Jaques-cuse still doesn't get it

On the front page of this morning's New York Times, Jaques Steinberg offers "Shock Radio Shrugs at Imus's Fall And Roughs Up the Usual Victims" (no link, you know the drill). Having last checked in on Jaques-cuse in "Don Imus" and having several problems (largely technical) with this edition, Jim asked us (Ava and C.I.) to give Jaques-cuse a read.

He still doesn't get it.

We will praise the paper for conducting their own study (apparently their own study) -- one in which they tracked 250 hours of radio -- but that's about all the praise they'll get.

Don Imus isn't alone. Or rather wasn't. (Imus is gone from the airwaves . . . at least for now.) We made that point last month. But we think Jacues-cuse either doesn't get it or he's trying to muddy the waters.

Imus' infamous remark combined racism and sexism (listed alphabetically). Nothing (other than the first sentence) really indicates that the latter is understood.

For instance, saying that Kim Basinger's last film role was playing "an old tampon" is crass and crude. It is not, necessarily sexism. That one really stuck out because neither of us could think of Basinger's last film role. (Her last lead was I Dreamed of Africa.) We had to call around to find out (at this hour, we do not want to look at a computer screen anymore than necessary). We don't personally find the line humorous. We also don't find it to be necessarily sexism. (And Paul Rudnick, who is not a sexist, has certainly used tampon comparisons in his own writing under an assumed name in a film magazine.) (We're wording it that way because we are aware saying more, for some, is akin to talking with children about the reality of Santa Clause.)

Again, it is crass and crude. With a better use of adjectives, it might still qualify for funny.

But those offended by Imus' remarks were not offended because they didn't "get" the "joke" or because they thought Imus was "mean." They were offended (and you can include us in that) because it was sexism and it was racism. (Reverse alphabetical order.) Either the paper doesn't grasp sexism or they're trying to muddy the water -- considering the paper's previous coverage of Imus, we wouldn't be at all surprised if it was the latter.

Crass, crude and rude will always exist. Racism and sexism certainly traffic in the three. So does humor. The difference between humor and the other two boils down to stereotypes based on race and gender (or sexual orientation, which we'll get to in a moment) -- often spoken out of hate or ignorance, but not always. If someone called us a tampon, we'd roll our eyes. (If it was a man, we'd wonder if he knew the difference between a tampon and a pad because you'd be surprised at the number of men who don't.) "An old tampon"? We'd wonder why the fool didn't say "an old used tampon" as we rolled our eyes.

If Jaques-cuse truly doesn't get it, that makes the article even more dangerous because did no editor grasp that the article equates irritating speech with hate speech? This is the sort of article that leads to cries of "They just don't want anyone to speak to their mind!"

So before that (false) charge gets pinned on feminists, let's be clear: We are feminists, Jaques-cuse is not. He does not speak for feminism. (We do not speak for all of feminism. We offer "a" feminist view, not "the" feminist view.)

We see Islamic-phobia in the examples offered of shock-jock Mancow (what a name), we see ignorance and other things. Other than his Islamic-phobia, we don't see anything (in the examples offered) that rises to the level of hate speech. (Which, as we said in the feature on Imus, he could express. And if his advertisers pull out, that's his own fault. If he lost listeners, that's his own fault.) It's strange that the man obviously is comfortable expressing hatred towards Islams but Jacques-cuse is more interested in what he said about Virginia Tech.

We're not sure about a jingle played on a Univision station. First of all, the paper has a real problem when it comes to translating Spanish. Second of all, we're given a partial quote ("I couldn't afford a motel" -- to have sex in due to the fact that property taxes are so high) and we'd have to see a little more than that to make a call.

Jaque-cuse tells you in the sentence that starts on the front page and continues on A22 that those targeted in the 250 hours studied were "Gay mean and lesbians, and women and Muslims" but, strangely, we're unable to locate anything regarding LBGTs in the article. If they were a regular target, why is it that the paper won't cover that? We're not doubting that they are a target of shock jocks. We are wondering why the paper avoids the issue other than in one sentence?

Jaque-cuse really doesn't think "a parody of a salsa song in which a man pleaded with his girlfriend for anal sex" implies gay, sex does he? Look it, we know the Docker Boys of The Times are a puritanical set. But if someone thought that was "following up" on the sentence informing readers that gays and lesbians were targeted, they really need to to thumb through the Masters & Johnsons. (We'd actually suggest Anais Nin's erotica -- Little Birds & Delta of Venus -- however, we think the Docker Boys would be less shocked by the clinical approach.)

The paper studied 250 hours. Surely there were very real examples of homophobia. The paper can't offer them. They can't offer real examples of sexism. On racism, they do a little better. Not much, but a little. The paper elected to front page this story. Forgive us for seriously asking whether the point of this article was to muddy the issue and water down the very real sexism and racism that Don Imus regularly aired.