Addendum:

Outrage against misogynists rappers or Imus is fully appropriate. But a word like "'respect" starts that conversation without alienating those who don't already agree with you.

Challenging "the most sacred dogma of them all" happens every day in university classrooms around the world. Starting conversations that change the world is much tougher.

Tom Garvey

Lexington, MA

Yes, much of that is true. You missed my point. Imus deserves to be called the worst names you can think of, and he should have been fired long ago. But how do you influence people who haven't thought much about patriarchy? How do you address the bigotry of people who themselves feel beaten down without making them feel like you are doing some of the beating? Respect is not etiquette. It is regard for others as fellow human beings--the basis of progressive politics.

Tom Garvey, MD, JD

Lexington, MA

"Honestly, figuring all this out is a lot harder than it looks." Of course it is when euphemisms casually distort reality. Words are powerful in that they shape the perceptions that define our reality. Language used regarding the status of women and girls universally rests on the assumption that they are not human beings and, thus, not deserving of basic rights.

First, bigotry against women and girls, no matter how extreme of violent, is "disrespect," confusing intolerance and hate with mere rudeness. Brutal injustice is degraded to an etiquette snafu, trivializing all related hate crimes: beatings, rapes, trafficking, killings.

Second, slurs (bitch, ho, etc.) are used as common "foul language," allowing the power of slurs to dehumanize and demonize a group, justifications necessary for violent oppression to succeed en masse ("bitch" is indeed a slur, as femaleness is the trigger and, thus, the target of vitriol).

Third, "freedom of speech" smears dissenters as censors for exercising their freedom to disagree with a point of view (as artistic expression is), since only the government can censor. Legal allowance must not be mistaken with public complicity, legitimization.

Lastly, "sexually explicit" warps violent extremism as sexually instinctive, ignoring the fact that violence is (overwhelmingly) learned behavior and undermines the definition of natural. Also ignored: Sex can sell anything, including hate; bigotry is enflamed--not replaced--by the power of sex, a force that defines our very identity. The potency of such a power proves invaluable to the validation and, thus, spread of extremism. Consider: Islamic fundamentalists exploit religion to embolden anti-Semitism, dismissing critics as anti-God; patriarchal apologists exploit sexuality to embolden misogyny, dismissing critics as anti-sex.

"Political correctness" is the appeasement to cultural sensitivies at the expense of objectivity, truth (think: Galileo). Bigotry, mere opinion, is not fact. True appeasement is when we refuse to directly challenge our cultural extremism that dictates the fact of female humanity to be blasphemous. The difficultly lies not in seeing the issues clearly but in daring to challenge the most sacred dogma of them all.

Jack Bergstrom

Seattle, WA

There is a concept that summarizes my solution to Eric Alterman's conundrum--respect. The rules are simple. Treat people as individuals, and don't trash-talk those who do not deserve it. There is plenty more to say about the politics of speech, but I think the starting point is that what Imus said and what some misogynist rappers have said is disrespectful.

In that spirit, remember that we are all flawed and our language may be clumsy. Eric Alterman clearly meant upper-middle-class white liberals when he said "liberals." It's fair to point out the problems that come with such imprecision, but it's disrespectful and rude to imply that it makes him racist or classist.

Tom Garvey, MD, JD

Lexington, MA

Alterman's "Liberals" all white?

In his article 'The Post-Imus Conundrum,' writer Eric Alterman writes:

Liberals prefer to ignore this comparison, insisting that there is something authentic and artistic about hate speech coming out of the mouths of millionaire black men as compared with millionaire white men. I disagree.

Well, so do alot of people who may consider themselves "liberal" or "progressive." And guess what? Many of them are within Hip Hop. From the documentary "Beyond Beats & Rhymes" by Byron Hurt, to artists like Dead Prez, The Coup, Common and The Roots, to the Turn Off Channel Zero! campaign or Afrika Bambatta's Media Justice Movement--there are many examples of Hip Hop progressives regularly questioning the sexism of media-termed "gangsta rap." There have been campaigns to force radio stations to play a diversity of Hip Hop music or to relegate adult themed music to later hours. There have been numerous calls for not merely a change by millionaire artists (who are far and few between), but more importantly a change by a multi-billionaire record industry that pushes "gangsta" rap as the "Hip Hop norm" in the very same way Rupert Murdoch's FOX News pushed mainstream media news outlets steadily towards right-wing, sensationalist journalism driven by race-baiting, sex and fear. There have been conferences, summits and transnational mobilizations--like the famous Black August. This has been ongoing within the Hip Hop community at least since the 1980s. Artists like KRS-ONE in his song "My Philosophy" were talking clearly and concisely about the issue since 1987. Even the much maligned progressive-minded Rev. Al Sharpton has a long history of involvement.

But all of these cries from within Hip Hop for change have gone ignored by the music industry, and in turn much of the media. And I suppose, according to Alterman, if you're not a white liberal member of the pundit class--even the alternative one offered by The Nation--you're not really speaking after all.

Joey Gabriel
Fairness 4 Hip-Hop

Brooklyn, NY