on race, gender, humor, and insult
If an individual (or group) in possession of privilege* makes a remark about an individual (or group) who does not possess the same degree of privilege, it is not humorous, but insulting. This is because of the inherent imbalance of power involved.
Yes, Don Imus, I'm looking at you. You're not the only one who does it. That just makes the ( Read more... )
Yes, Don Imus, I'm looking at you. You're not the only one who does it. That just makes the ( Read more... )
The essential point is that he and his "crew" took it on themselves to insult the Rutgers girls for winning. He negates their win by saying that they're manly, and kicked the ass of a more feminine team.
That he does it by calling them nappy-headed hos managing to get in the extra kicks that a) although they're masculine, they are not as good as men, obviously, since they're hos, and b) they are 'blacker' than the other team, assumably because they're more masculine. In other words, repeating the old assertion that an attractive black woman is a black woman who looks white.
(I'm assuming the other team had an equal number of black players, given the School Daze references.)
So. I don't think it's a matter of a slur against women, or a slur against African-Americans, or even against talented athletes. It's a slur against talented female African-American athletes, telling them their athleticism makes them failures as human beings. It's a fucking hat trick.
(As an aside, I don't think you were in chat when we had a conversation about this--I have some reservations about Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, especially the conflation of racial and economic privilege. But that's for a post I've been meaning to make for weeks now.)
Reply
Leave a comment