Register Now!

On the Subject of Being "Pimped Out"

Posted by Emily Farris

 

OK, not so much the subject itself, but the semantics of the phrase.

Last Thursday, MNSBC anchor David Shuster said on the air, “Doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” after she was recruited to make calls for her mother's campaign. Now the Clinton camp is throwing a huge fit and may pull out of an MSNBC debate scheduled for later this month.

On one hand, if we ("we" being everyone under the age of 30) didn't use "pimped out" to describe many things (cars, apartments, internships), then maybe it would be a bigger deal. It's not like Shuster was implying that the Clintons were sending Chelsea out to have sex in exchange for votes. In fact, we don't think we would have given it a second thought had we been watching the broadcast.

But on the other hand, as Tina Fey (Ms. Norbury) so famously said in Mean Girls, "You all have got to stop calling each other sluts and whores. It just makes it okay for guys to call you sluts and whores."

We're not in any way saying Chelsea brought this upon herself; it's highly possible she's never uttered that phrase in her life. But we (women, including Scanner Emily who has used "pimped out" to describe something as benign as Rice Krispies Treats) throw it around like it's no big deal. Like many words and phrases, it's lost its meaning. "Whoring" would have been much more offensive, we think.

Scanner verdict: While Shuster shouldn't have said what he did, the Clinton campaign is making way too big a deal out of it (identity politics, anyone?). And maybe that makes us bad feminists.

[Previously on Scanner: MSNBC: Chelsea Clinton Being "Pimped Out"


+ DIGG + DEL.ICIO.US + REDDIT

Comments

LydiaSarah said:

I'm a feminist too and I don't think it makes you bad feminists at all. The meaning of the word has changed--which I know is also what people say when they defend calling things "gay", but, in this case the meaning of the word has ACTUALLY changed. lol. I don't think it has a sexual connotation at all in its current usage. Although, to be fair, Hillary is a different generation. But if she should be pissed off about anything, it's that it's silly to say anything negative about Chelsea's involvement in her campaign, however it's expressed. I see nothing about somebody making calls for her mother's campaign that warrants any kind of derision on the part of the media.

  Still, what I actually suspect is that she's trying to play the female victim card again, hoping it will scare up some more votes, the way her public cry in New Hampshire did. But maybe that's just me...

February 11, 2008 9:15 PM

Keith said:

Three things:

1. The MSNBC guy doesn't know the vernacular well - if that was even what he intended... Chelsea is "pimping"/promoting her mother's candidacy; not being "pimped out"/ostentaciously decorated by her mother...

2. Most candidates' kids hit the campaign trail in support of their parents. Two exceptions: Guliani's (they hate their stepmom) and Obama's (they're too young) - although one of Guiliani's is backing Obama. No one said that about Huckabee's daughter or Romney's boys....

3. But then again Chelsea's on-campus breakfast with 21-year old Wisconsin superdelegate Jason Rae was dubbed a "date" or "wooing" by some media. But Rae isn't endorsing, so I guess she didn't do anything "extra" as Shuster implied...

February 18, 2008 4:27 AM

About Emily Farris

Emily Farris writes about culture and food for numerous publications and websites you've probably never heard of, including her own blog eefers. Her first cookbook, "Casserole Crazy: Hot Stuff for Your Oven" was published in 2008. Emily recently escaped New York and now lives in a ridiculously large apartment in Kansas City, MO with her cat, but just one... so far.

in