The Cause of My Insanity

Reports like this one bring up the question about why certain cities and communities have more public sexual harassment than others. H/T.

I think it's entirely about a city's culture. I'll bet my bottom dollar that Egyptian society is turning away from typical third world restraint and politeness, but also hasn't caught up with first world acceptance of women's autonomy and equality. So, you have a perfect storm of almost all Egyptian men hating women and the breakdown of norms that previously kept that shit behind closed doors.

New York is also really shitty in the public harassment arena. I'll add, however much I don't like to bring it up, that most of the harassers in New York are black. Soon after I moved to Seattle, I moved into the city's majority black neighborhood. Not once was I harassed. Not once. The problem isn't black folk, as I might have been made to believe after living in New York for several years. The problem is the culture of New York. A high proportion of New Yorkers are rude and aggressive (and the rest are sheep too scared to acknowledge what's going on, let alone stand up for themselves). They see no need to restrain themselves or mind their own fucking business. Consequently, a significant minority of men in that city behave like sleazebags. Seattle, with its far more restrained culture, simply doesn't tolerate that shit.

I am so glad I don't live in New York anymore. Of course, that city succeeded in making me so aggressive and pissed off, if I returned, the harassers would be the ones running for cover.

Jesus Christ

Whatever you do, do not look at the comments on this article.

The article is a defense of Imus by a black writer. Fine, whatever. Imus may as well be the crypt keeper, but I have a hell of a lot more important things to worry about than that decrepit geezer. But one paragraph in the article really pisses me off:


I found his comments about the Rutgers team insensitive but only slightly off-sides. Imus commented that the girls team was a little mannish and rough-looking (real talk). These observations were not altogether shocking or fresh; black commentators have said similar things about other female basketball players for years. And even though his jibe was consistent with his other shtick designed to rile sensitive ears, Imus should not have called those young women names—they didn't have a knock coming.

What a fucking asshole.

Imus merely called those women names. "Nappy headed ho" is a schoolyard taunt on a par with "poopyhead" or "boogerface." Bullshit. The words Imus used are racially charged, and I suspect that, if Imus had called the author of this piece, Jimi Izrael, a racial epithet more commonly reserved for black men, Mr. Izrael would be considerably more pissed off.

But bitches ain't shit, or at least black women aren't, and Mr. Izrael doesn't see anything wrong with calling black women either nappy headed or hos.

Don't mind the fact that Imus started off saying those women looked mannish and rough looking (as if that's an insult female athletes haven't heard before). According to Mr. Izrael, calling a woman a "ho" is merely an extension of insulting her appearance, an appearance noted for being unfeminine. Just don't mind the fact that whores aren't terribly renowned for looking mannish. Let's just pretend that "ho" isn't a common term hurled at black women, by black men and white men alike. And let's pretend that Mr. Izrael isn't conveniently ignoring the misogyny and racism implied in that epithet. Since a number of black men have no problem throwing that word in black women's faces, it's only fair that a white man should be able to say it without consequences. Kind of like how, since some black men call each other a certain taboo word, it's perfectly acceptable for white people to call them that.

I have to conclude with that tasty morsel: They didn't have a knock coming. In that case, it is perfectly acceptable to denigrate black women with racially charged and sexist epithets... so long as they deserve it.