Reply
Fri 13 Apr, 2007 01:01 pm
People seem more concerned about the racist slur, but isn't anyone upset at the word "Ho"? Especially for such accomplished women - college educated, wonderful athletes. He insulted a group of women who are already accomplished.
Then again, that happens to women every day.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, a New York Democrat, is smart and talented, but to many, she's nothing but an opportunist. She's called too aggressive, not cute and is slammed regularly. But she should be praised for being a woman who has achieved a lot in her career.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is portrayed as a bumbling idiot, but her academic credentials are impeccable. You can disagree with her ideology, but to question her womanhood is silly.
Women all across this country have to play by a different standard. They often make less than men, even when doing the same job; are accused of being too tough when they are the boss; and are treated as sexual objects. Sexism is embedded in our churches, synagogues, mosques, schools, Fortune 500 companies and in the political arena.
Maybe you've seen it already, but there was a bit of discussion on
Kickycan's thread in which a few people expressed the opinion that "ho" isn't a derogatory term, at least not anymore. (Not that I agree.)
How about an economic issue?
For the broadcasting system, it's all about the sponsors, for the sponsors,
it's all about the consumers.
Bottom line: satellite radio will give him a show and pay him a ton o' moolah.
...and so it goes...
In one sense it is free advertising for him and gives him a greater opportunity to make more money as you said there is satellite.
Shouldn't you be getting us a sammich or something?
Of course they are, but issues of sex have long taken a backseat to issues of race. Even during the movement to free and enfranchise the African slaves, women abolitionists were aware of the irony that they were fighting for the rights of African men to be free and able to vote while they themselves were disenfranchised and little more that chattel.
Frankly, this Imus thing is proof-positive that there's a conspiracy to distract Americans from what's really important. Does anyone really believe that group of college women have been emotionally scarred for life because of the ignorant comments of some scruffy-headed old fart?
Yeah, a conspiracy. That's the ticket.
I posted early that I took this as anti Les combined with tidbits of racism.
Uh, very early.
I dunno, at this point it seems communal.
I wait to be convinced that all this disussion is worse than not talking.
Shapeless wrote:Maybe you've seen it already, but there was a bit of discussion on
Kickycan's thread in which a few people expressed the opinion that "ho" isn't a derogatory term, at least not anymore. (Not that I agree.)
So, if not derogatory, do you think Queen Elizabeth of England would enjoy being called a "HO"?
ossobuco wrote:I posted early that I took this as anti Les combined with tidbits of racism.
Actually, this makes quite a bit of sense, especially in the larger context of what Imus was saying at the time--his talk of these athletes being rough and having tattoos, in addition to the now infamous terms he used, really made these young ladies sound like inmates in a women's prison.
Miller wrote:So, if not derogatory, do you think Queen Elizabeth of England would enjoy being called a "HO"?
Now there's a nappy-headed ho.
imus's comments were neither . the reaction was all off the above.
I'm sure everyone will recover, until the next big boo-boo on TV, etc.
Miller wrote:So, if not derogatory, do you think Queen Elizabeth of England would enjoy being called a "HO"?
Me? No, I don't think that at all.
The reasoning behind those who claim that ho isn't derogatory
seems to be that the no one uses the word "ho" literally, as shorthand for "whore" any more, but I personally can't see how that's relevant.
Derogatory?
Would you call your mother a ho to her face? Would she be sophisticated enough to accept that you were just speaking trendy?
Shapeless wrote:Miller wrote:So, if not derogatory, do you think Queen Elizabeth of England would enjoy being called a "HO"?
Me? No, I don't think that at all.
The reasoning behind those who claim that ho isn't derogatory
seems to be that the no one uses the word "ho" literally, as shorthand for "whore" any more, but I personally can't see how that's relevant.
Let me explain. It's kind of like the saying, "You suck." It is widely used in all sports, and I guarantee that if Imus had said that the Rutgers women's basketball team sucked, nobody would care. But the phrase "you suck" actually comes from "you suck c*ck," or "you suck moose c*ck," or many other variations on that theme. But nobody even thinks about that anymore.
So you see, being called a "ho" is really no big deal, just as if I were to say to you, "you suck."
I agree that nobody would have been calling for Imus's head on a platter if he'd said, "You suck," but what we're talking about here (or what I'm talking about, at any rate) is whether these terms are derogatory or not. If Imus says "you suck," you don't have to think he's expressing his sincere belief that you suck moose c*ck* in order to take it as an insult. If Imus calls you a "motherf*cker," you don't have to think he is expressing his belief that you have sex with your mom in order to take offense. Is it insulting enough to be fired over? Got me. Is it an insult? Of course it is.
I see your point, and I raise you two nappy-headed hos.
(I don't know what that means either, so don't bother asking)
When Miles Davis called someone a motherf*cker, it was a term of respect.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace