Did Imus Really Shock Us?
By Hillary Trautmann
Early in April 2007, Don Imus made a comment about the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team. In the comment he referred to the players as “nappy-headed hos”. Right after this comment was made a huge controversy began. Was Imus wrong in making this comment? Should he be punished for making the comment, and what should his punishment be?
Personally, as a woman I took absolutely no offense to the fact that Imus used the word “ho”, to describe a woman. That word is thrown around so liberally in this day and age, that I have become numb to it. All one must do is turn on the radio and you will hear countless hip-hop songs, with rappers describing their “girls” as “hos”. So, why is it okay for “artists” to use the word? Is it because they are using the word to create a masterpiece? I think not. And I highly doubt that these girls on the Rutgers basketball team do not go out to clubs with their friends and dance and sing to this very music, because this type of music is directly marketed towards their age group.
Regarding Imus’s word choice of describing these “hos” as “nappy-headed” was surprising to me though and I found it to be quite uncalled for. The thing about this comment though, is that things like this happen every day. Maybe it is not publicly broadcasted, but it does happen. It bothers me because I feel with all the attention that was given to this story, that it will only cause more comments such like this one. I think that Imus was used merely as an example, for MSNBC to cover themselves from taking a hit, and being affiliated as sexist and/or racist.
Don Imus has practically been known for inventing “shock” radio though. And didn’t this comment do just that? Shock us? It is so hard to live in a world like the one we live in, filled with so much hate for people who are different from us. In my opinion it is frustrating enough to keep up with what words are now appropriate to be used when describing someone. It seems that the more times a word is used in an offensive way, the sooner it then becomes appropriate for every day use. For example, describing an African-American as black. When I was growing up in the 90s I was told that black was an unacceptable term to use, yet now, black is apparently a suitable word to use.
My question is, when will the people of this world be prepared to look at a word in context rather than just the word? And maybe Don Imus just thought that he was being “shocking” when he made his comment, and that he was doing his job? Maybe he as well got confused about what was now acceptable to say.
Showing posts with label Issues In The News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Issues In The News. Show all posts
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Issues In The News
Launching Hope
By Parisa Esmaili
It is possible to presume thousands of women die each year in the name of preserving a family’s “honor”. Given that honor killings often remain a private family affair, murders go unreported, official documents do not exist, many go unpunished, and in the eyes of some societies, preserving “family honor,” justifies all acts.
According to a petition signed to the U.N. in 2001, the Human Rights Watch defined honor crimes as, “Acts of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members who are perceived to have brought dishonor upon the family.”
The rise in honor killings since the U.S. invasion in Iraq will be one of the topics discussed by the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) and MADRE in their new tour beginning in April.
A Window of Hope: Standing with Women in Iraq to End Violence is, “Hoping to attract regular people. Our belief is that a lot of people know in their guts the U.S. occupation is wrong and counter productive,” said Yisat Susskind, Communication Director of MADRE. “If people really knew what we were doing, they would agree U.S. military in Iraq is more harmful than it is helpful.”
OWFI fights for women’s human rights against both forces of rising Islamic political powers and the U.S. military occupation. In 2004, OWFI joined with MADRE, an international women’s human rights organization that collaborates with women’s community-based programs focusing on educating women on human rights issues and demanding action. Together, the two coalitions have joined forces in calling an end to military occupation and establishing secular freedom in Iraq.
OWFI Director, Yanar Mohammed and Executive Director, Vivian Stromberg, of MADRE, will be speaking during the tour. The two women will be traveling the East Coast and Midwest, speaking at local colleges, churches, and civic centers. Mohammed is known as one of Iraq’s most outspoken feminist activists.
The goal of A Window of Hope is to creating awareness of gender-based violence in Iraq, Susskind said. According to OWFI, rape and abductions have risen sharply since the invasion, making many women afraid to leave their homes. Women are literally hunted down for their lives in order to restore the family’s “honor,” Susskind said. Flirting, the desire to choose a husband, divorce, going against a male’s wishes, or even failing to bring a meal on time, may be seen as defying family honor. Those who have been arrested, kidnapped, or raped are also often blamed for tarnishing the family’s name; therefore honor killing can be seen as justifiable.
“Honor killings predate Islam and Christianity, but many people don’t know that, Susskind said. “People believe violence for women is assumed in Islam, and that is simply untrue.”
Since 2003, the U.S. has backed right winged political conservatives in governing Iraq, who do support honor killings. “In Iraq, before the U.S., women lived under the Personal Status Law and enjoyed their growing rights. Citizens say they hated Saddam but the U.S. is much worse,” Susskind continued.
OWFI estimates that militias in Baghdad and its surrounding neighbors execute no less than 30 women monthly, and yet most American’s never seem to hear about this news. Susskind believes the media does not primarily cover this area because of racism that still underlies this country; racism against Islam. “There is so much hostility between the different worlds, especially after 9/11.”
The tour will address issues, including the Underground Railroad for Iraqi Women, women shelters located throughout Iraq to help relocate women escaping “honor killings.”
By Parisa Esmaili
It is possible to presume thousands of women die each year in the name of preserving a family’s “honor”. Given that honor killings often remain a private family affair, murders go unreported, official documents do not exist, many go unpunished, and in the eyes of some societies, preserving “family honor,” justifies all acts.
According to a petition signed to the U.N. in 2001, the Human Rights Watch defined honor crimes as, “Acts of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members who are perceived to have brought dishonor upon the family.”
The rise in honor killings since the U.S. invasion in Iraq will be one of the topics discussed by the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) and MADRE in their new tour beginning in April.
A Window of Hope: Standing with Women in Iraq to End Violence is, “Hoping to attract regular people. Our belief is that a lot of people know in their guts the U.S. occupation is wrong and counter productive,” said Yisat Susskind, Communication Director of MADRE. “If people really knew what we were doing, they would agree U.S. military in Iraq is more harmful than it is helpful.”
OWFI fights for women’s human rights against both forces of rising Islamic political powers and the U.S. military occupation. In 2004, OWFI joined with MADRE, an international women’s human rights organization that collaborates with women’s community-based programs focusing on educating women on human rights issues and demanding action. Together, the two coalitions have joined forces in calling an end to military occupation and establishing secular freedom in Iraq.
OWFI Director, Yanar Mohammed and Executive Director, Vivian Stromberg, of MADRE, will be speaking during the tour. The two women will be traveling the East Coast and Midwest, speaking at local colleges, churches, and civic centers. Mohammed is known as one of Iraq’s most outspoken feminist activists.
The goal of A Window of Hope is to creating awareness of gender-based violence in Iraq, Susskind said. According to OWFI, rape and abductions have risen sharply since the invasion, making many women afraid to leave their homes. Women are literally hunted down for their lives in order to restore the family’s “honor,” Susskind said. Flirting, the desire to choose a husband, divorce, going against a male’s wishes, or even failing to bring a meal on time, may be seen as defying family honor. Those who have been arrested, kidnapped, or raped are also often blamed for tarnishing the family’s name; therefore honor killing can be seen as justifiable.
“Honor killings predate Islam and Christianity, but many people don’t know that, Susskind said. “People believe violence for women is assumed in Islam, and that is simply untrue.”
Since 2003, the U.S. has backed right winged political conservatives in governing Iraq, who do support honor killings. “In Iraq, before the U.S., women lived under the Personal Status Law and enjoyed their growing rights. Citizens say they hated Saddam but the U.S. is much worse,” Susskind continued.
OWFI estimates that militias in Baghdad and its surrounding neighbors execute no less than 30 women monthly, and yet most American’s never seem to hear about this news. Susskind believes the media does not primarily cover this area because of racism that still underlies this country; racism against Islam. “There is so much hostility between the different worlds, especially after 9/11.”
The tour will address issues, including the Underground Railroad for Iraqi Women, women shelters located throughout Iraq to help relocate women escaping “honor killings.”
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Issues In The News
Does The Punishment Fit The Crime?
By Amanda Yazdi
Lately, it seems the media is quick to try, convict and hang anyone under suspicion in the court of public opinion. This is not necessarily a new occurrence, but it is relevant for several of the news stories that have been dominating the airwaves for the last few weeks and months. Two in particular come to mind, the suspension and subsequent firing of Don Imus, and the fabrication and eventual dropping of the charges against three Duke Lacrosse players.
First, there is the sudden public shock and dismay at the language used by the radio talk show host with one of the most offensive mouths in the business, second only to Howard Stern. I resent the reaction of the news media to his insulting and derogatory reference to the female members of the Rutgers basketball team (and unlike all of the these media I won’t quote him yet again—you’ve heard the story—you know what he said) as if this were something new.
If you have had any exposure to his talk show, Imus In The Morning, you know that the man is capable of offending and berating almost everyone with equal opportunity. Is the kind of language he used excusable? No. However, what hypocrisy for the same company that profited from that very language every day to turn around and claim that they are now, “deeply upset and revulsed by the statements that were made,” according to CBS President, Les Moonves.
Are we supposed to believe, that had the network not feared the permanent withdrawal of millions of dollars in advertising, that not only would Imus still be on the air, but that each and every one of his high profile guests wouldn’t still be tuning in to his sophomoric banter on their morning commutes? Maybe I could respect CBS’s decision had they made it more believable that they were actually disgusted with what had been said. Why not a probationary period for the show, or at least a fine as big as the Imus ranch?
The second act of injustice that occurred recently and was fueled by media coverage ended happily this week when the three Duke Lacrosse players accused of rape were exonerated. What also received much attention after the fact was why these charges had been brought in the first place. Is it because of a prosecutor who played on the sensibility of a media and public who are quick to convict first and ask questions later? Quite possibly. Do we think that although proven clearly innocent of these charges (if you have any questions about that just watch the 60 Minutes interview from last Sunday) that the boys in question are blameless? Unlikely.
However, regardless of guilt or innocence, did the punishment they suffered -- ultimately, the indelible association of each of their names with a highly publicized rape case -- fit the crime of drunken revelry and indiscretion? No. These boys paid a high price for their lack of judgment in activities that evening. No doubt, they will think twice before objectifying women or maybe even before they indulge in a night of partying. But they, like Imus, paid the price of a hypocritical, bloodthirsty, and money hungry media that dominates this country.
By Amanda Yazdi
Lately, it seems the media is quick to try, convict and hang anyone under suspicion in the court of public opinion. This is not necessarily a new occurrence, but it is relevant for several of the news stories that have been dominating the airwaves for the last few weeks and months. Two in particular come to mind, the suspension and subsequent firing of Don Imus, and the fabrication and eventual dropping of the charges against three Duke Lacrosse players.
First, there is the sudden public shock and dismay at the language used by the radio talk show host with one of the most offensive mouths in the business, second only to Howard Stern. I resent the reaction of the news media to his insulting and derogatory reference to the female members of the Rutgers basketball team (and unlike all of the these media I won’t quote him yet again—you’ve heard the story—you know what he said) as if this were something new.
If you have had any exposure to his talk show, Imus In The Morning, you know that the man is capable of offending and berating almost everyone with equal opportunity. Is the kind of language he used excusable? No. However, what hypocrisy for the same company that profited from that very language every day to turn around and claim that they are now, “deeply upset and revulsed by the statements that were made,” according to CBS President, Les Moonves.
Are we supposed to believe, that had the network not feared the permanent withdrawal of millions of dollars in advertising, that not only would Imus still be on the air, but that each and every one of his high profile guests wouldn’t still be tuning in to his sophomoric banter on their morning commutes? Maybe I could respect CBS’s decision had they made it more believable that they were actually disgusted with what had been said. Why not a probationary period for the show, or at least a fine as big as the Imus ranch?
The second act of injustice that occurred recently and was fueled by media coverage ended happily this week when the three Duke Lacrosse players accused of rape were exonerated. What also received much attention after the fact was why these charges had been brought in the first place. Is it because of a prosecutor who played on the sensibility of a media and public who are quick to convict first and ask questions later? Quite possibly. Do we think that although proven clearly innocent of these charges (if you have any questions about that just watch the 60 Minutes interview from last Sunday) that the boys in question are blameless? Unlikely.
However, regardless of guilt or innocence, did the punishment they suffered -- ultimately, the indelible association of each of their names with a highly publicized rape case -- fit the crime of drunken revelry and indiscretion? No. These boys paid a high price for their lack of judgment in activities that evening. No doubt, they will think twice before objectifying women or maybe even before they indulge in a night of partying. But they, like Imus, paid the price of a hypocritical, bloodthirsty, and money hungry media that dominates this country.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Issues In The News
Time To Take A Stand
By Parisa Esmaili
For the first time, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has recognized rape, as an act of genocide and crime against humanity. On March 5, 2007, the UN held a panel discussion regarding the elimination of all forms of violence and discrimination against women.
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) recently launched their new campaign in ending sexual violence against women and young girls, especially in time of conflict.
Rape has been coined the silent war crime and the number of incidences are rising. “Unfortunately, much of the data goes undocumented because of the shame and loss of human dignity when they [women] have to report it,” says Sapana Pradhan Malla, President and Executive Director of Forum for Women, Law, and Development in Nepal.
Ms. Malla, was joined by International Criminal Court (ICC) Deputy Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda; General Daniel Opande, former UN Force Commander of Liberia and Sierra Leone; and Eve Ensler, Founder and Artistic Director of V-Day, and author of the award-winning Vagina Monologues. Isha Sesay, the United Kingdom’s CNN News Anchor, moderated the panel discussion.
Sexual violence against women and young girls has escalated for years in silence. Rape and sexual violence has become a weapon of choice in times of war. Women, in a man’s world of war, are seen as no different than an AK-47 -- smooth along the edges, long, shiny, cold, and powerful in its repercussions.
“Over the past year, the ICC has worked tremendously against sexual violence. Rape, forced prostitution, trafficking, forced enslavement, and forced pregnancies, among many other indignities are now recognized as war crimes and crimes against humanity,” Ms. Bensouda said.
The panelist agree that the UN should work directly or indirectly to prosecute those who blight gender rights; create a fair male and female status; provide victims and witnesses measures of protection with legal equity; provide extensive conflict and rape management counseling to staff, and deploy them. The panel also sees the need for better training and education of military personnel on these issues; and most importantly, protecting children by holding those who perpetrate abuses accountable.
“Peace will only be insured when every woman and every child feels protected by the law and by their people,” said Gen. Opande. “We cannot compromise human dignity to protect the war, its negotiation, or its peacekeepers.”
By Parisa Esmaili
For the first time, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has recognized rape, as an act of genocide and crime against humanity. On March 5, 2007, the UN held a panel discussion regarding the elimination of all forms of violence and discrimination against women.
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) recently launched their new campaign in ending sexual violence against women and young girls, especially in time of conflict.
Rape has been coined the silent war crime and the number of incidences are rising. “Unfortunately, much of the data goes undocumented because of the shame and loss of human dignity when they [women] have to report it,” says Sapana Pradhan Malla, President and Executive Director of Forum for Women, Law, and Development in Nepal.
Ms. Malla, was joined by International Criminal Court (ICC) Deputy Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda; General Daniel Opande, former UN Force Commander of Liberia and Sierra Leone; and Eve Ensler, Founder and Artistic Director of V-Day, and author of the award-winning Vagina Monologues. Isha Sesay, the United Kingdom’s CNN News Anchor, moderated the panel discussion.
Sexual violence against women and young girls has escalated for years in silence. Rape and sexual violence has become a weapon of choice in times of war. Women, in a man’s world of war, are seen as no different than an AK-47 -- smooth along the edges, long, shiny, cold, and powerful in its repercussions.
“Over the past year, the ICC has worked tremendously against sexual violence. Rape, forced prostitution, trafficking, forced enslavement, and forced pregnancies, among many other indignities are now recognized as war crimes and crimes against humanity,” Ms. Bensouda said.
The panelist agree that the UN should work directly or indirectly to prosecute those who blight gender rights; create a fair male and female status; provide victims and witnesses measures of protection with legal equity; provide extensive conflict and rape management counseling to staff, and deploy them. The panel also sees the need for better training and education of military personnel on these issues; and most importantly, protecting children by holding those who perpetrate abuses accountable.
“Peace will only be insured when every woman and every child feels protected by the law and by their people,” said Gen. Opande. “We cannot compromise human dignity to protect the war, its negotiation, or its peacekeepers.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
