It has now been a week since Don Imus called the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos."
As would be expected, countless journalists with the privilege and space to document their personal opinions on the controversy have done so—but the discussion of Imus and his words seems to begin and end with race.
Unfortunately, it's not that one-dimensional.
Maybe the fact that racism applies to men as well as women makes it cooler to be outraged along black-and-white lines: If you call a guy out for being a misogynist, you might just look like a wuss. Or maybe it's that men's teams are the dominant paradigm in professional and college athletics—and that women's programs get stuck with minimal media coverage, few opportunities for professional careers, and team names like Lady Knights.
Today's Must Reads
Look at the country's obsession with Imus: The individuals being called on to respond—Al Sharpton, Spike Lee, Barack Obama—are black male leaders, and it's the black community that's expected to be up in arms.
It's not that Imus' remarks weren't racist—but the American media has harped on "nappy-headed" while mostly ignoring "hos." The double-edged insult begs for double-edged coverage, but women are the only ones who seem willing to talk about the gender implications.
In Wednesday's New York Times, sports columnist Selena Roberts pointed out the larger context.
"Ho is the new bitch," she wrote. "And bitch is the old sissy. But whatever the label, women are always first to be part of the gag when sexism and misogyny are publicly sanctioned and celebrated—particularly in sports."
Roberts' column illuminates the fact that Americans are desensitized to gender discrimination—which is why journalist after journalist has cried racist at Imus without mentioning misogyny.
There is a common misconception that women are equal to men in this country—despite the wage gap, the threat of sexual violence, and the ongoing fight for control of one's own body. Imus' statement should have opened the door for outrage on two counts; that it didn't speaks to our collective deafness to gender issues.
When Imus insulted the Rutgers women's basketball team, he also insulted anyone with a passion for playing or watching competitive sports. The team's accomplishments were completely overlooked all season, and the players were right to point out that Imus deprived them of what should have been a celebratory moment. The fact that so few sports writers have stood up for women's athletics in the last week should be an embarrassment to every sports fan in this country, because we're the ones who could have looked past the politics and paid the Lady Knights the respect they deserved.
The fight, simply put, is far from over. Anyone who thinks it acceptable to overlook or denigrate women's athletics is following in the awful American tradition of segregation and identity-based discrimination.
We're better than that. Or at least we can be.
comments (10) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 year ago
The uproar over the racist implications of Imus' comments is completely justified...and there should be an equal amount of disgust over the sexist side of Imus' remarks. Thank you for making this point so eloquently and helping to open eyes to this overlooked problem.
about 1 year ago
I also think that the 'ho' part was more insulting than the 'nappy' part. Honestly, I think that this was a nasty combination of: sexism, racially-charged (though not racist) comments, an outdated brand of humor, fallout from Michael Richards, and a recent wave of celebrity public interest stories.
Still, at the end of the day, it was just mean. Mean to the athletes and women in general.
about 1 year ago
In fact, who is a prominent feminist today? There's no Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton of women.
about 1 year ago
What about Hillary? Didn't she respond to Imus' remarks with indignance at their racism but not their anti-womenism?
about 1 year ago
Maybe the fact that the word "ho" was somewhat ignored shows that women leaders see this as what it is a shock jock trying to get a shock.
Maybe the minority leaders are making a bigger deal out of this than what is necessary.
If the Rutger's team had just stated that they don't care what an old white man looking for attention says then this whole thing could be behind us.
5 months ago
people are commenting mostly on the "ho" part. it depends on your ethnicity; black people will concentrate on the "nappy-headed" part more than the ho part. other people will concentrate on the "ho" part more. i think it generally comes from where you were brought up and what light you see your ethnicity in.
5 months ago
people are commenting mostly on the "ho" part. it depends on your ethnicity; black people will concentrate on the "nappy-headed" part more than the ho part. other people will concentrate on the "ho" part more. i think it generally comes from where you were brought up and what light you see your ethnicity in.
5 months ago
people are commenting mostly on the "ho" part. it depends on your ethnicity; black people will concentrate on the "nappy-headed" part more than the ho part. other people will concentrate on the "ho" part more. i think it generally comes from where you were brought up and what light you see your ethnicity in.
5 months ago
people are commenting mostly on the "ho" part. it depends on your ethnicity; black people will concentrate on the "nappy-headed" part more than the ho part. other people will concentrate on the "ho" part more. i think it generally comes from where you were brought up and what light you see your ethnicity in.
5 months ago
people are commenting mostly on the "ho" part. it depends on your ethnicity; black people will concentrate on the "nappy-headed" part more than the ho part. other people will concentrate on the "ho" part more. i think it generally comes from where you were brought up and what light you see your ethnicity in.
write a new comment