Don Imus - Another One Bites The Dust

POSTED BY: ShinyEd
UPDATED: Thursday, September 13, 2007 14:29
VIEWED: 23096
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

RUE

Friday, April 13, 2007 3:40 AM

6-string

"Well... I've been awaiting your response to my other posts and you've ignored them."

Oh, I'm sorry. I got confused. I thought there was a question you'd asked and I was looking for it to respond but ... OK. What will make this right? I read your posts, and as usual I'm about 50/50 on them. We often start in the same place then you go off in a direction I don't get, or we start in very different places and end up the same.

It's hard to come up with a short answer to your posts, and I'm still at work posting between analyses. So I've been keeping my posts short.

back later

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, April 13, 2007 4:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It's hard to come up with a short answer to your posts, and I'm still at work posting between analyses. So I've been keeping my posts short.

back later

I know... my posts get pretty long and it's hard to give a short answer. Sorry bout that. I'm actually giving the short version when I post. I could probably write novels of crap nobody would ever read. My bud Jeff is always telling me he's waiting for my Manifesto.

I didn't ask you a question other than, "what do you think about my answers to your previous questions." They were regarding attitudes towards rape and slutty clothing today and the fact that no matter what rung of the social laddar you are on, life is never easy and it has it's own set of complications.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Friday, April 13, 2007 4:30 AM

"slutty clothing"

I abhor it on anyone younger than 18. I mean, WTF ?? Even 18 is too young as far as I'm concerned but I guess that's my age speaking. But that's due to pervasive aggressive advertising and the lowest common denominator. What are the few things that shills can reliably tap into? Food, sex and sex. And maybe sex&power (the car thing). As a society we've gotten so twisted thinking that anything that makes a buck MUST be good that we've given up our right to decide how we, as a group, want to live together. And handed it over megacorp and their minions. I loathe it all.

"rape and slutty clothing' Now here is where we probably part company. I don't care if a woman is wearing silk veils and feathered fans. It's not 'asking for it'. Especially when you think about fashion and the history of same. Women wear things because they’re sold to them as fashion and I'll tell you some things that are supposed to be fashion are hideous. And think of other fashions that have come and gone - foot-binding, corsets, powdered wigs. Fashion today is sold to be hyper-sexual (lowest common denominator) but that isn't necessarily a sexual statement on the woman's part, just a fashion one.

"no matter what rung of the social ladder you are on, life is never easy"
I'd rather have the rich persons problems than my own - how to care for a disabled family member after I'm dead and gone for example. Id rather worry about who didn't invite me to their party in Aruba or some such. Oh, and all the studies show that rich people are, on the whole happier. (I'll have to look that reference up.)

Anyway, I gotta sign off.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, April 13, 2007 5:04 AM

I can't really find to many arguments with all of that, but the fact of the matter is, if women were getting raped all of the time and were really concerned about it, the fashion trends we're seeing today would not exist simply because they are designed to promote sexual thoughts. I don't care wheather or not somebody thinks something women wear mean they're "asking for it" or not, the fact of the matter is, men get aroused when they see women dressing provocatively (which is the intent of wearing said clothes in the first place) all around them. If this were the middle of the 1800s they would most likely have been raped for wearing those clothes if they weren't readily giving it up. It says quite a lot about civilized society that women can even dress the way they do today and they're not being raped for it.

I'm not trying to argue with you over what should and shouldn't be, I'm just saying like it is. If men weren't so busy masturbating all day and curbing those desires to porn or Maxim magazine, they may have a harder time dealing with women wearing thongs and racy outfits all around them. Is it wrong? Sure it is. Not arguing you there. Just saying that that's the way it is.

As for the riches problems, my thinking is that I'd rather have a rich person's problems rather than my own as well. I couldn't say for sure though. I've become so accostumed to the problems that I have every day that they're part of my comfort zone now. I don't know what I'd bitch about without them. I just think the grass is always greener on the other side though. If I were to wake up one day and be a wealthy man of promonance, I'm thinking that after the novelty wore off I would find myself thrust in many more situations and much more responsibility and lime light than I'm comfortable with.

Look at Imus. Rich and promonant. Scapegoat.

Ain't nobody going to come to me tomorrow and tell me I'm fired for my views on Fireflyfans.net.

Goodnight Rue.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, April 13, 2007 5:07 AM

There's battle lines bein' drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speakin' their minds
Gettin' so much resistance from behind

-F

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, April 13, 2007 6:22 AM

Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
Step out of line, the men come and take you away

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

THOLO

Friday, April 13, 2007 6:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Why stay some place you hate so much?

Thats all I am trying to say. Whats wrong with that?"

What makes you think I or anyone else here hate it so much? Just 'cause we disagree with you doesn't mean we hate the country.

no , dissagree, but it just seems lately there seems to be a lot of America bashing, and i dont like that.

Keep Flying!!

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, April 13, 2007 6:39 AM

That's because the people running Her are destroying everything She stands for. I probably sound like I bash America quite often, but I make a very sharp distinction between America and our corrupt and self-serving government.

Patriotism is not "right or wrong, my country", as they brainwashed many people to believe.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, April 13, 2007 6:49 AM

Damnit. It's going to take me an hour just to catch up on what went on in this thread in the last day. This will be all over the map.

Rue: In just scanning quickly through the thread you make many points that I would have tried to make. I nodded my head a lot while reading through what you wrote. I've gone, over the past few days, from thinking, "Eh. No big deal." to, "Actually, when you unpack all the layers, this is a big deal and could serve as an educational moment to bring some of these buried issues to the surface." I don't have much hope. It's amazingly hard to convince someone of something that goes against their own best interest.

6ixStringJack: I don't buy that men can't resist seeing a woman dressed provocatively and therefore have to rape her. There are plenty of women who are raped while not dressed provocatively. Why someone is raped has little to do with the victim and everything to do with the rapist. It's about control, not sexual gratification.

In terms of intent, I think that Imus' statements were not intentionally designed to hurt or degrade. Bernard, now there's someone who knew what was going on. Imus, however, is like the not-so-bright kid who never comes up with the scheme but always gets caught. And what Imus said, taken only on face value, is nothing compared to some of the stuff that gets broadcast. However, when you look at the deeper implications of a white man making disparaging comments about black women, well that's where the egregiousness comes in. Should he have lost his job over the comments? Well, that's a business decision. If I was in charge I probably would have strongly suggested that he do a number of shows on the long history of white men raping black women and why any white man calling a black woman a whore is just not cool. There's a reason they wrote the laws so that a person's slave/free status was inherited from their mother and not their father.

Causal: White men are the only group left you can safely denigrate? Really? Even if I bought that for a minute, for how many years were white men able to denigrate whomever they chose from the highest seats of power? Um, at least a couple hundred years just on this continent. So get back to me in two hundred years.

Fletch2: I posed the question earlier in a longer form: would you rather be denigrated or discriminated against? If someone who benefits from discrimination is complaining about denigration then I really don't have any sympathy for them.

* more a global comment *
Part of the problem is that we have gone for so long as a country with only one viewpoint legitimized that any attempt to legitimize more than one viewpoint will be met with hostility.

Veteran: Agreed that minorities are racist as well. And that's a problem. But which is more problematic, someone in a position of power making decisions based on racist beliefs or someone who has no power making decisions based on racist beliefs?

That's it for now, just one more thing...

BigDamnNobody, I've got the world's smallest violin for you.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, April 13, 2007 6:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
6ixStringJack: I don't buy that men can't resist seeing a woman dressed provocatively and therefore have to rape her. There are plenty of women who are raped while not dressed provocatively. Why someone is raped has little to do with the victim and everything to do with the rapist. It's about control, not sexual gratification.

Wow man. I realize that you have a lot to catch up on, but seriously, that's all you got out of my posts today? Geez....

That's not even what I said.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, April 13, 2007 6:59 AM

Hell, that was your post from last night.

That's how far behind I am.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, April 13, 2007 7:09 AM

LOL....

I know that some of what I said may have sounded somewhat along those lines, but I surely wasn't trying to imply that every man who sees a beautiful woman would rape her. I've got a ton to do at work all the sudden so that should give you some time to catch up.

I shall return......

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, April 13, 2007 7:59 AM

Okay, as I'm catching up, I just wanted to pull out quotes that I thought were particularly noteworty.

"To get a real gage, just go out and see how many women walk alone at night v how many men, especially in the kinds of neighborhoods you and I live in (ie not gated with ultra-wealthy folk inside). And of the women walking alone at night, how many are out there b/c they have to be - going to and from a job for example." - rue

My mom, who is a white woman, gets nervous if she sees more than one man together at night. She used to ask me to drive her to the post office when she wanted to mail something after hours (or for me to run it down the hill). And that was just to use the drive-up mail box. Maybe it's a generational thing. She's lived in Los Angeles her whole life. Worked downtown until my brother was born. But she doesn't feel safe by herself after dark.

"If you REALLY want to complain, why don’t you complain about what we ALL here have in common - that your life is being run by rich white folk who don't give a crap about you OR us. And get a clue that just b/c you're on top of a dung heap doesn't make the dung heap smell any nicer - instead of defending your right to be there." - rue

Yep. The vast majority of us Americans are fighting over scraps while the powerful minority is running this country into the ground. We are more productive now than we have ever been in the history of this country and yet wages for those who are doing the actual work haven't really changed in decades. The best way to move into the middle class was to work in an organized manufacturing job. We need to try to get back to that.

"Basically, the world used to be relatively calm taking things as they were. Now, in the US, /everything/ has to be dealt with as if someone punched a blind cripple in the face." - Sigmanunki

If that's what it takes to get a discussion going about institutional racism then I'm cool with that. I'm tired of having one small group dominate everything.

"White males have no monopoly on racial slurs or bigotry. Some of the worst bigots I know are minorities themselves." - Veteran

One of my friends growing up thought he was a white supremacist. Went through the whole white-power phase. Used to brag about how the first black family to live in his neighborhood was driven out after a few months. We all just rolled our eyes because, hello, his circle of friends looked like a United Colors of Benetton ad. I found it quite amusing that he was appalled at how racist some of the parents of our friends (who had immigrated from the Phillipines) were. He was like, "Damn. They hate black people."

And, Veteran, the article I linked to by Constance Rice expresses much of the same sentiment as the article you quoted. Misogyny is rampant through rap music. So what to do? How to shift the market?

"I mean, what's worse, calling some tough up and coming basketball players names, or sending poor folk of all colors off to fight and die in Iraq, and for what ?" - Fremdfirma

Excellent point. But are we ready as a country to talk about that problem? Look what happened to John Kerry when he unintentionally made that very same point. It pretty much ruined his future career wrt the Presidency. Not that that was a bad thing. The Democratic Party could do so much better.

This is one part of Dr. King's message that has been hugely glossed over (although, I'm half convinced that Dr. King was legitimized because nobody wanted to legitimize the more dangerous Malcolm X's message. In the end they both had to be killed but the establishment could warp King's message where Malcolm X's message just scared the pants off of them. As the saying goes, you can either talk to Martin or deal with Malcolm).

"It's the machine that I hate, not the individual people. He had a lot, and he lost it all. The more you have, the bigger target you are. When you're no longer useful and you take a fall..... well, the machine just keeps chugging along without you. Imus is figuring that out right about now. He's j

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, April 13, 2007 9:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I'm with you on this. I think where we diverge is that I think having a national discussion about just what was uncool about what Imus said has potential to improve things. There's not as much bang for our buck there as having a national discussion about the Iraq War. Absolutely. And I wish we would. I just don't see how that happens when so many people and organizations with influence have so much invested in continuing this war. So I'll take my fights where I can get them. Maybe that's a cop out.

The problem here is this is nothing new. I don't go around saying shit like this, and neither do most people I know that graduated high school. This guy is paid to say that type of shit and that's why he's been on the radio for 40 years. It was a slow news week and somebody made a stink about Imus. I'm sure he's said MUCH more offensive things over the years. Why now? Shit like this just happens to make me feel bad about being white and I think it's all bullshit. Throw Jesse "The Racist" Jackson in the mix and now this is just a huge cluster fuck of race crap that's just putting more strain on the races. Like I said earlier, I had much less, if any, inclinations towards being racist when I was a kid and I wasn't exposed to the news all that much. I don't care how tolerant you are... seeing that asshole on TV marching is enough to boil anybodies blood. Doesn't he have a wife to cheat on with all that money he made of the backs of hard working African Americans?

Quote:
Does what an individual woman wears increase the probability of someone attempting to rape them? I'm not sure I buy that (ignoring the whole argument about the yeas and nays of dressing provocatively). What I do buy is that rapists choose to rape irrespective of the clothing choices of their victims. I agree that our culture encourages men to look at women as objects rather than people which does, in my mind, potentially lower the decision threshhold for an on-the-cusp rapist.

What I don't think you're considering here is the fact that the way men viewed women in the 1800's or even in the 1900's before women's sufferage is pretty malignant compared to today. Women were nothing more than objects. They were possessions, pure and simple. In Salem they'd probably burn the 13 year old witch who tempted townsfolk with the word "Tasty" on her shorts which showed her thong sticking out over the top and the bottom of her ass cheeks. To see where I'm coming from, you have to consider that women weren't held in high regard then at all. I would think that the fact that you didn't consider any of this when reading my posts just speaks to how far women have come in the last 100 or so years.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, April 13, 2007 9:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
What I don't think you're considering here is the fact that the way men viewed women in the 1800's or even in the 1900's before women's sufferage is pretty malignant compared to today. Women were nothing more than objects. They were possessions, pure and simple. In Salem they'd probably burn the 13 year old witch who tempted townsfolk with the word "Tasty" on her shorts which showed her thong sticking out over the top and the bottom of her ass cheeks. To see where I'm coming from, you have to consider that women weren't held in high regard then at all. I would think that the fact that you didn't consider any of this when reading my posts just speaks to how far women have come in the last 100 or so years.

I get the continuum thing. As the Virginia Slims ads used to say, "We've come a long way, baby." But I think we've still got a long way to go. Should I give out gold stars because someone has an attitude that is more progressive than one from a hundred years ago? Or should I point out that that same attitutude is still regressive in terms of the overall goal, equality? I guess the difference between conservative and liberal is that a conservative will say, "Things are good enough now." and a liberal will say, "We can make things better." Not to apply either of those labels to you, more to apply the label of liberal to myself. Always onward and upward, never stopping.

* edited to add:

"This guy is paid to say that type of shit and that's why he's been on the radio for 40 years."

And maybe now we're ready, as a country, to agree that it is not acceptable to pay someone to say that type of shit on our public airwaves. It's different from a free speech issue. It's what is acceptable paid speech for a company that makes its living off of our taxpayer funded infrastructure. We're getting close to the point where it will be bad business to hire and foster and promote ignorance. Which, to me, is a good thing. If someone wants to spread ignorance, let them do it on their own dime. Not mine.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, April 13, 2007 9:50 AM

Quote:
I get the continuum thing. As the Virginia Slims ads used to say, "We've come a long way, baby." But I think we've still got a long way to go. Should I give out gold stars because someone has an attitude that is more progressive than one from a hundred years ago? Or should I point out that that same attitutude is still regressive in terms of the overall goal, equality? I guess the difference between conservative and liberal is that a conservative will say, "Things are good enough now." and a liberal will say, "We can make things better." Not to apply either of those labels to you, more to apply the label of liberal to myself. Always onward and upward, never stopping.

Not only do I think that things are "okay" for women today, but I think they have it better then men do. If you don't agree, that's fine, but that's the way that I see it.

This is besides the point. It's not even what I'm trying to get at here, and I feel we've already segwayed way too much because people misinterpret what I'm saying. My original point is that your average women today (In America, at least) does not worry about being raped, unless she is in a situation where your average man would be equally as worried about being mugged or killed. (ex: Shady dark alleyways or prison). I simply brought up the differences in how women are treated today verses 100 years ago as a way of explaining that in our civilized culture, rape isn't really on the radar of most sane women anymore thruought their everyday lives.

Quote:
And maybe now we're ready, as a country, to agree that it is not acceptable to pay someone to say that type of shit on our public airwaves. It's different from a free speech issue. It's what is acceptable paid speech for a company that makes its living off of our taxpayer funded infrastructure. We're getting close to the point where it will be bad business to hire and foster and promote ignorance. Which, to me, is a good thing. If someone wants to spread ignorance, let them do it on their own dime. Not mine.

Sure thing there buddy. Right after they ban and censor all of the rap artists out there first. I'm sure "nappy headed ho" wasn't even a part of Imus's vocabulary before Yo! MTV Raps. The very earliest Imus picked that up would have been from Easy E or Ice Cube WAAAAAY back in the day. If you don't like it, don't listen to him.

Personally, I can't stand Imus or Howard Stern and I would have never heard this event if the media didn't make it this huge race/sex issue. It's absolutely rediculous. People have a right to freedom of speech in this country and they have the right to turn off the channel. I can appreciate your point of view, but I sure as shit am not going to be limited on my speech, listening habits, or viewing habits by the government or by Jesse "The Racist" Jackson. Sorry... I cannot ever agree with that point of view.

EDIT: Thanks for not applying either of those labels to me. I think both sides are a bunch of assholes and no sane, free thinking individual should even associate themselves with either label. My father says that I'm like an extremist on both sides....

Then he turns on The Family Guy.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

HARDWARE

Friday, April 13, 2007 11:05 AM

Just a general comment on a related news article from this week.

Latino groups are up in arms over an upcoming Ken Burns documentary to run on PBS about World War 2. It seems Burns followed 40 servicemen, both black and white, through personal interviews, letters, pictures and film through their experiences in the war. Latino groups are upset that none of the GIs in the documentary are hispanic.

Burns spokesman defencs the filmmaker stating that it is hard to determine exactly who is a latino due to the fact that there is no data collected on race except for black and white.

So, considering our government now collects data on whether or not you are black, white, hispanic, native american, pacific islander, asian, and or other can someone please explain exactly how this is progress? Wouldn't real progress have been to remove race as a question at all from the forms?

@Rue;
Rue, I can't give you any documentation. You asked for an example, I gave you one. I went into the test knowing it was stacked, giving extra weight to people who had advantages I did not have in the scoring section. I still did well enough on the test to be placed in the first round of hiring only to have the rug pulled out from under me.

I'm over it and have moved on to greener pastures.

Among other things this helped get me into information technology. Here, either you've got the chops or you don't. I don't care what your skin color or gender is, you don't get the job unless you can do the job. In my currenct job we have poor performers, but by and large they perform poorly not based on their knowledge. Everyone in my department knows their stuff. Performance issues tend to be personality based or work habits. And while IT as a whole is dominated by white males, this is the most balanced department I've ever worked for in the field.

And you know what? Society at large still refers to us as "geeks" or "nerds", even the white males. The jokes and sneering still go on, I've heard them all my life. But now business needs us and our skills. The jokes and sneering also acknowledge that we pull down bank for those skills. Social division may be a way of life with humans and skin color, gender and an interest in science fiction may be handy handles to try to establish the pecking order with.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, April 13, 2007 11:22 AM

I don't think I've ever seen you around here before tonight Hardware. I like your posts.

Big fan of this quote: "Wouldn't real progress have been to remove race as a question at all from the forms?"

I myself grew up being called nerd... yeah I had glasses by second grade and braces by sixth. I took the SAT in 6th grade. By highschool the braces were off and I got contacts and I kicked a lot of ass on the wrestling team so I kinda grew out of that phase. Unfortunately, I think I grew out of that IT/brain surgeon/rocket scientist moneytrain that I was bound for as an unfortunate side effect. Now I just babysit computers and am bored out of my skull all night long. I got my 10 year reunion this year and I'm kinda disappointed that I'm not going to be the guy making more money than everyone else like I was sure I would be 10 years ago.

And ya know... if the latinos are going to get mad about something like that, then I'm going to get mad that there's a black history month and no white history month. And don't nobody give me any shit about the other 11 months belonging to white people the last melinium either. We all know that the Jews own the other 11 months and they only associate themselves with the rest of us white folk when it suits their current agenda.

Ask Borat. I know he has my back on this.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, April 13, 2007 11:30 AM

Funny how all these "minorities" eagerly point fingers of accusation about what they think amounts to racism everywhere, but are quite happy & expectant to receive preferential treatment based on race such as affirmative action in job hirings and college entrance. Oh, the out of control hypocricy!

GEEZER

Friday, April 13, 2007 12:24 PM

...and what about Idaho? They should be forced to change their name, and to apologize to all women named Ida. Don't even get me started on Santa Claus. "Ho, ho, ho"?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CAUSAL

Friday, April 13, 2007 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Causal

"What? My point was that they're the only group left one can safely denigrate."

How much real discrimination have you faced in your life on account of being a white male compared to the rest of us? ie were you ever denied a place to rent? a loan? a job? schooling? utilities? and so on. You are whining about what my friend used to call 'Cadillac complaints'. My Cadillac is just not the exact shade I want, it doesn't have leather seats, I wanted vanity windows ... and so on. In other words, all these little things you complain about are just so much fluff.

If you REALLY want to complain, why don’t you complain about what we ALL here have in common - that your life is being run by rich white folk who don't give a crap about you OR us. And get a clue that just b/c you're on top of a dung heap doesn't make the dung heap smell any nicer - instead of defending your right to be there.

OK, so now you apparently know all about me and my life. Sorry you're such a pitiful creature, Rue. Sorry your life has been so tough. Must be all my fault. When I skipped meals and dug for gas money between couch cushions I must really have been oppressing you. Oh, but I forgot--you don't know the first thing about me and my life. So where do all these assumptions come from? I mean, I thought it was wrong to make stereotypes of a whole group of people and then apply them to individuals in that group. Isn't that the thing that Don Imus did wrong in the first place?

You seem to have completely missed my intentions with my original post. I'm not excusing Imus for his ridiculous remarks. I'm glad he did get fired: he richly deserved it. I was making an ironic point, namely, that it's still safe to call a whole class of people an ugly name, as long as that class is white males.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

CAUSAL

Friday, April 13, 2007 12:49 PM

CAUSAL

Friday, April 13, 2007 12:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Causal

"What? My point was that they're the only group left one can safely denigrate."

How much real discrimination have you faced in your life on account of being a white male compared to the rest of us? ie were you ever denied a place to rent? a loan? a job? schooling? utilities? and so on. You are whining about what my friend used to call 'Cadillac complaints'. My Cadillac is just not the exact shade I want, it doesn't have leather seats, I wanted vanity windows ... and so on. In other words, all these little things you complain about are just so much fluff.

If you REALLY want to complain, why don’t you complain about what we ALL here have in common - that your life is being run by rich white folk who don't give a crap about you OR us. And get a clue that just b/c you're on top of a dung heap doesn't make the dung heap smell any nicer - instead of defending your right to be there.

And another thing. I may be a white male, but I'm also a college student who made $8,000 dollars last year. That must make me all kinds of comfortable. So much for your theory that I'm living in luxury. And that was exactly the point of my comment: white males are truly the last group left that can be safely stereotyped and insulted. You just made all kinds of really ugly negative comments about me based on my gender and skin tone, and somehow it's different to do it to me than for someone else who has a different target. Wrong is wrong--if it's wrong to stereotype women based on their sex and race (and clearly it is) then it's wrong for you to stereotype me based on my gender and race. And if you think that I don't know what it's like to have other people in charge of my life, remember that I was in the military for 10 years, and that I deployed to Iraq. I know all about having people make decisions about my life. But thank you for proving that one can safely be a sexist and a racist, so long as the target is a white male.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

CAUSAL

Friday, April 13, 2007 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But white male non-wealthy heteros are so consumed with their place in the pecking order they don't realize that being on the top of the dung heap is still being on the dung heap. Instead of trying to figure out how you can get away with being politically incorrect as a way to feel superior, mebee you should look at the real folk doing you harm - the rich ones sending jobs oversees, busting unions, pitting one against the other and paying everyone only a small fraction of what the work is worth.

Stereotyping.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

CAUSAL

Friday, April 13, 2007 1:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Causal: White men are the only group left you can safely denigrate? Really? Even if I bought that for a minute, for how many years were white men able to denigrate whomever they chose from the highest seats of power? Um, at least a couple hundred years just on this continent. So get back to me in two hundred years.

OK, you (and Rue) still seem not to get the point, so let me make another go at this. I'm caucasian. I'm male. And according to a lot that I've been seeing in this thread, that means that I'm rich and run the whole show, or that I'm trying to get rich because I think I deserve to run the whole show, I'm a racist, I'm a sexist, I've never experienced real hardship, poverty, or discrimination, and I hate women and minorities. Now, as it happens, none of that is true of me. Not rich, nor powerful, and I don't particularly want to be either. I don't hate people because of their sexual apparatus nor their skin tone. But an entire group of people that I belong to can still be insulted with impunity. I understand why that might be: a lot of the people who make life less than pleasant belong to that group. But therein lies the fallacy: it's not the group-as-such, its the people in it. But because of our current climate it's possible to make the sort of sweeping, stereotyping statements about white males that it's no longer possible to make about other groups. The fact that many of the people belonging to that group hold power doesn't make the stereotyping any less ugly. And to claim that it's OK for Rue to stereotyp me on the basis of my skin color and gender (which she's already done) is just hypocrisy of the worst type. Claiming that it's not wrong because "they're in power" is just asinine--clearly every white male in this country isn't in a powerful position. I'm certainly not. So how is it OK to lump me into a group based on my skin color and gender?

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

HERO

Friday, April 13, 2007 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
...and what about Idaho? They should be forced to change their name, and to apologize to all women named Ida. Don't even get me started on Santa Claus. "Ho, ho, ho"?

Farmers use ho's all the time.

I drove by a construction site once to check out the back ho...

I remember growing up in West Virginia and everybody going to a ho down at the local church of all places.

In Vietnam there was this one ho's trail that serviced thousands of people.

Main Entry: ho
Pronunciation: 'hO
Function: interjection
Etymology: Middle English
-- used especially to attract attention to something specified

Main Entry: Ho
Function: symbol
holmium

I once stayed at a Ho-tel.

H

HERO

Friday, April 13, 2007 1:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Not rich, nor powerful, and I don't particularly want to be either. I don't hate people because of their sexual apparatus nor their skin tone.

How can you not want to be rich and powerful? Thats crazytalk.

I hate people for their choice of television and when they drive too slow when I have places to be. Its the soft bigotry of reality tv and elderly drivers. I'm also not fond of Malagasy transvestites. And anyone who appreciates lemurs...everybody has their own measure of bias, hate, and irrational fear.

H

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, April 13, 2007 2:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
BigDamnNobody, I've got the world's smallest violin for you.

Why am I not surprised Soup. You seem to lack the courage of your convictions.

Posting to stir stuff up.

DAYVE

Friday, April 13, 2007 3:52 PM

There is no doubt in my mind that CBS and MSNBC did the correct thing in firing Don Imus. There is also no doubt in my mind that the decision to cancel his talk show was based in large measure on financial concerns. No sponsors, no money, no show.
You can’t convince me that either corporation has such high standards that they ended the show simply because of his insensitive remarks. As most everyone here has stated, there have been plenty things spoken over the air waves that were at least, or much more offensive than N.H.H.’s…….

If this incident opens a national dialog about race relations in America, then that’s a good thing - we’re certainly not the great melting pot of diverse ethnicities spreading the milk of human kindness as America is often portrayed.

I’m going to say, one more time, what I’ve said many times before to people who get so angry over something that some shock jock said on his or her own show…. Hey, see that knob, button, plug….. TURN IT OFF..! No one is making you listen to this shit – do what I do and turn it off, or more precisely, don’t turn it on in the first place.

I have exercised that option more than once right here in RWED….
Some folks expose themselves to way too much unnecessary stress. Life is too short.

If each of us worked on a personal level to eradicate racism, hatred and injustice not just in this country but also around the world, we wouldn’t need to rage against guys like Imus – indeed they might not exist at all.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, April 13, 2007 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
OK, you (and Rue) still seem not to get the point, so let me make another go at this. I'm caucasian. I'm male. And according to a lot that I've been seeing in this thread, that means that I'm rich and run the whole show, or that I'm trying to get rich because I think I deserve to run the whole show, I'm a racist, I'm a sexist, I've never experienced real hardship, poverty, or discrimination, and I hate women and minorities. Now, as it happens, none of that is true of me. Not rich, nor powerful, and I don't particularly want to be either. I don't hate people because of their sexual apparatus nor their skin tone. But an entire group of people that I belong to can still be insulted with impunity. I understand why that might be: a lot of the people who make life less than pleasant belong to that group. But therein lies the fallacy: it's not the group-as-such, its the people in it. But because of our current climate it's possible to make the sort of sweeping, stereotyping statements about white males that it's no longer possible to make about other groups. The fact that many of the people belonging to that group hold power doesn't make the stereotyping any less ugly. And to claim that it's OK for Rue to stereotyp me on the basis of my skin color and gender (which she's already done) is just hypocrisy of the worst type. Claiming that it's not wrong because "they're in power" is just asinine--clearly every white male in this country isn't in a powerful position. I'm certainly not. So how is it OK to lump me into a group based on my skin color and gender?

We can go back and forth on who doesn't get which point. I read the above quote and I'm thinking that you still don't get it. And we've had this conversation in other threads before.

"And according to a lot that I've been seeing in this thread, that means that I'm rich and run the whole show, or that I'm trying to get rich because I think I deserve to run the whole show, I'm a racist, I'm a sexist, I've never experienced real hardship, poverty, or discrimination, and I hate women and minorities."

In order: No, no, good odds on yes*, good odds on yes*, no, no, no, no and no. Class, race, gender and sexuality. The big four of institutional inequity and privilege. You're three out of four on the, "unknowingly taking advantage of biases built into the system."

"Now, as it happens, none of that is true of me."

I might disagree with this (depends on the asterisks above). I'd say it's a safe bet that you, like pretty much every single American male, learned misogyny and how to be a sexist from the moment you were aware. Can you honestly tell me that what guys talk about when no women are around is not hateful of women? Whether or not you believe what you were taught, that I don't know. In terms of racism and sexism in this country, I see it as planting a seed in rich soil in a greenhouse and watering the soil and waiting to see if the seed grows. The racism and sexism might not take, but all the ingredients necessary to teach that hate are present in pretty much every case.

"But an entire group of people that I belong to can still be insulted with impunity."

I'm still not buying it. What it smacks to me of is a group that has had all the access to the public discourse seeing some of that discourse taken away and crying foul.

"I understand why that might be: a lot of the people who make life less than pleasant belong to that group. But therein lies the fallacy: it's not the group-as-such, its the people in it."

You benefit simply by being born a male. And simply by being born white. Every single man in America benefits. It's through no decision of yours. It's through no effort of yours. That's what privilege is. That's the part where we're not communicating: you personally benefit from the inequities that are making other people's lives less than pleasant.

"But because of our current climate it's possible to make the sort of sweeping, stereotyping statements about white

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, April 13, 2007 9:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Class, race, gender and sexuality. The big four of institutional inequity and privilege. You're three out of four on the, "unknowingly taking advantage of biases built into the system."

So how do you propose to lessen or abolish these built in inequalities that you perceive in America? Being born white is not an option, you either are or are not.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I'd say it's a safe bet that you, like pretty much every single American male, learned misogyny and how to be a sexist from the moment you were aware.

Are we talking about every single American male or just the white ones?

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Can you honestly tell me that what guys talk about when no women are around is not hateful of women? Whether or not you believe what you were taught, that I don't know.

What exactly is your reasoning behind this statement? If this is from personal experience than perhaps you need to associate with a different crowd.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
In terms of racism and sexism in this country, I see it as planting a seed in rich soil in a greenhouse and watering the soil and waiting to see if the seed grows. The racism and sexism might not take, but all the ingredients necessary to teach that hate are present in pretty much every case.

Thanks for the analogy but I'm a little confused. Who is planting the seed of racism and sexism? Is the planter of the seed also doing the watering? If the soil is so rich, why might the seed not take?

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
What it smacks to me of is a group that has had all the access to the public discourse seeing some of that discourse taken away and crying foul.

If you think posters are defending what Imus said than it is you who are mistaken. IMHO, this thread has largely been about why Imus in particular and why now. But kudos for trying to forward your own agenda.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
You benefit simply by being born a male. And simply by being born white. Every single man in America benefits. It's through no decision of yours. It's through no effort of yours. That's what privilege is. That's the part where we're not communicating: you personally benefit from the inequities that are making other people's lives less than pleasant.

Once again I ask you for possible solutions. Do you think all white males born in America should have to spend their formative years in a country like Zimbabwe? Perhaps the Constitution should be amended to read life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines unless you are a white, heterosexual male.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
If I'm discussing sweeping inequities that all members benefit from than I'm going to use sweeping statements. This is one of those cases.

Sweeping inequalities, sweeping statements, sweeping generalizations.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Is it stereotyping to say that all men benefit from unearned privilege? I don't think so. Is it stereotyping to say that all caucasians benefit from unearned privilege? I don't think so. Is it stereotyping to say that all heterosexuals benefit from unearned privilege? I don't think so. Is it stereotyping to say that all people born into wealth benefit from unearned privilege? I don't think so.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Why is it easiest for people to see the inequities that they're on the other side of and so hard to see the inequities they benefit from? I've had no disagreements whatsoever about the rich part of the class, race, gender and sexuality breakdown. Because it sounds like we've all been on the other side of that.
You just don't get it.

No I get it, I'm supposed to feel guilty for being born white. I'm supposed to be doing more to abolish racism and sexism as a white male than everyone else. If I'm offered a job based on merit, I sho

CAUSAL

Friday, April 13, 2007 9:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
You just don't get it.

Here's what I don't get: how can it be OK for Rue (or anyone else for that matter) to make assumptions about me based on nothing more than my gender and race, and then make ugly comments based on those assumptions? Is that not what constitutes prejudice? Is it not the case that that amounts to forming a stereotype of an entire group, then applying that stereotype to a member of the group without any actual knowledge about the person? Tell me what I'm not getting about that.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, April 13, 2007 10:05 PM

"So how do you propose to lessen or abolish these built in inequalities that you perceive in America? Being born white is not an option, you either are or are not."

The first step is to convince enough of the country that this is a problem that needs to be addressed (and here I'm lumping together all four of the types of inequities). It's a tough sell. It is not in our best interests to admit that we're benefitting while others are being screwed. And any attempt to lessen that benefit feels like we're getting screwed. Because, from a short sighted view, we are. We're losing some of that unearned privilege. It's like being used to have ninety-five cents out of every dollar and then all of a sudden that gets bumped down to ninety cents. What the hell? You've taken away five cents. Damnit.

"Are we talking about every single American male or just the white ones?"

All of us.

"What exactly is your reasoning behind this statement? If this is from personal experience than perhaps you need to associate with a different crowd."

Are we going to debate that we talk about women as if they were pieces of meat when we think we can get away with it? Maybe you're right. Maybe it was just the high school locker rooms I was in. Maybe I just happened to grow up with a bunch of misogynists.

"Thanks for the analogy but I'm a little confused. Who is planting the seed of racism and sexism? Is the planter of the seed also doing the watering? If the soil is so rich, why might the seed not take?"

Analogy in progress... Hundreds of years of inculcating racism. Thousands of years of inculcating sexism. Soil. A narrative that reinforces the dominant culture. Sun. Parents who pass along racist and sexist beliefs that they were raised with. Water. The potential for making decisions based on racist or sexist beliefs. Seed.

Eh. I think you got the main point of my analogy. Attempting to dissect it further than is useful is kind of spinning wheels.

"If you think posters are defending what Imus said than it is you who are mistaken. IMHO, this thread has largely been about why Imus in particular and why now. But kudos for trying to forward your own agenda."

I don't think I've ever claimed that posters were defending what Imus said. That's your red herring. I've been off on white privilege since Causal opened the door. You say forwarding my own agenda as if that was a bad thing.

"Once again I ask you for possible solutions. Do you think all white males born in America should have to spend their formative years in a country like Zimbabwe? Perhaps the Constitution should be amended to read life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines unless you are a white, heterosexual male."

I'll rephrase my first statement, step one is to convince more Americans that inequities are a problem when it is against their own self interest to acknowledge that benefitting from inequities is a bad thing. Until there is enough popular support for minimizing some of these inequities, any attempt to change the system will be seen as discrimination against those benefitting from the inequities.

Quick question: Do you agree or disagree that rich white male heterosexual Americans are at the top of the pyramid with respect to potential for success?

Sidenote: I thought life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness line was from the Declaration of Independence.

"Sweeping inequalities, sweeping statements, sweeping generalizations."

Isn't that exactly what I said?

"No I get it, I'm supposed to feel guilty for being born white. I'm supposed to be doing more to abolish racism and sexism as a white male than everyone else. If I'm offered a job based on merit, I should turn it down because I really only got the job because I'm white. If I pass a cop and he doesn't pull me over I should circle around and ram him/her until they do."

No, you don't get it. I don't care whether or not you feel guilty. I don't care whether or not you're working to lessen racism and sexism. I just want people to acknowledge where things are

CAUSAL

Friday, April 13, 2007 10:10 PM

@ Soupcatcher:

I agree in principle with much of what you said in the above post. You're right, the majority enjoys privilege because they are in the majority. I'm not disagreeing with that. I wish you could be around me and my male friends when we discuss women, though; I can deny being a woman-hater until I'm blue in the face, but I suspect the only way that you'd believe me is if you could actually hear what I say. But you can't, so you're going to have to take my word for the fact that I don't hate women. My life is very much improved by the women in it, and I'm very aware of--and appreciative of--that fact. I also probably can't convince you that I'm not out to get rich and dominate society. I can only say that if that was my aim, I'd be in the business department, not the philosophy department.

But you're right--people should be more aware of the privilege they benefit from as a member of the majority, and they should be sensitive to the fact that minorities don't enjoy the same privilege.

But what I want to see if you can hear is me saying that any instance of stereotyping is wrong, regardless of who the target is. Rue genuinely hurt my feelings by making unwarranted assumptions about me and my motives--is that OK? I think that if we are going to be intellectually and morally honest people, we're going to have to say that all stereotyping is wrong and that all prejudice is wrong. To do otherwise is hypocritical. I'm not disagreeing about past instances of racism, injustice, discrimination. What I am saying is that to have the courage of your convictions, since that seems to be a point of honor with you, you're going to have to take a stand against any instance of stereotyping and prejudice, and not just those against certain targets or perpetrated by certain people.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, April 13, 2007 10:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Here's what I don't get: how can it be OK for Rue (or anyone else for that matter) to make assumptions about me based on nothing more than my gender and race, and then make ugly comments based on those assumptions? Is that not what constitutes prejudice? Is it not the case that that amounts to forming a stereotype of an entire group, then applying that stereotype to a member of the group without any actual knowledge about the person? Tell me what I'm not getting about that.

Do you personally benefit from the inequities that are making other people's lives less than pleasant simply because of the color of your skin?

Do you personally benefit from the inequities that are making other people's lives less than pleasant simply because of your gender?

* edited to add *

Cross posted with your last message. I'll respond to your latest after I get back from getting my truck smog checked.

CAUSAL

Friday, April 13, 2007 10:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Here's what I don't get: how can it be OK for Rue (or anyone else for that matter) to make assumptions about me based on nothing more than my gender and race, and then make ugly comments based on those assumptions? Is that not what constitutes prejudice? Is it not the case that that amounts to forming a stereotype of an entire group, then applying that stereotype to a member of the group without any actual knowledge about the person? Tell me what I'm not getting about that.

Do you personally benefit from the inequities that are making other people's lives less than pleasant simply because of the color of your skin?

Do you personally benefit from the inequities that are making other people's lives less than pleasant simply because of your gender?

We have been talking past each other this whole time. You have been talking about the privilege attendant to being in the majority, and I have been talking about the moral status of stereotyping. But we're using enough common terminology to actually sound like we're arguing the same thing. When you ask if I benefit from the privilege attendant to being in the majority, you are actually not doing the thing that I am talking about. You're describing the way our society is set up--and I want to be perfectly clear on this point--I'm not disagreeing with you. Our society is set up on foundations that benefit some groups more than others, no mistake. But this isn't what I'm disputing about.

Allow me to illustrate what I am talking about. A number of years ago, during my Naval service, I overheard two young sailors talking during a work assignment. One was white, the other black. The black sailor began to rag on the white one, telling him that he should go back to the trailer park, saying that his mother didn't really know who his father was (since she was a trailer park floozy), telling him that his whole family probably only had a single full set of teeth among them, asking him if he'd actually gotten beyond the 8th grade. All of this was occasioned by the other sailor saying he'd lived in a trailer once. Now, I personally think that's pretty offensive. I think that making disparaging remarks about a person's intelligence, background, family, and moral character based on nothing other than where that person grew up is wrong. I also think that had the situation been reversed--had the white sailor made corresponding comments about where the black sailor had grown up--there would have been an accusation of racism. And I see this as blatantly hypocritical. If stereotyping and prejuding is wrong, then it's wrong across the board. Wrong for everyone. No matter who the target is, it's wrong. And I want to know if you agree that stereotyping and prejudging is wrong categorically.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

HKCAVALIER

Friday, April 13, 2007 11:12 PM

Hey everyone,

I have a couple things to add to the mix here.

One: a lot of folks are asking "Why Imus?" and "Why now?" These kind of "why" questions presuppose a level of order or even perfection in the system which simply does not exist. "Why does God let little children die?" is only a meaningful question if one posits an All-loving, All-benevolent, All-powerful party responsible.

The court of public oppinion is none of these things.

Imus getting fired strikes me as a simple case of the chickens coming home to roost. The guy's been asking for trouble since day one. The folks who admire him do so, in no small part, because of this risk taking behavior. So he's made a career of taking risks and this is just one of the likeliest outcomes of such a career. Yes?

Two: Funny how it seems in this context folks over on the rightish side of the political spectrum are largely the one's making the claim that before Imus should get in trouble for his racist and sexist posturing, a lot of other people should be dealt with first. Funny, that's exactly what a lot of lefties said when the right proposed going to war with Iraq--no one said Saddam wasn't a bad guy, but he sure as hell wasn't the world-wide public enemy #1! Of course the analogy isn't perfect because the court of public oppinion is a chaos making machine and the Government of the United States is supposed to make...sense.

Oh, and speaking as a predominantly white, predominantly male human being, I don't find any of Soupcatcher's or Rue's comments remotely offensive or denigrating.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

KHYRON

Friday, April 13, 2007 11:21 PM

Nice to see you back, HKCavalier.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, April 13, 2007 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
The first step is to convince enough of the country that this is a problem that needs to be addressed (and here I'm lumping together all four of the types of inequities). It's a tough sell. It is not in our best interests to admit that we're benefitting while others are being screwed. And any attempt to lessen that benefit feels like we're getting screwed. Because, from a short sighted view, we are. We're losing some of that unearned privilege. It's like being used to have ninety-five cents out of every dollar and then all of a sudden that gets bumped down to ninety cents. What the hell? You've taken away five cents. Damnit.

But how is this to be accomplished? How do we abolish unearned privilege? How do you even prove unearned privilege? Who do we give our five cents to? As a white, heterosexual male should I not accept a job offered unless and until I have made sure the potential employer has exhausted all other options? As a white, heterosexual male should I drive in a country where I am in the minority so perhaps I can be stopped for no reason?

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I don't think I've ever claimed that posters were defending what Imus said. That's your red herring. I've been off on white privilege since Causal opened the door.

I guess this quote had me confused.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I'm still not buying it. What it smacks to me of is a group that has had all the access to the public discourse seeing some of that discourse taken away and crying foul.

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

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Quick question: Do you agree or disagree that rich white male heterosexual Americans are at the top of the pyramid with respect to potential for success?

Agree.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Sidenote: I thought life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness line was from the Declaration of Independence.

Thanks for the correction, being Canadian I should have checked before posting.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
"Sweeping inequalities, sweeping statements, sweeping generalizations."

Isn't that exactly what I said?

You were lamenting sweeping inequalities by making sweeping statements. I added the sweeping generalizations part.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
No, you don't get it. I don't care whether or not you feel guilty. I don't care whether or not you're working to lessen racism and sexism. I just want people to acknowledge where things are skewed in their favor and not complain that it's unfair that that skewing is being lessened.

So my inherent privilege as a white, heterosexual male has somehow been lessened with the firing of Imus? One of us (Imus) got taken down a peg and it should be a lesson to us all?

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Turn your questions around. Have you ever been pulled over by a cop because of the color of your skin.

No, just for speeding.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Have you ever not got a job because of the color of your skin.

Couldn't say.

Should all that I have done or will do in this life be questioned or somwhow mean less because of my race and gender?

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
"I think that speaks more to you than to me."

Which is probably why I used the first person pronoun.

So saying that you have learned nothing from me compared to ALL other posters in RWED was not meant as a slight? If not than I apologize.

Posting to stir stuff up.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, April 13, 2007 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Two: Funny how it seems in this context folks over on the rightish side of the political spectrum are largely the one's making the claim that before Imus should get in trouble for his racist and sexist posturing, a lot of other people should be dealt with first. Funny, that's exactly what a lot of lefties said when the right proposed going to war with Iraq--no one said Saddam wasn't a bad guy, but he sure as hell wasn't the world-wide public enemy #1! Of course the analogy isn't perfect because the court of public oppinion is a chaos making machine and the Government of the United States is supposed to make...sense.

That was the mother of all reaching analogies, and a nice shift of the goal posts, congratulations.

Posting to stir stuff up.

CAUSAL

Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Two: Funny how it seems in this context folks over on the rightish side of the political spectrum are largely the one's making the claim that before Imus should get in trouble for his racist and sexist posturing, a lot of other people should be dealt with first. Funny, that's exactly what a lot of lefties said when the right proposed going to war with Iraq--no one said Saddam wasn't a bad guy, but he sure as hell wasn't the world-wide public enemy #1! Of course the analogy isn't perfect because the court of public oppinion is a chaos making machine and the Government of the United States is supposed to make...sense.

I'm just upset that people still think that I'm making excuses for Imus, or that "other people should be dealt with first." Once again: I'm saying neither. Maybe if I was actually listened to, instead of just just reacted to, you'd understand that what I'm saying has nothing to do with Mr Imus.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, April 14, 2007 1:42 AM

Quote:
Two: Funny how it seems in this context folks over on the rightish side of the political spectrum are largely the one's making the claim that before Imus should get in trouble for his racist and sexist posturing, a lot of other people should be dealt with first. Funny, that's exactly what a lot of lefties said when the right proposed going to war with Iraq--no one said Saddam wasn't a bad guy, but he sure as hell wasn't the world-wide public enemy #1! Of course the analogy isn't perfect because the court of public oppinion is a chaos making machine and the Government of the United States is supposed to make...sense.

Whatever man.... If I have any potential of what could be considered racist tendancies it would be exibited in my fear and loathing of Repuglicans, which is matched only by my fear and loating of Demoncrats. You're all a bunch of assholes. Why you, or anyone, would associate themselves with either side anymore is an enigma to me. But I've said that a million times in here already.....

The "court of public opinion" is bullshit too. There is no such thing. There is what the media tells us, and what the people believe. You will never know what "public opinion" is from a rigged poll (using demographics that will give them the results they're looking for) of 1,500 people that the media uses to tell you how to feel about an issue.

I just find it ironic that Jesse "The Racist" Jackson comes out of hiding to shit talk Imus about shit talking women and minorities when his own people have been shit talking women and white people since long before rap was even born through their music. Yeah... Let's ask Jesse how he feels about women really. Maybe we should ask his baby's momma, or his wife even? Yeah I'm pointing that out.... sue me. Why is it okay for everyone else to be a hypocrite except for the white male? Please answer this question, somebody, without blowing a bunch of smoke or giving me any rhetoric about how evil white males are.

And let me be the first to say that I really enjoy rap music. Not the MTV neutered shit you hear now, but real shit from the early 90's. It was edgy, it was about change, it was about outrage. Fuck tha Police! Damn straight. This new wave rap/hip-hop shit is nothing but degrading women and using sex and women in videos to push saless... pimpin ho's and slammin do's. I'm not saying the old stuff wasn't immune to objectifying women, but largly it was real music with a real message. Rap today is just American Idol for BET.... it's pop culture shit. Fuck tha sellouts is more like it.

Hip-Hop is marketed as an insult to women, but women, instead of being insulted are playing the part. Look at how they dress at clubs and just in general today. They've glamorized the gangsta pimp scene so much that girls (black and white) are actually striving to play the part of the ho. (Of course not all women. I'm not trying to make sweeping racist/sexist statements here, but it happens. Just look around you)

You don't have to turn on Imus to hear racisism and sexism. Just turn on any pop radio station or watch MTV and you'll see and hear 10 more offensive things to women in the first half hour than what Imus said. This whole deal is bad and Imus is getting fucked in a system rigging itself against white males. I don't want to hear any shit about how good we've had it before either and now this is payback. I'm only 27. My family owned no slaves. I was raised by a single mother. My life has been shit much more often than it was good. I'm not asking for sympathy because I wouldn't give you any. I'm just pointing out what a fallacy the diarrhea of the mouth coming out of your mouths is. Being white hasn't done anything for me. Neither has being male. Save your sweeping generalizations for somebody who gives a shit. Racists....

And you Soup. I know we have good conversations even though we don't always see eye to eye, but your comments today while I was gone have really pissed me off. You are either a racist minority yourself, p

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:01 AM

Okay. Passed. Good for another two years .

Causal: I'm glad to hear that you've outgrown the misogyny that you were exposed to growing up. The misogyny that all of us were exposed to growing up as American males. Or, maybe you were never exposed to the objectification of women that is considered the norm in our society. I certainly was. That's what I'm getting at. I'm making the claim that all of us have been exposed to misogyny. That misogynism seems more normal than abnormal. That if we behave simply as we have been taught, by history by society and maybe by our families, we are more than likely to make sexist remarks.

Now you can interpret that as me saying that you hate women. I don't. I think that we're talking about two separate things.

It seems to me that you're looking for me to make the statement that all stereotyping and all prejudice is wrong. And to actively attack any form of stereotyping or prejudice. Which seems a completely reasonable goal. So why haven't I? The short version has to do with addressing systemic inequities. The only way I can foresee to adress systemic inequities is to start lessening the bias. And this can be perceived, by the group who is enjoying the bias, as prejudicial treatment against them. That's the sticking point. If you've been unknowingly enjoying the fruits of prejudice, than any attempt to reverse that prejudice will look to you as prejudice. That's why it's so important for me to keep bringing up the unearned benefit that is privilege. We're talking hundreds of years of built in privilege (in the case of gender, thousands of years).

To do nothing is to allow unearned privilege to continue. To do something will be viewed as prejudicial against those groups who enjoy that unearned privilege. Who among us is willing to advocate for a lessening of privilege? So, no, I'm not going to blanketly say that prejudice is wrong because what you may consider prejudice I consider a move towards equality.

In regards to the two seamen. What the black sailor said was fucked up. I completely agree with you. And he needed to be made aware of just why what he said crossed a line. And his racism was toothless. It was kicking up, as I've referred to it before. Kicking up is different than kicking down. They're both kicking and, as I'm using it, kicking is not cool. And one carries more weight than the other.

I'm interested in sending the message that businesses should not associate their brand with kicking down. There's a long history of precisely that happening. There is no corresponding long history of business associating their brand with kicking up.

A last note, I don't think I've made the claim that you're making excuses for Imus. I took one comment you made earlier and used it to expand the discussion to white privilege. To me, this is a completely different discussion only tangentially related to the original thread topic.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Oh, and speaking as a predominantly white, predominantly male human being, I don't find any of Soupcatcher's or Rue's comments remotely offensive or denigrating.

Thanks, HKCavalier. I don't feel like I'm doing a good job on communicating what exactly privilege is and why it's a problem for a healthy society. Asynchronous communication appears to be a particularly poor format for this as there is huge potential for misunderstanding that can quickly spiral.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
And you Soup. I know we have good conversations even though we don't always see eye to eye, but your comments today while I was gone have really pissed me off. You are either a racist minority yourself, posing as a white person to stir shit up, or you are a white person who has bought all of this media driven bullshit and you've become so self hating and guilty about events completely out of your control that you've become a racist against people with your own skin color. Either way, you sound like nothing more than a racist to me. It's like listening to Jesse whine..... I'm thouroughly disgusted now and sick to my stomach.

As I've mentioned previously, I'm mixed race. My mother is white and my father is brown. I grew up in Los Angeles where I was pretty much oblivious to the fact that I wasn't a member of the majority. It wasn't until I went away to college, in a small rural area that was predominantly white, that I was confronted with overt racism directed at me personally. This opened my eyes to the subversive racism that I was subjected to and had participated in while growing up. My own position has been deeply influenced by that awakening. Make of that what you will.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:27 AM

Of course.... Choice C. I knew that already. My apologies soup.

Still doesn't change the way I feel about your posts. But continue to say whatever white-male-hating stuff you want to. That's freedom, ain't it?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:40 AM

BigDamnNobody:
My recent post to Causal touches on many of the topics you raised. I'll just flesh out some additional.

"No, just for speeding."

I found a statement made by Loewen in Sundown Towns fascinating. It was that police pulling over black drivers simply for being black actually represented good policework in some areas. In a twisted sort of way. That one of the jobs of local police is to determine the intention of outsiders (and I'm still not sure I buy that). That, in sundown towns, blacks were clearly outsiders since no blacks lived in sundown towns by design. So the police were able to use the racial politics of the towns to help them in their policework. Now, if the driver was white, there was no conclusion that could be drawn.

"Should all that I have done or will do in this life be questioned or somwhow mean less because of my race and gender?"

Each of us earns our achievements. However, we each start in different places and have different probabilities for a successful outcome based on how well we map to the cultural norm. Take class, for example.

"So saying that you have learned nothing from me compared to ALL other posters in RWED was not meant as a slight? If not than I apologize."

Don't forget the equating of your comments with ankle-biting and sniping.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:41 AM

"Still doesn't change the way I feel about your posts. But continue to say whatever white-male-hating stuff you want to. That's freedom, ain't it?"

I make the same response to people making ethnic slurs as I do to people making slurs against whites, "I'm half offended by your comments."

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I make the same response to people making ethnic slurs as I do to people making slurs against whites, "I'm half offended by your comments."

I haven't made any slurs, so I half don't know what you're talking about. You seem to think that you're enlightened and righteous because you're mixed and therefore your opinions on this matter are the only ones that matter. Everything you've said is simply countering racism with racism and I'm calling you on it. You don't need to burn crosses or drag people with a car to be a racist.

EDIT: Upon re-reading your post, my thinking is that that comment about being half offended wasn't directed towards me. My apologies if this is the case.

As for stereotyping while driving, my bud at work is a white male that lives in a neighborhood which changed over the years and now is nearly exclusively black. He's always being stopped by cops there because they assume he's there to buy drugs.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

GEEZER

Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:58 AM

Sigh. In 11th century England the Normans had "unearned privilege". in 12th Century Spain it was Moors. In 16th century Central and South America it was the Spanish. In 1930's Germany it was Nazis, and Facistia in Italy. From the 1920's thru 1980's in Russia it was members of the Communist party. Probably still is Communist party members in China. In Japan, it's Japanese men. In South and Central America now it's Hispanic men. In the Middle East it's mostly Sunni men. In Sub-Saharan Africa, it's men of whatever the dominant tribe is in the area.

There's always some group which has an advantage due to the history that preceded them. Now if everyone in positions of authority is of that group, you got a problem. If all the politicians, managers, owners, bosses, civil servants, are of that privileged group, you're sunk. If there are people of all groups in positions of power, and the mass of people support them there, then things are improving.

There's always going to be racists, and there's always going to be haters, just like there's always going to be people who like disco. Get over it. Deal with the people who are willing to change and make things better.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Saturday, April 14, 2007 3:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Don't forget the equating of your comments with ankle-biting and sniping.

Don't forget who posted to whom first in this thread.

Posting to stir stuff up.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, April 14, 2007 3:01 AM

Yeah, that comment wasn't directed at you.

That was how I deal with comments face to face as they occur.

YINYANG

Saturday, April 14, 2007 3:05 AM

Re: how to fix prejudice. Shel Silverstein has the answer!

NO DIFFERENCE

Small as a peanut,
Big as a giant,
We're all the same size
When we turn off the light.

Rich as a sultan,
Poor as a mite,
We're all worth the same
When we turn off the light.

Red, black or orange,
Yellow or white,
We all look the same
When we turn off the light.

So maybe the way
To make everything right
Is for God to just reach out
And turn off the light!

You may now return to your regularly scheduled debate/arguments/whatever.

---

"If I were a Nazi, someone would defend my constitutional right to hate Jews. If I were a Klansman, someone would defend my rights to hate blacks. It's a funny place, this world. Hate has rights. Love has none." - Jeff, Murphy's Boy

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, April 14, 2007 3:37 AM

I just read an article by a black man named Leonard Pitts, in a highly touted Liberal Milwaukee newspaper called the Journal Sentinel. This article was actually pulled from the Miami Herald where it was printed a day earlier. I thought it might make some good reading from those saying that we're only the Rightest white males defending their spot at the top of the dung heap.

http://www.miamiherald.com/418/story/72285.html

Notable quotes from this article:

"Obviously, someone has put crack in the nation's drinking water."

"...one hopes we'll see this same indignation next time some idiot black rapper (paging Snoop Dogg) refers to black women in terms this raw or worse. Indeed, it's doubtful Imus would have even known the word ''ho'' -- black slang for ''whore'' -- had idiot black rappers not spent the last 20 years popularizing it."

Sounds remarkably like my quote yesterday:

"Right after they ban and censor all of the rap artists out there first. I'm sure "nappy headed ho" wasn't even a part of Imus's vocabulary before Yo! MTV Raps. The very earliest Imus picked that up would have been from Easy E or Ice Cube WAAAAAY back in the day. If you don't like it, don't listen to him."

Mr. Pitts then went on to say:

"What did Imus do last week that he has not done repeatedly? We're talking about a man who has built a career on verbal diarrhea."

This just in.... "Rutgers Team: We Accept Imus's Apology."

http://www.miamiherald.com/889/story/72746.html

"The team's goal was never to get Imus fired, Stringer said. "It's sad for anyone to lose their job," she said."

What's that? Obama has something to say about it too? Last time I checked he was a left wing half African American who's doing a damn good job of positioning himself for a seat on the throne.

http://www.miamiherald.com/692/story/73192.html

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday questioned the way some rappers talk about women in songs, saying the lyrics are similar to the derogatory language used by embattled radio host Don Imus.

They are "degrading their sisters. That doesn't inspire me," Obama said of some hip-hop artists when a man in a crowd of about 1,000 questioned him. The Illinois senator was responding to a question of what inspired him, and said God and civil rights activists.

This last article doesn't suprise me though. In fact, I think I now know the reason why Imus was tagged so harshly now and never before. The Demons have unofficially dropped Hillary now. This will be the springboard they will use to propell Obama to the president's seat. I hope he can get our boys and girls out of the Middle East.

The Demons will have all three seats now. No more room for bitching in 2008. Time for the Demons to put up or shut the fuck up.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Saturday, April 14, 2007 7:04 AM

Causal,

"Sorry your life has been so tough. Must be all my fault. When I skipped meals and dug for gas money between couch cushions I must really have been oppressing you."

"And according to a lot that I've been seeing in this thread, that means that I'm rich and run the whole show ..."
----------------------------

If I missed your point then you missed mine. Which I've tried to make twice already so this will be three times now.

DOES IT EFFING MATTER IF YOU GET CALLED NAMES BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE ABOLUTELY NO POWER OVER YOU? (Whatever those names might be btw. I personally don't know of any names in common use for white males as bad as nigger or cunt - do you ?) What MATTERS is that rich people run the economy to their benefit - not yours or mine. Arguing about who gets a better position on the dung heap still means it's on the dung heap.

This doesn't make you the bad guy. And it doesn't mean you've been stereotyped. But focusing on these stupid petty quibbles does mean you're short-sighted and easily used to maintain that system. And that's not a matter of stereotyping, it's something you've amply demonstrated.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, April 14, 2007 11:08 AM

Just thought that I would also point out to anybody who didn't know that I was also supportive of Bill Mahar's recent controversial statement about the VP as well. If you people want to live in a country where the Government gets to decide what can and cannot be played on air, I hear the weather in Turkey is wonderful this time a year.

EDIT: Don't tell me this was a not a government decision and it was strictly business. We all know that's bullshit and in any other thread people would be complaining about how the government and big business are in bed togehter when it suits whatever point they're trying to make. Busniess doesn't get too much bigger than CBS or MSNBC.

And Rue.... words are just words. I don't think we should focus so much energy on crybabies and weaklings. It's a tough world. I was abused mentally and emotionally at home growing up and I was picked on every day at school growing up until I got a fresh start at a new High School and turned things around for myself. Nobody was there protecting me when I went home and wondered why no girls liked me and why the only friends I had were other outcasts.

I just find it ironic how the scientist types who are in staunch support of Darwinism usually are the ones who are the quickest to promote laws and protocol which directly contradict survival of the fittest.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CAUSAL

Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What MATTERS is that rich people run the economy to their benefit - not yours or mine. Arguing about who gets a better position on the dung heap still means it's on the dung heap.

OK, so I can see that you and I have been talking past each other in somewhat the same way as SoupCatcher and I had been. I do understand the point you make above. I think you're right: certain people run the society for their benefit and not for yours or mine. I'm not exactly arguing about who should get a better position on your "dung heap" and I think it's a little simplistic to just say that the people in charge are white males, but you're right about it being run for the benefits of the already-haves.

Quote:
This doesn't make you the bad guy. And it doesn't mean you've been stereotyped. But focusing on these stupid petty quibbles does mean you're short-sighted and easily used to maintain that system. And that's not a matter of stereotyping, it's something you've amply demonstrated.

Well, with all due respect, what I've been arguing about is the moral status of stereotyping and prejudice. I do think that it's too simplistic to blame "white males" because I've certainly known a whole lot of poor, powerless ones. It can't just be white-males-as-such. And that is what got me started on the whole issue of the moral status of stereotyping. It certainly seems, though, that the concensus is in: it's OK to stereotype and prejudge a group of people if a sufficient number of those people are in positions of power (not that morality rests on the will of the majority, of course). So I guess my question has been answered.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 14, 2007 4:24 PM

Soup, I think you've fallen into the trap of reverse prejudice. Whe you said I don't care whether or not you feel guilty. I don't care whether or not you're working to lessen racism and sexism. I just want people to acknowledge where things are skewed in their favor and not complain that it's unfair that that skewing is being lessened. you are blaming somebody for what they ARE, not for what they'ev DONE. I KNOW that prejudice exists. I've seen it in studies, I've experienced it myself as a member of a stereotyped group. There are a number of ways that society is sliced and diced just so we get to fight over being 1/4" higher from the bottom of the barrel. But the answer is not to blame the people who are in the barrel with us, but to figure out why we're all in the barrel in the first place. The scarcity of decent jobs and of respect is an artificial scarcity. Focus on THAT. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, and meeting prejudice with prejudice just feeds into the system which keeps us distracted and apart.

I've thought about Imus, and how it relates to me, Bill Maher, Hannity, and society in general. People like Imus Hannity, and Maher are TROLLS. They specialize in name-calling, in getting people riled up and spouting what (in the internet world) would be called "flamebait". Some people defend their broadcasts by saying that (1) it's free speech and (2) that it fosters "communication".

Well, it's definitely free speech but unless you define equal-opportunity namecalling as "communication" it doesn't really foster communication. Do we really want the airwaves filled with "kike!" "nazi!" "terrorist!" "nigger!" "macho shithead!" "faggot!" and "cunt!"?.

BTW- Youre' right Rue, I can't think of a name for a white hetero male that packs as much punch as "faggot" or "nigger". If anyone know of one please let ME know!

Internet solutions to trolling don't work on the airwaves because there's no direct feedback (or lack of). The airwaves are common property and are leased by the FCC supposedly in the interest of the "public good". But people like Imus of ANY race or political stripe will usually find a large-enough audience to fill their pockets with jingle. So the only solution that I can think of is that any "nonfree" communication which costs money to air must be treated like a commercial: there must be an element of "truth in advertising". Imus should have to PROVE that the Rutgers team looks like "nappy-headed hos" or they get to sue him for defamation. If you hold everyone to that standard it would save a lot of gratuitous bullshit-slinging.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Saturday, April 14, 2007 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, and meeting prejudice with prejudice just feeds into the system which keeps us distracted and apart.

I believe posters are getting this but are having a hard time acknowledging it.

Posting to stir stuff up.

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, April 14, 2007 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I'm just upset that people still think that I'm making excuses for Imus, or that "other people should be dealt with first."

One of the reasons I've largely walked away from the discussions on this board is the way people take all manner of comments personally--get up in arms, call people names and generally freak out about stuff that ultimately has nothing to do with them. Kinda like our government's foreign policy lately.

Causal, I wasn't talking about you, so why'd you assume I was talking about you? If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it!

I was refering to the various articles and blogs folk have posted in this thread which actually did claim that there were a whole line of miscreants ahead of Imus that should get the axe for being racist and sexist. I didn't name names, and I'm not naming names now, because, frankly, I don't want to have to read the whole dang thread again.

Why would you assume I was talking about you when I refer to something you never said and don't mention you?

RWED, we need to calm the

down and listen to each other.

And 6ix, yeah, whatever, man. Peace.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

FLETCH2

Saturday, April 14, 2007 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

Fletch2: I posed the question earlier in a longer form: would you rather be denigrated or discriminated against? If someone who benefits from discrimination is complaining about denigration then I really don't have any sympathy for them.

A statement that makes you a hypocrite. You presume I benefit from discrimination and therefore you believe that gives you the right to denigrate me. How is that different from presuming someone that is black is inferior and believing that gives you the right to denigrate them?

Not only is that point of view morally lax it's also logically flawed. Being white is not the same as being a Mason, it is not a choice I made to gain unfair advantage, so in effect you are arguing that I have some form or "original sin" that I am guilty of a crime I haven't commited purely based on my genetic makeup. Talk about ethnic profiling.

Casual: I understand completely what you are saying and agree. I think most people here understand it and the only ones talking at cross purposes are the ones too stubborn to conceed your point. Personally I think if they did conceed it that would make their position stronger but hey....

FLETCH2

Saturday, April 14, 2007 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

BTW- Youre' right Rue, I can't think of a name for a white hetero male that packs as much punch as "faggot" or "nigger". If anyone know of one please let ME know!

.

Twat, pillock, goyt, wassock spring immediately to mind.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 14, 2007 5:04 PM

BDN- Mebbe. I only read about halfway up the thread so I might have missed that trend.

Perhaps what Soup wants is recognition for the hurt that "his group" experiences at the hands of "whites". It's a little like blacks wanting an aoplogy for slavery. Since my family's presence in the USA doesn't go back any farther than about 1910, what am I supposed to apologize for? For being white? I can understand an institutional apology: from the State of Virginia, for example. But to make everyone feel guilty for something they didn't create or condone is bull. People and institutions need to be held accountable for what they did and continue to do and to make changes, not for what they are.

So Soup, let me ask you: since you're not black should you apologize for slavery? (In the ladder of racism, browns are better off than blacks.) Since you're male should you be more sensitive to or apologize for sexism? Since you're (prolly) hetero should you be responsible for homophobia? I guess by those standards, the only people who don't need to apologize for anything are poor, disabled, black, female infants.

Fletch- I think most of your terms are Britishisms. Twat in the American vernacular also means "cunt". Wassock and pillock mean "dolt"- not necessarilly a white dolt, altho that part is prolly assumed. Goyt is the closest derogatory word I can find. Maybe WASP? I dunno- it just doesn't seem to have the same... er... sting.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 14, 2007 5:55 PM

Oh my. It looks like all those names I tossed around killed the thread. I only used them as examples of how offensive name-calling can get. I won't do THAT again!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, April 14, 2007 6:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But to make everyone feel guilty for something they didn't create or condone is bull. People need to be held accountable for what they do, not for what they are.

Y'know, I haven't read every last word Soup has posted on this thread, so maybe I missed it, but it sure looks like this whole "guilt" thing is being shoe-horned into the discussion.

The big problem with guilt is that folk can attatch it to things it has no business getting mixed up in. A lot of people have what I'd call "free-floating guilt." Such people are susceptible to "guilt trips" and will even go so far as to perceive a "guilt trip" where there is none. This "free-floating guilt" is really shame, of course (the feeling that there is something fundamentally wrong with what we are--like being male, or being female, or having sexual feelings, or not having sexual feelings, or having the wrong sexual feelings, or being white or black or mixed).

Complicating the matter, guilt may accrue unconsciously in a person and then be triggered semi-consciously in them and lead to a lot of quasi-coherent grandstanding and denial. When a parent favors one child over another, for instance, the favored child may feel extremely guilty and not really know it until he or she is called to account for all the privilege he or she has been given over the years.

So, when a whole society or a culture--or the vast majority of cultures around the world for thousands of years--favor, say, boy children over girl children, this tends to build up a charge of considerable guilt or shame in men for being men. And we construct whole religions around the idea that men are nasty and bad and evil and need to be redeemed, for instance. Or we project all our shame and self-loathing on "the other" and conceive women as the root of all evil. Or, sometimes, we project all our shame and irrationality onto foreign cultures.

Thing is, when we do mannage to clear the guilt and shame away, privilege still exists and the most important thing to do with privilege is to not accept it. The moral thing to do when offered unearned privilege and power is to pass. When a system within which we find ourselves working offers us power over another fully functioning adult human being's life it is immoral to accept such power. That is to say, when we accept it, it plants guilt in our psyche and when we refuse to take on such power it nurtures our self-esteem--it makes us a better person.

O' course, people will want to legislate such moral facts, force people to do right, but that goes against the whole idea of being a moral person to begin with...

Carry on.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 14, 2007 6:22 PM

Interesting concepts.

I think people really do know and understand when they're the recipients of unearned privilege. Heck, I think some people feel guilty for earned privileges! I feel some guilt for living in a nice neighborhood with a reasonable school system. Having lived in dangerous neighborhoods, I feel badly for those who don't live as well as I. I feel guilty for picking the best produce out of the pile at the grocery store! I understand that "the system" is designed to create inequality and strife, and to the extend that I take advantage of that system then I AM guilty.

But the solution is not just changing individual behavior but also changing the rules. Because if you dig deep enough, the rules are backed by force- by the police (internally) and the military (externally). Once you touch the REAL power, force comes into play.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, April 14, 2007 8:01 PM

Fletch2: Nope. I assume that, if you had to choose which of the two you would experience, you would choose denigration over discrimination. That discrimination was worse than denigration. That there are groups who are daily benefitting from discrimination. That, for a member of that group, to complain about denigration bothers me a lot less than complaints from a member of a group who is discriminated against.

There is a difference between, "I really don't have any sympathy for them" (which were my words) and "believing that gives you the right to denigrate them" (your interpretation).

Just a general comment (not directed at you in particular, Fletch2), if you have a chance to read any literature on white privilege or male privilege I would recommend it. There's an easily accessible article by Peggy McIntosh that's floating around the internets, "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack."

My remarks in this thread will look different depending on whether or not you believe white privilege exists in the US (and male privilege, and class privilege, etc).

My overall goal in this thread has been to try to convince people, who had previously been unaware, of the existence of white privilege.

Oh, and after just reloading the page, *bows in front of* HKCavalier.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 14, 2007 8:13 PM

And then, there is the otehr viable response to trolls:

Quote:
You know, I'm thinking that the best response to this whole thing would have been the entire Rutgers women's basketball team appearing at a press conference with all of them - black, white, asian, latino, whatever - wearing massive afro wigs, and saying, "Damn right we're all nappy-headed hos! Wanna make somethin' of it?"

Now THAT would have been sumpthin!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 14, 2007 8:14 PM

And THIS would have been a double!

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, April 14, 2007 8:27 PM

Would've made my day.

Going back to your earlier post, SignyM. The criticism of a focus solely on the goal of diminishing white privilege as ignoring class issues is definitely a concern. It's a problem to focus too narrowly on any one of the big four of inequities (class, race, gender and sexuality).

In terms of convincing people that there is a problem, it's definitely a lot easier to talk about class privilege since the group that is benefitting from the inequities on that axis is so ridiculously tiny compared to the overall population.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 14, 2007 8:43 PM

Class is one of those infamous "third rails". It's far easier to talk about race, gender, orientation, age, disability and whatever than it is to talk about class. You almsot NEVER see it in print. You almost NEVER hear about "those rich capitalists" (except when people are bowing down before Bill Gates) on the radio. The only major candidate that I know of who's making an issue is Edwards and he's catching a ration of shit for it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, April 14, 2007 8:53 PM

I've been coming at it from the side of talking with people I interact with on a regular basis (where I have zero disagreement when I make the statement that the system is designed to favor the wealthy).

And you're absolutely right. In terms of official discourse we don't see these conversations on a national level (or even a local level, you have to go to small market publications before you can read something in print).

When those who benefit the most control mass communication it's not in their interest to discuss how they benefit.

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, April 14, 2007 10:51 PM

Hey Signy, thanks for your candid reply to my post. I can think of nothing so far-reaching in its destructiveness than the crisis in self-esteem around the world today. In the modern era, we individual humans have been feeling more and more irrelavant and impotent in the face of governments and collective force of all kinds. Terrorism is the ultimate political expression of low self-esteem.

9/11 was a tremendous blow, it turns out, to American optimism. Now, fear rules where generosity once held sway. I think if Clinton were president today and impeached for fooling around with Monica, he'd be found guilty, forced to resign in disgrace for the crime of being an imperfect human with imperfect desires. We've become a nation of tattle-tails and suck-ups, buck-passers and victims.

Without self-esteem, without the deep-seated knowing that we, each of us, can make a difference for the better in the world, depression and apathy settle in. Mere craven comfort becomes the highest good when no one thinks the highest good is attainable. Without individual self-esteem fueling the political process, our country has given up on democracy and become a consensual oligarchy. The "majority" that rules, rules by not caring, rules by letting whatever nasty bastard who wants power take it as long as he looks good and doesn't say anything too complicated.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Heck, I think some people feel guilty for earned privileges! I feel some guilt for living in a nice neighborhood with a reasonable school system. Having lived in dangerous neighborhoods, I feel badly for those who don't live as well as I. I feel guilty for picking the best produce out of the pile at the grocery store! I understand that "the system" is designed to create inequality and strife, and to the extend that I take advantage of that system then I AM guilty.

Quite apart from the political sphere, there's so much of our lives which is simply beyond our power to change. Fate brings us good fortune and who are we to turn it down? You have a right to your good fortune, Signy; a right to be happy, even while others suffer.

You have to eat; moral perfection must take a back-seat to assuring your continued existence on the planet. You help nothing and no one if you die weak and before your time, out of misplaced altruistic self-sacrifice. If our compassion is to mean anything in this world, the first recipient must be ourselves.

Quote:
But the solution is not just changing individual behavior but also changing the rules. Because if you dig deep enough, the rules are backed by force- by the police (internally) and the military (externally). Once you touch the REAL power, force comes into play.

And I say: individual behavior is all there is, all there ever is. Governments exist because the individuals under them consent to be governed. If we don't start there, where reality lives, nothing we do matters.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

JONGSSTRAW

Saturday, April 14, 2007 11:51 PM

There is no right or wrong; there's only the truth of the signal. The rest is up to you.

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 15, 2007 1:01 AM

As a example of the power of individual behavior: What if they held a war and no one showed up?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Sunday, April 15, 2007 1:50 AM

I am actually equivocal about a some of this.

For example, neither I nor anyone in MY family had anything to do with slavery. Like SignyM, my family only goes back so far in this country - though I'm not sure how far back for mine. I'm 1.5 generation American. And I have been at the receiving end of various forms of significant life-altering discrimination. OTOH I grew up 'Polack' but white and in suburbia with reasonable high schools. And since my name is not reconizable as Polish, to that extent I benefitted from a biased system.

So should I apologize for slavery or be held accountable for it? Should I recognize that I did and continue to benefit from a biased system?

And what is discrimination and who is responsible anyway?

Whenever there's a shortage, resources have to be divided up somehow. So people in power make up stories as to why some but not others. That group is lazy and shiftless. That other group doesn't get the value of human life anyway so why does it matter if a few more die. And then there's that third group who are dark-eyed, shifty, greedy and secretive. Discrimination is created for the benefit of some. And it's still an effective tool when used by those in power to maintain their position, and enforced by those too short-sighted to realize it works against them, too.

It needs to be addressed wherever it's found, but especially when praticed by the dominant who have the power to make it stick.

RUE

Sunday, April 15, 2007 2:00 AM

As to Imus, I think what happened was completely expectable. He only got along as long as he did because he had a small, self-selected audience. When he got exposed before the wider world he got his well-deserved reception. The 'product' was a POV which people said they wouldn't buy. The broadcasters made an economic decison, not a political one.

Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work?

RUE

Sunday, April 15, 2007 2:06 AM

Causal,

Please point out where I said all white males are responsible for the world's problems. For some reason you seem to keep reading words that aren't there. Maybe if you have to go look for them specifically you'll realize you've been hallucinating.

MARINA

Sunday, April 15, 2007 2:31 AM

Regarding the comment on institutionalized racism:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6556643.stm

During the filmed training session, an instructor tells the soldier: "You're in the Bronx, a black van pulls up in front of you and three African-Americans get out and start really insulting your mother... act!".

The soldier then fires his gun several times and shouts obscenities in English, as the instructor encourages him to curse even louder.

Don't make faces.

http://amaranton.wordpress.com

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, April 15, 2007 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Imus should have to PROVE that the Rutgers team looks like "nappy-headed hos" or they get to sue him for defamation. If you hold everyone to that standard it would save a lot of gratuitous bullshit-slinging.

SIGNY - You had me up until that point Signy. Other than that I think it was an excellent post. Maybe to Imus, these girls looked like nappy headed ho's. The airwaves need to leave room for objectivity and subjectivity. If you limit people to only be able to tell truths at all time, you risk having the government deciding what is truth and what is not and you will find yourself in a situation where Uncle Sam dictates any influences you have. This could have dramatic impact on every facet of our lives.

This, again, is a matter of turning it off if you don't want to hear it. We don't need more laws limiting people in the country. If people are offended by this, they will change the channel. If not, they will keep listening. As I said before, I myself have no use for Stern or Imus and I would never have even heard of this issue if the entire nation hadn't by day's end.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

BTW- Youre' right Rue, I can't think of a name for a white hetero male that packs as much punch as "faggot" or "nigger". If anyone know of one please let ME know!

We just have to hear everyday that we can't dance and we have small dicks. White women are going to hear that often enough and just skip the white guys and go straight to black men. I suppose that we should have a government program to come around and measure the size of every mans penis in the nation and their ability to dance before we allow black comedians to say this anymore.

You also might be forgetting that until our parents generation, most white ethnicities hated each other too. Remember INNA? (Irish Need Not Apply). My Grandmother, an upper middleclass Irish woman, was disowned by her family when she married a poor Polock. So I guess you can include Mick, Polock and Wop among other racial slurs against white people. There's really none as a whole, but nothing makes me think that any of these derogatory terms were less offensive to the recipients.

HKCAVALIER - Too much info for you then? Too many facts for you to handle at once? You can't handle the truth!

Ummmm... don't know what you're even refering to man. I said a billion things yesterday. Whatever it was, was so yesterday. Anything in particular you don't agree with?

FLETCH2 - Nice post. "You presume I benefit from discrimination and therefore you believe that gives you the right to denigrate me. How is that different from presuming someone that is black is inferior and believing that gives you the right to denigrate them? Excellent point.

SOUP - Still don't buy white privelage or male privelage. Sorry bout that. Reading any article about it isn't going to change my mind either. I make my judgements based on my own life experience and those around me.

Are there extreme cases where these would be truths? Even I believe that. But on the norm, I don't believe that I have any privelages because I'm white or male.

RUE - I agree with the statement until this part: "The 'product' was a POV which people said they wouldn't buy. The broadcasters made an economic decison, not a political one."

This is just not true. There are plenty of people that would still listen to Imus if they didn't can him and he'd still be making the money for his employers. This was strictly a PC decision which falls under politics and not money. Like I said before, Imus will be back. They're just going to put him on a much shorter leash before they give him a show again.

What he said really wasn't as offensive as it's been made out because of the media hoopla. I don't get all up in arms when a black man says I have a small penis because I'm white. In fact, I've said before that I love Martin Lawrence's comedy. It's called taking a joke. People are way to damn serio

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, April 15, 2007 8:23 AM

In truth, I think the answer to racism ... is apathy.

Straight up, long as a fellow driver makes his runs on time, can make himself understood over the radio, and does his job, what the hell do I care ?

Funny stuff related to this, since i discussed a part of it with the guys at work,..

Mind you, we give and recieve some pretty harsh slagging all day long, oft-times we even compare notes for amusement, it's almost a game to see who got slagged the worst in any given day.

Now, we got two arabic dudes, half brothers, on the roster, Mahmood(?) and "Bob", who we call Bob cause no one can prounounce his rightful name, and according to his half-bro, arabic folk can't pronounce it neither...

Bob's primary complaint isn't that he catches hell for being Arabic, it's that folks are so.. UNORIGINAL about it, lol.

His comment on the issue I do feel the need to share.
"No, no they don't like me, but that is okay, they don't have to like me, they just have to pay me, and I do not have to like them either, just take them where they want to go, and this is not a hard thing to do, liking is not part of it, and long enough, the liking will come later."

I think the answer to racism, rather than a direct attack, is apathy and neglect, because feeding it just makes it grow, thus if you starve it, it will die.

Just my thoughts on it, is all.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 15, 2007 5:14 PM

6ix- I don't want to create a Department of Truth either. I just can't see a way to keep equal opportunity name-calling from becoming the only way we "communicate" with each other. More heat than light, if you know what I mean. Maybe if we remove the "commercial" element from radio... the outrageous patter fueled by the run for ratings which is in turn demanded by the advert dollar- then all of our media will calm down.

Frem- common sense and individual experience aren't strong enough to divert entrenched ideologies. Wish they were.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

PIRATENEWS

Monday, April 16, 2007 8:06 AM

Uptight White comedy download:
www.amazon.com/This-Honkys-Nuts-Don-Imus/dp/B00000I8Y4

Polack Imus fired for saying "HELL". He famously called Rush Limbaugh "a fat, pill-popping loser" and Lesley Stahl a "gutless, lying weasel." His exchange of insults ("fat pig") regarding his show’s former news reader, Contessa Brewer, made news as did Brewer's response ("cantankerous old fool"). When Tucker Carlson brought up Brewer on the program in 2005, Imus hung up on him, calling him "a bowtie-wearing pussy." Imus helped raise over $6 million toward Center for the Intrepid, a Texas rehabilitation facility for soldiers wounded in the war in Iraq. More recently, Imus took on the cause of the living conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Imus' rants preceded Army resignations, including that of Gen. Kevin Kiley, then Army Surgeon General. Imus had earlier criticized Kiley's personal fitness for military duty and dedication to wounded soldiers. Imus was not the first radio personality to utter such words on the air—for example, Star of Clear Channel's radio show Star & Buc Wild referred to a caller as a "nappy-headed nigger whore" in 2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Imus

Quote:

IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --
McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.

McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.

IMUS: Yeah.

McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that movie that he had.

School Daze is a 1988 musical-drama film, written and directed by Spike Lee, and starring Laurence Fishburne, Giancarlo Esposito, and Tisha Campbell. Based in part on Spike Lee's experiences at Atlanta's Morehouse College, it is a story about fraternity and sorority members clashing with other students at a historically black college during homecoming weekend. A controversy ensued around the Imus in the Morning program in April 2007 when show producer Bernard McGuirk phrased the 2007 NCAA championship game as "Jigaboos vs Wannabes" in a reference to School Daze, which news reader Charles McCord accidentally referred to as Do the Right Thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_Daze

Truth is always a defense to slander in US courts. Put Rutgers on the witness stand and ask them under oath if they're nappy hos.

The TN team's coach is paid $2-million/year, where the university president is paid $750,000/year with his own jet, where professors are paid $6,000/year, if they're lucky. UT is a mafia university, where contract fraud on no-bid contracts is run amok, where car theft wins the world championship, billion$ in CAFR pension funds are used as personal bank accounts for bankrupt billionaires, where Scarab Secret Society is a dungeaters anonymous franchise of Skull & Bones.

Imus produced $50-million/year in ad revenues. MSNBC and CBS probably wanted to replace him with a lower-paid talking head (young and dumb is best). Senile old geezer got a golden parachute of many tens of millions, so don't feel bad for him. I can't believe anyone was stupid enough to listen to him, especially when he's making love to Jr Bush.

This is about the Khazar anti-Semitic Commie Jews ramming pro-pedophile "hate laws" thru Congress right now, using their nigger-slaves in Congress to sponsor current bills to ban the Bible, ban Christianity, ban the Jewish Torah, ban the First Amendment, ban the Constitution. Such insane laws have already passed in Canada, England, Australia, Europe, where Christian preachers go to prison for preaching the Bible. Communist Russia had the death penalty for "anti-Semitic" words against Khazar non-Jews (a/k/a Communists). All Christianity is banned in anti-Semitic Israel, where it's a felony to hand out free Bibles.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7217700265038533779&pl=true
www.TruthTellers.org
www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/july2005/020705ha

RUE

Monday, April 16, 2007 11:54 PM

"The evidence she amassed included a report in 2003, funded by the Department of Defense (DOD), which declared that nearly one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans seeking health care through the V.A. said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service. Of that group, 37 percent said they were raped multiple times, and 14 percent reported they were gang-raped."

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I just don't really think that women are thinking all that much about being raped

VETERAN

Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
.....The TN team's coach is paid $2-million/year, where the university president is paid $750,000/year with his own jet, where professors are paid $6,000/year

Unfortunately this is where Rutgers is heading. The football coach is the highest paid state employee ($1 million/year). The just upped the price of season tickets and increased the rates for parking at Rutgers games while cutting crew, tennis, fencing, and swimming to save $800,000. The men's tennis team has the highest GPA of any team at the school, while the women's fencing team has the highest GPA for all women's teams. The rowing team (crew) has produced over 12 Olympians and the men's fencing team is the only Rutgers team to win an NCAA championship.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, April 19, 2007 3:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The evidence she amassed included a report in 2003, funded by the Department of Defense (DOD), which declared that nearly one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans seeking health care through the V.A. said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service. Of that group, 37 percent said they were raped multiple times, and 14 percent reported they were gang-raped."

Well Rue... you're still talking an abnormal situation. I don't trust a soldier any further than I could throw them in any situation. Salt-peter and weird living conditions... I'm not suprised that situations like these arise there, doubled with the fact that rank gives you certain privelages and could aid somebody who wanted to do this by allowing them to strike fear into their subordinates if they were to tell anyone about any indescretions. I'm going to have to lump this category of people in with prison and dark alleys at night in terms of our current discussion.

I think you of all people would agree with me that living the military life is far from the normal circumstances which I was talking about.

Funny how you read a stat about that about the very organization who is supposed to be upholding the great American ideals and is currently spreading those values to the Middle East. Don'tcha think?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:08 AM

6ix, I think that you're (rightly) feeling victimized by "the system". If I understand your recent history, you have many reasons to feel angry. But that doesn't take away from the fact that women face about a 20% lifetime risk of rape, a 1 in 25 risk of being raped by age 13. It's hard to ignore those statistics.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
6ix, I think that you're (rightly) feeling victimized by "the system". If I understand your recent history, you have many reasons to feel angry. But that doesn't take away from the fact that women face about a 20% lifetime risk of rape, a 1 in 25 risk of being raped by age 13. It's hard to ignore those statistics.

I'm not even saying that I'm a victim here really. I'm not saying poor me, come and give me your pity. If anything, I'm trying to say that that is life and no matter who you are: black or white, rich or poor, male or female, straight or gay, we've all got a whole mess of problems. I just want to stop hearing about how uneven the playing field is... and particularly that I have all the makings of greatness handed to me on a silver platter because I'm a white male. All around me all anybody does anymore is bitch about how hard they have it and freedom of speech is being severly curbed.

As for the rape, if you know me at all, you know that I don't buy made up statistics about anything. This is just another nugget of untruth or quasi-truth thrown out there to make us all the more paranoid of each other. How many of those 20% rape victims were saying yes that night but said no the next morning? (Not trying to start another argument here, just saying that Kobe Bryant and those boys at Duke had an unduely rough time because of their sex and race in both circumstances. One group because they were white males were at the disadvantage because of their race and the other, a black man, at a disadvantage because of his race.)

My whole point is, if women were afraid of getting raped 24/7, why would they choose to wear clothing that would serve to make them a more delectable target? They wouldn't. If women in America today were being raped all the time, at least a 1 in 5 chance anyhow, there would not be a market for the clothing lines I'm talking about. The only argument to this point would be to say that women are stupid creatures and do not consider the consequences of their actions and decisions given their environmental surroundings, and I don't believe that for a second.....

At least they're no more stupid than the men who share those envioronmental surroundings based on their gender.

EDITED TO ADD: Don't mistake this post for me not noticing your sympathy here Signy. You're posts are definately much more understanding and non-confrotational than others.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:29 PM

A Rutgers University basketball player has withdrawn a lawsuit filed against radio personality Don Imus and CBS Radio after Imus called the team "nappy-headed hos."
Kia Vaughn filed the lawsuit in August in New York's state Supreme Court saying that Imus had damaged her reputation.
A statement released by a spokesperson for Vaughn's attorney said the student preferred to concentrate on her studies and her athletic commitments rather than pursue a court case.
"Her strong commitments to both have influenced her decision to withdraw the lawsuit at this time," the statement said.
A lawyer for Imus said the shock jock had not paid any money to Vaughn. CBS Radio would not comment on the matter.
The announcement comes just weeks after Imus settled with CBS Radio after Imus threatened to sue the network for $120 million US for breach of contract.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2007/09/12/rutgers-suit-imus.html

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2