I have to say that as an African-American woman, Imus' comments on the air were insulting, degrading, ignorant, and uncalled for. His apology (IMO) wasn't sincere. The fact remains that he called a group of women a bunch of whores. Insult to injury--"nappy-headed hos". He knew when he made that comment that he was as wrong as two left shoes. I say that so-called apology wasn't sincere because he wasn't apologizing for what he said. He did that to save face, and probably because the big wigs who pay him $8 million a year told him to "just say you're sorry, and they'll forget the whole thing in a couple of days." Would he have apologized if he had made such comments in the privacy of his home as opposed to on the air? Probably not.

I don't think that firing him is going to be productive at all. When this first popped off, CBS had no intentions of firing Imus. They decided to 'suspend' him for a couple of weeks. This so-called suspension wasn't scheduled to begin until next week. Right there, you can clearly see how serious they were taking this. The decision to fire Imus (and we all know this) had nothing to do with morals or the people of CBS being equally outraged by Imus' remarks. That was BUSINESS decision. When the big time sponsors decided to jump from the sinking ship of Imus, CBS saw rivers of money sailing away from them. There are many people out there now doing a happy dance that Imus is gone, but not me. I'm shaking my head. Where was all this outrage when Nelly was sliding a credit card through a sista's behind, and when another rapper claimed he had "hos in different area codes"? Imus made those remarks because that's how he felt. I'm sure he thought he'd dodge the bullet of outrage from our community with that half-assed apology, but he was sadly mistaken. If I'm being devil's advocate here, I have to say that I honestly don't believe that anything will change. There will still be rap songs with sistas being degraded and disrespected. There will still be half-naked women dancing and shaking in the videos with money being thrown at them as if they're exotic dancers in men's clubs. And while I applaud all the efforts made to make these artists accountable for the lyrics of their songs, there hasn't been much progress in that area. I believe in free speech, but I don't believe you have to say and promote degrading things about women to validate yourself as an artist. I could almost be happy about this Imus firing thing if I honestly thought that something productive would come of it. This is NOT a victory.

If I'm being honest here, I have to say that I am guilty of nodding my head or tapping my feet to the beat of a rap song in which we as African-American women are degraded, disrespected, and insulted. In light of this Imus situation, I took a long look at myself. I went through my extensive collection of music to take stock of how much money I've put into patronizing (and therefore supporting)music that has a tendency to degrade, insult, and disrespect me. I've helped these artists get homes, cars, jewelry, and the stamp of approval to continue to say the things they say, and now I'm insulted because a white man said it? I have to clean house--starting with my own. While I've stopped watching those videos years ago, I cannot continue to support artists who degrade, insult and disrespect us--AND I WON'T. I am raising two boys. If I'm nodding my head to that mess, what message do I send to my sons about women? I am a woman, in every sense of the word: intelligent, strong, spiritual, confident, and much more--and I don't need hip-hop artists to validate that. The music industry is BIG BUSINESS. If we want these artists whose music we listen to and purchase, our children look up to (and some aspire to be like) to stop these kinds of lyrics, we'll have to pull a Proctor and Gamble, a GM, or a Sprint-Nextel. Their lack of financial backing got Imus off the air. If we all stopped buying and listening to this stuff, it's possible we could do the same damage. But like my Mama used to say: "Wishing don't make it so."

*none of the following is directed toward Honeykiss*

That's been happening for over a decade.

Imus in neither a savior nor a catalyst for change as some misguided people have been claiming he is.

I was angered when I heard someone call Baisden's show and say "black people need to write a letter and THANK Imus." :rolleyes: That's stupid and black people are falling into the same old trap of looking for saviors and false leaders to tell us what we need to be concerned with and when/how we need to act.

If folks are going to jump on the bandwagon and pretend that criticisms of the music industry are a brand new thing, I'm EXTREMELY disinterested.

But I hope those of you who are charged and excited about this "new" perspective keep it up. Change can take years to decades. Shortsighted people think nothing has been done or changed just because we still hear derogatory lyrics and see derogatory images.

Another annoying comment from Baisden's show: "Our ancestors would be rolling in their graves if they saw where we are now." :rolleyes:

Uh...well...maybe not. That approach is as dumb as the "what would our Founders of our organizations say/think" comments. These people had certain opinions and left certain legacies. But we don't really know what the hell they'd say or do now. We need to be motivated on our own. Pay homage but don't get too stuck on holding seances to figure out if Harriet Tubman would be pissed at black people today.

*relax, relate, release.....* ;)

Exactly. Any conversations among my colleagues and friends were only passing ones.

Right. And offensive varies in definition. I can be entertained by "pop, lock and drop it" without needing to hear what's on the unedited version. There's still a degree of mysogyny in the edited version but there's always been mysogyny in every form of popular media.

Yes because this is where their masculinity and position in the patriarchal structure give them power. They feel powerless in race affairs but not in gender affairs.

That's similar to how racial civil rights movements are headed by men and the concerns of black women are often ignored eventhough we are the backbone of many of these organizations. These groups' efforts will address racism but not address negative images of women and black women, in particular, because the black men are part of the reason for these persisting images and treatment.

Unfortunately for black women, some of the people who "represent" them have been poor examples. See: Cynthia McKinney. I don't know that anyone would consider her a civil rights activist, but I imagine she does in some sense.

Thank you Soror! *Takes a bow.*

Not like we need a "representative" or I am thrilled that a white man is typing to me about this, but the people who represent me and many other black women are excellent examples. That's what happens when you don't look to popular media to tell you who voices your concerns.

I have no idea why McKinney came to your mind as if she's the only black woman you could think of. I guess her stint as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives confused you. ;) She isn't automatically someone for black women to watch just because she's one of many black women in "high places." I don't recall how many, if any, of her civil rights efforts involved both race and gender issues.

Hmm, I dunno why she'd come to mind. Perhaps being a vocal congresswoman who was constantly embroiled in high profile racial equality discussions? Perhaps because her father is Billy McKinney? Maybe you're not familiar...

Nobody said there weren't excellent black female leaders, rather, you mentioned that there were negative images of black women, and she's someone who could be tied into such perceptions.

The discussion is out there, but it is minimal. And the discussion is also out there about hip hop, but there isn't a hot story right now that has everyone talking at the same time. Discussion about Imus will fade quickly as the story gets old, but discussion of offensive hip hop will remain.

I would argue that most people only paid lipservice to the Imus situation as well. And the number of people who went further is far smaller than the number who have gone further concerning hip hop over the years. But in the case of hip hop there isn't an easy action we can take against it, such as calling an organization and demanding that an employee be fired. For the most part all we can do to combat it is to discuss, write, and teach, and a whole lot of people are doing that.

Thanks everyone for sharing their opinion.

I do recognnize that there have been vocal critics to the lyrics of the majority of rap music - and maybe now that we DO have some media attention, more people will support those that are trying to do something about it as opposed to criticizing them for trying to take away their Snoop Dogg.

Like Luv4Denzel stated, I hope this situation mobilizes everyone that is angered at Imus to also look at themselves and the rap music that they "jam" too. Shoot, just this morning my brother was griping by the Imus situation....as I could hear "I Make It Rain" in the background. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, I'm late but great post TonyB.

The negative images that I'm typing about existed for over a century and is manifested in different ways today.

I never saw McKinney as adding to a particular image of black women. Her actions are her own and make herself look a particular way. I guess some people tried to say McKinney adds to the "angry/complaining black woman" stereotype but everything adds to a more general stereotype according to some people.

Where we spend our $$$$$ may do more than we think though. I noticed with Imus, that once his sponsors started pullng from his show, he went from a 2 week suspension, to being booted from MSNBC, to being fired from CBS. FAST.

Money talks. Perhaps if we threatened to stop patronizing those companies that use those rappers that make their money from degrading women(ie Snoop Dogg/ 50 Cent/etc.) as their spokensperson(s) it will cause the same type of chain reaction. Some companies also own music labels that specialize in promoting artist that make this type of music (ex. Sony). Boycotting not only the label but the company itself would definitely get their attention. I'm sure if Sony saw a dip in their playstation, computer, etc. sales (especially during the holiday season), they would take notice.

In short, let's start hitting people in the pocketbook - not only the rappers but those that sponsor and promote it as well.

Disclaimer - when I say "rappers" I only mean those that degrade/humilate women in their lyrics. :)

As much as I'd like to think this is true, I really think we're overestimating Americans. I agree that the majority of people in the Imus situation didn't take their protest to the next level, but then, they didn't have time to. I wonder what would have happened in a more prolonged situation involving extended protests, boycotts, etc. I don't think it would have been a situation where a majority of people are doing it, but I still think it would be of a higher intensity than other things we're discussing.

A thing about the money situation, I think its somewhat of a cop out for the groups that fired Imus. Imus made MSNBC and CBS money, and the pulling out of sponsors probably wouldn't have overshadowed that. I think money is a perfectly acceptable reason to fire someone, but in this case I think the sponsor pull out simply gave the conglomerates another excuse to give in to public pressure. Whats weird is that from what I've heard on MSNBC, they're taking the slant that it didn't have that much to do with the sponsors. If I were doing their PR, I'd probably blame the sponsor pull out fully. Of course, some Americans probably think firing someone for financial reasons is a poor excuse, while I think its probably the best excuse.

You answered your own question while asking it.
Just who gets the face and/or air time?
Who do the politicians try to get close to?
And who gets time with the politicians?

Forty years ago, Imus' remarks would not have been tolerated on national tv ; given the fact that our country was in the midst of the civil rights era. Also strong censorship and something known as the FCC wold not have allowed it to happen. So, have we digressed in the name of Free Speech? I don't care who makes denigrating remarks about Black women-Imus or the rappers, or the Boys on the Block, or construction workers. Harrassment and derogatory remarks about women is wrong. We need to look closely at what drives this misogynistic spirit in our country and seriously do some reeducating to all.

While protesting involves anger, I don't think writing, discussing, and teaching involve less. Every time I've participated in these kinds of activities concerning hip hop, it was more intense for me than any issue I've actually protested. And regardless, it can only be called a double standard if those who protested Imus were doing nothing on the hip hop front. But the fact is there isn't anything more they can do because there is no step they can take that would prevent offensive rap from being produced and played.

No, it can still be a double standard. The steps people chose to take regarding Imus involved protests, threatening boycotts, etc... I don't see decisive action like that on rap music. Sermons and scholarly writings are no doubt important, but I don't see that they represent a similar intensity. I'm not doubting your personal intensity about the issue, but I still don't see the "outrage", if you will, when it comes to rap and other issues.

I think its understandable that people not go protest rap music, there are bigger concerns to address. I think the same applies to Imus, yet it nevertheless consumed some people's lives (and the country) for at least a few days. Again, I don't think the possibility that an effective protest against rap would be unrealistic is the reason for a difference in actions.

"Shake Your Money Maker" by the Black Crowes? I hope not, I like that song.

No! :) "Shake Your Money Maker" by Ludacris. We're talking about hip hop/rap here.

I think the reality that many people are not willing to recognize publicly is that they are bothered when whites or other people use this 'racial slang' against black people. However, we often allow blacks to get away with it. What I mean by that is a rapper who uses that language might not get us to buy a CD, but we're not protesting. We're not demanding that record labels fire employees based on the overwhleming amount of racist/sexist language used.

I fully agree!!!

At some point in everyones life they have made a joke or heard a joke demeaning black women/men and it was dismissed as funny. When are those people going to get repremanded by the black community? Further more Imus has made numerous off color comments, why does this comment get him fired? Yes I think his comments were wrong but I don't see firing being a suitable punishment. I also want to throw the question of whether people in the minority (blacks; hispanics; etc) can be considered racists for the comments they make toward each other and themselves. For example if we say hey my n... then did we just make a racist statement? While we are supporting "artists" that disrespect to the communities they come from.

And I guess the answer to all of these question is more people than you know about, because there are a lot of people working in our communities who do not court publicity in the same ways that others do. Does that mean that they are not working as hard or excercising as much influence? I don't think it does.

So that you might conceptualize this a bit better, think about the heavy hitters in the white community--I presume you are white. Think about the people that you would say have a good deal of clout in your--meaning where you live--community. Are those the people that you see on the news discussing issues that impact your community? Are they the people that you always see in front of the cameras? If I were to say that John Edwards were a leader of white America, because he is a white man that gets a lot of camera time, I would get a lot of objections from a lot of conservatives who would say "he doesn't represent me", and those would be legitimate objections. He represents, perhaps, a faction of white Americans and perhaps a relatively small faction at that.

Now, take that concept and apply it to black communities. These people that you see in the news all of the time are not the only people representing us. Bottom line, there are a lot more people working behind the scenes, organizing protests, and taking action that you don't know about.

The difference is that in rap/hiphop/etc. the artists are talking about an anonymous 'YOU' whereas in this specific instance, the remarks were directed toward a specific group of named individuals. It is a legitimate moral distinction and supports the rationale taken. While I am not defending misogynist music (I don't listen to, buy or support in any way), there is a difference. I will elaborate more later but I needed to get this said as soon as possible in this thread....

Ok, time for another voice *sigh* where do I begin?

There have been numerous efforts to stymie the use of derogatory language within rap music. (Simply one element of hip-hop culture) From the late C. Dolores Tucker, to Tipper Gore, to Luther Campbell being locked up for lewdness, to more recent events such as Spelman College students protesting a Nelly appearance on their campus, Essence's "Take Back The Music" Campaign, and more subtle attacks from within the hip-hop community on it's own level of "self hatred" (see: Nas' "Hip Hop is Dead, Mos Def's "Tru3 Magic", and for my own personal throw-in Dead Prez's "Turn Off The Radio")

As many in the conservative sector speak of this perceived hypocrisy about Imus' comments vs. Black Music (read: Hip-Hop) I find it amazing that no one speaks of the fact that the people who buy the majority of rap music and fuel the industry are surburban white kids. I find it even more amazing that since these artists and boutique record label CEO's don't own the methods of production and distribution that anyone would think that the black community has any sort of control over what music is released and what propaganda is displayed.

The black vox populi time and again has stated that we want more intelligent music as opposed to b****es, blunts, and 40's however the owners of the record labels hold the keys and the checkbooks. Thus, they take the "artists" who offer the most salacious elements of what some would consider "black life" and make it a multimillion dollar investment. To bring it back to the middle, to suggest that Imus' comments plus black reaction equals hypocrisy is to buy into the MTV/BET/ClearChannel/RadioOne/Cox Communications lie that black life in and of itself is monolithic. Which is obviously wrong and if taken to the extreme could be considered racist.

THE JESSE JACKSON and AL SHARPTON Connection

Truth be told, Jesse makes Al look bad. That is not the point.

Black America has not chosen Jackson and Sharpton as the President and V.P. of Black America. Truth be told, I (and I'm sure MANY others will agree with me) would rather have Michael Eric Dyson, Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, Dick Gregory, Barack Obama, or even Judge Joe Brown speak on behalf of Black America. As stated before, the old conservative guard, neocons, moderate liberals, and liberal extremists (along with a few other groups) lend credence to the "race-baiting" that many think Sharpton and Jackson do. Jackson maybe, Sharpton....not so much.

MANY within Black America don't really care what Jackson or Sharpton say at times. We do care about the National Association of Black Journalists (the people who began the Imus firestorm, and rightfully so.), The National Urban League, and a plethora of other community oriented organizations.

I hope that cleared up some things for you Bock without repeating too much of the same sentiments as my lovely sisters of ALPHA KAPPA ALPHA and a few divas of DELTA SIGMA THETA.

Well that is true, in that he cruelly targeted people who weren't really in the public arena (which what I think the most serious offense was). However, if we're talking about differences, there are a lot of things in rap music that go far beyond the simplicity of Imus's statements. Sometimes they are much more foul and brutal, and on a much larger scale.

I think the difference is that while Imus's comments did immediate damage to a small number of people (you can claim different, but I view the victims as those girls), while rap has done slower but more widespread damage to our society. My take, anyway.

Not getting into the merits of this, but that is something I've changed my mind about over the past couple of years. I always disliked Sharpton more than Jackson until recently, but Sharpton occasionally makes good points and seems more willing to face his opposition. Granted, I still think he race baits, and he also seems more apt to enter into a conflict quicker than does Jackson. I do find it interesting to listen to him though, especially on programs like Glenn Beck.

Good post Pham. One particularly important point, which you highlight, is that the black community is not monolithic. If people do not understand this point on the most basic level, it is will be difficult for them to understand that you can't just pick one person and say that he/she represents all Black Americans.


To this list, I would add Patricia Hill Collins (who has written a good deal about this very topic), Beverly Guy Sheftall, bell hooks, Angela Davis, excetera, excetera. ;)

All I can say about the intensity issue is that I see outrage among Black women everywhere. I don't see dedicating the amount of time, research, energy, and emotion it takes to write books, create art, teach young people, put on magazine campaigns, hold forums, block artists from performing at venues, etc. as less intense than taking a matter of minutes writing a letter to a radio station. It hurts me to hear someone say that all of that work- in which the political is surely personal- is less intense than some short-term hooplah, but I digress.

You're saying you see no decisive action on rap, but what decisive action? What protest could they possibly hold that would produce a similar result to Imus getting fired?

And note again, I don't want anything to happen. We're merely discussing whether there is a double standard.

I just don't see the anger, I don't see the outrage. I don't see people protesting outside of record studios or demanding a large scale boycott of rap. I'm sure many are concerned with the state of rap music and are taking action. However, I just don't see the "results or else!" attitude that you see with other situations.

The late Malcolm X used to tell white folks who wanted to join him to work in their own communities and organizations to change the mindset of their community. THAT is the best way that they could help further his human rights causes.

So to you, Shinerbock and your ilk, express your anger and outrage to YOUR community, ie the white folks who OWN the record companies that produce and promote this and those in the WHITE community who buy and support this music. You do your work in your community and we will continue to do the work in ours.

Its obvious you haven't read many of my posts in this thread. Thanks for trying, though.

We've already established that these ideas are not realistic. So the fact that people aren't taking actions that would obviously be fruitless does not indicate a double standard.

I pulled the following points/counter-points (sorry CBS/60-Minutes)
out of the later part of the thread because I thought that they were rather interesting.

IMHO, from what I have seen and read in the past few weeks and from the little amount of Videos and audio I "reviewed" over the past few years, believe that there is a major double standard going on year.

From what I have seen and heard not only here but in general life, most people I know truly believe that certain actions, words, movements et al are wrong. Period.

To me, if does not matter who is doing it or saying it.

One could argue that it does not matter if it goes on only between two people or certain small compact group. But this stuff is now main-stream. It is on the major cable shows, it is on major song labels, it is in the public eyes and ears.

And yes, I am well aware that ever so often there are "actions" done to protest it.

But they seem to be once a year rather than in "their face" on a continual fashion.

And it just grows and grows and gowns larger and impacts more and more people. And becomes more and more accepted rather then rejected.
It becomes common place rather then a rarity. People grow up with it, see it and copy it in their actions and words.

I understand the well known marketing statement that "Sex sells".

But just how much sex, violent, improper actions, thoughts et al do we really need to be put into our faces and those of children?

It makes money for all involved.
So, I have to wonder if that is the reason some people may think that it can not be controlled? But is that not what played a part in getting Imus canned?

And one could include in the discussion the ultra-violent, sexist et al video games as well.

I now stand down off of my soap box and jump into my fire-proof suit.

Yeah, the reason they're not realistic is because it wouldn't work. Why? Because 1) People wouldn't do it on a large scale and 2) people wouldn't follow through with a large scale boycott.

Thus, because not enough people within the community would be willing to act upon it, it likely wouldn't work. That doesn't eliminate it from the double standard category, that displays a double standard within the society as a whole. If you can get a significant base to act in a dedicated way regarding one problem, but they won't do the same in another, what is that?

I think the impossibility excuse is just that. Until the record companies and advertisers hear from black culture as a whole, not just a sliver of the community, of course they'll be able to ignore it. Don't you have to start somewhere (once again, this is all hypothetical, I really don't care)? Also, if anyone knows about how to succeed in uphill battles, its the black community. Sorry, I'm just not buying the "well, maybe we'd do it if it would work" argument.

In order to argue for a double standard, you cannot implicate "the Black community" or "Black culture as a whole", because the people who protested Imus are a VERY small segment of the Black population as well (And were mostly only among the Black elite, whom you argued don't represent the whole). If every last one of them wanted to protest every single offensive hip hop artist on every single label and every single radio station playing them spread out all over the country, there would be nowhere to start. Furthermore even if they did, they would represent a "sliver" of the 20-30% of hip hop consumers who are Black.

Well, for one, when speaking of a double standard, there is no point in bringing up white people's participation in furthering rap music. The only reason for that would be to either bring up a double standard in the white community or to argue about whether rap music should be boycotted, etc, which isn't what we're discussing. If you want to bring up white double standards, I'd be happy to participate, but to my knowledge thats not the subject matter.

I agree, the people who stood outside MSNBC and protested were a small segment. However, I anticipate that given the personalities involved and the attention paid by the black community, they would have had a fairly large base to work with if they hadn't gotten their way so quickly. I don't think just a small segment of the black community was concerned. Walking around campus, going out to eat, getting gas, everyone was talking about it (by everyone, I mean a lot of black people, but whites too). Now, of course my experience is limited to my area and whatnot, but when combined with the extensive media coverage, what else am I to think? I know you want me to accept your view of this as valid, but everything I've read and witnessed firsthand contradicts what you'd prefer I accept.

Once again, I don't think the lack of feasibility is indicative of a lack of a double standard. I think there isn't enough support across the black community to foster such broad action against rap music. I'd compare this to something like the left's quest for gun control. Sure, they write articles, some may protest on occasion, but overall, the potential backlash outweighs most people's desire for the change. This isn't to say some aren't willing to do it, just as some are willing to create change in rap music at all costs. However, once again, I do see a disparity between the way the mainstream entity (in this case, the black community) reacts to different situations.

I wasn't arguing White double standards, only that the Black community has a limited ability to manipulate an industry for which they are not the main consumers, and the protestors of Imus are a smaller number still.

Again, there is a distinction between who was concerned and who acted. Of course you will accept whatever you wish, I'm just offering my experience as someone who interacts with different Black communities regularly and is actually involved in some of the efforts you are speaking about.

I'm not saying the lack of feasibility indicates the non-existence of a double standard, I'm saying that without two feasible options, there is no evidence of the existence of a double standard. You can't make a valid judgement of people's unwillingness to do something without a valid 'something' for them to do.

Great point- many, many Black people have commented on hip-hop's dark, violent, woman-hating elements, and many more have supported the protests with their time, voices and money, but it hasn't changed anything. We are not the main consumers of hip-hop culture. Our approval or the lack thereof will have no appreciable impact on the record labels bottom lines- as a matter of fact, the more loudly the voices complaining about the music (Dolores Tucker comes immediately to mind) the more popular it becomes with the public at large (similar to what happened in rock music when the explicit stickers went on the records- those artists were suddenly perceived as heroes by the public- just watch VH1).

Laylo,

I still disagree that the feasibility argument makes the two non-comparable. I think it may have some impact on the argument, but I don't see that it would render it moot.