Bitches and Bastards & Sun Media

Double-standard on B-words

by John Gleeson, Editor of the Winnipeg Sun

Back in March 1999 I penned a column for the editorial page in which I described then-PM Jean Chretien as "a mean-looking bastard." It was a purely subjective description. I also said he "had dead eyes."

No one afterward seemed to find the strong language particularly offensive. No one demanded Sun Media silence me or fire me or that other media outlets not hire me or use my work. And certainly no one suggested that by calling Chretien a bastard, I was saying that all men are bastards (though I have known some women who adhere strictly to that point of view).

This week we heard the shrill voices of feminists calling for the head of commentator Norman Spector after he characterized MP Belinda Stronach as "a bitch" on a Vancouver radio talk show.

What struck me as amazing about this feminist outrage was how old-fashioned, almost Victorian, it sounded. Basically they were saying, "That's no way to talk about a lady." And they were apparently saying it with straight faces. Have neither of these women seen Sigourney Weaver in Alien?

We can all lament the drop in standards of public discourse during our lifetimes. For decades the movies we've watched, first in theatres and then in our own livingrooms, have been so full of the F-word that we now have many young (and not so young) people who can't utter a single sentence without using it. Like it or not, the English language has devolved, reflecting nastier cultural norms.

"Bitch," as unsavoury as it might sound to some ears, has become so commonplace in most quarters that it hardly packs a punch. Men and women use it routinely to describe women who are hard-headed, hard-hearted or just plain difficult. Gays also use it to describe gay men who display similar tendencies. It's all over mass media and there was even a book published this year by author Sherry Argov called Why Men Marry Bitches.

Feminists like Black and Alphabet demand equal treatment with men -- until the going gets tough. And then they fall back and demand to be treated like "ladies" again. Too frail and vulnerable, and ultimately just "too good," by virtue of being female, to be called bad names.

Many Liberals were proud that Chretien was a bastard. A strong leader pretty well has to be a bastard -- at least some of the time.

The same applies to women. With notable exceptions like Mother Teresa, very few highly successful women get that way without being bitches -- at least some of the time.

It's a bastard of a world and life's a bitch.

And the equality train's already left the station.

Excerpts from John Gleeson's article in the
Winnipeg Sun's Thursday Editorial page.

These articles aren't really uncommon, so I don't know why I feel the need to write about it. When I read it this morning it didn't particularly raise an eyebrow but as I was walking around campus it rolled on back through so I thought if it made enough impact to merit a second thought I might have enough energy to blog about it. I've gotten this down so far so that's a good sign - generally I'm either apathetic about politics or moved to rant in an outrageously violent fashion until it passes (neither of which are conducive to the relative calm act of typing into an inanimate text box).

As to the article, like I said, nothing uncommon here. I'm sure editors write one like this defending their views on a similar scenario two decades ago and then pull it out, blow off the dust and reprint it. That's what being a journalist these days is all about. My comments on this article are simply:

1) Reporters as Shills. Now, everyone's got a perspective, whether they admit it or not. As one of my very first rants on this blog mentioned, people nowadays shop for ideologies and once signed up generally hold onto their party card for life. Truth with the capital 'T' may have been thrown out by the lazy over-educated nihilists of academia years ago but they were only the last on the boat. People dropped truth for ideology long ago and journalists sooner than most. Most, like John Gleeson of the Winnipeg Sun have no problem continually shilling for their party of choice no matter what the issue. In fact, Gleeson tries to establish his "objective" stance by mentioning he's got no problem attacking Liberals of any gender. Now that's intensive journalism if there is any.

Now my point is not defend the Liberals, Jean Chretien or Belinda. It may well be that she's a bitch and he's a bastard, its just an irritation to hear the same people defend whatever comes out of the mouth's of their party officials as true and good. For instance, the Conservatives actually did something very-unconservative lately by levelling a tax on income trusts. The first out the door to chastise them? Liberals. Even the NDP couldn't help but applaud and criticize at the same time - trying to have their cake and eat it too.

2) Bitches & Feminism. I'm just going to be honest and say that John Gleeson knows as little about feminism as he does about investigative journalism. A low blow perhaps, but I'm not published in a province-wide newspaper nor syndicated on a popular online site. My responsibility toward actually knowing whether Mr. Gleeson is another pathetic rightwing douchebag or an upright journalist full of integrity is less than his responsibility to know what the hell he's talking about, I admit it, and I'll exploit it.

To establish at least a minimum of similarity between us, I think we can suppose that when Mr. Gleeson talks of equality for women he means a change of some kind. I seems pretty sensical to imagine that women or any group wouldn't campaign for equality if it didn't entail a difference. Thus, we can suppose from Gleeson's article that women in "inequality" were not called bitches and that this has been the result of the 'equality train' leaving the station, as he puts it. Thus, now that women have reached, at last, the realm of equality we are finally free from our noble restraint to call them bitches and to stop treating them as ladies, as we have through history. A solid argument, something akin to saying that as Black / African-American people reach equality we will be free to call them niggers. If they spit and sputter, we can always just sit back and say "hey, that's the equality train choo-chooing along my savage friend".

Now far be it for me to lecture some dude from the progressive capital of Canada (and who writes for Sun Media Corp.), but I would suggest that because two words start with the same letter does not give them equivalence. If it did, I'd sure love to hear someone call Scott Brison a Butt-fucker in parliament. After all, gays and lesbians may be a bit further down the equality train track but that only means they've been shielded too long from the equality that b-words carry. Time to stop treating them like ladies and usher them into full democracy.

As for "bastard", I think in all serious that term is about as meaningless as democracy itself. Calling someone a "bastard" in any forum doesn't really call for chops, its not even gender-specific anymore. It has no connection with its historical definition. When Gleeson boldly called Jean Chretien a bastard from the writing desk of his cubicle somewhere in Winnipeg I doubt he was calling into doubt Chretien's parentage. He was just trying to add some sauce to another otherwise worthless and insightless piece of political drivel. As he mentioned, "bastard" has become synonymous with leadership ability. "Bitch" not quite so. Thus, I'd suggest that if Gleeson wants to show he's got the chops to really expose himself as the bitter partisan he is, he should make a qualitatively-equal gesture toward men in politics by pulling out his slang dictionary and writing about the time he donkey-punched Paul Martin.


This is Jason Harman, reporting live from somewhere in the Mediterranean.