<p>“Hindoo, apparently Imus’ “loose cannon” style was not to be tolerated when it came to Hillary. Sharpton is a Hillary–not Obama–supporter, btw.”</p>
<p>Hereshoping: Actually, Imus’s insults of Hillary were long-standing and apparently well tolerated by the woman herself–at least in a public sense. They absolutely detested each other, and after all of his “worst, most evil person in the world” remarks leveled her way, I don’t blame Hillary for attacking him when she smelled blood.</p>
<p>StickerShock, you’re attacking a strawman here. The women of Rutgers aren’t saying that they controlled the media presentation. What they are saying is that they know who is responsible for hurting them (and whom to thank for standing up for them).</p>
<p>
Conyat, I’m responding to your claim that Whitlock called the girls names. He did not. He finds those who fed the fire & pumped up the nasty insult from Imus into a major issue to be opportunistic & dishonest, not the girls. I never said the Rutgers women controlled the media presentation. On the contrary, I was noting that they were swept up into it, after initially asking that it be let go. And in saying they are swept up into the tempest, I wanted to preemptively make it understood that this doesn’t make them weak women. They are still kids in my view, under the control of their coaches & administrators, and have handled this very well.</p>
<p>Who is the strawman I’m attacking? I’m not following you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Umm, yes, he did. Go back and read what he wrote, the paragraphs above what I quoted. He was attacking the “hour long” press conference that the Rutgers women called and held–and at least one of the things that was said during it. How is it not an insult to the Rutgers women to say it was opportunitistic and dishonest of them to hold a press conference about Imus remarks?</p>
<p>The paragraphs preceding what you quoted:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is not one word about the young ladies, is there. And yet you accuse Mr. Whitlock, and his supporters here by extension, of calling the young women intellectually dishonest and opportunistic.</p>
<p>Time for you to apologize for what you called my “bizarre interpretation” conyat–personal responsibility and all that.</p>
<p>Whose hour long news conference was it, HH? Who were the women who called it? The Rutgers women. It’s very disengenious of you to pretend that calling something someone does by ugly names isn’t the same as calling that person that same name.</p>
<p>But what can I expect from a person whose reaction to the Rutgers women getting DEATH THREATS was basically: haha see what your side MADE my side do?</p>
<p>I hope all of you taking this position that Imus wasn’t responsible for the hurt caused by his remarks will read this and think about it.</p>
<p>I have heard in this thread several reasons that the Rutgers women had no grounds to be hurt and offended by Imus’ remarks:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>the Jason Whitlock defense: Imus has no power over them and doesn’t come from their culture, so they have no right to feel hurt at what he said.</p></li>
<li><p>the small audience defense: Imus originally said it only in front of thousands or tens of thousands of people; that wasn’t enough to cause offensive if it hadn’t been promulgated to a larger audience.</p></li>
<li><p>they have no grounds to feel hurt by Imus, really it was some other guy who hurt them…or they didn’t know they were hurt till some other guy told them they were supposed to be.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Think about this for a minute. I have a daughter that age. She would be hurt at being called a prostitute even if only one person heard it; even perhaps if no one heard it. And yes, she’d still be hurt even if the person calling her that was of a different race and was not in a position of authority over her.</p>
<p>I suspect that many of your daughters would feel the same. Goodness knows there are threads enough on CC about “this person said that thing about me or my kid and I’m so hurt what can I do?” I’ve even seen people claim to be deeply offended by message board insults. Think about that for a minute. One poster has no power over another; a message board post is seen by at most a few dozen people, and we can be hurt by it. Yet the Rutgers women aren’t entitled to feel hurt at being insulted before thousands?</p>
<p>Basically, when you use those three arguments, **what you’re saying is that black women are so different from everyone else–have such less delicate sensibilities–that calling a black woman a whore isn’t hurtful and offensive all by itself. ** In other words, a black woman is only hurt by that if it becomes a media circus; a black woman is only hurt by that if someone tricks her into thinking she is…She simply isn’t entitled to feel the same way about it that other women would. (Shades of The Handmaid’s Tale: My dear they simply don’t have the same feelings we do).</p>
<p>I urge all of you who have adopted this position to get to know some young black women over the next year. Take an undergraduate course at a diverse university–make sure to pick one with a lot of group work so you make connections with your classmates. Go to lunch with them and really listen to them. Find out how they feel about things, what it was like for them growing up. If you can’t go back to school, try doing something similiar in your workplace or your community. If you don’t have access to any opportunity to get to know black women well, try reading some autobiographies of black women in America.</p>
<p>Then revisit this thread in a year. Find out if you still think that black women are so different from lighter-skinned females that calling one of them a prostitute isn’t offensive and hurtful all by itself, and only becomes damaging if some third party gets involved.</p>
<p>(And if you’re planning to post that you already know lots of young black women and they don’t mind being called prostitutes…don’t waste the keystrokes. I’ll believe you heard that, but not that they said it.)</p>
<p>If you all could stop parsing Conyat’s words for a moment… </p>
<h2>Those who would mitigate Imus’ responsibility for his words by claiming that the black community isn’t as interested in examining the negative aspect of rap music, imho, are on the wrong track because the music wouldn’t exist without a market for the music. But, setting that point aside, you are equally wrong about the black community and their desire or efforts to clean up a faction of the music industry that celebrates misogynistic content. Since 1993, black musicians, politicians, clergy, college students and community leaders HAVE taken a vocal stand against the objectionable content in some rap and hip-hop music. Marcus Franklin, with the AP, has a great article out describing these many efforts and how little attention they get from the mainstream media. From his article, regarding just one of many making this effort you all seem to be screaming for… </h2>
<p>T. Denean Sharpley-Whiting, author of “Pimps Up, Ho’s Down: Hip Hop’s Hold on Young Black Women” and a professor at Vanderbilt University, said many black women resist rap music and hip-hop culture, but their efforts are largely ignored by mainstream media. As an example, the professor pointed to “Rap Sessions,” the 10-city tour in which she’s participating. She said the tour and its central question - does hip-hop hate women? - have gotten very little mainstream media coverage. </p>
<p>“It’s only when we interface with a powerful white media personality like Imus that the issue is raised and the question turns to ‘Why aren’t you as vociferous in your critique of hip-hop?’ We have been! You’ve been listening to the music, but you haven’t been listening to the protests from us.” </p>
<hr>
<p>Again, imho, the problem still remains with those who make this music a lucrative industry…and that is us. Listen to your kids’ favorite radio station, check their I-tunes downloads, dig through those piles of burned cds, check the music video stations during the hours of 2:00 and 10:00 p.m…and see for yourself…</p>
<p>I am going to respond to you and this will be the last time I will waste my time engaging with you on any topic.</p>
<p>Regarding Whitlock’s reaction to the news conference, there is nothing more I can say. You either can’t understand, or refuse to understand, what the man was trying to say.</p>
<p>Regarding your repeated insinuations that I am somehow a racist and that I am not respecting the players because I have a different opinion as to how the Imus comment should have been handled–shame on you.</p>
<p>Regarding
</p>
<p>Where did I say haha. I didn’t, did I. To insinuate that I take pleasure in that fact that these girls may be being harassed, or worse, again–shame on you.</p>
<p>When I said “you win,” I was referring to the fact that you achieved the DIVISIVENESS you apparently think is the appropriate outcome one sorry old has-been’s off-the-cuff remark heard by a relative small number of radio listeners. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to have predicted that nut-jobs will come out of the woodwork in a case like this. They always do. Sharpton’s security is way up, I understand. No surprise there.</p>
<p>One of Whitlock’s points is that there are many people who gain from the creation of these types of divisive scenarios. I think you are one of them.</p>
<p>“Stop parsing conyat’s words” ldmom? That’s precious.</p>
<p>I just caught your new post–one glance tells me (your bold print) that you’re once again smoking out the closet racists here, right conyat? I won’t bother reading it.</p>
<p>
My son was called a host of things by certain classmates on a DAILY basis for FOUR YEARS. He was called everything from “dirty Jew” to “f***ing Jew” to who KNOWS what repeatedly. He was also physically attacked twice within the school building because of his religion.</p>
<p>Never ONCE…NOT ONCE…did he consider himself a victim. Not EVER. Most of the behavior was ignored with a “consider the source” attitude. Here he was an honor student and a good athlete being addressed this way by a 17-year-old freshman and his juvenile delinquent friends. They meant NOTHING to him. Nothing. And they would have been nothing to him if their message had been shouted from the rooftop or blared on television or repeated ad nauseum on the radio.</p>
<p>There is a simple reason for this: I do not raise victims. Never have, never will. In fact, my son was the VICTOR for his grace and dignity under these conditions and for the way he always conducted himself honorably in the face of this ignorant behavior by ignorant people. </p>
<p>Let’s examine the outcome: Well, the 17-year-old freshman and his loser friends and still in high school (with intermittent stints in juvie <em>lol</em>) with no aspiratons or hope of college. And my son is a student at a fabulous school, far away from this environment which brought him this aggravation.</p>
<p>When we give others the power to control our lives, if even for a short time, we lose something precious. When we dwell on the negatives instead of creating positives for ourselves and our families, we are wasting our time. When we tell the Rutgers women’s basketball players over and over and over that they should feel victimized by an idiot who has made a living spewing egregiously hateful remarks, we are teaching them the wrong lesson. </p>
<p>To these girls I would say what I have said to my son (and to all of my children–and myself when I’m attacked by the same people over and over on CC <em>ROFL</em>), consider the source and move on.</p>
<p>To overdramatize this unfortunate event (which I by NO means excuse…in fact, I think that my record on “kindness” is well-documented on CC) is to bring harm to these girls and their significant accomplishment–exactly as it would have been if I had let the antiSemitism define my son’s h.s. career rather than his stellar academics, his good athletic performances, and his dignified personal conduct. </p>
<p>We have reached a point of diminishing returns on this incident. It is time to let it go.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>well gosh hereshoping… not one word to say about Professor Sharpley-Whitings lecture series or the idea that there ARE many in the black community doing, (and have been, some for more than 20 years) exactly what every has been screeching for in the days since Imus inserted his big cowboy boot in his even bigger mouth? Not even one begrudged word of approval??</p>
<p>“We have reached a point of diminishing returns on this incident. It is time to let it go.”</p>
<p>I love ya to bits B 
and therefore I’m am stifling myself on this one. But ya gotta know how bad it hurts…lol!</p>
<p>Thank you Berurah for your wisdom
You echo my sentiments exactly—it is time for folks to move on and not focus on being a victim</p>
<p>berurah,
I agree with you in general, but there is some difference between being insulted face to face by a little snot nobody knows( giving you a chance to respond or choice not to respond) and being insulted behind your back by a well-known personality on a national radio.</p>
<p>ldmom~</p>
<p>No need to stifle because of me! You are more than entitled to your own opinion, esp. if it is respectfully stated. My opinion is based on experiences in the life of my family. It is obvious by the amount of dissention on this topic that it is one that hits a raw nerve and that there are many views on the proper handling of it.</p>
<p>MomofaKnight~
Thank you so much for your kind words! :)</p>
<p>parabella~
I can see your point, though the only “fortunate” thing about the inane utterances of Imus was that what he said was SO egregious…and disgusting…that the words spoke for themselves. There is NO ONE who could legitimately defend that kind of gratuitous ugliness, even if they defend his “right” to utter it. I’d have urged my son to handle it the same way as a face to face insult by a little snot (btw, it was a LOT more than one kid, but he was the sort of “leader”). Sometimes, the silence speaks volumes and makes a much more significant impression. YMMV, of course.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>Berurah, at your request I am going to let this go, but one thing I want to clear up, since our kids have been placed in juxtaposition to each other. </p>
<p>My kid is hardly a loser or a victim. She is an incredibly strong and resilient young person. And yeah, she did well in the college stakes herself, though, like you, I would be just as proud of her if she hadn’t.</p>
<p>But she’s entitled to feel hurt when she wants, just as your son is entitled not to feel hurt when he doesn’t want to. And yeah, she does sometimes feel hurt even when I think she shouldn’t. That hardly makes her a victim.</p>
<p>I think you’ll be the first to agree that you and your son have the right to dictate what feelings are legitimate for him to have about what happens to him in his own life. Just as it’s up to my daughter to decide what feelings are legitimmate for her to have about her life. </p>
<p>But the Rutgers women are being denied this basic respect and worth as human beings. Over and over again, we’re heard that their judgement about their own lives is not to be relied upon, that they aren’t capable of knowing how to feel about what happened to them or the people involved. I think they should be accorded the same respect that I would give your son or you would give my daughter.</p>
<p>
My “plea” to “let this go” was not so much personally directed at you as it was a general sentiment directed toward the media. Regardless, I think we’ve reached a point on this thread where we can simply agree to disagree.</p>
<p>
I never insinuated that she was, nor do I think that. However, given your stance on this thread, I was trying to make the point that we parents can encourage our children to stand strong in the face of unwarranted attacks and criticism, or we can “encourage” them to feel hurt and victimized.</p>
<p>
This goes without saying.</p>
<p>
Now, THIS is where you and I differ SIGNIFICANTLY. I’ve seen NO evidence of this whatsoever. None. Being denied basic respect? I truly don’t understand this. IMHO, this is an attempt to further “victimize” these young women whom I’m sure are very strong and capable people who are not in need of excessive pity. In fact, they’ve done themselves quite proud!</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to imply you were saying my kid was a victim. My point was that a person can be offended by something, even have hurt feelings, without being a victim.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sigh. I hate to belabor this point again. The Rutgers women have said that Don Imus’ words hurt them and offended them, and that they thank Al Sharpton and other black leaders for standing up for them.</p>
<p>At least one poster here has insisted multiple times that the women are wrong about this. That it’s Sharpton and Jackson, not Imus, who are “really responsible” for their hurt feelings. If this isn’t saying that these women aren’t capable of knowing how to feel about the people involved in the case, I don’t know what is. </p>
<p>And yes, I find it very disrespectful. These are indeed strong, capable women. It’s very unfortuate that some people are choosing to portray them otherwise in order to exculpate Imus.</p>
<p>
Well, I am in the camp of those who feel that Sharpton et al have exploited these young, capable women for their own ends. These women may have been hurt by Imus’s grotesque remarks, and I don’t blame them a bit for that, but they have <em>not</em> been well served by those who have “crisisized” it more than it needed to be. I would NOT have wanted any of my children exploited this way for the political purposes of some very misguided activists. </p>
<p>~berurah
p.s. Have you ever watched the movie “Citizen Ruth”? If not, you should.</p>