"Bitch"ing at The New York Times

I was intrigued by this press release by Jennifer Shahade's publisher Silman-James Press regarding their not printing her book title, Chess Bitch along with her byline in a recent Op-Ed piece. I had discussed their claiming that one of Ulysses Press's Sexy Bitch's Guide books was "too racy" for them during a Style section roundup of sex books with the Ulysses people at BEA. But a quick search of the word in the Times search engine shows 732 uses of the word, including mention of the anthology The Bitch in the House (including one dated December 4th, 2005 - Shahade's Op-Ed was published November 29th). What's interesting is that in both titles, Chess Bitch and The Sexy Bitch's Guide..., "bitch" is being reclaimed in part as a term of power, not as an epithet. I found the Styles section piece more appalling because it was about sex books, but this is still pretty ridiculous, considering that her Op-Ed was about chess and she was asked to write it based on research she'd done for the book, which provides an overview of the top women chess players around the world, as well as the state of chess and who can/does make a living from it. So what gives? From the press release:

The Times' declined to print the name of Shahade's book in either article: "Sex and Chess. Is She a Queen or a Pawn?," which appeared in the Sunday Styles section, and "All the Right Moves," an article on the state of chess in the U.S. that Shahade wrote at the request of The Week in Review section, where it was published.

"The Times has displayed astonishing squeamishness and misplaced political correctness in this act of out-and-out censorship," said Gwen Feldman, co-publisher of Silman-James Press. "We asked that the Times have the courage and courtesy of setting the record straight by publishing the full title of `Chess Bitch,' but they have declined even though one of its top editors has admitted in an email to me that `it was an act of overly zealous concern for readers' sensitivities.' Their act is even more egregious since The Week in Review section invited Jennifer to author an Op-Ed essay based at least in part on the notoriety of `Chess Bitch.'

"We are outraged by The Times' conduct and appalled that one of the country's great newspapers does not have the strength of character to admit to its readers that it lacked the spine to invoke a word that is perfectly acceptable in its context," said Feldman.

The New York Times has a history of using the word "bitch" on its pages as far back 1975, when it reviewed a film called "Super Bitch," making its decision regarding "Chess Bitch" all the more confounding.