It is true that in her critique of Ivanka Trump, Bee used an expletive that is explicitly misogynistic; it is wholly reasonable to object to the word [] for feminist reasons. It is also reasonable and worthwhile to consider why a term for female anatomy has become such a potent pejorative; why does a word that means vagina also mean “very bad person”? That’s a valid question, but it’s crucial to consider it in this context. Bee was not reinforcing or replicating the crude harm that “[]” has been used to inflict historically: the patriarchal diminishment and vilification of women. In fact, Bee was using it to criticize a woman precisely because that woman is acting on behalf of that patriarchy, one that systematically diminishes women, destroys families, and hurts children.
https://www.thecut.com/2018/05/samantha-bee-ivanka-trump-full-frontal.htmlBut, I think, the argument is that Traister is wrong about this "not reinforcing ... the crude harm [it] has been used to inflict historically". Because it's a female anatomy term being used to be "the worst thing possible", it's harmful to women in general when used, even when used to refer to a particular man (as in British and Australian speech).
= new reply since forum marked as read
