Monday, April 16, 2007

It's the Hypocrisy, STupid

From Robin Morgan (www.RobinMorgan.us)


Beyond Imus—It’s the Hypocrisy, Stupid!

April 16

Periodically, some new wound rips the scab off our national, livid scar where sex and race intersect: the young law professor, Anita Hill, shaming Congress by her dignity and inspiring women with her truth; the O.J. Simpson circus trials; the Duke-Lacrosse mystery; Don Imus v. the Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team.

We’re an adolescent country, ahistoric, not that well educated. Most Americans still don’t know that “races” do not exist, that what gets termed “races” are miniscule physical variations across our species, due to different survival adaptations we’ve developed since our human ancestors migrated from Africa to other geographical regions. (One instance: in a sun-drenched sub-Saharan climate, melanin in our pigmentation created darker skin as a protective necessity; under cloudier northern skies, paler pigmentation suppressing melanin became necessary so we could absorb more Vitamin D from the sun.)

Yet ironically, while believing “race” is real, many Americans think racism, sexism, and other bigotries are myths—a staggering feat of collective denial. How many times have you heard someone start (or finish) a diatribe with “Well, I’m no racist (sexist, homophobe, etc.), but . . . ?

Michael Richards follows his melt-down by proclaiming he’s not a racist; Mel Gibson weeps he’s not an anti-Semite; actor Isaiah Washington calls a colleague “faggot,” but insists he’s no homophobe. Politicians spew blatant or coded hate speech, then muster blame-the-victim, nonapology apologies (“Sorry if anyone mistook what I meant”).  They all scuttle behind the excuse of work-stress or alcoholism while fleeing to the latest damage-control hideaway: rehab.

Howard Stern, who built his career on every form of bigotry, “libertarian” Bill Maher, and new neocon Dennis Miller all boast about attacking “the Establishment” while they parrot and reinforce its basest values, and hide behind the “equal-opportunity insulter” justification—as if pain lands with the same impact on the powerless as on the powerful. A few others walk a fine line of satirizing prejudices while trying not to reinforce them. Stephen Colbert has built a not-so-bright, archconservative character deliberately to skewer that character’s politics. Yet even Jon Stewart, whose work I admire, at times jettisons his political conscience where sexism is concerned—perhaps too eager to court that age 18 to 24 pale-male consumer demographic?

But all of these “truth-telling,” “ground-breaking,” “ballsy,” so-called rebels, however much they might now tiptoe around “the N word,” tiptoe more around words that would be really dangerous to use, especially in self-examination:

The R word: Racist. The S word: Sexist. The H word: Homophobe.

Well, after a lifetime of activism—from the civil-rights movement through antiwar, antipoverty, the birth of lesbian and gay rights, the founding and flowering of the contemporary feminist movement in the United States and globally—I am still a racist, a sexist, a homophobe. How could I not be? How can any of us—no matter our sex or ethnicity—not be sexist, racist, and all the other –ists? Our society sowed these seeds in our formative consciousness.

I remember my mother and aunts—good women, liberal whites, working-class, apostate Jews, proud members of the NAACP—unthinkingly saying “That’s white of you,” or “I’m free, white, and 21,” or even “You can’t wear those new shoes yet! Stop acting nigger-rich.”  Yet these women once soaped out the mouth of a playmate who used “nigger” as an epithet; all the while they chuckled at “Amos and Andy” stereotypes on the radio and made “No tickee no washee” jokes at the Chinese laundry. Conveniently, they didn’t connect the dots.

As a child, I sure got their double message, though. Never since have I been able to cleanse myself totally of those messages, not under the blast of Southern sheriff’s fire hoses, not on picket lines or at sit-ins or in jail cells. I wrestle with those toxins—whispery, seductive, semiconscious—every damned day, in myriad ways, and will do so until I die. Hannah Arendt termed this a necessary vigilance about “the Eichmann within,” who gets loose only when not acknowledged. It’s the hypocrisy. I believe that each of us truly commits to fight bigotry only when we get royally pissed at how it has warped our own humanity. At least then, with enlightened self-interest, we’re less likely to play Lord or Lady Bountiful but abandon the direct victims when the going gets rough. There’s no vaccine for these poisons siphoned into our systems, no individual-case cure. But recognition is the prerequisite step in treating such diseases until we can eradicate them outright. For that we need to come off it and tell the truth.

It’s not about blame, but about responsibility; not about guilt, but about change.

The same is even truer of sexism—where denial and collaboration are epidemic. Racism is still taken more seriously because men suffer from it, too—and whatever any men do or feel must be more important than what happens “only” to all women. When a man says “I’m no sexist, but . . .” I groan inside. But when the rare guy begins, “I guess I must be a sexist, but I don’t want to be, so how . . .” he gets my attention: he’s owning up to reality, and already addressing not what but how.

Everyone over age 45 shares some version of my childhood brain-soiling experiences. Younger Americans share different pernicious messages: It’s cool to make fun of geezers, fat people, spastics, amputees. If certain hip-hop lyrics reek violent woman-hatred, it’s hip for everyone to echo that (and it rakes in dough for the pale-male-owned record companies). If chic fashion spreads celebrate sado-porn rape poses, well, that’s just edgy. If talk-radio’s crude propaganda spews words like “feminazis,” “retards,” “Lezzies,” “ragheads,” and “wetbacks,” gee, lighten up, nobody takes that seriously. (Who is nobody?) If “Hey, man,” “What’s up, dude,” or “You guys” have been resurrected as generic terms for greeting a friend/friends, then to point out wearily that these terms erase female presence is to invite rebuttals revived word-for-word from the 1970s: to be overly sensitive, uncool, and, naturally, one of those humorless, dreary PC types. (About 15 years ago, I wrote a Ms. editorial explaining “PC” as really standing for Plain Courtesy.) D’uh. We’ve been here before, oh yeah.  But it still hurts.

It hurts. What part of “It hurts” don’t they understand?

I know, I know, it’s positive (however maddening) that our memory-challenged  pundits now claim the Imus affair will “open” a national dialogue about which some of us Americans are already hoarse, yet still babbling. I know patience is not my strong suit. I know that over time, consciousness is contagious. Once you start connecting dots, you can’t help but connect more. Rep. Linda Sanchez recently suspended her membership in the Hispanic Congressional Caucus, the second to leave the group charging sexism; her sister, Rep. Loretta Sanchez resigned after accusing caucus chairman Rep. Joe Baca of referring to her as a “whore.” Star athletes, members of Congress, law professors, single moms dancing at frat parties to support their kids, presidential candidates—when in doubt, call ‘em whores. We’re none of us immune to the hurt. And we’re none of us immune to being agents for the hurt.

I don’t only mean obvious offenders, serial right-wing purveyors of hate like Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, et al. What about liberal compartmentalizers? Wasn’t that left-leaning Hollywood awarding an Oscar to the song “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp”? In a coyly intellectual version of “Ooops, my bad!” progressive politicians and journalists—Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden, Rep. Harold Ford, Frank Rich, Jeff Greenfield, a depressingly long list—now sheepishly admit to having been (caught as) enablers by appearing on “serious” segments of Imus shows, while they conveniently overlooked vicious sexist and racist “jokes” bracketing their discussions. I’ve heard feminist spokeswomen defend appearing on shock-jock shows or political shout-fest programs claiming the “need to reach those audiences.” To help generate more heat than light? To be a guest or a dartboard? To do outreach or to collaborate—conveniently compartmentalizing while hyping a book or oneself?
 
Language  reflects and defines attitudes. Attitudes reflect and define action. It’s the hypocrisy, stupid.
 
From the media, as usual, we relearned Compartmentalization 101: Whatever Men Say and Do is More Interesting than Whatever Women Say and Do.
 
Feminist movement support for the Rutgers team has been close to eradicated in coverage, which positioned Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as leading the protests. Most pundits chose to play a sick Competition of Oppressions game, presenting the Imus debacle as more a racist story than a sexist one—as if human suffering should be compared, women appear in only one skin tone, and bigots can’t hate and chew gun at the same time. The Sunday morning TV political shows ignored the sexism entirely. Some commentators justly praised pressure brought by a 200,000 member African American women’s organization joining the protests, but neglected to mention that The National Council of Women's Organizations—11 million multiethnic women in 210 organizations—was among the first to demand firing Imus and his producer. Eleanor Smeal of the Feminist Majority Foundation met privately with the team at the start, and her speech brought down the house at their Rutgers rally. NOW’s President Kim Gandy has been denouncing Imus for years, and from the first moment this story broke, she, together with heads of other national feminist organizations, attended those same pressure meetings with CBS and NBC executives. These were meetings where Sharpton and Jackson—each bearing personal baggage as an apologist for his own past sexist actions and ethnic hate speech—garnered the media spotlight.
 
The fall-out from such destructive divide-and-conquer reporting implies that African American male leaders cared, but women of all other ethnicities did not. Erasure again—partial-truth reporting that feeds racism and sexism.
 
By now, we ought to know better, right? We ought to know that, despite persistent, erroneous media references otherwise, women are not another minority: we’re 52% of the population—and of the species. And you can damned well bet we come in all sizes, shades, shapes, ages. You name it, we are it. That’s the F word: Feminism.
 

At least the women athletes from Rutgers (two of whom are stereotype-breaking European Americans, by the way) got it right. Refusing to compartmentalize, and continuing to demonstrate not only physical but moral grace, they made clear they felt all women had been degraded by Imus’s remark. As team captain Essence Carson said:  “We’re just trying to give a voice to women who suffer from sexism. . . . Not just African American women, but all women.” 

Slam dunk.

 

Friday, April 13, 2007

inus comments sexist

By Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor
Adjust font size:

Editor's note: Roland S. Martin is a CNN contributor and a talk-show host for WVON-AM in Chicago.

(CNN) -- No one would have thought that when Rosa Parks opted not to give up her seat to a white man in 1955, a dozen years later blacks would have the full right to vote, the ability to eat in hotels and restaurants and see Jim Crow destroyed.

We might look back in a few years and come to realize that the removal of Don Imus from the public airwaves put America on a course that changed the dialogue on what is acceptable to say in public forums.

The downfall of a long, successful and controversial career, on the surface, took eight days. But for Imus, this has actually been 30 years in the making. He has used his sexual and racial schtick to pad his pocketbook. Only this time, he ran up against a group of women who presented such a compelling story, his bosses couldn't ignore the reality of his sexist and racist rant.

Although the National Association of Black Journalists led the fight to oust Imus, there is no doubt that it was that moving news conference by the Rutgers University women's basketball team that cemented the demise of Imus. Vivian Stringer was poised and strong in demanding that America look at the 10 women and see them as the real face of Imus's slurs.

And that is really the issue we must focus on. So many people tried to make this a race issue. But for me, that wasn't the primary point. I never wavered from the attack as one of a sexist. It didn't matter that he was trying to be funny. 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.

America, we have a problem with sexism. Don't try to make this whole matter about the ridiculous rants made by rappers. I deplore what's in a lot of their music and videos, but hip-hop is only 30 years old. So you mean to tell me that sexism in America only started in 1977?

Now is the time for this nation to undergo a direct examination of the depths of sexism. My media colleagues shouldn't go just for the easy target ˇ rap lyrics. That is no doubt a logical next step, but sexism is so much deeper. It is embedded in our churches, synagogues, mosques, schools, Fortune 500 companies and in the political arena. We should target our resources to this issue and raise the consciousness of people, and expose the reality.

Don Imus should not be the period. He can be the comma. Civil rights organizations, media entities, women's groups and others have an opportunity that they can't pass up. We have the chance to seize the moment to begin a conversation ˇ-- an in-depth one ˇ-- that has the opportunity to redefine America along the lines of race and sex.

I hope and pray that we have the courage to do so.

Tools: Save | Print | E-mail | Most Popular
Next story in U.S. U.S.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daughter: Injured governor 'going to be OK'

Gov. Jon S. Corzine was apparently not wearing his seat belt as required by law when his official SUV crashed into a guard rail, leaving the governor hospit ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commentary: Imus might be spark for debate on sexism
Gunman apologizes during robbery
Coach: Imus' apology accepted
Gov. Corzine 'going to be OK'
Buckingham concert nixed

Rutgers coach: Imus' apology accepted
Martin: Imus' attack mostly sexist, not racist
Al Qaeda group claims Iraq bombing
Iraq students: This isn't Vietnam
Cleared Duke players consider lawsuit
Croc snaps off man's arm (1:08)
End of the shock jock? (2:05)
Friday's live music lineup (2:37)
Man races cheetah (3:47)
Now In The News (Updated: 12:31 p.m. ET)


CNN contributor Roland Martin sees comments by radio host Don Imus as a mostly sexist attack.

ADVERTISER LINKS

Online Book Stores
Online Shopping
Sporting Goods
Theater Tickets



Mortgage Rates Near 40-Yr Lows
$310,000 Loan for $999/mo. Think you pay too much? See new payment.
www.LowerMyBills.com



Refinance and Save $1,000S
$150,000 Mortgage for $483/month. Compare up to 4 free quotes.
www.pickamortgage.com



Don't Quit Your Job
Take classes online and earn your degree in one year.
www.ClassesUSA.com






RELATED
Rutgers team and Imus meet
Martin: What would Jesus really do?











Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s):

Enter City:



Search  More Options



International Edition

CNN TV CNN International Headline News Transcripts Advertise with Us About Us Contact Us
Search
© 2007 Cable News Network.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map.
SERVICES » E-mails RSS Podcasts CNNtoGo CNN Pipeline
External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pay service with live and archived video. Learn more

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Imus: Racism AND sexism

One of the reasons Don Imus's comments about the Rutgers basketball team was not only that it was a racist comment (all the media get that). What the media hasn't talked about so much is that it was also sexist and misogynist: using the generic term "ho" for all women, but particularly African American women, was as "ist" as the "nappy" comment. So Imus's was a double-whammy of a racist/sexist comment. Why doesn't the media discuss the sexist part more? What do you all think? gail