Comments on: Elisabeth Hasselbeck’s Speech Double Standard http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1096 two kingdoms, hundreds of thousands of miles Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:29:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Rebellious Pastor's Wife http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1096#comment-11572 Rebellious Pastor's Wife Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:42:04 +0000 http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1096#comment-11572 The fact of the matter is we are not dealing with a principle that says "it is wrong to make fun of someone based on their race, ethnicity, gender, etc." or that it is simply wrong to be mean. We are dealing with a political principle. At least NAACP, NOW, and other organizations like this are. I went to a college that was really big on "social justice" and their definition of racism is that it has to be perpetrated by a group in political power over a group that is not. So they would say it was a white man (and whites have the political power) using his influence to harm young black women. (so white vs. black, men vs. women). Any "ism" has this definition. If it were a black man saying this about a Jewish person, it would simply be prejudiced and not nice. Asians maybe don't hold political power, but they do have affluence. As a culture, they perform well in schools and in testing that are regarded as generally being culturally biased, they value education and lucrative careers (again, as a cultural more). So, the idea is that they wouldn't be as harmed by what Rosie did (though offended) as what the message Don Imus was trying to portray by continuing to propogate an idea of beauty, social behavior, intelligence, and racial stereotyping. I'm not saying that I agree with this, and in general, you won't have a media person try to explain this because they know how the public in general would react to it, but this the basic ideology. The fact of the matter is we are not dealing with a principle that says “it is wrong to make fun of someone based on their race, ethnicity, gender, etc.” or that it is simply wrong to be mean. We are dealing with a political principle. At least NAACP, NOW, and other organizations like this are. I went to a college that was really big on “social justice” and their definition of racism is that it has to be perpetrated by a group in political power over a group that is not. So they would say it was a white man (and whites have the political power) using his influence to harm young black women. (so white vs. black, men vs. women). Any “ism” has this definition. If it were a black man saying this about a Jewish person, it would simply be prejudiced and not nice.

Asians maybe don’t hold political power, but they do have affluence. As a culture, they perform well in schools and in testing that are regarded as generally being culturally biased, they value education and lucrative careers (again, as a cultural more). So, the idea is that they wouldn’t be as harmed by what Rosie did (though offended) as what the message Don Imus was trying to portray by continuing to propogate an idea of beauty, social behavior, intelligence, and racial stereotyping.

I’m not saying that I agree with this, and in general, you won’t have a media person try to explain this because they know how the public in general would react to it, but this the basic ideology.

]]>