Friday, May 11, 2007

"Crude Comments"

Two radio shock jocks have apologized for airing what CNN called "crude comments that he'd like to have sex with Condoleezza Rice, Laura Bush and Queen Elizabeth."

And those "crude comments"? From Shakesville:
One of their guests, a man called Homeless Charlie, says, “I’ll tell you what—what’s that George Bush bitch, um, Rice…? Condoleezza Rice? … I’d love to fuck that bitch dead, man,” at which point the rest of the studio erupts into laughter. Homeless Charlie says again, “I’ll fuck that bitch to death,” to which Opie/Anthony reply, “I just imagine the horror in Condoleezza Rice’s face—” [uproarious laughter and interjection “When she realizes what’s going on!”] “—as you’re just like holding her down and fucking her.” More uproarious laughter, prompting Homeless Charlie to continue: “Punch her all in the fucking face—shut up, bitch!” Says Opie/Anthony: “That’s exactly what I meant!” [raucous laughter]

Umm...note to CNN. That wouldn't be "having sex" with Condi Rice. That would be rape. These men were laughing about rape. It astounds me that the article never once uses the word "rape" to describe what these men were laughing about.

And I hope nobody uses this defense, but to preempt it I go to Feministing:
Now all you anti-woman folks please write that down and repeat. It doesn't matter to whom they are addressed, regardless of a woman's politics or her position in society, rape threats are never OK....I may not agree with Condoleeza Rice's or Laura Bush's politics, at all, but under no circumstances would I think it is OK to threaten them with sexual violence.

This should go without saying.

And as for the "apology"? Well, here's the text:
“We apologize to the public officials for comments that we made on our XM show on May 9th. We take very seriously the responsibility that comes with our creative freedom and regret any offense that this segment has caused."

Does that seem good enough? Back to Shakes:
Uh-huh. Well, I certainly hope “the public officials” accept their apology. As for me, I’m still waiting for an apology on behalf of all the women who have been and will be raped in no small part because of the festering shithole of misogyny known as American Media in which rape-glorification thrives and “the responsibility that comes with…creative freedom” never seems to include any accountability for making “jokes” that celebrate the sexual abuse of women.

Shakes, who herself is a rape survivor, continues to quote from XM Radio, saying that they had not decided whether or not to discipline the shock jocks. Translation: we won't do anything unless the press gets really bad.

Sounds like a plan. Make it happen.

4 comments:

section9 said...

Are you kidding?

Rice is a Republican. Rape jokes are acceptable against black Republican women.

Kalesy said...

If you actually listened to the show, you would know that the laughter heard on the show was disbelief expressed at the outrageousness of this homeless man "Charlie" and the ridiculousness of his fantasies.

O&A were suspended and there wasn't even a "media storm."

So much for "I hate what you say but I will go to my death for your right to say it."

David Schraub said...

Kalesy: The transcript indicates otherwise.

And stop massacring Voltaire's meaning--he's rolling in his grave. I'll explain it slowly.

I do hate what the shock jocks say, I think they have a right to say it, but I have a right to argue that XM radio should not be associating with their message. Rights are not the same thing as venue--the first amendment protects the words, not the microphone.

PG said...

The argument you'll be hearing from folks like Kalesy, and that I was hearing with the Imus controversy, is that "if you don't like it, don't listen." If you protest, if you boycott, if you do *anything* to indicate your massive disapproval of what's played, that's silencing Opie, Anthony and Imus. (Forget that in the case of Imus, the airwaves belong to the public.)

It's an interesting argument. I can give a little credit to those who say that we should not have instituted laws prohibiting racial discrimination, that such laws intrude improperly on individual freedoms. But even those folks never have said, "And what was with the protests and the boycotts against discriminatory businesses? That's interfering with their freedom to discriminate too!"