New York City gained notoriety when its city council banned the N-word about four months ago.
Now, in its zeal to over regulate, the liberals on the NYC city council are contemplating banning the B-word: bitch.
The problem is that unlike the word "nigger," which is universally condemned, there were those actually defending the use of the word "bitch."
And Ms. Mealy admitted that the city’s political ruling class can be guilty of its use. As she circulated her proposal, she said, "even council members are saying that they use it to their wives..."
While the bill also bans the slang word "ho," the b-word appears to have acquired more shades of meaning among various groups, ranging from a term of camaraderie to, in a gerund form, an expression of emphatic approval. Ms. Mealy acknowledged that the measure was unenforceable, but she argued that it would carry symbolic power against the pejorative uses of the word. Even so, a number of New Yorkers said they were taken aback by the idea of prohibiting a term that they not only use, but do so with relish and affection.
"Half my conversation would be gone," said Michael Musto, the Village Voice columnist, whom a reporter encountered on his bicycle on Sunday night on the corner of Seventh Avenue South and Christopher Street. Mr. Musto, widely known for his coverage of celebrity gossip, dismissed the idea as absurd.
I would argue that, at least in the rap industry, the N-word was used the same way. Wasn't the argument that by embracing the word, it lost its power as a pejorative?
The problem with all these silly symbolic laws is that they are unenforceable and, by banning them, it can actually encourage usage because the words become even more offensive.
The English language is quite durable and can handle its misuse, even when such misuse is designed to hurt or threaten others. If words truly "will never hurt me," then we need to get past the nonsensical idea of banning things that are offensive to various groups.
I wrote a post back in March about the parents who sued a school district for disciplining their daughter for saying, "That's so gay." I supported the school reprimanding the daughter, because I think one of the purposes of school is to teach children the way they should behave. Aphrael disagreed, saying that the phrase was just part of teenage vernacular.
While I agree with the school over disciplining the girl, I would never support a law that banned the usage of this phrase. Why? Because the Constitution allows us to express ourselves, even when that speech is offensive (although there are limits).
I don't like the idea of giving words so much power that they need to be regulated. And in the case of the N-word, society has changed enough that, in my lifetime, that word has a level of offensiveness that's higher than even the F-word. It seems to me that society has done the best job ostracizing that word and that we don't need legislation.
|