The Struggle Goes On

The insult hurled at the women on the Rutgers basketball team is an example of how sex in various manifestations is the last refuge of racially bigoted and anti-woman scoundrels.  Take a team of women who, just a few decades ago, would not have been allowed on a college basketball team; might not have been admitted to a prestigious university.  Before the most recent Civil Rights Movement they would have been the wrong race.  Before the most recent Women’s Movement – and Title 9 -- they would have been the wrong gender.

In spite of all that, the Rutgers women made it.  But they are too bright, skilled and articulate for the likes of Mr. Imus to tolerate.  Men who crave attention and power only for themselves try putting a crimp in the remarkable records of success we have all heard about this week -- scholars and athletes, good god, it’s too much to be permitted.  The thing to do is slander the African American women with racially and sexually loaded, negative words.  That’ll teach ‘em. Like a four-year-old, call them "the H word," formerly "Ho," formerly "whore," formerly "prostitute."

The Rutgers women have enough dignity and enough moxie to rise above all that slime.  But the language raises other questions.  How long will we tolerate the implication of a slur that vilifies prostitutes?  How long will we tolerate men (and some women) treating prostitutes as the dregs of the earth, as humans beyond the pale?  What does that say about those same "four-year-olds" who voluntarily pay women for providing sexual pleasure?  If we feminists don’t stand up for the humanity and dignity of prostitutes, who will?   

A related thought jumps into my mind.  Frances Conley dared to apply for Stanford med school in the sixties.  The times they were a-changin' and she was admitted.  She became a surgeon.  Then, a neurosurgeon, a minority of one.  Then a Stanford professor of neurosurgery. 

“What can you do with such an uppity dame,” the other docs must have asked.  The temporary head of her department figured out what he could do.  He sexually harassed her and Conley -- after publicly stating that she had silently endured frequent sexual harassment during her long career -- resigned her post.

In our struggle against violence to women, we need to pay special attention to sex as a weapon used by men against women.  Sometimes it takes the form of rape, sometimes of less blunt sexual instruments.  It typically is designed to shame women for being sexual at all.  Though we are the usual targets, efforts at sexual shaming are not necessarily confined to women.  Ann Coulter apparently thought she could harm Senator Edwards' campaign by insinuating he is a "faggot."  Didn’t we already say that ho, and nappy and faggot ought not to be insults at all? 

Didn’t we cover this territory in the 60s and 70s?  Didn’t we do our best to wipe out the notions that men get to decide certain women are too sexy (sluts), not sexy enough (frigid)?  But are so necessary to males that they will pay lots of money for sex with them?  Didn’t we insist that men don’t get to decide whether women are dressed too “provocatively?”  Or that if they choose not to flaunt their sexual charms, they must be “dykes”?  Didn’t we do all that?

Sure we did, but we’ve got to be ready to do it all over again, in each generation.  Women who have few resources to protect themselves are always under threat.  But the higher women of color rise in any field, and the more women succeed in any field, the more we have to be on the lookout for sexual assaults, whether verbal, emotional or physical.  The struggle goes on.

---Ginny

Comments

[rk]

Don Imus has been making similar comments for many years now and the fact that political and business leaders all line up to be on his show to have the privilege of being abused shows tacit acceptance of his drivel. It's amazing that it's taken so long for this to come to a head....but I'm glad it has.