Well, not really about Don Imus.
What he (and his sidekick) said about the women was horrible. Should as big a deal have been made of it as was? Maybe not. But it should not be surprising that he was fired. Not only should it not be surprising, but it should be seen as appropriate. I have seen several people saying that it was uncalled for. This pisses me off. I've seen several discussions where people thought the uproar was a little too much. *shrug* But now that he has been fired, people are even more angry that it's come to that.
I have two opinions about all of this.
One: Yes, I know they hired him to state opinions and be a jerk, but if he crosses their line, he can expect to be canned.
Two: What he said was bad.
The kind of language that other people use should have no bearing on the language you use. There is no more a racial double-standard than there is for anyone else. Yes, black kids can call each other "nigga" if they want, and we can't call them that. That's just the way it is. I can call my friend a "bastard," and I can't call the VP of finance that. That's just the way it is.
Bottom line: Imus is a racist asshole, and the people he works for have every right to fire him. Now, if what he said didn't bother them, and they fired him anyway to protect the bottom line, that would be hypocrisy, and that would be a different story. What combination of the two do you think it was?
What he (and his sidekick) said about the women was horrible. Should as big a deal have been made of it as was? Maybe not. But it should not be surprising that he was fired. Not only should it not be surprising, but it should be seen as appropriate. I have seen several people saying that it was uncalled for. This pisses me off. I've seen several discussions where people thought the uproar was a little too much. *shrug* But now that he has been fired, people are even more angry that it's come to that.
I have two opinions about all of this.
One: Yes, I know they hired him to state opinions and be a jerk, but if he crosses their line, he can expect to be canned.
Two: What he said was bad.
The kind of language that other people use should have no bearing on the language you use. There is no more a racial double-standard than there is for anyone else. Yes, black kids can call each other "nigga" if they want, and we can't call them that. That's just the way it is. I can call my friend a "bastard," and I can't call the VP of finance that. That's just the way it is.
Bottom line: Imus is a racist asshole, and the people he works for have every right to fire him. Now, if what he said didn't bother them, and they fired him anyway to protect the bottom line, that would be hypocrisy, and that would be a different story. What combination of the two do you think it was?
no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 12:49 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 01:21 am (UTC)From:Imus's remarks were denigrating to women in general, but black women, specifically. I wonder if the woman realized that she was part of one of the groups that he dissed. I wonder if she would take offense at being called a ho. I wonder if she would have called for his head if she had been offended at soemthing he said, while others would have suggested he deserved another chance.
It's interesting how potentially offensive remarks are viewed differently depending on one's position in society. As members of the majority, we white men, generally feel less sting from stones thrown at us by minorities. Given how little we have to fear from such attacks, we need little armor. But given the history between the different races, if we hurl eptithets at minorities, it is viewed as a continuation of centuries of hurt. So while everyone has a responsibility to combat racism, it is doubly important that the majorities do so. Is that a double standard? If so, so be it.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 05:19 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 01:19 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 01:57 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 01:33 am (UTC)From:it is ALL the bottom line. However.. if it was some joe schmuck in corporate ABC who has a racial quota to hire, and has to protect itself against "hostile work environment" law suits (which racial slurs on the job fall into) then he/she would have been fired on the spot.. or on the spot with time allowed for HR to generate the paperwork.
what is right, and what is wrong?
and why the hell is this right or wrong anyway?
*devilish grin*
no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 01:46 am (UTC)From:Sometimes it takes a while for those execs to work through all of that logic.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 01:49 am (UTC)From:I think I've tried to listen to him once or twice and found his drivel tedious and inane.
BTW, I don't think his bosses care what he said, they care about the bottom line. If the sponsors had not pulled their advertisements, he would not have been fired.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 01:58 am (UTC)From:I agree.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 03:04 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 03:12 am (UTC)From:In answer to your question, I agree with If the sponsors had not pulled their advertisements, he would not have been fired.
And now I go back to my quiet world of reading my science magazines....
no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 10:54 am (UTC)From:And my friend who sees racism everywhere? Her sixth sense is more attuned than mine. Because it has to be.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-13 11:55 am (UTC)From: