should be sympathy for Duke guys, not Rutgers girls

I was teaching teenagers not all that long ago (4 years), so I don't think they're all that much different, Shot. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

Ok, that's fair.

But, it's still hyperbole, objectively. She doesn't think it's hyperbole right now. But it is, from the vantage point of some perspective, an exaggeration.

I agree with Shot, too, about teenagers changing. I go out all the time and hear girls refer to their friends as 'their bitches, their ho's.' That's a lot different than 10 years ago, IMO.

But I think, sure, the overall adolescent psychology hasn't changed.

 

But do you hear b's and ho's referred to racially? What Imus did is add another level. A much more serious level.

 

My girlfriends and I call each other hos and bitches, but no man would get away with doing so to us. It's like the n*gger think with African Americans. Women can call each other foul names in friendship that no one outside the circle can.

 

People need to stop picking on the Rutgers girl for saying she'd be scarred for life. Maybe "scarred" is too strong a word, but it is true that for the rest of their lives, the memory of having reached the championship game will never be a purely happy one for these players. It will always be tainted by the whole Imus affair. That's all she was trying to say. It's silly to quibble with her choice of words.

 

SC - Ok, fair enough. I agree with what you're saying, but I think there is a
level of desensitization that goes on with it.

On the other hand, I mentioned the term 'signifying' in a few other
threads, and that might apply to what you're saying. Whatever the
case, women don't deserve to be disrespected.

Joe -

What you're saying is true, IMO. I think, however, that stacking what happened to the Rutgers girls and what happened to the Duke guys, side by side, the Duke guys are far more 'scarred for life.' There were no criminal charges or public investigations going on in the Rutgers case.

But like I said earlier in the thread, both parties have a reason to feel aggrieved, IMO. It doesn't have to be a battle of 'who's scarred more,' as the thread title might suggest.

 

Ever feel like your use of it with friends opens the door for some idiot male to use it, and then feign confusion when you yell at him for it?

I don't know . . . it seems that you crack that door open in the same way that people think they can use the N-word because it is used in a non-negative way among some African-Americans. Perpetuation of such speech is aided by its use in a friendly environment, isn't it?

 

I bet Imus would say yes to that.

But I'm not in the business of defending Imus. He sucks, and I'm glad he's gone.

But it's a valid ?, IMO.

 

Maybe it does. I always thought it was sort of a Queer Nation thing. Take the word and make it belong to the group it insults. Maybe we're wrong, and maybe this whole crappy situation can serve to start discussion on what language is and isn't acceptable in polite company.

 

Yep, a time-honored tradition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signifying


Still, it can be misunderstood. I've had it happen to me when black friends tried to get me to call them the 'n' word, and I was like "WTF?!"

 

That's what others have said about demystifying hate spech, about turning it on itself so it doesn't injure. That's a logic I've always heard, but I have to think that with Imus' flimsy "Uh. . . Rappers do it TOO!!!!!!!!!!!" bullcrap, it's apparent that this doesn't always work, since a-holes are always ready to exploit it.

 

I would be shocked if anyone who isn't black thought it OK to use the n-word in any circumstance. Maybe Borat would use it, but it would take a really out-of-touch character like that to ever think it OK.