In fact, Ms Noonan has great column profiling three female leaders, Thatcher, Golda Meir and Indira Ghandi. All the ladies were tough, but none of them mean. Whereas Mrs. Clinton is mean but not tough.

The most respectful things we can do for the offices these people occupy, is call out the possibility that exists at any given time that the officer so occupying is substandard. That we are quickly losing our ability to do that, is demonstrated by Barack Obama being the most likely Commander in Chief for the next term, simply because he speaks more clearly than liberal democrats think black people should be able to speak, and he can stage fainting women at his rock concerts.

I just think when you get sworn in to these offices of public service, the criticism should be just starting — definitely not coming to stop because of some vainglorious notion of “respect.”

Whenever a female of the species acts like a common dog I’ll rightfully call them a bitch. I have no use for those that will chide in a vainglorious attempt to reserve the usage for their own exclusive use, no matter HOW much they may APPEAR to trot out their manginas for display.

As far as the strong, independent, intelligent girls at Fem*****, when the level of integrity consistantly embraced there, and similar “award winning” sites, is desperately snuggled well after late puberty, then I have a DIFFERENT word I reserve for for such individuals.

In fairness, maybe they’ve matured in the last couple of years. I wouldn’t know. The founder(s) and past contributers shot their wad so long ago I’ve had no viable reason to revisit the mere noisemakers.

Is a Lady a bitch? Never.

Mrs. Clinton is no lady. If Mrs. Clinton wants some respect, she ought to demonstrate some.

Etymology: Middle English bicche, from Old English bicce
Date: before 12th century
1: the female of the dog or some other carnivorous mammals
2 a: a lewd or immoral woman b: a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman —sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse
3: something that is extremely difficult, objectionable, or unpleasant

It also means to complain!

Therefore, calling a woman a bitch is hardly an insult and these pinheads at Feministing need to grow up and develop a sense of humor while they’re at it.

Dear merciful heavens, don’t we have enough IMPORTANT things to worry about in this world without this nonsense! I’m a female. I don’t object to being called a bitch because my mother always told me that it took TALENT to be a bitch. I’m very talented.

Now if you want to bitch about my usage of the word bitch – have at it. I don’t really give a rat’s eardrum if you do!

It seems to me that generally, in order to earn the epithet “bitch”, a woman has to fall into one of two behaviour pattern types: (a) the aggressive woman who dominates a group via confrontation, or (b) the exploitative woman who controls a group via dishonesty and manipulation. (And it is certainly possible to fall into both patterns depending on context.)

What both behaviour patterns have in common is that unlike most traditional conceptions of “feminine” behaviour, they are (or appear to be) unrepentantly selfish; i.e. they put the individual woman’s goals, desires and choices as the top priority in any situation, disdaining — either openly or covertly — the stereotypical “feminine” traits of empathy, cooperation and compromise. A woman who genuinely doesn’t care what other people think or want, or who only appears to care about those things insofar as she can use them to get what she wants, is the most likely type of woman to be called a “bitch” in my experience.

A useful habit to develop, I think, would be distinguishing behaviour that is genuinely malicious from behaviour that is merely noncooperative. Strong leadership that brooks no dissent need not be a bad thing, depending on the honesty and competence of the leader and the worth of the leader’s goals. It would also help if a corresponding distinction was made on the part of those receiving criticism: if Hillary Clinton, to pick the most obvious example, was capable of acknowledging critiques of her politics without implying that any critique of her politics was an insult to her as a woman, the political process might be more fruitful.

But that’s the pitfall of our modern toxic combination of identity politics and Freudian psychology: when it is verboten to attack a group, it becomes impossible to criticize any member of that group, because no matter how valid the criticism, the target can merely dismiss it as being “really” motivated by bigotry against the group (an accusation which is completely unfalsifiable), and thus ignoreable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU