Every day I hear it, more from the mouths of girls, even, than guys. One girl, angry at a contrary opinion, a rumor that has been spread, or any non-submissive behavior at her female target, calls the other the B-bomb.<\/p>\n
Except it\u2019s not a bomb. It\u2019s a regular occurrence, so regular that the word, like so many curses today, seems to the speakers virtually impotent. Thus more and more speakers lace it with other invective, in vain efforts to reinvigorate it with power and anger. Targets become \u201cf***ing\u201d \u201cg-d*mned\u201d or any other foul adjective speakers can produce as they test the limits of grammar.<\/p>\n
Its commonality makes it impotent. I believe that in the 44 years I have known her, my own mother has sworn only once.\u00a0\u00a0The power of that simple \u201cD\u201d was astounding. When we discuss the power of words, both sacred and profane, true power comes from selected, even symbolic or ritual use. In other words, words gain power from their non-use, their selected use, their reserved use. Consider the power of the words \u201cgenocide,\u201d \u201cholocaust,\u201d and even \u201crape.\u201d If we began to use these words heedlessly, carelessly\u2014commonly\u2014we reduce the power of their \u201cproper\u201d use and belittle that proper meaning.<\/p>\n
If we call every mass murder or slaughter a \u201cholocaust\u201d (as did reporters in describing a recent university shooting spree and a hurricane in the Caribbean) we reduce the word to a level which denies its tragic and systematic intent, its ambition for total annihilation, its success or near success at achieving them through the deaths of tens of thousands or even millions.\u00a0\u00a0In attempting to hyperbolically escalate the event described (for a brief increase in ratings and emotional jolts), we undermine the history of Jews, Rwandans, and Darfurians who truly suffered.<\/p>\n
Such may be said too, then, of the B-bomb. I\u2019m not suggesting that we undermine a powerful history or sacred trust here, but that the word is so often and so casually used that it has little power remaining.<\/p>\n
We\u2019ve stopped thinking about it.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.chisnell.com\/chizblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2017\/04\/bitch-slap.jpg?resize=301%2C167&ssl=1\")
\u201cSo what\u2019s the big deal?\u201d one of my students said to me last year regarding his use of the word \u2018gay\u2019 as a synonym for \u2018ridiculous.\u2019 \u201cIt doesn\u2019t mean anything.\u201d In other words, he reasons, we shouldn\u2019t worry about it precisely because we believe it has no power.\u00a0\u00a0He, too, chose not to consider it.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, this is the paradox of language, of words. The absence of conspicuous power\u2014of conscious power\u2014does not mean that words are nothing. Hardly.\u00a0\u00a0In fact, the trick to understanding language is to recognize what Jacques Lacan calls its \u201cunconscious.\u201d In other words, psychologically, the meaning of the word has fallen so far into our own mental schema or pattern of normality that we\u2019ve stopped responding to it.<\/p>\n
Let me see if I can offer an example. When Kleenex began its manufacture of tissue, it worked hard to see its brand name recognized wherever it could. Over the years, it worked.\u00a0\u00a0Perhaps too well. The term \u201ckleenex\u201d has now become a more generic name for tissue, and the brand name identification has vanished.\u00a0\u00a0I could go to the store to buy Kleenex and come home with Puffs feeling I\u2019ve succeeded.\u00a0\u00a0I\u2019ve stopped thinking of the Kleenex name as a specific brand.<\/p>\n
The same can be said of our metaphors. For instance, when we talk about how we \u201cspend\u201d our time, we are speaking in metaphor, though we\u2019ve often forgotten it. Notice how such casual (thoughtless) use has then escalated the subconscious power of the metaphor for us. We can now \u201cwaste\u201d time, \u201ctime is money,\u201d and we push people to never \u201close\u201d time.\u00a0\u00a0We\u2019ve created a value metaphor for time which\u2014make no mistake\u2014is not shared by many cultures.<\/p>\n
The point is, the connotations of words can become so much a \u201cnatural\u201d part of our psychology that we change our ways of thinking without noticing it.<\/em><\/p>\n So what does b*tch do?\u00a0\u00a0A male invention for females, we don\u2019t have to much discuss its original intent: the term is an animal-like condemnation of assertive women, especially of women who risk opinions contrary to men.\u00a0Certainly women who commit injustices may also be labeled, but mild-mannered, meek, or submissive women are almost never called \u201cb*tch.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0If the word has ceased to have power, is it because we have a natural, unconscious expectation that women must submit to male opinion?\u00a0(How many jokes and other language choices we make reinforce this idea?)<\/p>\n But what most concerns me is that I hear it used from one woman to another as commonly as across the sexes.\u00a0\u00a0It\u2019s as if women are teaching each other the expectation. \u201cWe all live in a world which belittles our strength,\u201d they seem to say, \u201cand my role is to remind other women that they should not assert themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n Connotatively, part of that unconscious meaning is not merely animal-like, but more specifically a reminder that the animal is useful only for breeding. (No wonder men actively oppose the word being used against them!)<\/p>\n Antonio Gramsci noted once that the most effective way for oppression to work is to teach the victims to oppress themselves. (Males entertained by a \u201cb*tch-fight\u201d suddenly come to mind.) If we can teach a group to believe themselves inferior by feeding them language which speaks inferiority, then a new language must be uttered.<\/p>\n All words have power, but some is just a bit more subtle than others. Whoever said \u201cSticks and stones\u201d had no idea what they were talking about.\u00a0\u00a0Words create who we are.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n P.S.\u00a0\u00a0But what if a woman truly acts unjustly?\u00a0\u00a0Doesn\u2019t she deserve the word?\u00a0\u00a0No.\u00a0\u00a0Find other words, ones that do not carry the power to demean the entire gender each time they are uttered!<\/p>\n P.P.P.S. But see the insightful points in this provocative magazine.<\/p>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.chisnell.com\/chizblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2017\/04\/bitchmag.jpg?resize=180%2C237&ssl=1\")
P.P.S.\u00a0\u00a0Isn\u2019t it possible for women to turn the word around as a symbol of power?\u00a0\u00a0Isn\u2019t this what happened to \u201cYankee Doodle\u201d?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Perhaps, in limited cases.\u00a0\u00a0But the most common use of the word contextually is hardly about empowerment!<\/p>\n