# Fighting misogyny - but "cunt" and "bitch" are still okay words **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [May 14, 2020, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769 "2020-05-14T04:16:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/341 "2020-06-09T16:40:42Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > I don’t know if this helps or hurts your argument or ours, but being shy or scared or indecisive is not typically what gets a woman labeled a “bitch”. Assertiveness, being loud, not accepting someone’s argument, not accepting someone’s come ons, standing up for herself - those are the typical traits that earn the label “bitch”. In fact, I can only see being shy or scared or indecisive as being labeled “bitch” if it has something to do with her not reacting positively to sexual advances. I think it helps us both. I have no issue imagining a situation where a woman lets herself be pushed around by others, and a friend offers casual advice, “you need to stop being such a bitch and stand up for yourself, for once”. Or perhaps from the parent to the daughter who is too shy to greet relatives, “quit being a bitch and say hi to your uncle”, or even “bitch, get out from under there and go talk to your uncle”. I would be offput by the decision to direct such language at one’s daughter, but not by the usage in reference to a shy girl. To me, nothing seems unnatural about the above sentences. Perhaps these particular usages seem unnatural to you. If that is the case, I believe we can chalk this up to regional or maybe even age differences. **Babale** asked, why are we using these terms to insult people in the first place? He answered by claiming that the insult is ultimately a chastisement for straying from traditional sexist stereotypes. My position is that it is not necessarily so, that the word has evolved beyond that. Hence the above and below counterexamples where the word “bitch” is used as an insult even though the referrant adheres to traditional sexist stereotypes. > [@Irishman](#): > > Slang then extended to describing difficult situations as “a bitch”. Don’t you see how difficult it is to distinguish between mean-or-aggressive and difficult-to-deal-with? Nevertheless it seems natural for me to read sentences like “He’s an inconsiderate/insensitive bitch” or even just “He’s a bitch”, where context suggests that the subject is being insulted for being mean. > [@Irishman](#): > > So, does the gendered nature of the insult suggest that “woman” is a part of the insult? I don’t think the insult is gendered in every case, and even if it were I wouldn’t assume that the insult is one of gender as opposed to some other factor. My opinion, of course. > [@Irishman](#): > > It may be true that many people choose insults out of habit and simple awareness they are offensive words, without necessarily considering the nature of the insult. That’s just what we say to be offensive. However, that does not remove the nature of the insult from the words. At best, it says the person speaking is ignorant of the word’s meaning. It could also mean the person is aware and doesn’t care - but that’s the same thing as intending the insult. We can assume for the sake of this discussion that people intend to cause offense when they pick insults. That’s not the issue. When people use a word such as “cocksucker” as a generic insult, my theory of semantics says that the word’s meaning becomes that of a generic insult. Meaning follows usage. I’m not particularly interested in debating this theory at length (in this thread), and I don’t expect to convince you by just stating it. Nevertheless, what this means is that meaning is not necessarily shared between conversants. The insensitive blockhead who calls someone a cocksucker is not ignorant of the meaning of the word, and neither does he intend to offend everybody who literally sucks cocks. He simply uses the word in another sense, as a generic derogatory term, and doesn’t care that you might misinterpret him as insulting all people who suck cocks. That is _not_ the same as intending to insult all people who suck cocks. Eventually, you will see dictionaries add a new entry (_American Heritage_): “cocksucker n. Vulgar Slang 1. One who performs an act of fellatio. 2. A mean or despicable person.” > [@Irishman](#): > > Then they are misogynist blockheads, because even if they don’t intend misogyny, they are using it. They don’t care. I’m not sure if there’s anything I can address here which hasn’t been addressed above or in the response you quoted. Be careful that you don’t mix up misogyny and misogynist hate speech, because if your position was merely that certain words are misogynist and therefore worthy of censure, and not necessarily hate speech, we would be having a totally different debate. Or… at least a slightly different debate. > [@Irishman](#): > > So racism is perfectly acceptable in the Pit, because that’s what the Pit is for? If we’re restricting some kind of language as unacceptable, as too toxic, then surely it is acceptable to evaluate what types of language fit that criteria. No, racism is not perfectly acceptible in the Pit because I don’t think the Pit is made for racism. I will differentiate between pointless insult-slinging and racism. At the same time, I agree that if we are restricting some kind of language as unacceptable, as too toxic, then it is indeed acceptible (in my opinion) to evaluate what types of language fit that criteria. > [@Irishman](#): > > Yes, I understand that is your position. I disagree with it. Hateful language carries the baggage of history and culture with it. Great, it’s actually a premise as far as the main argument goes. Can we agree to disagree or do you feel like there is something I don’t understand about your argument? Or something you don’t understand about mine? > [@Irishman](#): > > Could you elaborate on misogynist language that is not hate speech? To be crystal clear, this is NOT my actual opinion, only an example of what I would personally consider misogynist language that is not hate speech: “_Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind._” The epitome of misogyny is found in Aristotle’s _Politics_, Part V. Namely, it is not necessarily hate speech to explicitly argue that a protected class is inferior. > [@Irishman](#): > > Okay, but for the fact the mayor is a woman, why would he have used those words? Why “cunt”, except that she’s a woman? How does that not express hatred of women? But for the fact that the mayor is a woman, he would almost certainly have used some other word. Everybody knows that “cunt” is an extremely offensive word for a woman, which is probably why this particular word was used. You could even say that calling a woman a “cunt” implies that you hate that woman. That all sounds reasonable to me. But this does not imply hatred of women (plural). It does not imply hatred of the one woman because she is a woman. Neither does a callous indifference to the feelings of however many women might be offended (disgusted?) when they read that word in context. In my opinion (and **BigT** seems to disagree with me on this point) there is a difference between indifference and hatred. I have already pointed out the possibility that the word was used because he wanted to insult the mayor who he hated for her decisions made as mayor. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/342 "2020-06-09T17:17:48Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Exactly. Max is obsessed with _intent_. He seems to be under the impression that what’s important here is to undertake a deep psychological analysis of the speaker, to try to discern whether they are really a bad person who hates _all_ women, or whether they just hate _this_ woman, or whether maybe they should get a pass because they had a troubled childhood. And that… what, if we can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every speaker is really evil, people should be free to use the word “cunt” (and even the worst racial slurs), because _some_ people _might_ not really _intend_ these words in the way that _true_ misogynists and racists mean them? This is largely an accurate summary of my position, if you cut out the part from “or whether maybe they should get a pass because they had a troubled childhood”. It is my position that by default, the words should be allowed, unless it can be shown that the poster is “really a bad person who hates all women”. Just because you can use the c-word in one context, does not mean you are free to use it in all other contexts. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/343 "2020-06-09T18:20:02Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > This is largely an accurate summary of my position, if you cut out the part from “or whether maybe they should get a pass because they had a troubled childhood”. It is my position that by default, the words should be allowed, unless it can be shown that the poster is “really a bad person who hates all women”. Just because you can use the c-word in one context, does not mean you are free to use it in all other contexts. And it’s a ridiculous position, because _words have objective meaning._ If they did not, how could they ever be used to communicate meaning at all? To return to my _reductio ad absurdum_, if somebody with a brain lesion says “the banana is blue” it is irrelevant to the meaning of their statement that their _intent_ was to say that the banana is yellow. They objectively _did not say that_, because the meaning of the word “blue” does not derive from the subjective contents of one individual’s brain, it derives from a broad cultural consensus on what the word means. If meaning is so subjective that a word can mean anything at all, then it means nothing. The meaning of the word “cunt” may be more complex and laden with the baggage of our social history, but the principle is exactly the same. The word _objectively means something_ in our culture. We can debate exactly what that objective meaning really is, and it undoubtedly varies among cultures; but your notion that subjective intent can alter that objective meaning is as wrongheaded as suggesting that intent can change the meaning of “blue” to yellow. Furthermore, **this is not about putting people on trial for the crime of misogyny**. So again, intent is irrelevant. This is about the _rules of etiquette_ that we choose for our community, it is literally no different from the fact that it is never socially acceptable to take a shit on the floor in the middle of a dinner party. Would you really take the position that there _might be_ some good reason someone would take a shit on the floor, and that we must discern their intent in order to establish whether this behavior is socially unacceptable? No, it’s _never_ socially acceptable because of the _impact_ it has on people. If someone were having a nervous breakdown, we might well forgive them for doing it, but it would still not be socially acceptable behavior. Similarly, certain vocabulary has _objective_ misogynistic cultural baggage that has the _impact_ of creating a hostile environment for women, irrespective of what any individual speaker may have intended. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/344 "2020-06-09T18:39:02Z")
To complete the analogy: Max, your position seems to be equivalent to saying that it might sometimes be okay to take a shit on the floor in the middle of a dinner party, provided that the defecator takes a shit behind the chair of one specific person who’s a bit of a jerk, and the defecator has no _intent_ to stink up the whole place. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/345 "2020-06-09T19:29:52Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Pence, who won’t even be in the same room by himself with a woman? _That’s_ the example you want to use for “not a misogynist”? That behavior is based on antiquated and sexist values and concepts of gender roles, not a true hatred of women. You’re obviously not female because you don’t have any understanding or experience with true hatred of women. That’s not a putdown, just a fact. You can’t truly understand what it is to be a woman in this world any more than a white man can understand what it is like to be Black. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/346 "2020-06-09T19:38:08Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > And it’s a ridiculous position, because _words have objective meaning._ If they did not, how could they ever be used to communicate meaning at all? > > To return to my _reductio ad absurdum_, if somebody with a brain lesion says “the banana is blue” it is irrelevant to the meaning of their statement that their _intent_ was to say that the banana is yellow. They objectively _did not say that_, because the meaning of the word “blue” does not derive from the subjective contents of one individual’s brain, it derives from a broad cultural consensus on what the word means. If meaning is so subjective that a word can mean anything at all, then it means nothing. > > The meaning of the word “cunt” may be more complex and laden with the baggage of our social history, but the principle is exactly the same. The word _objectively means something_ in our culture. We can debate exactly what that objective meaning really is, and it undoubtedly varies among cultures; but your notion that subjective intent can alter that objective meaning is as wrongheaded as suggesting that intent can change the meaning of “blue” to yellow. I am content letting my argument stand. Those who agree that words have objective meaning (and further, that the meaning of “cunt” and “bitch” are as you say) should find your argument convincing. We can agree to disagree, or if you really want to _debate_ this why not open a thread in GD? If you don’t, maybe I will. > [@Riemann](#): > > Furthermore, **this is not about putting people on trial for the crime of misogyny**. So again, intent is irrelevant. This is about the _rules of etiquette_ that we choose for our community, it is literally no different from the fact that it is never socially acceptable to take a shit on the floor in the middle of a dinner party. Would you really take the position that there _might be_ some good reason someone would take a shit on the floor, and that we must discern their intent in order to establish whether this behavior is socially unacceptable? No, it’s _never_ socially acceptable because of the _impact_ it has on people. If someone were having a nervous breakdown, we might well forgive them for doing it, but it would still not be socially acceptable behavior. > > Similarly, certain vocabulary has _objective_ misogynistic cultural baggage that has the _impact_ of creating a hostile environment for women, irrespective of what any individual speaker may have intended. I’m glad that you returned to clarify your position, because all this time I had thought the argument was that “cunt” and “bitch” should be banned as hate speech. The way you’ve put it just now, it doesn’t matter if it’s hate speech or not so long as the words create a hostile environment. I don’t need to quarrel over whether words have objective meanings to address this argument, and indeed the intention of the speaker and the definition of hate speech is now irrelevant. We don’t currently have a rule that says, you aren’t allowed to be a misogynist. Maybe you think we should (I don’t). If that debate was the purpose of this thread, I severely misinterpreted the OP. I’m not sure whether I should make a new, clean thread titled “Should we make a new Pit rule banning misogyny?” or if it would be better to lay out my argument here. What do you think? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/347 "2020-06-09T19:39:45Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > To complete the analogy: Max, your position seems to be equivalent to saying that it might sometimes be okay to take a shit on the floor in the middle of a dinner party, provided that the defecator takes a shit behind the chair of one specific person who’s a bit of a jerk, and the defecator has no _intent_ to stink up the whole place. The reason it’s not okay to defacate on the floor is because we have a dedicated room for defecation, not because defacation is inherently evil. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/348 "2020-06-09T20:44:10Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I am content letting my argument stand. Those who agree that words have objective meaning (and further, that the meaning of “cunt” and “bitch” are as you say) should find your argument convincing. _What_ argument? It is impossible to use language to communicate unless it has objective meaning, a _shared understanding_ in the community of what words mean. What’s _your_ model of semantics - telepathy? > [@Max\_S](#): > > We don’t currently have a rule that says, you aren’t allowed to be a misogynist. Maybe you think we should (I don’t). If that debate was the purpose of this thread, I severely misinterpreted the OP. I’m not sure whether I should make a new, clean thread titled “Should we make a new Pit rule banning misogyny?” or if it would be better to lay out my argument here. What do you think? I think you are the only person in this thread under the impression that the moderators should attempt to control what people _think_. Everyone else is discussing what posters should be allowed to _say_ - or to be more precise, to impose a trivial limitation on the vocabulary they posters can use to say things. I certainly agree that you stop hijacking this thread with your multi-page distraction from the purpose of the OP. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/349 "2020-06-09T21:12:55Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > That behavior is based on antiquated and sexist values and concepts of gender roles, not a true hatred of women. Once again: “hatred” is not a requirement for misogyny, any more than “fear” is a requirement for homophobia. The word means more than that. Even allowing, just for the sake of argument, that, say, Pence does not have a “true hatred” for women, he nevertheless evinces the mistrust and prejudice that are a signature of more than one definition of misogyny. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/350 "2020-06-09T21:16:32Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The reason it’s not okay to defacate on the floor is because we have a dedicated room for defecation, not because defacation is inherently evil. You’re stretching the analogy to breaking point. But maybe you’re starting to get the point in the sense that none of this is about adjudicating who is evil. That’s _your_ obsession, it’s not the purpose of this thread. This is about whether certain behavior creates a hostile environment for other people. ---
**Author:** ![susan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/susan/32/17537_2.png) [@susan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/susan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/351 "2020-06-09T21:58:43Z")
Every time this thread with the word appears in the New Posts list, I recoil and lose a little more interest in SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/352 "2020-06-09T22:29:33Z")
> [@susan](#): > > Every time this thread with the word appears in the New Posts list, I recoil and lose a little more interest in SDMB. Yeah, it was a suggested rule that such words never appear in the title of a thread, but sadly the OP choose to ignore this gesture of politeness. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2020, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/353 "2020-06-10T00:02:31Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The reason it’s not okay to defacate on the floor is because we have a dedicated room for defecation, not because defacation is inherently evil. > > ~Max Even in _that_ room we do not defecate on the floor because to do so would be unhealthy and stink up the place. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2020, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/354 "2020-06-10T00:04:57Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > _What_ argument? It is impossible to use language to communicate unless it has objective meaning, a _shared understanding_ in the community of what words mean. What’s _your_ model of semantics - telepathy? I have created a debate thread about the meaning of words, “[THREAD=897833]What determines the meaning of words?”[/THREAD] > [@Riemann](#): > > I think you are the only person in this thread under the impression that the moderators should attempt to control what people _think_. Everyone else is discussing what posters should be allowed to _say_ - or to be more precise, to impose a trivial limitation on the vocabulary they posters can use to say things. I didn’t expect you to nitpick over that. I was referring to misogyny in the posts, not in the poster’s mind. > [@Riemann](#): > > I certainly agree that you stop hijacking this thread with your multi-page distraction from the purpose of the OP. I have also created a new ATMB thread, “[THREAD=897828]Should we ban misogynism in the Pit?[/THREAD]”. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2020, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/355 "2020-06-10T00:20:52Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I didn’t expect you to nitpick over that. I was referring to misogyny in the posts, not in the poster’s mind. _Nitpick?_ Are you serious? You have spent literally pages of this thread obsessing over intent, over what might be _in the poster’s mind_, while the OP and everyone else are concerned about what people are allowed to write in their posts. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2020, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/356 "2020-06-10T02:05:20Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Nitpick? Are you serious? You have spent literally pages of this thread obsessing over intent, over what might be in the poster’s mind, while the OP and everyone else are concerned about what people are allowed to write in their posts. I’m serious, although I could have used better words. I too have spent pages being concerned about what people are allowed to write in their posts. I brought up intent as it relates to hate speech, which is something people are not allowed to write in their posts. In order to determine whether a post is hate speech, I argue, you must evaluate their intent. Therefore to determine if you are allowed to write something for a post, one must consider his or her own intent. For a moderator to determine whether a post crosses the line into hate speech, he or she would consider the poster’s intent. This is different from saying “the moderators should attempt to control what people think” and not merely “what posters should be allowed to say”. Thought crimes are beyond the jurisdiction of SDMB moderators. Intent can still transform normal speech into hate speech because hate speech requires not only hateful intent, but also an act of speech, which _is_ under the jurisdiction of SDMB moderators. No rule or lack of rules can control what a person _thinks_. I wrote, “We don’t currently have a rule that says, you aren’t allowed to be a misogynist. Maybe you think we should (I don’t). If that debate was the purpose of this thread, I severely misinterpreted the OP. I’m not sure whether I should make a new, clean thread titled “Should we make a new Pit rule banning misogyny?” or if it would be better to lay out my argument here. What do you think?” I apologize for the poor choice of words. You _can_ interpret the above quote, in isolation, as meaning “we shouldn’t make a Pit rule to attempt to control whether people think misogynist thoughts”. I am just surprised that you appear to glean that meaning after coming out of this debate. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2020, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/357 "2020-06-10T05:36:17Z")
I dont know if all this rhetoric is right or wrong, but you know- as a gesture- why not just dump those words? Sure, in context certain uses should result in a Note not a Warning, and in some quotes perfectly Ok. I know, I know, I am still sorta attached to the idea of being able to use \*any and all \*nasty words vs certain public figures. But I can give that up. Let’s give those two words up. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/358 "2020-06-16T17:00:59Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I dont know if all this rhetoric is right or wrong, but you know- as a gesture- why not just dump those words? In my opinion, the gesture would be meaningless. Whereas I think categorizing c\*\*\* and b\*\*\* as hate speech goes to far, simply banning the words out of politeness is not going far enough to accomplish anything (banning them from thread titles excepted). This is part of the reason why I made a separate ATMB thread to discuss whether misogyny itself should be banned from the Pit. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![BippityBoppityBoo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bippityboppityboo/32/5745_2.png) [@BippityBoppityBoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BippityBoppityBoo)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2022, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/359 "2022-05-21T06:40:30Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > In my experience in the U.S., “cunt” is _much_ worse than “kike.” Although both should be off limits here. IMO. Deleted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769.md?page=17)