Tuesday, April 10th, 2007...2:41 pm
Imus and MacKinnon
The Don Imus imbroglio is dominating all coverage today, even on CNN. How standards fall: first the non-stop Anna Nicole Smith fest for several days a few weeks ago, now Imus for a day solid. I’m sick of it. Yet as sick of it as I was, I couldn’t help but be impressed at the response of the Rutgers women’s team and their coach. The coach was eloquent if long-winded, and her players seemed thoughtful and intelligent when they responded to questions. The press conference, assuming their objective was to get Imus fired, was done well.
Couldn’t help but think, though, about the fact that Howard Stern makes comments as sexist as Imus was racist about women all the time without consequence. When I first started thinking about and reading about policy, I was unthinkingly supportive of full freedom of expression, supportive of Imus and Stern and even pornography, but then I started reading about the effects of pornography, for instance, on violence and the broad social consequences.
Pornography is a pernicious form of expression that undermines women’s liberation and promotes the objectification and abuse of both women and children. It was Catherine MacKinnon‘s work on civil rights, expression, and pornography that first led me to think on these issues. This she has that right. Where she and I diverge is policy. Rather than any form of censorship, aside, obviously, from the prevention of the exploitation of children and violence, there must be the creation and promotion of a new context in which to view pornography for what it is, not simply degrading but socially destructive and oppressive.
3 Comments
April 10th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Yeah, Imus is trivial, but the fact that he consistently gets big name politicians and media figures on his show (many of whom continue to defend him) is an insight into how incestuous the media-political relationship has gotten. Yes, this is just one stupid comment, but the fact that he consistently makes such comments and consistently stays chummy with members of the politco-media establishment *is*, I would argue, an important point.
http://rhetoricgarage.blogspot.com/2007/04/semiotic-clouds.html
April 10th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
As regards Stern, I think the big difference is that Imus hosts many poiltcal and literary figures, while Stern has long been written off as a sleaze ball. If current luminaries start boycotting Imus (such as Clarence Page has already done) he might start feeling the pinch. I think this is why he’s been apologizing so aggressively for this incident.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
So glad you forwarded me this link. I will have to read more about Imus, as I kept catching the only the end of radio news programs about his comment(s).
I totally agree about pornography. For so long I was unable to explain why I was utterly against the prohibition of pornography (and stripping): I am aware of the social ramifications, and I think the world would be better without it. But when Rose recently pressed me on the issue, I was able to articulate it: like watching America’s Next Top Model or abusing pets, people have to CHOOSE not to partake in what is detrimental or unsavory. No one can be held legally accountable for everything they do. That’s why there are so many ethics groups and courses and books– it’s an important part of morality that people tend to take a passive position on. As in, “If I don’t consider this decision/activity to be an ethical decision, I’m not doing anything UNethical.”
But there’s really no harm, say, in eroticism…