So many of our rudest words relate to women, it seems.

[MineralMan]

I've always found that interesting and telling, really.

It becomes even more interesting and telling when such words are used in relation to a woman who is running for President. Probably no thought was given to the word choice when someone introducing Bernie Sanders used the term "corporate whore." Now, implying that candidate Clinton has questionable connections to the corporate world is a pretty common theme in this primary campaign. It's a major point that Sanders supporters make all the time.

How could we couch that in words that don't have a sexist connotation, I wonder?

Corporate tool - Yeah, that works OK and ties someone to the work of corporations.
Corporate shill - Sure...shills are always promoting something and being paid for doing that.
Corporate lackey - If you want to say someone is doing the bidding of corporations, that one's pretty good.
Corporate mouthpiece - That's OK, but doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. Probably not the first thing that comes to mind.

Any of those could have been used, and would not have generated the same outrage as associating the word "whore" with a female candidate for President. But, we're so used to using the word "whore" for anyone who takes money for something that we forget the actual ugly, sexist connotation the word carries with it.

It's too bad that speaker couldn't come up with a better word to say what he wanted to say. In choosing the ugly sexist option, he opened himself and, by association, Bernie Sanders to pretty justifiable outrage. Too bad, indeed.

There are so many words in common usage that have ugly, sexist connections to how many people feel about women. Some are so commonly used that we forget where they came from. And sometimes, of course, the words used actually do reflect people's opinions about women, too. That's far worse, of course. It's often very difficult to tell the difference, though, it seems to me.

Those ugly, sexist words just seem to slip out lightly all too often. They're just "part of the language." A very ugly part of the language, it seems to me.

That's my opinion, of course. Thanks for reading.

[yardwork]

1. Yep.

[Joe the Revelator]

2. So glad you finally weighed in on this. nt

[closeupready]

35. Well, duh, isn't every topic on DU always about MineralMan?

???

[mythology]

43. Yet you took the time to respond

And with silly snark to an actual thoughtful post. It says a great deal about you that this is the extent of your contribution.

[MineralMan]

8. I see. Sorry to disappoint you.

They're really not equivalent things, though.

[DrDan]

4. defending the choice of words is as repugnant as its use by Song

[athena]

5. Thank you for this post. (n/t)

[MineralMan]

47. Thanks. I spent a lot of time in

linguistics classes back in the late 1960s. One of the things often discussed was word choices in speech. We really don't plan our speech word for word, it seems. According to one theory, we conceive of an idea and then begin speaking, letting our brains supply the words in real-time as we speak. Rarely do we actually plan the sentences we say, unless we're preparing a set speech for some occasion.

The implications of that theory is that the words we use in normal speech are words that are part of our active, working vocabulary. They're part of us and emerge, as needed, when we wish to say something. That working vocabulary is acquired, according to that theory, almost automatically, based on the language we hear. We don't voluntarily add to our working vocabulary, and much of the language we use on a daily basis is acquired fairly early in life.

The words we use are part of who we are, really, or so the theory says. A lot of linguists think about our words and speech patterns, and try to come up with explanations for why we use the words we use.

I'm not a professional linguistics person. That wasn't my main field of study, but I did learn a lot about linguistic theory and still read in that area. The implications of our word choices extend far beyond the meanings in dictionaries. Sometimes, our words carry meaning we don't even recognize. Language is that deeply ingrained in our minds that we often use words without even realizing where they came from.

I find it interesting to think about, and sometimes to write about.

[polly7]

6. Man-splaining?

Most women I know want and expect full equality - that includes not being excepted from criticism just because of archaic beliefs that certain words are supposed to make us shake and quiver in fear, anxiety and anger.

I suggest you actually speak to women on this, especially younger ones.

[MineralMan]

10. Thanks for your reply.

I'll consider what you said.

[polly7]

11. You're welcome! nt.

[DFab420]

17. I gotta say. You make a very valid point in reaching out to members of the opposite sex for

discussion and equal dialogue.

But the word "man-splaining" is fairly insulting to people of a specific gender identity. Just because I happen to have a penis and am cis-gendered doesn't invalidate my opinions.

Imagine if you had made a well thought out post like MineralMan did and then someone posted "Lady-talk" or something awful like that.

I know you don't view it as derogatory but it is and doesn't really match the body of your post.

Just something to think about.

[polly7]

22. I only use the term 'man-splaining' here (twice, ever. today)

because it's been used soooo often by those who feel women SHOULD be insulted by certain words that have been used on both genders for decades in exactly the type of way this OP does.

I'm also insulted by the term, as it's been used on good people here who I consider my friends.

Sorry, I should have included the sarcasm tag. I despise it as much as I do all the things they called me - rape apologist, pedophile-enabler, dog, etc., etc. for not agreeing that certain words are bad, bad, bad!

My apologies. (There's a bit of history here you're probably unaware of).

[DFab420]

32. Yea clearly there is some back story haha. I just wanted

to add to the dialogue and you two seemed to be the few people engaged in actual discussion.

[polly7]

36. No worries.

You may have missed the term 'man-splaining' being used against good posters here (men) for years from a certain group who discounted every good and decent thing they tried to interject into many, many conversations. I recall all of them well.

That being said ....... I know many women disagree with me, but I find it slightly degrading to think women are so weak they can't be held to account in exactly the same way any man would be, because of a word. I've faced sexism so ugly and violent it could have killed me, literally - gender neutral words that describe dealings with corporations that also abuse and kill struggling citizens aren't something I find particularly important, and it's a shame this is being used as another ploy to pivot from the very real issues all people face. jmho.

[athena]

26. This is not man-splaining. Quite the opposite.

He is not lecturing women. He's telling everyone, including and in particular men, that the word is offensive. We need more men to stand up and say something when other men behave in sexist ways. Sexist men won't listen to women, but they will listen to men. Just as white people are the ones who are going to end racism (because black people would have ended it long ago if they could), it's men who will end sexism.

[Fawke Em]

30. As a woman, I don't find the word particularly offensive.

I guess because, at 46, I've heard the word used to describe men and women my entire life. Case in point: I've heard it used to describe BILL Clinton, but never HILLARY.

That said, "corporate whore," has never, ever meant "women only." It's ALWAYS meant politicians who are bought and paid for by our corporate overlords to the detriment of we, the people.

[kstewart33]

37. Whoa there, Polly.

From one woman to another, I find 'whore' to be completely sexist and insulting to women. No shaking or quivering here, just disgust at a thoroughly overused word that absolutely has negative meaning towards women.

Why hasn't bastard be widely used in many ways? You know, like corporate bastard, cheating bastard, scheming bastard lying bastard?

Nope. Not anywhere near as widely used as whore.

MMan is right on.

[polly7]

39. I agree that calling a woman a 'whore' is terrible, just as it is when used against a man.

That wasn't what happened.

[Kalidurga]

7. I actually agree with this on some level.

However, DU being what it is. I noticed that many people here did use the term Corporate Shill and were roundly thumped on by the pro Hillary crowd as being sexist. So, this outrage is nothing new and it's not about a word being sexist. We all know it's used on both genders irregardless of it's ancient meaning which most people would associate with female sex workers. So, I am going to pass on pro Hillary people being allowed to be the word police and the definers of what is acceptable and what is not.

[MineralMan]

24. Really, it's not an "ancient meaning."

The word is still widely used in its original meaning today. It's not an obscure or outdated word at all. Nobody, I think, misunderstands the word when it is used alone. When it's combined with an adjective, it retains its meaning, even if that wasn't what was intended.

Words don't just come out of people's mouths, really. The words we use are part of our overall world view. Even when we don't recognize that we're doing it, the words still mean things internally. We all misuse words without recognizing their impact.

[Kalidurga]

28. Yet, another blah blah blah post

Women are delicate flowers and they shouldn't be subjected to the rough words of men. Yep, I would keep going with that if I was you.

[Bob41213]

33. Honestly, I can not recall a single instance of anyone around me using it in the original context.

Maybe I hang around the wrong circle of people. I have heard the word used (probably more often at men) in the context of a business meaning. I'm sure someone in my life used it in it's original context and I've probably forgotten, but the other context had to have been used 100x more frequently.

The only time I can ever recall hearing it in the original context is when I watch HBO. The Sopranos and Deadwood come to mind.

[geek tragedy]

9. well, and for black men too.

just look for Sanders surrogate Cornel West's quotes about Barack Obama.

[MineralMan]

13. No doubt. There are a lot of bigoted words and expressions

that have become part of people's everyday language. More's the pity, I think.

[geek tragedy]

23. your point being? nt

[geek tragedy]

29. That Cornel West isn't outraged by his own disgusting commentary

about the President doesn't mean very much.

[DFab420]

18. Or Hillary and Bill Clinton, you dn't have to look to their surrogates to find

racist and insulting comments.

[Prism]

12. Racism? That's cool. Gender neutral term? Outrage.

*rolls eyes*

I don't understand this in the slightest. Maybe it's me, but I've never liked - much less loved - a politician so much that I had to sacrifice not just my principles, but my very common sense and honor in order to defend them.

I don't really care what pointless, rambling, sonorous explanation you're throwing down, he of the "gays can't be trusted around kids" fame. Because it's predictable and pointless. If you - or anyone really - actually spoke up about wrongs you witness when they're inconvenient, then you'd have something valuable. You'd have respect.

But when you never say a word about obvious wrongs, and only pipe up when it's politically convenient for you, why on earth should anyone bother about your opinion? It's shallow, obvious, useless.

And the worst part is, not only are you wasting your time, but now I've just wasted mine.

[MineralMan]

16. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I don't consider that waste, although I disagree with it. I find lots of words that are deeply ingrained within our language to be biased and bigoted. I try very hard not to use them. I'm sure I've slipped sometimes, though. I regret that, when it happens.

[closeupready]

42. Damn, is this, like, crazy? I just posted the same thing, even though

I hadn't read your post until AFTER I did so...? Brilliant minds think alike, I guess.

[Prism]

48. You're my board twin =)

Let's have wine and watch Drag Race sometime.

[closeupready]

49. Oooh, that would be so much fun.

[jonno99]

14. It would be interesting to see a study on how the phrase "corporate whore" is generally used.

If it is used mostly when referring to women, then I would agree, yes it is sexist.

However, my guess is that the phrase is used in a derogative fashion against both of the sexes. And if that is true, then this is a non-issue...

[MineralMan]

19. It's not the association with "corporate."

It's the word itself. Sorry, but I can't agree.

[jonno99]

31. Ok - but are you suggesting that both "whore" and "corporate whore" have a sexual connotation?

If I say the word "intercourse", am I talking about a sexual act - or am I describing dialog? It depends on the context doesn't it?

IOW - we both know what is meant by "corporate whore" - and we both know it has nothing to do with a sexual act. And if this is true, how can it then be considered sexist?

[tonedevil]

25. I hold that the modifier...

makes a difference. Corporate Whores don't perform sex acts for money although they do fuck people.

[Dem2]

20. I'll give you a rec for this

Is sHillary verboten?


(I am kidding)

[longship]

21. I prefer, "Hillary Clinton has sold her soul to the devil."

All one has to do is look at her donor list and one can see what a "corporate tool" (as you suggest) she has become.

Citizens United is my number one issue this year because if we don't fix that all else goes for naught. There is only one candidate who is campaigning on that issue, Bernie Sanders. Meanwhile, one of our Democratic presidential candidates is living a Citizens United dream. (I won't call it a wet dream because apparently Hillary Clinton supporters are a bit sensitive about metaphors.)

So I will stay with the selling her soul metaphor, which she clearly has.

[closeupready]

34. Is EVERY topic EVERY day ALWAYS about YOU?

You manage to insert yourself into almost every topic ever discussed on DU about everything. "Enough about me! Let's talk about me!" Try, just for a change, not to think you are so fascinating to anyone else as you are to yourself. Thanks!

[MineralMan]

40. Gosh. No. But I do have an opinion about many of the

topics discussed here on a daily basis, so I often do post something about them.

Thanks for clicking through to this thread.

[closeupready]

41. Sorry if that's a bit harsh, maybe I just need to put you back on ignore.

You just seem to direct every DU controversy into discussions about you and yourself, and it feels abusive that you are exploiting the board in this way, as if we are your psychoanalysts.

No offense, just the honest truth, how I feel. Peace.

[MineralMan]

44. Actually, this post was not about me at all.

It's interesting that you thought it to be. You're welcome, of course, to your opinion, but I'm not seeing the validity of your statement. My post was about language use and choices. Perhaps you stopped somewhere before reading the entire thing.

As for putting me on Ignore, that's your decision entirely. Clearly, I won't know whether you do or not.

[closeupready]

45. You know, you are so not fascinating, and not worth my time.

I already waste too much here; my decision is ... IGNORE.

[hack89]

46. Another mature BernieBro response. nt

[Tarc]

52. That was an extraordinarily jerkish thing to say

This user has been far more measured and reasoned in his DU posts than the Sanders camp deserves. Lord knows I don't keep half the composure he does in the face of such vile comments like this.

[closeupready]

54. You're on the same team, so duh, of course you'd say that.

[Tarc]

55. I'm on the team of the Democratic Party

You? Not so much.

[Orsino]

38. Yep. Words may have multiple meanings.

To avoid misunderstanding, either be very, very clear in context or choose different words altogether.

[northernsouthern]

50. I also thought the word was unfortunate.

It definitely opened up a new venue of gates. I think lackey may have been better, or possibly tool since tool has a more masculine association. Shill is a bit too close to shrill, and that always seems to be used to describe a female voice. I know it is just sounds like, but that is all it takes for certain groups to go on the offensive. The usage here is a more generational on the wording he used, it was basically a scarlet letter for the older generation, but the younger you get the less connotation that is carries and in conjunction with corporate it is a whole new word. It may also have to do with a reduction in puritan rules for a woman's sexuality, larger acceptance of people working in the sex trade are often victims or are people making the choice in a more decriminalized and respected field.

But again with that being said the word itself has a loaded history that is a a crossroads where the words are more often used in connotations with a lack of principles for a said item, be it chocolate, ice cream, ect. I am not sure the last time I heard it used against a woman vs how often I have used it for people on shows explaining an addiction to a said item or a male straight or gay.

It would be interesting to see how generations react to certain words like these. It would be a good reminder for those that forget the history of some words and a view of how or society is advancing. (like the south park flag episode where chef realizes how the kids don't see race in the horrible flag, and they end with that rainbow flag)

[Tarc]

51. "What kind of normal human being even whips out the word “whores” to use, unless they have some..."

Read this piece today over on Jezebel.com, it was amazing;

What kind of normal human being even whips out the word “whores” to use, unless they have some bizarre sexist way that they view a very real problem in government? It’s not a common word. It shouldn’t leap to mind for anyone, except those who conflate sexuality with corruption on a very core level. It’s not even plausibly-deniable, so it’s not a good strategy for a cynical ethics-free political tactician to use. It would be tricky to say “Well, I don’t associating whoring with any particular gender. Others might.” without sounding like a lying goofshit. He fucked up on ever level, moral and strategic.

http://theslot.jezebel.com/what-kind-of-normal-human-being-even-whips-out-the-word-1770980700

[MineralMan]

53. That is interesting, for sure.

It sort of goes along with what I was saying, and with linguistic theory, too. The word in question is "whore," but there are many other words we use without thinking that contain seriously sexist or misogynistic core meaning. Many linguistics professionals would say that they convey meanings not always consciously intended by their speakers.

Probably the most common one referred to is the ugly little verb that means "to have sexual intercourse." I wrote a very long academic paper for a graduate level linguistics class on that one.