics. Whether or you like her or not, Hillary has presented herself professionally and respectfully in all the debates and on the trail. What I'm saying, is that the use doesn't fit. It's unjustified b/c she doesn't fit the definition.

When people called Leona Helmsley a 'bitch,' as the newspapers have, there isn't much of an outcry... could it be that the term fit in that case?

Somebody used the term 'rationalization' to describe it's use. I think instead it's a matter of is it legitimate when used against someone when their behavior doesn't warrant the term, or when it does?

Jack37 - thanks for your post. Plus, i'd like to add that i have visited your website several times and appreciate what is there. Thanks.

You mention something about time & space in your last sentance. I think the senseless under-appreciation of space that allows "the land" to be viewed as exploitable is also a key aspect of solutions that might be considered going forward....

As for the word "bitch" - i agree with what someone said about female dogs above.

Peace,
Ken Hausle

Bitch, Whore, Slut, "sticks and stones may break my bones....." these are the initial salvos of the conservative Swift Boaters and their "vast right wing conspiracy".

I am not a big fan of Hillary; she ranks next to last in my choice for a democratic president, right in front of last place Joe Biden.

But, the fact is none of the republican candidates are even on my radar screen.

I thought we saw the last of that idiotic war mongering McCain, when he was forced to sell his bus to stay in the race.

His giggling response to the woman's bitch question was emblematic of all the republicans; they are worthless trash with no respect for either women or men who try to get in the way of their plundering.

But unlike many on Common Dreams, I refuse to allow myself to become Irrelevant and vote for someone who has absolutely no chance of winning.

The fate of my country is just too important to act like a Lemming and throw myself and my vote off a cliff, in pursuit of high minded righteousness.

I think a reasoned analysis will show that there are definite differences between the 2 mainstream parties.

If Hillary becomes the nominee I will reluctantly support her, after all, although I was not a great admirer of Bill either, he managed to keep the economy stable and did not lose 1 American soldier on his watch.

She may have questionable credentials when it comes to ending the war, but I think her creditability is much better than any of the republicans who actually support the war and have no plans for getting out.

JACK 37: Brilliant posting! I am working on a book that challenges the bases for many aspects of culture taken for granted. Its thesis rests upon the silencing/denigrating/denial of the feminine voice and "side" of sentience.

STAR OF THE SEA: I am grateful for your contribution to the forum. You bring humanity to it, and expand the picture beyond left-right, good-evil, right-wrong polarities.

"There is nothing wrong with America today that hasn't been wrong with it since Day #1."

Militantliberal, Thanks so much for this succinct formulation of the truth. Wish I could have it as a bumpersticker!

Oh, wait! Maybe not. Three years ago I put a bumpersticker on my car that says "Support the Troops; Bring Them Home Alive!" As a result, a giant flowerpot full of dirt was thrown on my car, which was repeatedly keyed and had its taillight broken from the top. A note was left on my windshield saying "coward".

If I wanted to be a cynic, I would venture that this was planted by the Clinton campaign in order to divert attention away from her Bush-lite positions on such issues as the Iraq/Afghan (and soon to be Iran?)war, NAFTA/GATT, healthcare, and such.

To me the saddest part of this story is the figure of McCain as an increasingly addled, bellicose, boorish man. That his ordeal as a long term POW of the Vietnamese was a major contributory cause for his current state, does not answer the question, "Why is such a fragile and compromised individual allowed to be a Senator and even run for the presidential nomination of his party?".

This always happens when the denigration of women is brought up as a serious flaw in society. They turn it towards other things, more important things, as if I am that obtuse, as if I am not doing a million things 18 hours a day to stop what is happening.
You only further the truth, by rejecting the fact that whomever it was, it was a woman being treated as if she WAS a female dog. Make OH SO manly jokes. The problem is as bad , these days, with women objectifying another woman it's a pandemic. I never understand when these new brand of anti-feminist women ask me 'Do you have children?', I tell them yes, but they are 18 and 30. Then 'are they 'girls'?', when I answer yes, they give me the batty eyelashes and Ohhhh, as if daughters are to be killed at birth? Some that refer to their own daughters as a Bitch, do they forget they are a woman, their Mom is a woman.
I was not permitted to wear pants to school, I was not permitted to take certain classes because, as we all know, women are not that bright when it comes to mechanics, math and science. I did not get the same pay for the same job, yet I had to work twice as hard to be recognized half as much.
Dismissive attitudes only aggravate a situation that was ok for a decade or so, now the decline of humanity these past seven years occurred with break neck speed, it is as if I was stuck in the 60's again, and it truly angers me, we should absolutely know better by now.
Gentlemen, Sirs, Mr.'s, when you read that article over again and see the age group that have been violently abused by a boyfriend just put a name to that STATISTIC, the name of your daughter, sister or Mother.
It is never alright to disrespect, humiliate, verbally denigrate, be abusive towards another human being, certainly now, not in these dire straits. Remember feminist is not a reference of gender, it is the ability to be treated equally and with the same respect afforded any other. Men are feminists, also, as witnessed by a few posters.
Sorry, I ranted.

Does anyone believe that this was NOT a scripted exchange?

Does anyone believe that McCain was "surprised" to hear it?

And from a woman?

I think this was a test run for the (unofficial) 2008 GOP campaign slogan.

The questioner's attitude and McCain's response were unfortunate, and are likely a taste of things to come, but they are also symptomatic of a much larger issue.

Sadly, hostility and incivility are epidemic – on both the right and the left. The name calling and snarky comments are not helpful, exploiting and perpetuating our differences, and preventing us from ever discovering and exploring the common ground. They are impediments to understanding, creativity, or compromise and they undermine solutions to pressing problems. They foster an ultra-competitive, zero sum mentality - that there must always be winners and losers.

From a purely self-interested point of view civility may produce a better outcome. RJ Eskow (http://www.tricycle.com/issues/editors_pick/4189-1.html) describes a situation where containing his anger and holding his tongue in his response to an attack proved to be advantageous. At times we must speak up, but how we do so matters. Rants are easily dismissed.

How can we increase civility? Start with ourselves. Progressives are often impotent because they "eat their young" – arguing over who is more progressive and who is a hypocrite, while the neocons and corporatists reap the benefits of the internal strife. (The possibility of agents provocateurs can't be entirely dismissed, either). To become what you want to be, be what you want to become. Civility starts with me.

Finallly, Eskow quotes the Buddha:

"Let us remain free from hatred in the midst of people who hate".

PS. To militantlibrarian: Thanks for the efforts of you and your colleagues in providing essential information and defending for our freedom of speech and right to privacy – Banned Books Week, ferocious opposition to censorship and government snooping, etc. You are often unsung heroines and heros.

The "beat the bitch" is probably a precursor to things to come. Misogyny is deeply ingrained in our culture from the ancient Greeks who considered women malformed men, through the Abramic traditions and reinforced by the writings of St. Paul with expansion by the holy catholic church.

The language and implication play well in the right wing's. world of fantasy. Attacks like this and worse will come should Hillary be the candidate. They will come if she is not for this is the neo/theo-con's method of discourse.

Rather a shame that we attempted to abandon the goddess ...

It's time to introduce my concept of Punch and Judy politics. In the middle ages, Punch and Judy shows were put on, where bad old Punch would hit poor Judy with a stick and maybe throw her baby out the window, and sometimes Judy would fight back. The crowd cheered on Judy even though Punch had the upper hand. Usually Punch won. Sometimes Judy won. In reality, the same puppeteer had his hand up both puppets' backsides, and the whole thing was a just a show. Its purpose was to distract people while cutpurses worked the crowd, stealing hard-earned money from the audience.

The same thing is going on today, only "Punch" is the GOP and "Judy" is the Dems. And the puppeteers (and confederates) are multinational corporations. As one of my friends observed, Hillary is the corporations' wet dream. She's thoroughly buyable (and now thoroughly bought), and she's FEMALE. Perfect for distracting attention away from the issues. "She's a bitch. She's just a woman," says Punch arrogantly, and the audience is horrified and outraged and rushes to her defense -- while the corporations pick their pockets unnoticed. I dare say that Obama is almost as good. "He's black. He's a n*****," says dastardly Punch, and the audience roars its outrage and rushes to his defense. And forgets to watch their wallets.

The only useful response is to not fall for this distraction. When the name-calling starts, ignore it and keep a close eye on your cash (and your civil liberties -- what's left of 'em!)

Thank you, Got Metta, for your kind words about us librarians. I have volunteered for the ACLU for many years, and testified successfully to get my city, Pittsburgh, to pass a resolution against the Patriot Act. We also produce a banned book program together with the Carnegie Library every year. Librarians can kick ass, as the FBI admitted in this actual quote:
While radical militant librarians kick us around, true terrorists benefit from
{the Justice Department's} failure to let us use the tools given to us. -- FBI email

Typical, go to church on Sunday, playground bully on Monday.