I got 99 problems, but my bitch ain't one...

So, in thinking further about whether the b-word is sexist, I'm going to come up with the predictable response that its all about the context. If somebody is joking, it can be OK. If someone is using it to mean that this particular woman is so mean or nasty that she deserves to be called a female dog....well....its just not nice.

Because the history of the word is not nice, unless you're a full time comedian needing to make a few cutting edge jokes, I think that in most contexts you're just going to be dropping a little mean bomb into conversations when you use the word.

Also, there are far and away not enough demeaning words for white males because they are the top of the heap and always have been. The fact that there is an opportunity to use an especially loaded word for women, gay people, or non-white people, should give any one pause about using those words....

King George

I think I wouldn't object as much to domestic spying if I thought the government was going to do something sensible with it. If only rational reasonable people looked through my library records and listened to my phone calls and watched my every keystroke as I blogged, I would at least be able to say to myself "Its bad to have every move watched in Democratic society, but at least nobody is going to misinterpret things."

But these Republicans are not only paranoid and bad people, they are also completely nuts. So, it appears to me that it would be very easy for a hypothetical crazy person who hears voices from God and thinks they were sent to save the nation to misinterpret my reading selections or my phone calls with my friends.

But if you think about it, the natural consequence of a President who thinks God picked him out for the job (despite a notable lack of any qualifications) is overreaching and power grabbing. King George doesn't need those old fashioned checks and balances because God picked him. Somebody who talks to Jesus every day certainly doesn't need to consult with Congress.

Actually, King may not be a strong enough word. I think maybe Pharoh George fits better. Of course, ironically the Bible has a little something to say about selfish pharohs and kings....

A motif (See, I did pay attention in English class)

So, I'm reading the United States of Walmart which is unusual for its repeated use of the word "bitch" which is probably not likely to gain it any red state readers. The blurb on the jacket states "We are all Walmart's bitches."

The Dukes v. Walmart case also featured what the witnesses politely referred to as the B-word.

And then there are Sam Walton's hunting dogs. Many of the dogs were, in fact, bitches.

So, it is kind of like a motif.

People treating other people like dogs. Women being compared to dogs. White male liberal writers playing with the B-word to get some street cred.

On approval ratings

So Mssrs. Bush and Cheney's approval ratings have bounced back somewhat.... Still below 50% but the press has returned to lap dog mode (probably exhausted by the supreme effort of doing their jobs and ready to do some stories on Santa Claus).

I guess it was too much to hope that we were going to see an actual impeachment....

Reading, nanny fatigue, and is marching something you do by yourself?

I'm finally (and very reluctantly) reading "Reading Lolita in Tehran" because it was part of the 3 for 2 sale at Borders. So far, it is about being overly dramatic about dull things. Reading about reading is sort of too many layers of reference, but we'll see.

I was severely disappointed by "The Career Mystique" because it seemed to deal with upper middle class families exclusively. I suppose poor people don't have "careers"--they have "jobs." I'm just so bored by the eternal nanny problems of the upper classes that I'm ready to hurl. (Hint to Salon.com).

I also finished two Sarah Vowell books today. "Assassination Vacation" is pretty brilliant and a lot of fun. One of my favorite things about women authors is that there autobiographical bits usually reflect stuff about other people (in Sarah's case, her sister). Male authors occasionally give you all the uninteresting bits about themselves and NOTHING about their families and friends.

The same trend can be noticed in biographies of men and women. I think biographies of women tend to do more to place the women in context in their social and family circles. Biographies of men--especially the genre I call "great men in funny clothes marching through history"-- tend to emphasize the man as struggling in the world on his own. And just in terms of what makes biographical or autobiographical stuff interesting, it is way more cool to find out about how people affect each other than to make the (usually false) assumption that marching through history is a solo occupation.