Ed Schultz Ingraham
But recently, he called the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham a sut on the air. His exact words were, “this btch right, what’s her name? Laura Ingraham? Yeah, it’s a btch about it.” As noted in Mediaite “sut talk” does nothing on the expression “btch right. ”
And in general, calling people btches is not a good idea, even in the sense that is sometimes called the cabins of the people – “Oh, he is past 8:00 pm and we should contact Mark.”
And if you want to be taken seriously, do not use your insults in political discourse. True, who wants to be taken seriously now? All we want is for viewers and listeners. “I urge you to land on the sun, we say, racistly, don cloaks that reveal our endowments male or female and allow people to beat us in the face with pies on our book covers. Something for our audience!
But besides the general degradation of the speech, there is more at work here. Why would he take that word in the first place?
Sut is not a neutral term, for the moment. Despite all walks Sut proclaiming that you can do what you want to wear what you want and do Label Society – which, really, nobody think this through beforehand? (“We’ll walk a dog, you say.” Oh, that’s fine, “says your employer.” Boy, when you bring them home, you really have no idea how much care, food, and walking what is required. “)
But the defense of the march, there must be a way to drive the nail. So far, it does not work: If it is a misogynistic term, then it is a term that is somehow reserved for women. And it is a thought deeply misogynistic.
This term is used either too much or not enough, as you request. I’d be fine with it with wild abandon waivers if we called people like Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Edwards and suts. Their conduct merits the word! But usually when it is thrown on men, there is the “man” appended to it. Sut? Must be a woman. There’s no word just as heavy for a man who, uh, bed -hops. Bed hops just like a business of fun – which, admittedly, it might be in some quarters. And this is false.
“But Ingraham and Ann Coulter both have this strange blonde-conservative-women-who-are-really-port-heels thing happens!” You cry. “Is not it entitles me to -”
No, of course not.
And even the word misogynist cut without the baggage, it is not in the context of civilized political discourse – or what is the Ed Schultz Show.
If you attack someone’s politics, not need to be ad hominem or ad womanem. Just make your case.
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on