The RUIMUS controversy is definitely a controversy on the
surface level, but once the surface level is surpassed, the real controversy
emerges. Intersectionality acts as the
seed that is the base of the interlocking roots of race, gender, class, and
sexuality that serve as the underpinnings causing this controversy.
Cooky, Wachs, Messner, and Dworkin (2010) conduct a study
using textual and content analysis of the articles written between April 4, 2007
to April 19, 2007, which reveal the themes of silence and invisibility within
their study. They found “…nearly 90% of
the articles mentioned the Rutgers team, in most cases the team was only
mentioned once to provide context for the story” (Cooky et al., 2010, p.
148). Personally, when I first saw this
finding, I immediately thought that the “real controversy” was that a wealthy,
white male publicly made a racist comment.
If this wasn't the real issue, then the findings would have suggested
otherwise.
Cooky et al. (2010) found that only 8.5% of the players were
quoted in the articles, and Imus 15.4%.
The players were publicly humiliated and degraded, but it seems as if
their opinions and reactions did not matter.
Imus was even quoted more than Coach Stringer even if it was only by 1%. Race, class, gender, and sexuality play a clear
role in this situation. This upper-class
white male who is heterosexual made a comment that those who are the same
class, gender, race, and sexuality might have otherwise laughed with him and
thought nothing of it when they heard it.
This is only my opinion, but I feel as if the audience were restricted
to those who were described as the above, the controversy would not have been a
controversy.
Today’s society, however, is different. Media comes in all forms, and nothing appears
to go unnoticed, but is portrayed and interpreted how the majority of society
wants. The majority of society takes a
stand on racism as a whole, but not sexuality.
The longstanding discrimination based upon gender and class has been a controversy,
which despite major strides, is still very much alive. The politics working behind the media dictate
how events, controversies, and other news stories are covered and written.
The Rutgers women’s basketball team is majority African
American, along with their coach, female, and their class honestly does not
matter, because it is assumed that these players are of the lower class who
dedicated themselves to basketball in hopes to escape poverty. The players are also subject to the
stereotype of homosexuality, since they are female athletes competing in a
physical sport. All of these factors interlock
and contribute to the researchers’ findings of silence and invisibility.
Reference:
Cooky, Wachs, Messner, & Dworkin. (2010). It’s not about
the game:
Don Imus, race, class, gender, and sexuality in contemporary
media. Sociology of Sport Journal, 27, 139-159.
Don Imus, race, class, gender, and sexuality in contemporary
media. Sociology of Sport Journal, 27, 139-159.
Casey-
ReplyDeleteAs we mentioned in class, the co-host, Bernard McGuirk, with Imus did not say anything to him about his comments and went along with them. I believe McGuirk is the one who started this conversation by first calling the team a bunch of "hardcore hos". I believe that your statement "if the audience were restricted to (being white, middle class men) then the issue would not be an issue" is accurate. I think that it is interesting to think what would make a man make these type of comments over the radio. Does he think that nobody is listening? Is he trying to "spice" up his show? Is he trying to get his name out there? There are many questions that are asked about this incident. Imus apologized for his comments and blamed the hip-hop industry for the incident. He stated that "nappy-headed hos" is a term that rap artists use to refer to African-American women. I think the big question is where does the issue first start? Is it the hip hop industry first using the term? Is it his executive producer? Is it middle-class white males as a whole? Or is is Imus himself? I believe that all parties play a part in this incident. It is a shame that this is how Rutgers' Women's Basketball team of 2007 is being remembered. Instead of being known for their hardwork that led them to this National Championship game versus Tennessee. They are remembered for these deragatory comments.