Barack Obama, in his endeavor to acquire the politically unrepresented votes of women (52%), has taken on the “war on women.” If we vote for him, he promises to give us our rights to our own bodies, which politicians assume a right to determine through the appropriation of their powerful positions in the government. So Obama is placing himself before us as a savior, our champion, the one male figure who is concerned with our rights, our voices, and our bodies. He cares about women being unfairly and inequitably represented in the workforce, and he positions himself behind the Paycheck Fairness Act. The war on women is a battle he promises to win for us if we cast our vote in his camp.
So if he’s all for us, the women, why would he go on an interview with anyone called “Pimp,” let alone “Pimp with a Limp?” How are we supposed to lean on him, his power, his promises when he gets colloquial and sheepish with DJ Laz, who calls himself “pimp?” How does the President of the United States, a country I love, a country that has given me opportunities and freedoms I would have never encountered in my birthplace because of my station and my gender, have a serious discussion with someone who thinks it’s cool and urban and stylish to call himself “pimp?”
How do I believe his rhetoric, vote for him without any reservations when he assures me that he is looking out for my interests as a woman and then turn around and shoot the breeze about sports and Miami Dolphins jerseys and Pit Bull and Flo Rida with a guy who calls himself a pimp with pride? And why isn’t anyone in the media writing about this? The President and the Pimp!
Why does Barack Obama feel “humbled” to interview with a man who calls himself “Pimp,” advocating not only a culture of music centered on female objectification, but also a culture that applauds men’s identification with pimps, the lowest forms of humanity. Women’s rights and pimps are completely and resolutely polarized issues, and President Obama needs to choose whose vote is more beneficial to his political objectives, because he cannot have both.
If he wants the 52% vote that constitutes women’s lives and voices then he needs to stand up for all of us and on all the issues that attempt to derail our efforts at living lives free of control, exploitation, and abuse. He needs to be a better example to men and to our daughters, his daughters, by showing inimitable disapproval at anyone who would attempt to exploit and belittle women and their experiences by calling himself a pimp.