This week Ed Shultz was suspended for calling Laura Ingraham a “slut.” It wasn’t that cut and dry, of course. He called her a “talk slut” in the context of a rant on right-wing hypocrisy. Like most people hearing the comment, I don’t think it made much sense. As best as I can tell, the only connection was that (and I’m guessing here) Shultz felt Ingraham would say anything the GOP put out as a talking point.
So he’s suspended. Snarky comments are made all over the web by partisans. An apology is made. I’ll give Laura credit on this one, she did say (tweet) that she accepted the apology. One savvy blogger noted that Morning Joe (a show on the same network as Shultz) that next morning had a show dedicated to Women feeling empowered.
But in the land of “things that will get you suspended on radio/TV” slut seems to be the odd-man out. Unlike the other bombs that come before suspension N(black folks), F(homosexuals), R(mentally handicapped), or whatever word so corresponds with folks of Jewish and Latin decent, slut seems to me the only one that will both get you suspended, but isn’t an inherent piece of the person. In a world determined to diagnose Sex Addiction, slut still seems like an opinion based thing rather than an inherent attack on a group.
And while I don’t know Laura or Ed, I’m guessing they aren’t familiar with one another. So this cross-town insult, which didn’t make a lot of sense syntactically to begin with, now seems to be missing its stinger by virtue of unfamiliarity.
Historically, the words that will get you fired are not only something an individual can’t run away from, but its also a condemnation of an entire group. No one who’s ever used an N word ever made his complaints moot beyond the individual. Nor do those who decry homosexuality as an abomination think its limited to a few. But slut seems to, at least historically, have a different connotation. First of all, if someone saying “slut” meant all women were actually sluts, there’d be no contrast to make it vulgar. With the above examples the alternative was either Whiteness, or Heterosexuality, Mental Normality (as is defined socially), or Christianity. So by virtue of the insult, it can’t attack all women.
And historically, there has always been some degree of familiarity no matter how scant. As I said above, the relationship between Shultz and Ingraham seems to be no relationship at all. At its root, there is a character judgment made with moral implications when using the word “slut” so ever if we’re talking Shultz to mean “slut” in its most conventional form, our question should be – How does he know?
Now I’m sure most of you probably have said at some point in this scandal “the real question is ‘so what if she is?’” One’s sexual relations are of no business to anyone but those involved. This brings up the other historical point – Slut has generally been used as an attack levied by men against women to suggest by virtue of this one flaw, she is inherently flawed. Not only has this thought-process gone the way of the Puritans, we’ve come to know men to be of the same persuasion if not more so. (TIME this month asks “Why are powerful men such pigs.”)
So all this has lead to the question of where does the word come to today? Is it worthy of suspension? However you feel about the word, free speech, these hosts, or political talk radio – nobody really wants this to become standard fare. If slut were used as freely as “partisan” on a given program, you’d likely see ratings fall for a lack of intelligent coverage. And if we do think that its still as powerful as its been since we determined it to be an unacceptable statement of a woman, how do we reconcile this with Jerry Brown’s response to the issue when he was challenged back in September by Meg Whitmann for Governor of California. If he can nullify it so easily, can it really hold strength?
I’d love to hear what the ladies have to say on this one, but fellas, don’t be afraid to mix it up.
No comments:
Post a Comment