words matter.

[novapsyche]

This election season, I have managed to refrain from filling up my friends' FL with the wacky stuff that has been going on. (Yes, this campaign season is a doozy.) However, I cannot read a news story like this & not comment:

The president of the National Organization for Women may have said it's wrong for anyone to call a woman a "whore," but the head of the California NOW affiliate says Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman still is one.

California NOW President Parry Bellasalma told the TPM blog on Thursday that the description of the Republican candidate for governor of California is accurate.

"Meg Whitman could be described as 'a political whore.' Yes, that's an accurate statement," Bellasalma said after a TPM blogger called to ask her about a story that appeared on the Daily Caller website.

*clenches teeth*

What is the point of one identifying as a feminist if one is just going to propagate the very terms that confine women as a category?

I don't care that it's a close race in California. Political expediency is not an excuse for engaging in sexism, no matter the sex &/or gender of the person who makes such a statement.

I hope Ms. Bellasalma gets a call from Terry O'Neill telling her it's time for a new up-&-comer to head that particular state chapter.

Comments

[guppiecat]

So I'm confused here.

Issues of sexism aside and looking just at the language... is a "political whore" someone who engages in politics for money, or one who has sex for political favors?

'cause really, in contemporary politics both seem to be commonplace as to not be newsworthy.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

I do not confine women as a category. Jeff Gannon is two kinds of whore.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

There's a Meg Whitman poster in my apartment complex. Someone wrote on there "I'LL SWALLOW YOUR SOUL!"

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

You may not, but the words themselves do. The very word itself recalls the Madonna/whore dichotomy, by definition even.

The thing is, the term 'whore' in this case (as well as yours) could easily be substituted by 'shill'. The denotation of the latter is accurate & the context more appropriate, while the negative sexist connotation of the latter would be avoided.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

Shill wasn't really what was meant, though. I suspect she meant the less specific meaning of "whore", as someone of any gender who does something unethical for money (I don't think prostitution falls into that, but most people do). I've heard male doctors working for a disability insurance company described as whores.


It's probably best to only use that sense of the word on men, though. Too easy to confuse, otherwise. Perhaps "sellout" would be better?

[delosd.livejournal.com]

Congratulations on sticking with your principals, even when inconvenient. You deserve support for that!

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I agree. A misogynistic slur is still, at heart, a misogynistic slur, even if you change the context.