[jcoder]

@karunamon Sorry, no. There's normalization due to changing norms and morays (e.g., "shit"), then there's normalization that's designed to subordinate a group (do you see many whites calling an unfamiliar black man "boy"?). This is much more like the latter. If you would tell your wife, girlfriend, or female coworker to "stop bitching" when she has something to say that you don't want to hear, then you are a chauvinistic asshole.

Whoever was the first to say "shit" causally was probably considered rude. Then others got used to it and decided that it wasn't rude. But the meaning did not actually change.

Whoever was the first to use "bitch" as a verb was almost certainly a male asshole who wanted to subordinate the woman he was talking to. By repeating it, that is the sentiment you are reinforcing, because the meaning does not change. You're normalizing female subordination.

It actually has a lot of parallels with how language changed during and after slavery. Black men call each other "boy" (among other words) and it is positive. Women start groups like "stitch 'n bitch," and it is positive. But if you started referring to your wife's book club as "books and bitching," that's negative. You may not think it's fair, but it's their word.

[chc]

> the meaning does not change

Your entire argument seems to be predicated on this idea. But the thing is, pretty much every linguist in the world would disagree with the notion. The connotations of words are constantly shifting — there is ample evidence of this throughout the history of languages.

I applaud you for thinking about this sort of thing and speaking out about it, but in this particular case I think you're tilting at windmills.

Even if we accepted this absolutist stance where words' meanings do not change no matter what the common perception or intent of the speaker might be, it still wouldn't be offensive to women. If the word's connotation is immutable, then it does not refer to human women at all, but to dogs, and thus human men have just as much right to the word as human women do. But surely you'd agree the word has acquired new connotations since then, contrary to your claim above.

There might have been some point in history at which your stance was the right one, but if there was, I think that time is long gone. I don't know if you're just that old or if your regional dialect is odd in this regard, but I'm pretty sure the verb "bitch" is not gendered in most people's mental lexicons today. Because it is not particularly associated with them, it does not actually do any harm to women as a group if you use it.

(Note that all this is distinct from the noun "bitch," which is applied to men but is still has gendered associations. Probably best to avoid that one. And obviously avoid both in formal contexts.)

[lolcraft]

That is crazy. I mean, The Chronic came out in 2001. It's not that long ago. Gangsta h-hop profuse in "BEE-ATCH!" exclamations, as referring to women, is still being produced. Abusive husbands still call their wives bitches. You might be fortunate enough to live in some sort of cultural coordinate in which this is old and odd, but I would struggle seriously to call that situation a representative sample.

To put it the offensive way, nowadays it might be hip and such for white boys to address themselves as niggas, as it has being normalised by hip-hop spatters into the new bro. Still, no non-asshole honky would do so to an actually black person. It would be pretty insensitive, for starters.

[chc]

Reread the last paragraph of my comment. You're talking about the noun, which I intentionally mentioned to head off responses like this. Yes, that word is offensive. We're talking about a different word.

[hexagonc]

I think you are correct. And it is funny that when I think of the meaning of the related curse, "son of a bitch", I always interpret it literally as "son of a female dog". I never think of it as, "son of a disreputable woman." This is in contrast to "son of a whore" where the human female allusion is clear.

[sasha-dv]

Whoever was the first to use "bitch" as a verb was almost certainly a male asshole who wanted to subordinate the woman he was talking to. By repeating it, that is the sentiment you are reinforcing, because the meaning does not change. You're normalizing female subordination.

Bitch please!

[mr_luc]

I actually think that most people agree with you, but being hacker news, the downvotes come from a perceived lack of rigor in your reasoning.

For instance, you say "normalization that's designed to subordinate" -- 'designed,' eh? By whom?

You also state "by repeating it, that is the sentiment you are reinforcing," but I find the justification given confused and weak ('because the meaning does not change').

You also mention a common cultural trend: the notion that words originally applied negatively to groups can be appropriated for positive use by others. But instead analyzing this mechanism, you just blanket-assert that the negative words are the property of the slurred group and that others are, in general, not allowed to use those words.

I don't think most people here would state "I'll use derogatory word X all I want," and I think you're spot-on about the origins of the expression in this case, but this particular post smelled fishy for some reason.