4 ms·

I think the use refers to the more contemporary use of the word: a person that has a habit of scolding, which the rest of the articles kinda makes obvious, as i

I think the use refers to the more contemporary use of the word: a person that has a habit of scolding, which the rest of the articles kinda makes obvious, as it's not talking about gender at all?

orwin 4y ago
I don't like doing this, because i really don't care about this particular discussion, and i'm certainly not a native speaker. I agree with you on this particular post, but i want to add something (and i think you were both uncharitable to each other, which is dumb when talking about linguistics). The term "bitch" is now mostly non-gendered, used against men and women, would you agree? Still, when used in a text ranting about political enemies, and not as an endearing term, don't you have an image of a group of women (blue-haired hippies, or blond-haired Karens depending on your political bias :) )? Or of a feminine man? I'm obviously not an english major and had no idea scold was used primarily for women historically, but being charitable to OP, can't you both have a very different lecture of the word, depending on each other exposition? Be it by age, or even culture.
- spoiler 4y ago
  > I'm obviously not an english major and had no idea scold was used primarily for women historically, but being charitable to OP, can't you both have a very different lecture of the word, depending on each other exposition? Be it by age, or even culture. That's a fair take, and you're right that I was a bit insensitive in the discussion. It just pushed a personal button of mine, which is all too common these days, and that it is to misrepresenting language as a form of gaslighting or manipulation. It's also unproductive—as this thread demonstrated. Anyway, that's also not an excuse to be an asshole, so I apologise. Edit: not in any way trying to imply the OP intentionally did this, but it's unfortunately all too common when heated subjects are being discussed Regarding language differences: Again you're right, I assumed that meanings didn't diverge (to this degree); they very well might have.

I think the use refers to the more contemporary use of the word: a person that has a habit of scolding, which the rest of the articles kinda makes obvious, as it's not talking about gender at all?

orwin 4y ago

I don't like doing this, because i really don't care about this particular discussion, and i'm certainly not a native speaker. I agree with you on this particular post, but i want to add something (and i think you were both uncharitable to each other, which is dumb when talking about linguistics). The term "bitch" is now mostly non-gendered, used against men and women, would you agree? Still, when used in a text ranting about political enemies, and not as an endearing term, don't you have an image of a group of women (blue-haired hippies, or blond-haired Karens depending on your political bias :) )? Or of a feminine man? I'm obviously not an english major and had no idea scold was used primarily for women historically, but being charitable to OP, can't you both have a very different lecture of the word, depending on each other exposition? Be it by age, or even culture.

spoiler 4y ago
> I'm obviously not an english major and had no idea scold was used primarily for women historically, but being charitable to OP, can't you both have a very different lecture of the word, depending on each other exposition? Be it by age, or even culture. That's a fair take, and you're right that I was a bit insensitive in the discussion. It just pushed a personal button of mine, which is all too common these days, and that it is to misrepresenting language as a form of gaslighting or manipulation. It's also unproductive—as this thread demonstrated. Anyway, that's also not an excuse to be an asshole, so I apologise. Edit: not in any way trying to imply the OP intentionally did this, but it's unfortunately all too common when heated subjects are being discussed Regarding language differences: Again you're right, I assumed that meanings didn't diverge (to this degree); they very well might have.