MICHAEL DAVIS WORLD

You can't make this stuff up, so we don't!

The Bitch is Back, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld

February 24, 2014 Martha Thomases 10 Comments

unnamedLet us now praise famous bitches.

Well, they don’t have to be famous.  They just have to be bitches.

Calling a woman a bitch is supposed to shut her up.  No woman is presumed to want to be demanding, assertive, and opinionated.  Men won’t like us, and that is the standard by which women’s behavior is often judged.

The older I get, the less I care about what men, as a class, think about me.  In fact, I also care less about what the specific men I know think about me.  Coincidentally, the more I get called a bitch, the more I get done.

A bitch is a woman who gets shit done.  Whether it’s calling out the racist hypocrisy of Stand Your Ground laws or looking at actual facts in the discussion of the minimum wage, some women on television news don’t worry about being called names.

This is a big change from how things were when I was a girl.  If I saw a woman on the news, the only opinions she would express were about dishwashing detergents.

And women are standing up for themselves even when there are no =television cameras around.  In a story that gets not enough national =attention, the prosecutors in Missoula, Montana, apparently think rape isn’t a real crime. Because bitches got angry and wouldn’t take it, the Justice department is now involved.  To quote from the link, “According to the Justice Department’s letter, in one instance, a deputy county attorney in Missoula allegedly quoted religious passages to a woman who’d reported sexual assault “in a way that the victim interpreted to mean that the Deputy County Attorney was judging her negatively for have made the report.” In another case, the Justice Department spoke to a woman whose daughter was sexually assaulted, at the age of five, by an adolescent boy, who was sentenced to two years of community service for the crime. A prosecutor handling the case allegedly told the mother that ‘boys will be boys.’ Another sexual-assault victim discussing prosecution options was allegedly told by a deputy county attorney, ‘All you want is revenge.’”

Really?  A man is walking around free whom the woman thinks assaulted her, and her desire to get him off the streets is merely vengeful?  How selfish of her!

You know what else is selfish?  Not wanting to step over homeless people when one goes about one’s business.  Certainly, that is my preference.  In Thursday’s paper, there was a story about a new experiment to take the homeless off the street, and the bitch who helped to make it happen.  To quote. “Ask the residents about Ms. Severn, 66, and they will describe her as a Trotskyist, a second mother and a saint.”

Anyway, I could go on indefinitely.  And my point is not to say that men never stand up for themselves.  Absolutely not.  Nor do I wish to imply that men never stand up for others.  Rather, men don’t usually worry about having their masculinity called into question by people who disagree with them in the same way that women do.

A friend of mine recently asked for my advice.  A mutual friend of ours was just diagnosed with a particularly horrible kind of cancer (not that there are any fun kinds) and, as his medical proxy, she was scrambling to track down all the ephemera one needs to navigate the hospital system =we enjoy so much in this country.  Because she is his friend and not his wife nor a blood relative,she was having a terrible time.  At first, I racked my memory, trying to remember what worked and what didn’t when I had to do these things.

And then I remembered.

“Be a bitch,” I sold her.  “This is what it is for.”

Too often, we worry about upsetting doctors or administrators.  In fact, =they work for us.  I’m not suggesting that she have a temper tantrum =on the floor, or scream out for someone to move a little faster.  Those behaviors are not effective.  (They are human, and medical professionals are not fazed by them, but they don’t get us what we want.)  Stating =firmly what she wants, and making it obvious that she expects to get the =material right away should do the trick.

I couldn’t have done that in my twenties.  I didn’t know I could do it in my fifties, but I had to.  Twice.  I don’t want to do it again, but I will if I have to, and no name-calling man is going to scare me.

Media Goddess Martha Thomases tries to choose her battles.  Sometimes, they choose her.

Previous Post

Next Post

Comments

  1. pennie
    February 24, 2014 - 4:56 pm

    Yep. Life’s a bitch and it’s why I still have it. Life, that is. I refused to stand down and accept whatever cancer treatment was proscribed. I demanded to know side effects, amounts, reasons, after effects, alternatives, bah, blah, blah. Pushy broad. Bitch. Yep.

  2. Howard Cruse
    February 25, 2014 - 8:04 am

    Gimma a “pushy broad” over a manipulative coquette any day.

  3. Rene
    February 25, 2014 - 9:12 am

    Martha –

    Men also have their masculinity questioned all the time, but for the opposite reasons. As a man, you are “expected” to be a fighter. If you are temperamently inclined to avoid conflict and seek compromise, then you’re liable to be as despised as women who don’t avoid conflict.

    Sexism always cuts both ways and is only considered to “favor” males because our corrupt societies as a whole favor separation and conflict over empathy and compromise. But both males and females should be allowed to express the full range of their humanity, or else they’re both half-people.

    In any case, yeah, I agree with everything else in the post. Neanderthals that diminish rape are absolute scum.

  4. Martha Thomases
    February 25, 2014 - 10:47 am

    Rene,

    I don’t disagree with you (and yet, here I am, writing something else). However, men are diminished in your examples for being “womanish,” as if being a woman is a bad thing. Women are insulted for being unattractive to men. I realize I’m splitting hairs here, but that is what I live for.

  5. Rene
    February 25, 2014 - 11:42 am

    Isn’t that almost the same thing? A womanish man is considered the same as a mannish woman: an unattractive freak and a threat to the “natural” order. You are supposed to be a killer to win the chicks.

    In any case, it is the same as being called “gay”, it isn’t that there is anything bad about being gay or a woman, but the usual tone of the accusation carries the 3Ds: disgust, disappointment, and disapproval.

    By the way, there are studies made in Brazilian slums that defend that the main cause of violent crime isn’t only poverty, but young men being indocrinated with the “bro code”, that the only valid emotion for a male is anger. Among the rich, you can channel that anger into less physical competition.

  6. tom brucker
    February 25, 2014 - 9:03 pm

    In your 20s? You could have, but more obvious feminist behaviors overshadowed bitchiness. Assertiveness would have been a benefit for both of us had we,in my case, been aware. And what do you know today about being an adult that you did not comprehend in your 20s? We focused more upon what feminist writers told us about ourselves than what we learned from actual experiences. Maturity, unfortunately,has a side effect; our “places” are always out of our control. If one were famous for being a 100% full-time bitch….well, that might just be a perfect life.

  7. Martha Thomases
    February 26, 2014 - 7:20 am

    Tom, in my 20s, I had experiences so much more from books than from my life that of course, theory outweighed reality.

    Except for you, sweetie.

  8. R. Maheras
    February 27, 2014 - 7:55 am

    “Conservatives are so stupid. They obsess about guns and things like stand-your-ground laws, yet in this day and age, no one needs a gun. We have police to protect us.”

    For shits and grins, let’s change a few words.

    “Liberals are so stupid. They obsess about abortion and things like Roe V. Wade, yet in this day and age, no one needs an abortion. We have birth control to protect us.”

    From my standpoint both sides have valid concerns on both these, and most other issues that divide liberals and conservatives.

    That’s why I can’t totally wave off either party simply because of the actions of their dumbest elements.

    And while I salute your enthusiasm defending what you believe in, I don’t agree with those who demonize across-the-board the opposition to whip up their base. I think it’s counterproductive.

    One of the reasons I like to stay non-aligned is because it totally frees me up to “be a bitch” and soundly criticize people in either party when they do stupid stuff.

  9. Martha Thomases
    February 27, 2014 - 9:17 am

    Russ, who are you quoting?

  10. R. Maheras
    February 27, 2014 - 8:22 pm

    Partisan dialogue in general. Every single day I read or hear the spin of both sides. It doesn’t matter what the issue is. Invariably I have to dig through all of the nonsense or hyperbole to find out what’s really going on. Fortunately, the heavy reliance these days on talking points makes it easy to crack the code du jour.

    It’s to the point now that I can frequently answer on-air questions put to the likes of James Carville or Karl Rove even before they do.

  11. Martha Thomases
    February 28, 2014 - 5:38 am

    So you have nothing to say on the topic at hand so you are just ranting in general. Very effective.

  12. Rene
    February 28, 2014 - 5:59 am

    I have to say that I agree with Russ.

    Particularly regarding abortion and guns, it’s interesting how the issues are very similar, and the reactions and positions are very similar too, only mirror-reversed.

    But I don’t think I’d go so far as to say this happens with all issues. Unlike Russ, I still think Liberals in general haven’t become as fanatical as modern American Conservatives.

    The day the Daily Kos crowd throughouly infiltrates the Dems like the Tea Parties have done to the GOP, then yes. But I don’t see that happening. The Dems are too pro-Establishment for that to happen.

  13. R. Maheas
    February 28, 2014 - 11:15 am

    Martha — Yeah, I guess hat’s it.

    Rene — The Democratic Party I once knew is gone. Like the Republican Party, it has been hijacked by extremists.

    For example, “Mother Jones,” which I’ve been following since the 1970s, has always been an extreme left publication. Their latest crusade? “Global Warming Will Cause 180,000 More Rapes by 2099”

    You just can’t make this stuff up! The party of science, my ass.

    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/climate-change-murder-rape

  14. Martha Thomases
    February 28, 2014 - 11:43 am

    MOTHER JONES is a magazine, not a political party. Did you read the actual study? It’s here:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069613001289

    And it’s just one study. You might want to read my previous column about how science works.

    https://mdwp.malibulist.com/2014/01/stormy-weather-by-martha-thomases-brilliant-disguise-mdworld/

  15. Rene
    February 28, 2014 - 11:57 am

    Russ –

    Mother Jones is a magazine. Mother Jones isn’t the Democratic Party. Mother Jones and Daily Kos and Ocupy Wall Street and all of that stuff, they don’t get Senators ellected, unlike the Tea Party. And they never will.

    The Dems are usually blamed for stuff by Conservatives when they have been almost as Pro-Establishment as the GOP. Social activists and counter-culture people hold the Dems in comtempt for that. Things have not changed, because the Dems in the 1960s and 1970s were like that too.

    The Dems have been careful, even fearful. The “extremists” in the Dems don’t even have the balls to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Or even to defend it. That is how extremist they are!

    As an American, I don’t think you have ever seen how it is when someone as leftist as the crowd from Mother Jones or Daily Kos gains power. The Democratic Party hijacked by guys like that would have formed a friendly partnership with Cuba, would disarm even policemen, would prosecute and lock up people saying or writing racist stuff.

  16. Whitney
    February 28, 2014 - 5:26 pm

    M –

    I suppose I am a reformed-reformed bitch. I was born feisty, raised feisty, and read novels as a teenager that always included a beautiful spitfire with a heaving bodice. Then age taught me that I risked hatred and retaliation if I didn’t offer myself as a sex dish as part of the war. Then age taught me that the hatred and retaliation was worth it if I was fighting for the right thing.

    So now, I fight. But I enjoy victories more than the battles. I hope that still means I’m a b-EE-atch…

  17. Ed Sedarbaum
    March 1, 2014 - 9:39 am

    I wish I could get comfortable with the word “bitch,” but so far I can’t. No matter how much irony it’s used with.

  18. R. Maheras
    March 1, 2014 - 12:03 pm

    Mother jones in not the Democratic Party? Who are you kidding? Democrats from the president on down say Fox News is the Republican Party, yet when someone says the reverse about liberal media outlets, it’s like, “oh, they don’t represent us!” Horse patootey! Mother Jones supports the liberal line across the board, and always has.

    As for science and how it works, that’s my wheelhouse. I’ve been a science junkie most of my life.

  19. Martha Thomases
    March 1, 2014 - 3:22 pm

    Russ,

    I’m not willing to make any argument but my own. I am not the Democratic Party. I am only registered as a Democrat because, in my hometown, voting in the primaries is often more important than voting in the general election.

    If you want to argue with Mother Jones, or liberals, or Democrats, find a place where those are the subjects at hand. Otherwise, you posit a straw man’s argument, then disagree with it. That’s not really very useful.

  20. Howard Cruse
    March 1, 2014 - 3:43 pm

    Well said, Martha.

  21. Rene
    March 1, 2014 - 6:59 pm

    Russ –

    I never thought Fox News “was” the Republican Party either. They certainly are great advocates for the GOP, but can they dictate GOP policy or get this or that politician elected? They are useful to the GOP, but they’re not the GOP.

    Now, if we’re talking the Tea Party, then yeah. They are the GOP. Even GOP politicians who dislike them are fucking afraid of displeasing them.

    Now do you mean to say the Dems take their cue from Mother Jones? Somehow I doubt that. For starters, the Dems don’t have the backbone to be this radical. The Democratic Party “line” gets pushed more and more to center every year. Of course, Mother Jones and magazines like that will always have to support the Dems by default, I mean, who else will they support in the United States? But I doubt that they’re too happy with the Democratic Party. Or Daily Kos. Count how many articles are in there calling the Dems spineless.

  22. Neil C.
    March 2, 2014 - 11:07 pm

    Hurray for false comparisons! No ‘Democratic’ organization has close the power to setting an agenda as Fox and talk radio do for the Republicans. And ‘Liberal Media” is a myth, since they’re all owned by huge corporations.

  23. R. Maheras
    March 3, 2014 - 3:33 pm

    Neil — Baloney. Fox News has been around about 18 years, and has only been paid attention to about a dozen or so. “Mother Jones” and other liberal media outlets like “The New York Times,” “Rolling Stone,” “NBC,” et al, are still around, and have been underwriting the Democrat agenda for more than 40 years.

    And as I pointed out a long time ago, Fox news never would have become a force had the mainstream media been more objective on political issues. People — particularly independents — got tired of hearing just one side of the arguments all of the time.

  24. Martha Thomases
    March 3, 2014 - 4:05 pm

    Mother Jones is neither the New York Times, NBC nor Rolling Stone.

    The “liberal” New York Times endorsed the Republican candidate for mayor five times: Giuiliani twice and Bloomberg three times. They have a noticeable lack of enthusiasm for our current mayor.

    Rolling Stone is no longer influential. Their most provocative writer, Matt Taibbi, is a “contributing editor,” which means freelancer. He does not dictate editorial policy, and as soon as he stops selling papers, he’ll be gone.

    NBC? Don’t make me laugh. They are corporatist. Until recently, they were owned by GE, one of the largest defense companies (and biggest tax dodgers) in the country.

  25. Neil C.
    March 4, 2014 - 9:26 am

    Martha,

    What do you expect of someone who blames everything on Chicago Democrats, like it’s still 1968?

  26. Neil C.
    March 4, 2014 - 9:27 am

    And Russ, the one side that Fox usually spouts is bullshit.

  27. R. Maheras
    March 4, 2014 - 10:55 am

    Neil — As far life it Chicago’s inner city goes, nothing much has changed since 1968, so I guess you are right. Is life better now for the people in my old neighborhood on the west side, or on the south side?

    Hell no.

    In fact, in many ways, it’s worse.

    Here’s hoping Pres. Obama’s new initiative will help. However, why the hell it took him more than five years to do anything is beyond me.

  28. R. Maheras
    March 5, 2014 - 1:40 pm

    Neil — You act all snarky about it, but the hits just keep on coming when it comes to Chicago. Moody’s just downgraded Chicago again, giving it the lowest municipal bonds rating of any major city except Detroit — which, as you may recall, is bankrupt.

    So that’s what 75 years of unfettered Democratic control of Chicago has done: Bankrupted the city, transformed its once proud public education system into a joke, imposed some of the highest taxes in the country on its citizens, and made the city a perennial contender murder capital of the United States. And if you happen to be young and black, you are 10 times more likely to be murdered than if you were young and white. Not only that, but if you are a black teenaged male, there’s a 92 percent chance you’ll be out of work as well.

    No jobs, no education, and a big fat target on the chests of your constituents. Is THAT the Democratic promise? Hell, you all should be embarrassed and ashamed of yourselves.

  29. Rene
    March 5, 2014 - 3:35 pm

    No one here should be ashamed, Russ. Because, by your own standards, everybody here is an “independent”. I mean, if you claim to be independent, despite being an ultra-Republican, then I don’t see why the most fanatical Democrat possible couldn’t do the same trick.

    So no, no one needs to be ashamed of anything Democratic here. We’re all independents.

  30. R. Maheras
    March 5, 2014 - 8:33 pm

    Rene — Keep trying to convince yourself I’m an ultra-Republican, if that makes you feel better about the downright pathetic record liberals have had in places like Detroit and Chicago.

    The ultra left, like the ultra right, convinces themselves that they are fundamentally always right — even when they are dead wrong. And that’s why any problem that must be solved by them giving any ground on their political beliefs paralyzes them. They can’t concede they are wrong, because they fear the other side so much — the same side they expend an inordinate amount of energy demonizing. But in many cases, I honestly believe they are not even aware they are wrong, because their blind ideology makes true problem-solving impossible.

    For example, any conservative who used the brain God gave them would realize pretty quick that the universe is not 5,000 years old.

    Likewise, any liberal who took off their blinders would realize that decades of tacit approval of illegal drug use in popular culture and their social circles has destroyed the lives of far more Americans than were destroyed in Bush’s two recent wars.

    I’m an independent for a very good reason.

  31. Rene
    March 6, 2014 - 8:46 am

    I don’t agree with the Liberal worldview on drugs. But that doesn’t mean I agree with the American Conservative worldview on drugs either.

    The way I see it, the Conservatives have two potential responses to the drug problem. The Social Conservative response is total repression, the War on Drugs, in keeping with their Christian puritanism. Puritanism is just the other side of Hedonism, to me. And equally childish. It’s as much a proven failure as the Liberal approach.

    The other response is the Libertarian Conservative response that a Free Man (TM), a John Galt, should be able to do whatever he wants. It’s every bit as Hedonistic and Materialistic as the Liberal one, but worse, because it’s coupled with making heroes out of sociopaths, such as Wall Street cokeheads.

    And that encapsulates all that is wrong with the modern Republican Party. It’s an alliance of two of my least favorite kinds of people. Religious Fundamentalists and Free Enterprise Sociopaths.

    I’m sorry that I called you an Ultra-Republican. I think just “Republican” would suffice.

    We have different definitions of what it means to be an Independent. To you, it’s anyone who isn’t registered with one of the two American major parties or that doesn’t subscribe to 100% of the worldviews of either party. In that view, almost everyone is a Independent.

    To me, an Independent would be someone that is equally, or almost equally, distant from both worldviews. And such a creature is rare. To me, someone who agrees 80% of the time with the Republican position, and 20% of the time with the Democratic one, is a Republican.

  32. R. Maheras
    March 6, 2014 - 9:16 am

    Rene — As I pointed out before, this Web page is not a good place to try and pigeonhole whether or not someone is a Republican or not because most of the members are self-avowed liberals, or at least self-avowed anti-GOPers.

    It’s no different than if I attended a meeting full of devout Muslims, Orthodox Jews or Amish. In short order I’d be labeled a liberal.

    It’s all relative. So whether you can wrap your head around it or not, I’m an independent, and have been since the late 1970s, when I realized what a naïve ostrich my man President Jimmy Carter was. Like President Obama, there was no denying Carter had a good heart. It was simply that he just did not have the chops to run the nation effectively in a very complex and not so nice world.

  33. Rene
    March 6, 2014 - 5:35 pm

    Well, you do make good points. I know the feeling. I was right-wing at Brazilian college, really, among all the Bolshevics. I do feel more of a Centrist in my own country. In the US I feel leftist, because the US as a whole is to the right as compared to Brazil. And maybe that is why you do feel right-wing to me.

    Incidentally, I’ve noticed that most of the people that seem to me the greatest critics of something are those that are ex-something. I suppose it’s the disappointment. But it seems to add an extra bite to their comments. Makes them more personal, I suppose.

  34. R. Maheras
    March 6, 2014 - 6:21 pm

    Rene — Well, I am an ex-Democrat. But I’ve never moved far enough right to take the plunge and become a Republican. I simply do not believe that people should put partisanship/party loyalty over what’s best for their city or country. I believe in the concept of checks and balances — something those who drafted our Constitution believed in too. When a military member or federal politician in the US takes their oath, they swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States — not their political party.

  35. Rene
    March 7, 2014 - 8:36 am

    I’m more cynical than that. The problem is that what’s best for city or country is often dictated by party politics. In other words, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like nails to be hammered down.

    When all you have in your arsenal of economic theory is Laissez-faire capitalism, then “more free market, less taxes, less regulation” becomes a sort of cure for everything. I do have a similar criticism of Liberals for the way they view crime as always determined by socio-economic factors.

    It’s next to impossible for politicians to dissociate what is best for their countries from party policy. I did become more and more frustrated with conservative economics as defended by right-wing partisans in the last 30 years. And, like in George Orwell’s 1984, this party policy is retroactive, so that FDR’s New Deal wasn’t what took the US out of the Depression anymore, because that contradicts commonly accepted Laissez-faire capitalism.

Comments are closed.