I gotta say the sexism stood out to me moreso than the racism, too. monstro made a good point about it in her OP. If the players had all been men, the focus would have been on the game. Female atheletics are still treated like a joke for the most part, and Imus’ comments made that obvious. He treated all of them like jokes, just because they have the wrong genitalia. The racism aspect just made it a double whammy. Not only were the girls’ looks more relevant than the game they were playing, but their looks were deemed unattractive because of their race.
In isolation, neither the sexism nor the racism would have probably ignited a firestorm. Taken together, and applied to innocent targets, well, let’s just say he made his own bed with that one. No sympathy for you, Imus.
Everyone (meaning “the media”) has overlooked the thinly-veiled homophobic remark, “Them’s some rough lookin’ women…blah, blah, blah…tattoos…blah, blah, blah…” implying they’d have to be lesbians to be playing the traditional man’s game of basketball.
I don’t think they will. Sirius has that huge contract with Howard Stern, and Stern HATES Imus. Sirius isn’t gonna piss off Howard by hiring his arch enemy.
XM might have been interested, but the possibility of an XM/Sirius merger will kill that off. If the merger doesn’t happen, then XM might pursue Imus (with the bonus that the brouhaha will have cooled off by that time).
I agree with that. Women all over America are getting tattooed. Are they all “hard core hos?” It’s the same old crap; Powerful Woman=Lesbian. :dubious: I’m tired of it.
Not to speak for AskNott, but I think he was alluding to their excelling in sports. The tattoos coupled with being jocks is what gives the less-than-“feminine”-lesbian vibe to some. I think the placement of the tattoos might make a difference to some, as well.
Imus opened his mouth and fell foul of forces that are beyond his control. Beyond anybody’s control. The conflicting emotions, interests, and principles at work here pushed something into motion that’s bigger than all of us, immune to rational discussion, and occasionally eats someone alive. Justly or unjustly. It happens, and there’s nothing to be done.
The powerful part comes from their athletic prowess and the powerful bodies they worked so hard for. They’re physically strong, and in some people’s little minds, that means they’re lesbians. The tattoos=rough girls part has been obsolete for years, if it ever made sense. The old stereotype said a woman with a tattoo was a dangerous dame, not to be trifled with. Back then, a tattoo on a man said “tough guy.” All that’s nonsense now.
Female athletics are still treated like a joke because they are a joke. Nobody watches female team sports. The WNBA exists solely because of the charity of David Stern. Women’s Soccer had more support and momentum than any other women’s team sport in America, and their league folded after a few years due to lack of interest. The LPGA and WTA are still going, the former as obscure and unwatched as it ever was with the latter being the only successful women’s sport in the country. And why is the WTA successful? Because the chicks are hot. (There is a hot chick for every taste on that tour.) The quality tennis is played on the men’s tour.
As for the racism, Imus is obviously a racist and so were his remarks. The only quibble I have is the statement that their looks were deemed unattractive because of their race. That’s not true. For one, they were “deemed unattractive” in comparison to their opponents, who were also black women. And their tattoos seem to play into Imus’ reasoning, which is a choice, not a characteristic of race. In fairness, the “nappy-headed” comment seems to support your position. If the other team weren’t “nappy-headed” I’d be forced to concede. Were they?
This comment really strikes me. I think, one one hand, it’s a cogent, elliptical assessment of the whole affair; on the other hand, it’s distressing and deeply unsatisfying to consider the idea that any rational public discussion is only the background noise to the primary forces at play here. Distressing…but not surprising. Beware of Doug could easily be talking about our political system, about George Allen. It doesn’t seem to matter that something like that is so much more important than a radio show. Our most important public institutions bend and sway with such winds, while often remaining rigid and inflexible in the face of real, pervasive problems for which rational discussion would demand solutions.
And that’s not to say racism isn’t a real problem, just that any rational discussion about the most significant racism–by which I mean the manifestations of racism that most directly affect people’s lives and well-being–would quickly have settled on far better uses for our time, attention, and money than the one to which they were put this past week.
Racism is everywhere to be found, plain to see in virtually any aspect of our society. It’s endemic, and yet we are obsessed with whether or not true racism is lurking in the dark corners of one man’s mind. Because we can’t truly answer that question with any real degree of certainty, we will beat it to death. Having established precedence–even a preponderance of such past statements–it’s tempting to call a spade a spade.
I think most of us would agree the statement was tasteless, even in the context of a failed attempt at humor. Isolated from that context, of course, it’s downright vile and hurtful. But I think most people are cognizant enough to know the difference, and can take into account the mitigating original context of the statement. And if that were mitigating enough, it would go would have gone unnoticed in the same way countless other poorly-conceived jokes go unnoticed every day. Almost as if to say, “if this is our sense of humor, then our sense of humor is evil. Are we really joking about things like this?”
“Hypocrisy!” my white friends cry, and so it is. Does that make Sharpton and Jackson hypocrites? Well, even if we agree to forgo any examination of past events and statements from these men, I say that unless they bring the same forces to bear on the subculture that is responsible for putting such phrases into the national vernacular in the first place, they will have shown themselves to be, if not hypocrites, then common opportunists unworthy of our attention. It’s not a judgment I’d be willing to make based on one or even a handful of events in isolation, but on the measure of their efforts overall, even if just from this moment forward.
That subculture–which is represented by more than just two ethnic groups–is infinitely more profitable financially than Don Imus, and manifestly more damaging than his even his most offensive remarks taken together. And I say this having supported that subculture, probably as much if not more than the average American. So are we now going to say that if there is language that is too sensitive to use in jokes, then it is also too sensitive to glorified in music and film (or for that matter, to sensitive to be repeated verbatim on the public airwaves ad nauseum)? Nobody (sensible) wants censorship, and I’m not suggesting that; I’m asking: are we going to exercise our prerogative to simply turn it off, to not buy it, to not support it, to decry it whenever it shows up in public?
If not, then yes: this is hypocrisy. But even then, so what? If there’s no rational discussion, if we’re really only just being pushed by emotional and reactive forces largely beyond our control, then decrying hypocrisy is just a red herring. Because it’s not as if reason and consistency, were they to suddenly replace it, would effect a better outcome–we’ve already established that we’re not governed by reason and consistency, so what’s the real difference?
The entire basis of racism is hypocrisy. Did anyone really believe all men “are created equal” or did they just want to believe it? You wouldn’t even have to go back 50 years to see institutionalized hypocrisy taken for granted, in everything from separate drinking fountains to the murder of Emmett Till. You can call it liberal guilt; I call it delusional to think that we now have an even field, only a few decades after the civil rights movement began, that everybody should now being playing fair and consistently. As if now that white people are trying to play fair, black people should greet them as liberators.
It doesn’t surprise me at all to see hypocrisy on the part of those trying to banish racism when so much hypocrisy went into its acceptance, when so much of it still survives to this day. If this is the price we pay for moving forward, so be it. We should hold our leaders to their words and make them accountable for their inconsistencies, but we don’t, and until that changes, we shouldn’t be surprised when they fail us.
We should yes, and not just on racism. But realistically, how often in human history have the followers held the leaders to such a standard? Or even tried albeit failed?
I’m not sure what the point of this is. Female sports struggle for attention because no one treats them seriously. As you point out, hawtness seems to be the most important thing when it comes to women’s success in this arena. Sexism is at the root of this.
There are more white girls on the other team, so you can’t really say that. I can easily imagine Imus taking a glance at the game footage, seeing a lot more darkies wearing Rutgers’ colors relative to Tennessee, and seeing them uglier because of it. It made no sense for them to talk about jigaboos and whatever if that association wasn’t in their mind.
None of them were “nappy-headed” (since they all have straight hair), unless you’re using that phrase to mean black.
I disagree with you about women’s sports. Nobody pays attention because they are an inferior product. For example, ask an American soccer fan why MLS (the top men’s soccer league in the US) is widely ignored, and they’ll likely say it’s because the level of competition is inferior. MLS would improve if more people took it seriously, but women’s sports will always be the JV version compared to men’s.
I buy your interpretation regarding how Imus probably perceived the opponents. I concede that point. (By “nappy-headed” I meant kinky hair, giving Imus a benefit of the doubt he didn’t merit.)
Of course not. It’s white people who purchase most of the rap CDs, not blacks. Soon as white people stop purchasing the music, the artists will have no choice but to change the lyrical content.
How is women’s college basketball an “inferior product”? And even if it is an “inferior product”, do you think Imus would have taken the same kind of tone if it had been a guys’ game?
I don’t see anywhere where that was suggested.
As you can see from Bridget Burke’s, quite frankly…baffling, post, there are plenty of people out there who are just itching for a chance to be outraged.
A lot of has to do with the timing. The pendulum has started to swing to the left again which in my observation means less tolerance of anything perceived as descriminatory. Throw in that people are a bit sick of racist rants from the likes of celebrities like Mel Gibson and Michael Richards and well, looks like Imus just picked the wrong time to be an asshole.
In a strictly economic sense, it is a product where demand drops as income rises. Kind of like taking the bus. As my income increases, I’m more likely to take a car, the train or airplane.
Women’s basketball is the same. Most people, if they want to see a game, they’ll try to see an NBA game.
As to the “why” of women’s basketball being an inferior product, well…pick a WNBA team that could beat an NBA team.
I thought there wasn’t anything wrong with being a homosexual?
Muscular, asexual, unfeminine women are often associated with being “lesbian”. It has nothing to do with how powerful they are, physcially or otherwise. Maria Sharapova can smash the ball at 120mph, but no one would ever say she looked “butch” or “hard core”.
See, here’s the beauty of democracy and capitalism. Corporations are largely amoral. They don’t make judgements on what is legal or right. They just make money by providing the products and services people want. It is the governments job to regulate. But, you see, in this country, we don’t believe the government should regulate free speech.
So basically, if some scarecrow asshole with a face like a catchers mit wants to make a jerk of himself and has enough people willing to listen to him, who are you or I to say that he should be taken off the air? If he offends enough people and they stop watching/listening, eventually the company will decide to take him off and put on someone who the people want.
I like hip hop and rap. Why should I be unable to purchase it because you find the music offensive?
We give a lot of slack to the arts. Painting , movies and books help push and define our country and often reveal parts of the culture many do not know of. Spike Lee movies, black exploitation movies have shown a culture that is foreign to most. We cut a lot of slack for comedy. The use of words that are culturally taboo are acceptable in comedy.
Imus was not being funny. He didn’t just insult black women, but he insulted what is possibly the best of black women. Getting to Rutgers and moving far beyond the stereotype was a great accomplishment. When Imus called them nappy headed hos he took it all away. The black community was shocked by who he insulted. It was racist ,mean and totally uncalled for. It was not protected as humor ,because it was not a joke. It was a nasty uncalled for and inexcusable insult.
So those girls should just stand on the side-lines with their pom poms and stop trying to play a “man’s” game? Women athletes can’t be good on their own merits, only men’s?
No one likes to be stereotyped or miscategorized. I think you know this, but you’re just playing stupid.
Sharapova’s had whole threads created for her, praising her “hawtness”. Ask a guy to name a female athlete and 9 times out of 10, it will be her. Women athletics can’t get respect because men refuse to the players as anything but objects to either ridicule or slobber over. It has nothing to do with their prowess.
There’s nothing ugly or masculine about Serena and Venus Williams, but these women have been constantly dogged for their looks (by both men and women). Their feminimity has been questioned even when they have ass and tits for DAYS. When a masterful male athlete is likened to an animal and is told that he belongs in National Geographic before any mention of his athleticism, then I’ll say that there is no double-standard when it comes to respect between male and female athletes. The truth is that when it comes to women athletes and men, it’s style over substance. And Imus only confirms this.
You’re again demonstrating a poor use of the analogy. You’d have a point if you had been paying to listen to Imus. But you weren’t. Someone else was. If you want to listen to unadulterated, uncensored Imus, I’m sure he’ll accomodate you soon enough by putting his show on satellite radio. Just like if I want to listen to unadulterated, uncensored hip hop, I don’t go to the radio, I go to the music store.
No one can say whatever they want on the radio. Not Imus, Snoop Dog, or anyone. I don’t understand why people are having a problem with this.