Imus and Nappy-headed-ho's

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And he'll have to swim back; we know that.

[Shawnee123]

Last night on the Nightly News they spoke with Maya Angelou (who I have had the honor to see in person twice.) She spoke about what Imus said being a sad thing to say, but went on to berate rappers, et al, for degrading women. I can't speak as eloquently, but I was pleased that she didn't go the Sharpton route, but didn't back away from the issue either. That woman is a class act.

[Sundae]

I have a lot of respect for Maya Angelou, and reading her autobiographies did help me see a difference between racist assumptions made by blacks against whites and those made by whites against blacks.

I'm not saying it applies to anyone of any age, but certainly the world she grew up in and what she had to face, I'm surprised her views have mellowed to the extent they have.

She's a good argument for tolerance and integration as a way of changing prejudices.

[pourbill]

Getting back to Don Imus, he has always been a jerk. On the other hand I thought his comment was about actions and self determined appearance. I contrasted the Rutger's five that were mostly in the game with three black commentators on Meet the Press yesterday. These three (2 men and a woman) were well groomed in professional buisness dress. The future doctors and lawyers on the Rutgers team were some of the roughest and unsportsmanlike players since the infamous Minnesota team. They were tatooed and scruffy looking and I am sure it was an intentional "look" similar to the "gangsta" look of the hardest hardcore rappers. They were not trying to look like future doctors and lawyers (and I'll take your bets that not one of the starting five ever becomes a doctor or lawyer). In short, they looked like a bunch of n_____, h_____, h__. I won't deny the racist overtones of the comment, but it was a fairly accurate discription, in the Black venaculare, of what one saw, and the tough image that THEY intended to project.

[Shawnee123]

Merc would be "nappy-headed ho" and the other guy would be MISTER Nappy-headed ho"? :p

[piercehawkeye45]

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/04/16/71560

Originally Posted by MNDaily

So Don Imus has been fired from both his radio and television show a week after he called the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" during a discussion of the team's play in the national championship game. What more can possibly be said about this incident?
For the past week and a half since Imus made the comment, he has been national news with everyone weighing in on the matter. For this reason, I originally was not going to write a column on the subject. However, I changed my mind yesterday when a female friend of mine argued that Imus would not have been fired if he had avoided using the adjective "nappy-headed" to describe the team. In other words, she argued that it was the overt racism of his comment - rather than its overt sexism - that was the problem for most people. Thinking about this, I believe she is probably right. In particular, if one examines the form the debate took within the media, it is hard to disagree with this assessment.

First and foremost, note the way in which nearly all the mainstream media debate was focused on the single sound bite of "nappy-headed ho." This ignores that this comment occurred within a longer discussion in which the main point was to overtly sexualize the players on both the Rutgers team and the Tennessee team that they played. The "girls" from Tennessee were "cute" while the "hardcore hos" from Rutgers look "exactly like the Toronto Raptors," or "The (Memphis) Grizzlies." Imus' producer at one point even argued that the two teams reminded him of the Spike Lee film "School Daze" with the Rutgers team as "The Jigaboos" and the Tennessee team as "The Wannabes." This comment occurred right after Imus himself said the Tennessee team "all look cute," thus what his producer was insinuating was that they were "less black," and thus, more attractive.

This might very well be the first time you've heard the entire context of the conversation, as opposed to simply the single sound bite. By reducing discussion in this way, much of the overt sexism of the conversation is lost in favor of a discussion that centers the single phrase. In other words, what was lost was that this conversation was designed to "put the ladies in their place" by reminding them that, no matter what they've done in life, they can always be objectified and sexualized by a group of men who are afraid of them and their accomplishments. Because of this, both teams deserved an apology. However, because the majority of the conversation was ignored, no one thought to ask why Imus was not apologizing to Tennessee as well as Rutgers.

Secondly, as another example that the sexism was not the problem, note that when the subject did come up within the mainstream media debate, it was by Imus himself when he tried to use it as a defense. Namely, Imus and his defenders relied on the "black rappers say 'ho,' too" argument whereby they argued that the culture writ large is sexist, so they cannot be held responsible for their sexism. This attempt at dodging accountability for his own words is laughable, but the overall point Imus unintentionally raises is a good one. Namely, there is an element of American culture that now encourages men to bond across racial lines in their objectification of women. Thus, elite white record company owners, black rappers and the Don Imuses of the world can come together to "put women in their place." This message then filters down through the culture, sending the message that sexism is not only fine, but valued by those in power.

This tolerance of sexism - which has been ignored or excused in the Imus incident - needs to be addressed in the same way as the racism of his words. Feminist columnists and bloggers have been doing this, but within the mainstream media one continues to hear overwhelmingly male voices that, by and large, choose not to address the sexism of the comments. This is regrettable, because this moment could have been a chance for progressive women and men to not only acknowledge the sexism which pervades American culture, but also to put forth new definitions of what it means to be masculine, definitions which do not rely on a the need to continually reassert male supremacy through the denigration of women.

This article brings up a good point about a double standard with sexism and not racism.

[Hime]

Very thought-provoking article. I especially agree with the description of sexualizing language being used to "put women in their place." I have seen so many conversations among men about Hillary Clinton, Ann Coulter, Condoleeza Rice, Nancy Pelosi and other powerful and influential women come down to "But would you do her?" It's an obvious and stupid defense mechanism against the idea of a woman having power.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Hime

Very thought-provoking article. I especially agree with the description of sexualizing language being used to "put women in their place." I have seen so many conversations among men about Hillary Clinton, Ann Coulter, Condoleeza Rice, Nancy Pelosi and other powerful and influential women come down to "But would you do her?" It's an obvious and stupid defense mechanism against the idea of a woman having power.

I think you're giving men too much credit here with the idea that they are intentionally trying to keep women down... I think they're just horny. I've seen plenty of men discussing the thoughts and philosophies of Clinton, Coulter, et al. and when that conversation fizzles out, what's wrong with asking "would you do her?". Are women "in power" no longer sexual creatures? Are men supposed to pretend that they don't size all women up that way?

I don't see Imus' "sexist" remarks as being any different than if I were to comment on the nice asses of the wide recievers during a football game. I'm just not that into football and the mind wanders, kwim?

[Hime]

Originally Posted by jinx

I think you're giving men too much credit here with the idea that they are intentionally trying to keep women down... I think they're just horny. I've seen plenty of men discussing the thoughts and philosophies of Clinton, Coulter, et al. and when that conversation fizzles out, what's wrong with asking "would you do her?". Are women "in power" no longer sexual creatures? Are men supposed to pretend that they don't size all women up that way?

I don't see Imus' "sexist" remarks as being any different than if I were to comment on the nice asses of the wide recievers during a football game. I'm just not that into football and the mind wanders, kwim?

I don't think it's intentional on the part of most men, I think it's a subconscious reaction to the fear of women in power. And it's different when it's accompanied by thoughtful discussion, as you said -- I'm more thinking of the guys who talk as though a woman has no worth if she isn't sexy, like if someone quotes Madeline Albright and he says "ew, that troll?" That's a fear reaction, and it is misogynistic.

And on the other side, I presume from your comments that you are a woman. Have you ever known a guy who clearly had no respect for you, but wanted to get into your pants, so he wouldn't listen to what you said but would constantly fawn over you for being attractive? I have been in that situation more than once, and I find it extremely demeaning. When I am talking to you, I am not a "sexual creature," I am your fellow human being, and I expect to be evaluated on my ideas and talents, not on my rack or my hairstyle.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by jinx

I think you're giving men too much credit here with the idea that they are intentionally trying to keep women down... I think they're just horny. --snip--

Originally Posted by Hime

I don't think it's intentional on the part of most men, I think it's a subconscious reaction to the fear of women in power.--snip--

And the score at the end of the first inning: jinx 1, Hime 0.

And now a word from our sponsors.

[pourbill]

Hime, I wasn't picking on tatoos as such, though there are tatoos and then there are tatoos, it's just that if you style yourself after Dennis Rodman you can't expect comparisons to Lil Bo Peep. As far as calling names goes, it's my guess Imus thought he was styling himself after some black celeb such as Chris Rock or one of the current crop of Rappers. I would never try to justify calling someone a "ho" if it were meant to call them a "ho" as opposed to trying to sound "with it". It hurts, but you are correct, I am 64. I have dated a few ladies younger than I am who have sported some artwork without finding it offensive. I have to admit I felt it was tasteful and generally outside of public view. One was a small butterfly just about to alight upon a bush. I really loved that one.

BTW, I found the comment FAR more insulting to women than to blacks. I too will not use the "American" term.
Also, the night the last idol was kicked-off she was asked about the comment one of the judges (Simon) made about how she was normally dressed (scantly) and how it was her tactic to stay in the competition, particularly that night. Being that she was very scantly dressed and more made-up than usual. Her comment was that it was "Latin night, so..." implying that dressing like a ho' was normal for them I guess.
I waited for the uproar... still am I guess. It offend me. Funny, I'm not easily offended, but am seeing a lot more of a casual attitude toward comments like these toward women these days. Particularly from women, makes me sad.

[Hime]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

BTW, I found the comment FAR more insulting to women than to blacks. I too will not use the "American" term.
Also, the night the last idol was kicked-off she was asked about the comment one of the judges (Simon) made about how she was normally dressed (scantly) and how it was her tactic to stay in the competition, particularly that night. Being that she was very scantly dressed and more made-up than usual. Her comment was that it was "Latin night, so..." implying that dressing like a ho' was normal for them I guess.
I waited for the uproar... still am I guess. It offend me. Funny, I'm not easily offended, but am seeing a lot more of a casual attitude toward comments like these toward women these days. Particularly from women, makes me sad.

Was she wearing something that looked like a latin dance costume? They tend to be on the skimpy side -- as almost all dance costumes do, because you want to be able to see the movements.

If not, then yeah, that's pretty questionable -- although I still hate how Simon disses the women for showing skin. Since when is modesty an important trait in a pop singer?

Originally Posted by Hime

Was she wearing something that looked like a latin dance costume? They tend to be on the skimpy side -- as almost all dance costumes do, because you want to be able to see the movements.

If not, then yeah, that's pretty questionable -- although I still hate how Simon disses the women for showing skin. Since when is modesty an important trait in a pop singer?

No, and it was not that skimpy, just some shorts a black bustier (sp?) with a semi-transparent full shirt over it.
She was not being overly provocative either. I suspect he is attracted to her, a young girl... FAR too young, and is projecting.
The sad thing is that her performance left much he could have spent his time criticizing legitimately.

[Happy Monkey]

Maybe her only exposure to Latin culture is Telemundo.