Well, now that they've beat the racist horse to death they move on to sexism now.  Now, i'm not a fan of CNN and I have to admit that I don't watch the news network unless there just isn't anything on ABC, NBC or FOX, but I do check out the commentaries they include on their website.

Now, Roland Martin isn't a bad columnist and, although I disagree with him sometimes, he doesn't make me want to poke myself in the eye from reading pure idiocy like the other crap that come from his fellow columnists, but this time he just crossed that line.

No one would have thought that when Rosa Parks opted not to give up her seat to a white man in 1956, a dozen years later blacks would have the full right to vote, the ability to eat in hotels and restaurants and see Jim Crow destroyed.

First paragraph we have to take a time trip back 51 years to the civil rights movement? This incident was HARDLY worthy of bringing up Rosa Parks, but Roland decided that the entirely irrelevant history lesson was...well...relevant.

 O_o....

Really? What is acceptable? Gee, I figured that this was America and free speech was allowed. Yes, even discriminatory speech is allowed and thats just the way it is. Look at Rosie O'Donnell, she has taken her airtime on The View to spread conspriatory and idiotic statements about the Bush Administration and, just recently, The British Government.

Sure, it makes her look like a moron and alot of people were outraged and upset that someone would say something like that, but she has the right to make an idiot of herself. The ratings will take care of the problem.....the viewers will tune out when they get tired of hearing it and thats what should have happened to Imus. Sure, the comment was stupid but to have him lynched and dragged out of his job like he was....it was just plain wrong.

Now, back to the topic at hand. Roland Martin has stated in his article that this was more of a sexist remark more than a racist issue. Even going as far to say that he, personally, felt that it being a racist issue wasn't the primary issue.

I bet.

However, he takes the time to comment on certain women who had risen through their lives and made something of themselves. Hillary and Condi were mentioned and he did give an objective viewpoint of each, but then he started on the Rutgers team and how this comment robbed them of their success story. Really? First time I had ever HEARD of Rutgers was when this whole thing hit the news.

For the record: They still lost to Tennessee, and that technically doesn't make it a success story, but im all about logistics so whatever.

It's been an opportunist circus from the beginning and Roland has just taken the time to switch the gears from one topic to another. The racist thing is getting old so he needs to drudge up a new charge against Imus. Sexism won out. BUT! what about all those sexist remarks found in hip-hop music and in the black culture today? Well, Roland put me in my place rather quickly.

America, we have a problem with sexism. Don't try to make this whole matter about the ridiculous rants made by rappers. I deplore what's in a lot of their music and videos, but hip-hop is only 30 years old. So you mean to tell me that sexism in America only started in 1977?

Really? I'm sure you deplore their music. That's why your writing a column bashing Imus and how HE was a racist instead of turning your eyes upon your own culture and focusing there. I'm not really calling you a hypocrite, but whatever.

To answer his question: No. Sexism existed long before America even came in to creation. Sexism existed before the birth of Christ, but now were supposed to be surprised by it? Does it make it less offensive that it's been around forever? No, not at all but to act surprised or shocked that Sexism exists today is naive.

He goes on to claim that sexism reaches in to the very depths of our society and in our churches, mosques, synagouges, schools, and fortune 500 companies. Yeah, thats because certain faiths have certain creeds and guess what! Many women don't care these days. The ones that do are so soft skinned and hysterical that they many of them fail at making the most simple of decisions. The women who are truly strong and take life head on have achieved far greater things in their lives than their offended sisters in womanhood. they didn't let things get them down or bother them, they rose above it and achieved greater heights. They didn't use their sex as a crutch to vault forwards on....they threw it away and carve their own niche in to history.

Roland needs to get that through his head. Women can achieve whatever they wish to achieve. They just need to quit fighting men because it isn't man who has placed the glass ceiling above their heads. They did it to themselves.

Redefine it? That's a dangerous, slippery slope my friend. Once you start picking and choosing what can or cannot be said you head down that road to censorship and the next thing you have is governmental oversight upon speech or expression. Then the 1st amendment will be practically useless and America will have lost one more freedom.

Posted by: NthPower at 03:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1035 words, total size 6 kb.