Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why 'Nappy' Is Offensive
When Don Imus called the Rutgers University basketball team a bunch of "nappy-headed ho ' s" he brought to the fore the degree to which black women's hair has served as a visible marker of our political and social marginalization.Nappy, a historically derogatory term used to describe hair that is short and tightly coiled, is a preeminent example of how social and cultural ideas are transmitted through bodies. Since African women first arrived on American shores, the bends and twists of our hair have became markers of our subhuman status and convenient rationales for denying us our rightful claims to citizenship.
Establishing the upper and lower limits of humanity was of particular interest to Enlightenment era thinkers, who struggled to balance the ideals of the French Revolution and the Declaration of Independence with the fact of slavery. The 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen did not discriminate on the basis of race or sex and had the potential to be applied universally. It was precisely because an appeal to natural rights could only be countered by proof of natural inequality that hair texture, one of the most obvious indicators of physical differences between the races, was seized upon. Nappy hair was demonstrable proof of the fact that neither human physiology nor human nature was uniform and, therefore, that social inequalities could be justified.
Saartjie Baartman, a South African "bushwoman," was exhibited like a circus freak in the Shows of London between 1810 and 1815. The leading French anatomist of the day, George Cuvier, speculated that Baartman might be the "missing link" between the human and animal worlds because of her "peculiar features" including her "enormous buttocks" and "short, curling hair."
In "Notes on the State of Virginia," Thomas Jefferson reflected on why it would be impossible to incorporate blacks into the body politic after emancipation. He concluded it was because of the differences "both physical and moral," chief among them the absence of long, flowing hair.
For a runaway slave, the kink in her hair could mean the difference between freedom in the North and enslavement or worse if she were to be caught and returned to her master. Miscegenation meant that some slaves had skin as light as whites and the rule of thumb was that hair was a more reliable indicator than skin of a person's racial heritage. Thus, runaway slaves often shaved their heads in order to get rid of any evidence of their ancestry and posters advertising for fugitive slaves often warned slave catchers to be on the lookout for runaways with shaved heads : "They might pass for white."
In the late 1960s, after the FBI declared Angela Davis one of the country's 10 most wanted criminals, thousands of other law-abiding, Afro-wearing African-American women became targets of state repression -- accosted, harassed, and arrested by police, the FBI, and immigration agents. The "wanted" posters that featured Davis, her huge Afro framing her face like a halo, appeared in post offices and government buildings all over America, not to mention on television and in Life magazine. Her "nappy hair" served not only to structure popular opinions about her as a dangerous criminal, but also made it possible to deny the rights of due process and habeas corpus to any young black woman, simply on the basis of her hairstyle.
For African-American women, the personal has always been political. What grows out of our head can mean the difference between being a citizen and being a subject; being enslaved or free; alive or dead. As Don Imus found out this week, 300 years of a tangled and painful racial history cannot be washed away with a simple apology.
Zine Magubane is an associate professor of sociology and African diaspora studies at Boston College.
© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
56 Comments so far
Show AllAnother interesting development recently regarding African-Americans was the "disenrollment" of black "freedmen" from the Oklahoma Cherokee Nation.
This news story was widely distributed nationally and internationally.
It provides us with useful information about American society and history, and the racial dynamics involved.
See:
"Who is a Cherokee? Many Americans have Indians in the family tree"
PopulistAmerica.com
March 14, 2007
http://www.populistamerica.com/who_is_a_cherokee
What has it come to when "nappy" is more of an insult than "Ho" ? Maybe with the "Rap" and "Hip-Hop" cultiure becomming so main stream "Ho" is becomming a term of endearment !...-
In my understanding of the usage of the word "nappy", it means dirty as well as kinky, etc. That is what I interpreted Imus' remarks to mean. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the sentiment I "hear" when the term "nappy" is used.
He might as well have said "niggary" heads.
Is it ALWAYS derogatory, even when used in a rap song? Can a white rapper say this? Is Stevie Wonder wrong to sing his lyrics too? What are the rules?
If Imus was wrong; is it wrong everywhere on the air? Should all references broadcast to this term be banned?
Wait a minute, what about free speech?
Stop and think about it, all speech is free ~ it's just that we should be held ACCOUNTABLE for that speech ~ like Mr. Imus is currently. Agree?
I'm from Great Britain, and I have puzzled over the last few days as to what "nappy-headed" means and why it is so insulting. Over here, a nappy is our term for a diaper, so I thought it was something to do with a headscarf or kerchief. Now I understand.
Some years ago, I attended a racism awareness course. One of the big lessons I took away from it was this: the motives behind what you do mean doodley-squat. It's the effects they produce in others that matter. That is, if you offend someone, you better have some bloddy good arguments to justify what you did.
Documentary called, "The Angry Eye" by Jane Elliott. Everyone watch this film and you'll get it!
There has been a lot of academic attention paid to how race is constructed in this country, as well as to how notions of "human" and "non-human" have been used to justify and legitimate the exploitation and abuse of human "others."
I was struck when I saw TV interviews of the Rutgers women. All of them had long and somewhat straight hair. I realized how notions of beauty, especially for women, are basically idealized characteristics that we associate with whites. Then I listened to the women, and they wanted to meet and talk with Imus to show him that they were not "nappy haired hos." Why do these women feel that they have to prove themselves to this overpaid hatemonger who probably doesn't even have the intelligence or talent of any of these young women?
I am almost sorry that MSNBC cancelled him, because if nothing else, his comments initiated a much-needed national discussion. It's unfortunate that we need these kinds of episodes to spur us into facing racism. Now with Imus gone, the problem can be conveniently swept back under the rug.
What does it say that there is so much attention and discussion about "nappy" and so little about "ho"?
What does that say?
Someone pointed out that it was unfair to call Hillary a bitch, but same author neglected to note that even Hillary promotes machismo orientation when she always try to strut her balls as proof that she is made of the right stuff.
Vern,
"Bitch" is a gender-laden term and no gender-laden terms should be applied to any elected official who serves the public-- they should be evaluated on their actions and their effectiveness for the job they were elected to, not stereotyped on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
Warmongering, poll-watching, corporate ass-kissing sell-out she may be, but "bitch", no. Please don't diminish the public image of Hillary's detractors by resorting to such sexist epithets.
Ironically, the would-be master of triangulation has positioned herself so as to give both the left and the right plenty of ammunition and motivation.
It's people like Imus that makes me feel sometimes that I come from another species of homosapiens. To be young, naive, and without proper upbringing, you may have an excuse. To be an adult human being, especially as old as Imus appears to be, there is no excuse. To hold on to hate, prejudices, ignorance and immaturity for that long is a waste of precious life. If a person is still struggling with those sorts of problems in this day and age and still can't manage to control their tongue then they shouldn't be holding jobs that happen to have such a large audience. At least not an audience that for the most part expects you to have some sort of dignity about you. Imus' style belongs on a program like Jerry Springer's.
There is no excuse for someone as perversely insulting as Imus being on the radio!
I understand that he has been fired. A firing squad would be more appropriate.
"Balls" is a gender-laden term too, implying that men are superior to women. All the unfortunate forms of "pussy" - "pussification" and all of the other uses of "pussy" as insults are also gender-oriented. Implying that a woman's performing like a man makes her better, for example when she shows courage or initiative, is as offensive as calling a man a "pussy" in order to make him seem feminine. I hear it at the poker table all the time when anyone makes a courageous (or sometimes foolish) play that happens to win. The reason the player did so well was because he or she had BALLS.
Many of my friends and acquaintances claim that "balls" and "pussy" are "just expressions," but so are phrases like "n*****" rigging" and "jew him down." The fact that they have been commonly used does not make these words harmless or insignificant. It has become socially unacceptable to refer to people using racial epithets, but it's still fine for a coach to get his male athletes to work harder by calling them "ladies." And if it's not, I've never heard of any coach being rebuked for this sexist language.
Hillary, however much I object to her politics in general, is not "strutting her balls" when she shows aggression or resolve. She is not "being macho." She is being aggressive or unpleasant or whatever characteristics she is displaying, positive or not, and it has nothing to do with gender.
"Nappy-headed" and "ho" are offensive to be sure, but so is any language that casually denigrates anyone due to gender, race, or orientation.
Hate and fear are related, and they are useful when a nation is selling war. To have a war, you need an enemy, to manipulate a public into believing an "enemy" is worth destroying, there must be a lot of hate (like a mentally sick raw material) on tap. I know a lot of people love sports, but the degree to which sports and its built-in team orientation has become so vastly celebrated in our land in my view constitutes the new "opiate" of the peoples. From team affiliation you get all that black/white, win/lose, force-first, who's the big dog pervasive beliefs that are not that difficult (once drummed up into a fervor) to deflect to nations and their "cause to win." When the LEADER of the "free" world mostly leads in arming nations, making wars and destroying civilization, the whole concept of what winning and leadership means needs to go back to the collective drawing board. King Arthur had it right, all the knights sitting around a circle. A circle has NO sides, and gives each a position and a voice. THIS is the model of inclusion our world requires, to get past these baboon-like hierarchies that use force to control populations. The "rulers" seem to find it all good sport, death reduced to sports-like numbers. What a collective loss of heart and soul this nation is beating to, and the law of karma will become its own blowback.
I think this issue has raised important questions regarding both racism and also sexism. I don't want to downplay the racial side of this which is a major problem. But on the gender-related part of it, comments like 'ho' have wider ramifications than folks who like to justify them at all care to think about. It's really nauseating.
I sometimes feel that we are so acclimated to degrading and offensive speech about women, we often don't even think about it in music lyrics, entertainment magazines, on humorous radio talk shows... women's bodies are a source of humor, frenzied competition, ridicule.
I remember having a debate with people in a band I was playing in with. It was about some rap lyrics regarding dominating a woman. I asked why everyone thought it was funny to sing about hitting a woman. I was amazed at the thoughtless enjoyment of this displayed by generally very above average thinkers. And I have had both male and female friends tell me they love the song without giving it a second thought.
I'm not saying I think we should mandate that people censor themselves. But, you know, for heaven sake. Teenage girls listen to this stuff and then think - my badass hero, whom I admire, likes to hit girls.
Would just like to point out that Halle Berry is scheduled to star in the film "Nappily Ever After" in 2008. It's based on the novel of the same name by Trisha R. Thomas. The author was a finalist for the NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Fiction and a Gold Pen Awards nominee for Best New Author and Best Mainstream Fiction.
Surprising for such an offensive title, no?
I see many references here to "Free Speach". Stand up in a Theater and shout 'FIRE' and see what happens to you. Or make a reference to something violent you might like to see happen to the current occupant of the White House. The Secret Service will be around PDQ giving you a bit of a lesson on what is acceptable. Common sense is a great guide to what is acceptable and what is not. It is clear to me, Hate speach is not acceptable on publicly owned air waves.
after this movie, i hear the beautiful ms. berry will have the lead in 'ho- klahoma'.
you know- where the corn rows are high as an elephant's eye.
pls. don't crucify me for this. these are just silly notions that came into my mind. there is not always racism or hatred in racial jokes.
imus' remarks are indefensible, but he's getting thrown to the wolves b/c as a society, repub and dem, lib and con, we have to see blood. someone always 'has to pay'. we have this notion that somebody's got to be publicly flogged for all the transgressions we ALL make in our hearts.
really, if you told me you never made a hateful remark, or statements easily construed as 'hate-speech', i would call you a liar, and so would your deity of choice.
what bothers me about the whole thing is the reaction more than that idiot's purile remark.
after this, we'll all go back to this society of our's, while little real progress gets made.
and we'll still be demanding to burn the witches we parade in shame around our town square.
let's ask ourselves this question-why do we as a society think of punishment as the first, and only, solution? is that the best our modern minds can come up with?
we can fire, or jail, or execute, all we like, (and americans love to demonise people), but the soil these things grow from is the same soil we all grow from.
you can pull the head off a dandelion, but it's root system is almost impervious to all but the most terrible of poisons, that tend to kill off more than dandelions.
kind of like the war on terror, or the war on drugs. how many people have been imprisoned or killed over these things, and does anybody see a day when these 'problems' are solved?
so join me in a song....
"HOOOOOO- klahoma...."
The uproar over Imus is just another example of the unrelenting hypocrisy of our corporate-controlled media. Imus gets canned, Bush doesn't. One makes racist/sexist remarks, the other is a war criminal who has killed hundreds of thousands. Imus is a holy saint compared with Bush but the media likes to sacrifice someone every now and then to put up a smokescreen of enlightened thought. What undiluted BS! people who go ballistic over Imus while giving Bush a pass need to grow a brain. The Imus pile-on is just the herd instinct in action. Shame on everyone who righteously calls for Imus' head while not demanding war crime trials for the whole damn Bush administration. Wake-up! The corporate media is delighted that everyone is going nuts over Imus, ignoring the war criminals among us. It's just another distraction, until the next distraction comes along. They want you to be distracted forever.
john freeman-
yelling 'fire' in a movie theatre is an example of inciting behaviour. it is not a simple expression of ideas.
this is a ridiculous argument that ppl. like limbaugh resort to in order to convince the masses free speech, and the other parts of the bill of rights are subject to authoritarian discretion, rather than the inalienable rights of humans, and codified into our basic text of law, the u.s. constitution.
if you yell "fire" in a crowded, enclosed area, when there is none,you have caused harm to others. you have caused panic and worry through a fraud.
you can say what you like, but when you incite panic in a confined space based on falsehoods, you have deprived me and my family our safety. your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose.
publicly presenting views contrary to the authorities does not carry the same risk. at least it should not.
"...cannot be washed away with a simple apology"
While were on the subject of origins, the racist and sexist remark by Imus is a direct product of the black community. Imus borrowed the derogatory language to offhandily describe black women from the mouths of millions of black men who listen daily to rap moguls blasting their "hos".
I appreciate the historical significance of "nappy head" and I'm not downplaying it, but lets be clear about something, Imus' motivation was to be funny and outrageous so he can some how boost his shock jock ratings. I seriously doubt it was to aimed deliberatley to shame and dehumanize the Rutgers girls. Even hes not that ignorant.
If every prominent black leader (sports, entertainment & politics) denounced the misogyny in rap lyrics and called for a boycott of those albums, you would see less of this.
The phrase "get your own house in order" comes to mine.
But we worship at the alter of the All Mighty Dollar, so black rap artists get a free pass simply because their millionaire$.
panamahead--what's funny about insulting these young women? I really don't get it.
As another poster noted, Imus is way too old to be engaging in such juvenile, derogatory "humor".
What about the barrage of stinking turban NY cabbie jokes on late night shows. I suppose that is o.k. After all most of them are muslims or from the middle-east.
There has been a lot of criticism of black rap lyrics from the black community, it just doesn't get much coverage in the mainstream media. I also know that this stuff is commodified "counterculture" marketed to young white males. I have a strong feeling that if gangsta rap were played on mainstream TV it would get pretty much the same response that Imus got.
panamahead, it's not fair to use this to justify the Imus comment. Bad does not justify bad. And while I agree with you that racist and sexist remarks are just as unacceptable coming from blacks as from whites, the power,influence, and mainstream visibility of a Don Imus far exceeds that of rap stars. It also exceeds that of black leaders who have spoken out against these lyrics.
This article is completely wrong. Look at the top results for "nappy" in urbandictionary.com. Yes it is specifically for the most part something you would say about an African-American but commenting on someone's nappy-headedness is not as opposed to having straight flowing hair, and does not simply mean tightly coiled at all. It means unkempt, dirty as opposed to styled and clean. African-American kids use it to make fun of each other everyday on the Orange Line and they are not making fun of each other for being African-American.
Thank you for the explination of the offensiveness of the term, in the context Imus used it. "'Ho" is no less offensive, but requires less context to understand what is being implied, because all women know what it means to be called "whore".
What becomes clear is these women were labled and dissed for being FEMALE. He just added the racial spin to the judgement "Ugly". He thought they looked tough, hard core, compared them to male players in appearance or threat, and contrasted them with the "cute" women on the other team. This crap simply isn't said about males. Don't get me wrong, men are also judged on their appearance, but that isn't the ONLY playing field they are EXPECTED to be playing on; isn't the ONLY criteria on which they will be judged.
This is NOT about freedom of speech...though i know, the pendulum swings always too far, and it may become about freedom of speech...but the firing of Imus is NOT the same as the FCC stipulating what is forbidden to say. We in America love the Free Market and it was indeed the Market that decided. People were not gonna watch or buy the advertisers products, the fellow newspeople
Imus worked with realized their reps were at stake for asssociating with such a backward pundit who didn't know how to act in public.
I am sure some market somewhere will give him a job and his fan base can find him there...it just isn't anywhere i will be visiting soon.
blessthebeasts, I don't think "nappy headed hos" is funny.
Imus is just playing the game of who can be the most obnoxious and draw the biggest crowds. I feel sorry for him.
The first time I ever heard the word "nappy" was from black people. Didn't the Fugees record a song called "Nappy Heads"?
Here's an article about the subject that ran in my local paper...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07101/776762-51.stm
Nonetheless, it at the very least doesn't look good when it comes froma white person. I am reminded of when Ann Coulter spoke of rounding up "swarthy males" in the wake of the WTC Attacks. It's a racial characteristic, and that's what Imus went after. It was a low blow directed at people he didn't know and who did nothing to him. I wonder if Imus has a daugher or granddaughter or niece? What if someone called them "ugly whores"?
This is all just another reason why I support reparations. Those young women shouldn't let what Imus said injure them. But those words cause pain regardless. What many people don't realize is that slavery and Jim Crow are not ancient history and that deep racial inequities still exist. If this country made true amends with African Americans and truly did something to heal the still fresh wounds of slavery as well as close up the racial divide, a cranky talk-show host's rude remarks wouldn't hurt as much as they do.
That's right, it was a derogatory comment on their lack of what is considered feminine more than their race. And an in-depth analysis of the history of women and sports and how they've been judged might make more sense.
Imus, Savage, Limbaugh, Coulter, and their ilk spew racist, sexist, xenophobic venom for a living. It's their stock in trade.
The sponsoring corporations don't seem to see any problem with paying money to support bile that distracts and divides working folk who might otherwise turn their attention to the actual cause of their poor health and working conditions. Corporate sponsors have issues with sponsoring progressive talk radio that questions corporate motives and actions.
Because Imus et al have sponsors, they get airtime. Because they're on the air, they are 'legitimate'. Because they're 'legitimate' and all over the dial, unintelligent people listen to distracting bile.
What's happening to Imus (& what recently happened to Coulter) is what would happen to any of the bile-spewers if intelligent people paid attention and put the choice quotes up for public discussion. Bile is distasteful.
If people who listen to bile and repeat it were treated like someone smoking near a baby (i.e., as idiotic, polluting boors), they'd quickly learn to keep that sort of idiocy to themselves, and anyone who wanted to be included in adult, intelligent conversation would know better than to spew racist, sexist, xenophobic bile.
To argue about 'free speech' in this context is less appropriate than to simply say, "Imus did what he does all day. Why should it surprise you when he says something offensive? He IS offensive." When he (or Coulter) tries to say it was a joke, they show their cluelessness about what humor is.
These are the folks the GOP considers worthy commentators. Does the rise in hate crimes surprise anyone?
I thought it was BOTH terms, almost equally so, both "nappy" AND "ho" that were objected to by the women, and rightfully so, I must add.
I recall one young lady of the group said (paraphrasing here) that she was not nappy headed and that she was not a ho, but that she was a woman and she was someone's baby. (You are always your mother's child, or so mine always said. Might be grown, but you're still their child.)
I was, sincerely, left with the impression that both terms were objected to, again, I must say, almost equally so.
Perhaps I did not listen to enough of it, but it seemed to me that it was "everywhere" I turned on TV and in Internet news, and it seemed to almost all parrot what the others had said, so I got quickly to where I really didn't follow it a lot after a while, I must admit.
That probably was a mistake on my part.
What I don't understand about all this is what has happened to Bernard McQuirk. Imus merely responded to McQuirk, his producer, who called them hos before Imus did..... why isn't he on the hot seat?
kalia-You're right, the anti-arab jokes need to stop also. There have been people speaking up against that sort of thing, but not enough. There's also "arabs=evil" thing going on in programs like "24". All the baiting needs to stop.
Talk radio "distracts working folk" and "unintelligent people listen to distracting bile." Interesting that in a critique of racist, sexist comments, classist comments are made.
I see sensationalist crap like this as a distraction.
The planet is dying... we are spending billions on war, our foreign debt will inevitably lead to inflation and housing bubble-collapse, leading to misery and poverty without health-care, and soon to follow will be an environmental collapse the scale of which the human-race has never seen.
But the most important thing people want to discuss is the controversy of the word "nappy?" Who cares? Some people hate others, you can boycott them and not listen to them, but this should not be our primary concern.
Right now the earth is giving us signs. All the bees are dying in the U.S.
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/040507ED.shtml
Why isn't that a front-page story? 30% of our future food supply is in danger because of it. Maybe because if corporate media reported it, people would realize that something new had to be introduced to the environment to make bees and other bugs treat their honey like poison.
Maybe then corporations would have to look into which perversion of science (pesticides or GM crops) have caused such destruction, and the corporations involved might get some bad PR for their carelessness. But no we can't have that discussion. We get "nappy hos" instead... the world is doomed.
Why don't we talk about Britney shaving her head? There must be something political about that.
Yesterday evening CNN's website was filled with this story. Meanwhile, the fact that the hideously media named 'Surge' (which itself sounds like the name of a crappy radio station) was left in tatters yesterday morning by the destruction of a bridge and a bomb in the Iraqi parliament did not garner a single mention. Not a word on their main page above the fold (I don't have TV so I don't know if it warranted a mention there or not).
It is clear that the media loves a story like Imus because it a) gives other media outlets to pile onto rivals when their tamed rottweilers (I aplogise to rottweilers for using them as a comparison) go stuoid as well as vicious and b) it distratcs from the fate of the war they so heavily campaigned, nay begged for in the first place.
As peachmcd says these people spew racism for the media outlets on a daily basis. Only when they go to far - by which I mean, threaten the advertising revenues - do they get reined in. A good analogy would be, oh I don't know, let's say you happen to support a violent middle eastern dictator for over a decade with weapons and cash and then he goes wild and invades a friendly oil producing country, so then you are forced to try to silence him.
Ultimately there are two reasons we should use politically correct language. One is respect and the other is accuracy. To anyone who complains about policitally correct language, I always say "So it's okay for me to call your Mother a bitch and your wife a ho?" (and i have said that to people many many times and had it printed in a national newspaper). There is no justification for anyone to use language like this. The second reason is accuracy. I was a high school teacher in my previous incarnation and was always the recipient of complaints from the public in general about the decayong standards in the use of language by children. The same morons were generally opposed to PC language. So for them it was okay to call a 50 year old woman who worked in an office a 'girl'. I cannot think or much less accurate label. She is a person or a woman, but a girl? That is a 12 year old as far as I am concerned, someone who likes soccer and music and books and computers, no someone who is approaching retirement. Yet the whole media cluster (what should be referred to as The O'Reilly Idiocy) detests PC language. In the same breath they tell immigrants they must learn to speak English properly.
Take any 'blonde' joke and insert 'black' it becomes racist.
Take any 'black' joke and insert 'blonde' it becomes funny.
Wtf is the difference?
Kalia, you drew attention to "stinking turban NY cabbie jokes on late night shows. I suppose that is o.k. After all most of them are muslims or from the middle-east." And that of course is the irony which none of those idiots realise when they make gags - Muslims do not wear turbans. It is the tradition of Sikh men - as one of 5 items - to wear a turban, and this is a practice born in the Punjab region of India. What the late night comics are trying to say is that all brown men are terrorists, even ones who are born in the USA and are citizens. Muslim, Sikh, who cares? They are all terrorists, right? And worse than being terrorists - this is what makes them low-level and worthy of all these jokes - they are all DIFFERENT FROM US.
How dare they not be white.
'"Bitch" is a gender-laden term and no gender-laden terms should be applied to any elected official who serves the public– they should be evaluated on their actions and their effectiveness for the job they were elected to, not stereotyped on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.'
That was the authors point(see yesterday's Counterpunch for the article), she was not being referred to as a "bitch". The point exactly was why is it completely acceptible to refer to Hillary as a bitch as a matter of course--with no accompanying outrage.
It was actually a defense of Ms Clinton--regardless of how I may personally detest her and her husband's usurpation of the Dem party as their own personal vehicle for personal ambition.
I don't believe it's possible to think less of anyone and not be aware of it.
LeeAnn:
"Hillary, however much I object to her politics in general, is not "strutting her balls" when she shows aggression or resolve. She is not "being macho." She is being aggressive or unpleasant or whatever characteristics she is displaying, positive or not, and it has nothing to do with gender."
CONTEXT. You are missing the point. Beneath the language is the mindset. Note that you perceive "strutting her balls" as aggression or resolve--which is the EXACT way Hillary perceives it. She has to prove she can outswagger the Right in order to be credible. Well, that is not my idea of courage--or strength or even real aggression --because she poses no threat, no alternative to the status quo that accepts sexism--she plays right into it.
The use of bitch is unacceptable. However, if you qualify it by saying "to any elected official who serves the public", surely that excludes Hillary Clinton? She serves the oil-military-industrial complex and her millionaire cronies.
Seriously, maybe we should extend "no gender-laden terms should be applied to any elected official who serves the public" to say that no gender laden term should be used to describe ANYONE.
I also find Hillary Clinton's use of her African-American dialect when addressing a gathering at Selma in March so heinously insulting that it makes me shudder. If Howard Dean could lose the presidential bid last time for a simple exuberant whoop then Hillary should be eliminated for her terrible "I don't feel no ways tired" speech.
Vern,
No, I did not miss the point. I got it exactly. I personally don't think of aggression and resolve as male or macho. Rather, that is the underlying concept in the use of "balls" as a synonym for swaggering, courage, or strength by mainstream media and popular culture. If Hillary wants to prove she can outswagger the RIGHT, it's still not about gender. It's essentially about bullying and posturing, but using the phrase "strutting her balls" forces it into a gender-related context. It indicates that she is attempting to behave like a man in order to be more threatening or acceptable. The fact that the threats are empty don't change this concept.
What I object to is the use of male genitalia to describe behavior that is generally admired by our culture - as are courage, stamina, and even recklessness, and the use of female genitalia to describe behavior that is denigrated by our culture - as are softness, conciliation, and weakness. If the behavior doesn't live up to expectations, it does not alter the unfortunate use of the language to promote the masculine as preferable over the feminine.
"What I object to is the use of male genitalia to describe behavior that is generally admired by our culture - as are courage, stamina, and even recklessness."
The use of macho language is never, for example, used to describe single mothers trying to bring up children in a world that denegrates them, and sets their children terrible abusive examples (Inus, O'Reilly, government foreign policy all of which teach children is just fine to abuse women, use racist language and kill to get your own way.) It is never used to describe a guy trying to find a job that isn't humiliating.
Instead we are pumped with words like courage (and this is exemplified in the use of the macho linguistics we are talking about here) to describe political decision making or even business. I wanted to spit in the face of the guy who owned the last company I worked for - he used courage and bravery to describe people who stayed up late to work on a project or who worked the weekend! WTF. Courage is going out to buy bread if you live in downtown Baghdad. It is not Hillary Clinton saying she kinda sorta thinks health care is kinda neat; nor is 'sacrifice' that gw bush speaks of - him hiding in a bunker in Washington while he sends children from West Virginia off to fight his wars. A poor woman in Detroit makes more sacrifice and exhibits more bravery in a day than bush or clinton will show in a life time.
This nation has become a thin-skinned, lily-livered, help I'm so offended, vain bunch of hypocrits.
I can guarantee that ever single woman on that team, as well as ever single person posting here, and every single person in this nation, has at least once, most likely more than once, slurred another human with hateful speach. Ya bunch of hypocrits. A generation of vipers the lot of ya.
I get so tired of hearing people whine about how they have been so offended. I in no way condone people that make viscious statements, but seriously, don't ya'll have something, anything, more productive to do with your lives than to harp on this for days on end??? Get over yourselves. Didn't anyone ever hear of "water-off-a-duck's-back"...."sticks and stones....etc"? Sheesh
"don't ya'll have something, anything, more productive to do with your lives" than have a serious debate that might help lead people to talking to each other with respect? No, I don't. It is not about being thin skinned - it is about eliminating forms of language that on the radio are offensive but might seem to the unthinking to be harmless, but which lead to a erosion of respect until it isn't just some rich white guy calling an African American woman a ho - instead it is a racially violent assault. No, I don't have anything more imprtant on my schedule than trying to expose that.
True LeeAnn--but there is something to be said for stupid white men. ;-)
Very enlightening. Let's all get Stevie Wonder. But please, let me have the first shot at him. Maybe I can do a Jesse Jackson-style shakedown, get a little money out of the affair. Offer to give him some sensitivity training classes.
Looking back on when I
Was a little nappy headed boy
Then my only worry
Was for christmas what would be my toy
Even though we sometimes
Would not get a thing
We were happy with the
Joy the day would bring
Sneaking out the back door
To hang out with those hoodlum friends of mine
Greeted at the back door
With boy thought I told you not to go outside,
Tryin your best to bring the
Water to your eyes
Thinkin it might stop her
From woopin your behind
I wish those days could come back once more
Why did those days ev-er have to go
I wish those days could come back once more
Why did those days ev-er have to go
Cause I love them so
Brother says hes tellin
bout you playin doctor with that girl
Just dont tell Ill give you
Anything you want in this whole wide world
Mama gives you money for sunday school
You trade yours for candy after church is through
Smokin cigarettes and writing something nasty on the wall (you nasty boy)
Teacher sends you to the principals office down the wall
You grow up and learn that kinda thing aint right
But while you were doinit-it sure felt outta sight
I wish those days could come back once more
Why did those days ev-er have to go
I wish those days could come back once more
Why did those days ev-er have to go
"Balls" also means nonsense not just courage. And being a "pussy" might be bad but so is being a "dick." What about the phrase "mother"? If something is the "mother" of something it means it is the greatest and ultimate. Is this phrase denigrating to fathers and masculinity in general?