Massachusetts lawmaker wants to criminalize the word ‘bitch’

submitted by BostonBetty from nypost.com

all 7 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]hennaojichan 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

What about asshole and shit-head? And what am I gonna call my dog?

[–]NodeThis is my flair. There are many like it, but this one is mine. 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

https://www.dotnews.com/files/photos/Dan%20Hunt.jpg

Take a good look at that bitch freak.

[–]SpongySpiderLegs 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I assume that they want to criminalize the use of “bitch” because it is female-specific, and therefore “misogynistic” to use.

Why don’t they also consider criminalizing words like “dick” or “prick” or “dickhead” or other words which are male-specific? Oh yeah, that’s right ... because being misandric not onky tolerated in this society, it’s actually encouraged!

That’s why there is no movement to “protect” men/ males from misandric speech. Because misandry is condoned by society !

[–]RightousBob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How about something like "You stupid fucking human!" Is that inclusive enough?

[–]SpongySpiderLegs 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nope.

It excludes intelligent people.

It excludes celibate people.

And it excludes non-humans.

Snicker

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But Hunt said he filed the bill upon request form one of his constituents, telling the Herald: “Any time a constituent approaches me with something that is of concern to them, I follow through with it.”

“This might also illuminate the exhaustive legislative process for people that might not normally be engaged,” he said.

This makes it seem pro forma only.