Language Is Powerful

So David Shuster of MSNBC has been suspended over his comments about the Clintons' "pimping out" their daughter Chelsea for HRC's campaign.

I can't help but notice a certain irony here.  Number one, does anyone believe that if Shuster had used that obnoxious phrase in regard to somebody in the Obama campaign, he wouldn't have immediately lost his job, not just been suspended?  Number two, I seem to recall a certain shock-jock, hired precisely for his ability to say nasty, obnoxious things, who was, uh, fired for saying nasty, obnoxious things.  He wasn't a reporter; he was (is) an entertainer.  Yet Shuster is a news guy.  Big difference in my book.

And good grief, please don't write in claiming I'm some kind of Don Imus fan.  I think the guy's humor is lame and puerile.  But I think the whole brouhaha over him was overblown.  I also don't see how anyone can continue to deny that racist/ethnic insults are taken much more seriously in this culture than sexist ones.  It was ever thus, and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

UPDATE Feb 10:  Thanks to Crooks and Liars, which brings us yet another example of obnoxiousness from the realm of politics, thanks to the supposed straight-talker John McCain.

Comments

[Chester Aaro n]

It all depends on which side of your bread is battered. I know this woman in Vegas she owns this cat house. She loves cats. Has about 30. Only hires women who love cats. Any guy doesn't like cats or is allergic to cats doesn't get in, if you know what I mean. I mentioned this on the radio I was being interviewed. The International Feline Friends Society sent this guy Vick to beat me up. I sicked my dog on him. He lost a vital part. Vick, not the dog. The San Francisco 49ers sent 2 halfbacks to whip my ass. So my advice is whether you're a man or a woman, whether you're a Democan or a Republicrat, and you're on the radio, watch where you put it and keep your yap shut.

[Sir Charles]

Lisa,

I thought Imus managed a real two-fer on the insult front -- both racist and sexist.

[Lisa Simeone]

Yeah, but that's not why he was fired.

[litbrit]

whether you're a man or a woman, whether you're a Democan or a Republicrat, and you're on the radio, watch where you put it and keep your yap shut.

Chester speaks the truth.

And so does Lisa: why is misogyny routinely ignored or, and this is almost as bad, pooh-poohed as something to which we women are overreacting? Can we agree that racism and sexism are both deeply ingrained--not to mention toxic and regressive worldviews--but they're treated very differently?

Further, there is indeed a difference between comedians and entertainers making offensive racist or sexist statements and professional journalists making them. Schuster is supposed to be a pro. He may have meant the word casually, as many younger people do in conversation with one another (and in a different context, it appears in the name of a popular MTV show), but it's an offensive, sexist word. Anyone who took Journalism 101 and paid attention at least half the time should know how utterly wrong it is to pass comment that's offensive, or even potentially offensive, in a professional setting, even if one is off-the-air, which Schuster wasn't.

And as for the media who hire these guys, they need to treat racism and sexism equally: either punish both classes of offender, in like measure, or punish neither.

[DivGuy]

We've had this debate before, but I can't help it.

Why, why, when offenses of reprehensible sexism occur, does the response have to be to compare it to, and attempt minimize, the violence of racism?

Racism and sexism work differently, they are different things. Both should be abhorred. We get nowhere by attempting to claim that racism isn't as big a problem.

[Lisa Simeone]

No one is claiming that racism isn't as big a problem. No one is attempting to minimize the violence of racism. That's baloney.

[DivGuy]

To clarify, I agree that racist insults against African-Americans are taken much more seriously than sexist comments. (Racist comments against Asian-Americans, for instance, are taken less seriously - see, for example, Rosie O'Donnell.)

This does not mean that racism is not as bad as sexism, it means it functions differently. Obama has had to be much more careful about associating himself with African-American communities - there's a reason the Clinton campaign tried to smear him as "the African-American candidate" - that is still seen as a far more marginal position, associated with radicalism, and not being "mainstream". No one has asked whether Clinton's support from feminist leaders means that she is hiding her true man-hating "reverse sexism".

None of that means that Obama has faced worse racism than Hillary has faced sexism. What it means is that we get nowhere trying to marginalize one or the other. They function differently, but both have nefarious, reprehensible effects on our society.

I've commented elsewhere quite a bit trying to get people not to marginalize the power of misogyny in marginalizing Clinton's campaign. It's great that that doesn't happen here at Cogitamus. But I think the risk of marginalizing racism pops up, and I think it needs to be disavowed.

[DivGuy]

No one is attempting to minimize the violence of racism.

I'm glad that's not what you're trying to do, but I think it's the effect of comments like:

Number one, does anyone believe that if Shuster had used that obnoxious phrase in regard to somebody in the Obama campaign, he wouldn't have immediately lost his job, not just been suspended?

The upshot here is that an equivalent comment would have been an equivalent act of racism, and so, since an equivalent act of racism would have been punished more harshly, racism isn't as big a problem as sexism.

There's just no need for the comparison. Racism and sexism are very different things, and direct comparisons like this obfuscate their complex workings, with the effect of marginalizing one or the other.

[Lisa Simeone]

Illogic Alert!

". . . and so, since an equivalent act of racism would have been punished more harshly, racism isn't as big a problem as sexism."

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Just because "an equivalent act of racism would have been punished more harshly," it does NOT follow that, therefore, "racism isn't as big a problem." There is no logic in that.

No one is saying that. I am not saying that, and neither is anyone else on this blog.

If an equivalent act of racism would be punished more harshly -- and yes, I still say that it would have been -- Shuster, if using that phrase about Obama's campaign, would've been fired -- then that simply means that an equivalent act of racism would be punished more harshly. Which is precisely what I said in my original post.

I have no interest in getting into a pissing match about who, in the history of the world, has been hurt, abused, violated, denigrated, put upon, discriminated against, etc. etc. etc. more than anyone else. That is indeed not the point. The point is that when someone commits a foul, you call it; you call it, and you hold them responsible, and you don't go running off into one identity politics direction or another, making excuses.

Good lord, I can't believe I'm using a sports metaphor.

[DivGuy]

And I'm kinda doing the same thing up in the 5:21 post.

I dunno. Maybe my scolding is just another way this whole thing expresses itself. I don't really feel all that good about any of it.

They're both good, not great, candidates. Their both being marginalized by different forms of institutionalized and socially acceptable bigotry. Whichever of Clinton or Obama gets through the primary is likely, even despite the bigotry, to become the next president. That's pretty cool.

[Lisa Simeone]

Well, politics is a nasty business, and the nastiness is only going to ramped up before the general election. And many people, alas, are nasty, and they enjoy hurling insults, of whatever kind, at other people. The fact that such people now have not one but two targets -- a woman and a black man -- two historical firsts in a presidential campaign -- only brings more of them crawling out of the woodwork.

But yes, whichever of them gets the nod, it's going to be a pretty amazing, impressive thing.

[ACS]

No one is claiming that racism isn't as big a problem. No one is attempting to minimize the violence of racism. That's baloney.

That's exactly what you're doing. Otherwise, why should Shuster be fired and Imus kept on the air?

-- ACS

[Lisa Simeone]

That's not what I said. I said the two were treated differently. If Imus was fired -- for good reason, which is the party line -- then Shuster should be fired -- for similar good reason, which should be the similar party line. But it's not.

This is a case where consistency would be a good thing, but it's not being applied, because, I repeat, people get more bent out of shape over racist remarks/behavior than over misognynistic remarks/behavior.

[BruceMcF]

However, Don Imus was a racist, and a sexist, who got caught because he slipped, and slipped repeatedly.

But David Shuster? If you are going to sack people on the air on MSNBC for being sexist, certainly Tucker, Buchanan, Scarborough and Tweetie would be standing in line in front of David Shuster.

David Shuster's mistake was in trying to be cool without actually being cool enough to know how and when to say it and get away with it. And, yes, it was sexist ... just as sexist as when kossacks talk about "pimping" and "whoring" diaries, ho ho ho, living in a nation where sex slavery is the most common form of slavery still practiced ... and he should be punished. But, he's a good reporter, and he'll learn his lesson from being punished.

[Lisa Simeone]

For the record, because apparently it hasn't been clear, I am not in favor of sacking David Shuster.

[litbrit]

If you are going to sack people on the air on MSNBC for being sexist, certainly Tucker, Buchanan, Scarborough and Tweetie would be standing in line in front of David Shuster.

David Shuster's mistake was in trying to be cool without actually being cool enough to know how and when to say it and get away with it. And, yes, it was sexist ... just as sexist as when kossacks talk about "pimping" and "whoring" diaries, ho ho ho, living in a nation where sex slavery is the most common form of slavery still practiced ... and he should be punished. But, he's a good reporter, and he'll learn his lesson from being punished.

Excellent points. There is nuance aplenty here, and the "journalists" Bruce lists have all behaved more offensively than Schuster did with a poorly-chosen, sexist word, and they continue to do it uninterrupted, without so much as a reprimand from the network. Schuster said something ill-considered, stupid, and decidedly unprofessional, but I don't believe he is a misogynist.

[Glenn Fayard]

Let's think about this. These are a bunch of white males.

Perhaps they're more worried about racism because they'd secretly like to be black? I doubt they feel the same way about being a woman, and if they do, they wouldn't mention it.