Sexism is More Acceptable Than Racism. Why?

After the Michael Richards incident, I wrote an article entitled "Re-examining the Use of N-word and B-word" which was a rebuttal to nationally syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts' perspective, and examined the socially acceptable use of the terms "n-word" and "bitch." A reader took me to task in her comments about the piece. She wondered whether my opinion was unbiased and suggested that I had to be in the element where the term "nigga" was used in order to "see how serious it is." She also took issue with my putting the term "bitch" on par with "nigger," and asserted that using "nigga" represented self-hatred and ignorance. Finally, she believed that by using a "gangsta rappa" vignette, which included dialogue between two individuals using "n-word" and "b-word" and other euphemisms in parody, I was making light of a serious issue and demonstrating my immaturity.

This is an attempt to respond coherently to her expressions on the matter, and to further examine the damaging double standard with which we approach issues of race and gender. For the record every article I write is biased by my world-view, my observations, experiences, and interpretations of those observations and experiences. Although I have never drowned, I don't have to be in a situation of drowning myself to understand how serious it would be to find myself drowning. I don't have to be illiterate to understand how serious it would be to be illiterate. What it takes is the ability to observe, to analyze, and empathize.

It has been some time since I have worked in the youth culture where the term "nigga" is frequently used, but it is neither a foreign culture nor a foreign experience for me. It may be that some who use the term don't know about the history of African slavery, nor how those of African descent have been and are treated in this and other societies. However, many who do use the term do so intentionally, with full understanding of the historical relationship to the term "nigger," and in direct defiance of those who object to the term's usage.

It is convenient, and I suppose socially acceptable, to call those who don't share one's perspective ignorant, but I'm not sure that doing so represents a cogent argument or that it reflects the full truth of the matter in this case. The argument that using a word affectionately, as in the way "nigga" is generally used, constitutes self-hatred requires more support than those who make the claim provide, and I address that in the previous article and touch on it below. There are other elements of the culture in which the term "nigga" is commonly used that are much more disturbing than the use of the word. The orientation toward women within that culture is one of those elements.

My critic asserted that the term "bitch" doesn't have "400 years of slavery connected to it, the Middle Passage, suicide, rape, and belittlement." I agree that the term may have no socially acknowledged historical event to which it is linked; however, it is a derogatory term for women, a group that has been enslaved for far more than 400 years and one that continues to be enslaved and denigrated today. It would not surprise me at all to find that an individual who would carryout the heinous act of rape would be prone to using the term "bitch." For those seeking evidence that women continue to be enslaved, a basic Internet search will uncover quite a bit about the enslavement of women, particularly for sexual purposes.

As long as there have been human cultures, men, women and children have been enslaved. The practice didn't start with European enslavement of Africans, nor has it ended there. Even today women and children are being sold into slavery. The denigration of people of African descent didn't end with the abolition of slavery, nor did the denigration of women end with the successful Suffrage Movement. Both groups continue to be denigrated by others and to participate in their own denigration. If the term "nigga" is objectionable because some claim it symbolizes the denigration of people of African descent, then why isn't the term "bitch" objectionable? Doesn't affiliating women with a tern that denotes a female dog denigrate women? If the fact that women now call themselves "bitches" renders that term acceptable, why doesn't the same hold for the term "nigga?"

One who attempts to use satire risks wrath and ridicule if the attempt fails or is missed by those unable or unwilling to accept satire for what it is. The "gangsta rappa" vignette in "Re-examining the Use of N-word and B-word" was used to illustrate that whether we use the term "n-word" or "nigger" the bottom line is that we understand that they are one and the same. Is it the sound of the word that causes discomfort or the images and sentiments that the word evokes? If it is the former, the use of "n-word" is logical. If it is the latter, then it really defies logic since both terms call to mind the same images and sentiments. The vignette also sought to question if the term "nigger" is so offensive because of its historical link to the denigration of people of African descent, why isn't "bitch" offensive as a product of the historical denigration of women?

The essential point of that article and this piece is that regardless of which words were used and by whom; it is the act of denigration, not the words themselves, that is reprehensible. Scholars of African descent have long recognized co-opting or transforming meanings within a language (including specific terms such as "nigger") as a means of coping with an oppressive environment such as slavery. In their book Black Rage (1968), William Grier and Price Cobbs address the possibility that the nonstandard language people of African descent use serves a similar function that the Plantation Creole served in the days of slavery. In discussing the language of slaves, they note, "...the slaves turned the language as it was presented to them to their own purposes, and in fact to the precise purposes which their owners sought to prevent...the garbled patois began to be used as a secret language among slaves. Language was used with a particular emphasis on double meanings" (p. 103). Reversing the meaning of negative terms has historical precedence in the African American experience, and to ignore that historical context diminishes understanding of today's language use in African American youth culture.

As suggested above, the meanings conveyed in any language are determined by the manner in which the language is used by the people who use it. A word, any word, only contains the meaning attributed to it within a cultural setting. There are many who defy the dictates of others who try to tell them what words ought to mean, because their usage contradicts the meaning that those others try to impose upon them. Imposing one's sensibilities and meanings on others can hardly be considered consistent with the concept of freedom, the antithesis of slavery. I may have certain understandings of the term "nigger," "nigga," and "bitch." I may find any or all of those terms offensive, and may make that known to those who use it. However, I don't believe I have the right to try to impose my understanding on others, especially if those others are clearly using the term in a manner inconsistent with its historically degrading fashion. I don't condemn the use of the term "nigga," because when it is used there is usually no negative or derogatory intent. When the term "bitch" is used, it usually is with negative intent and/or connotation. Why is there no outcry about the use of "bitch?"

I previously believed that those who objected to the term "nigga" did so because, from their perspective, the term represented the continued degradation of people of African descent. After considering the reader's comments, I am wondering if the true problem with the term is that the objectors perceive an affiliation with the historical event of slavery, and brings to mind the lowest period in the history of people of African descent in the United States. It is apparently okay to use terms of denigration (such as "bitch") as long as they are not affiliated with some socially denounced event or phenomenon. Or perhaps more appropriately, not affiliated with a specific socially denounced event for which those in power feel some residual guilt, which is engaged whenever the cry of racism is raised.

Apparently the denigration of women for millennia is not sufficiently heinous to produce an outcry about using derogatory terms in reference to women. Don Imus wasn't pilloried because he called women "Ho's," the gender-specific reference, it is because his "nappy headed" reference has a racial connotation. The daily derogatory representations of women in videos have caused a minor outcry, but no one's job is in question. Imus has made myriad derogatory comments about a variety of groups, but it is the ostensibly "racist" comment that cost him his job.

Although Native Americans as a group were targets of genocide and have been as wronged as any other group in this country, their outcries about team names, such as the "Redskins" have not generated the same degree of responses that outcries about derogatory remarks directed at those of African or Jewish descent generate. I suspect that may have something to do with their numbers, social prominence, and their political and financial clout, though the latter is growing as a result of Casino enterprises.

Why is it okay to denigrate some groups and not others? Why is it okay to use some derogatory terms and not others? What makes some groups more deserving of respect than others? The answer that emerges is multifaceted. One facet is that an historic, egregious act or practice that has been socially acknowledged (the more widely the better) to target a particular group makes that group more worthy of protection than other groups. Another facet is that the denigrated group has to have sufficient numbers to be politically important, and must sound a consistent and loud outcry when its members feel, or have apparent reason to feel denigrated.

I contend that if we believe denigration is socially unacceptable, then all groups and individuals ought to be equally protected from denigration, regardless of history. If, on the other hand, denigration is acceptable, then it ought to be acceptable for all groups, again, regardless of history. Despite this country's failure to live up to the contents of its own pledge of allegiance, I believe it includes something like, "...liberty and justice for all." Arguing about which derogatory speech toward which social group is unacceptable misses the essential point. The argument ought to be whether any derogatory speech is acceptable regardless of the group membership of its target. Arguing about which group was more wronged than the other is a waste of time and energy. Arguing about which word is worse than the other is a waste of time and energy. Arguing about whether we ought to denigrate each other period, as groups or as individuals, is a debate worth entering.