So, he’s off the air for a huge-ass two weeks. A suspension. Nice. He’ll be in Fiji, if you’re looking (just a guess). The Rutger’s women’s basketball team must be over the bloody moon.

This makes me laugh. How is this supposed to affect him, again? Workplace suspensions only work if the employee is living hand-to-mouth (such is life for most of America), and cannot afford the two weeks of non-pay. I’m supposed to believe that Imus is going to be eating ramen and sweating for the return of his check? Booooogus.

Nappy headed ho’s. Us Black women are nappy headed ho’s. I didn’t know that it was a bad thing to keep natural hair, if you so choose. As Pam notes, natural hair seems to be the mark of the hoooor in much of the mainstream. Think about it…even as far as brunettes are concerned. What is the hair color of a “good girl”, and was is the color of the vixen?

How much longer before women can be terminated for their cosmetic choices? Ooops. Already happened:

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, said Harrah’s Entertainment Inc. could impose appearance standards on its employees, including bartender Darlene Jespersen who was fired in Reno in 2000 for failing to follow a grooming policy for beverage servers.

Among the requirements for female beverage servers was that makeup must be worn, including mascara, blush, lipstick and foundation. Jespersen objected and was given 30 days to apply for another job that did not require makeup. She did not apply and was fired.

In this case, Harrah’s required that the hair of male beverage servers could not extend below the top of the shirt collar and ponytails were prohibited. The company also said fingernails must be clean and trimmed and no colored polish is permitted. Makeup also was forbidden for men. The policy for women, in addition to makeup, was that the hair must be “teased, curled or styled” every day and must be worn down at all times. Women were also required to wear stockings of a nude or natural color, and certain colors of nail polish, with “no exotic nail art or length.” “Although employers are free to adopt different appearance standards for each sex, they may not adopt standards that impose a greater burden on one sex than the other,” Tashima wrote.

Jespersen maintained the makeup requirement imposed a bigger burden on women because cosmetics can cost hundreds of dollars per year and putting on the makeup requires significant time.

The court said there was no evidence in the record to support that contention or that the burdens associated with the makeup requirement were greater than the burdens imposed on male bartenders.

It’s amazing. You know, I have to say that this sort of thinking would never be a problem if men had to pay for this mess on a routine basis. Let me give you some prices here.

• relaxer: $60 done professionally, $10 done at home (risky, if you don’t know what you’re doing). For non-relaxer women, I’ll quote highlight prices ranging from $45 to $175.
• nails: $25 for mani/pedi combo
• makeup: haHA! Good makeup can easily set you back $200. This means foundation, blush, lipstick, shadow, finishing powder, mascara, liners.
• brows and facial waxing: $30
• skincare products: bare minimum, $40 a month.

All of the above are things that a woman should be able to do because they’re fun, not necessary. It shouldn’t be necessary to have straight hair. It shouldn’t be necessary to have perfect kewpie brows. But, somewhere along the way, it became just that.

Being a professional woman and having the right to earn still carries the whiff of indentured servitude, as if we have to pay back the favor of a payday with a healthy dose of sexual appeal. If an employer wants such standards, fine, but furnish an expense account and paid time to get these procedures done. That’s what Cirque did for a friend of mine when she got her highlights done. They paid for her hair. It was part of the costume. Point blank.

What we’re seeing in the Imus incident is a bitter disgust at the free-range woman. Affluent, pampered celebutards like Imus are used to women who do nothing but act as arm candy. He makes me think of Howard Stern in this regard. Stern’s girlfriend, Beth Ostrosky, isn’t a hardhitting journalist or businesswoman. She lives to be blonde and pretty. That’s it. That’s her job, since she’s a model. You can bet, too, that Stern and Imus, in their capacities as prominent public figures, feels that it is their duty to be seen with “the best”.

For many men, “the best” is personified by a woman who doesn’t appear to belong in the ranks of the influence brokers. She should be generic, pleasant, and doll-like. In short, she personifies the fantasy acquisition, seemingly incapable of producing a strong statement of any sort.

There’s nothing wrong with being a hottie who makes her living by being hot. What’s wrong is when people think a woman’s highest and most respectable place is in being nothing but that. A powerful woman will be forgiven much if she’s got long, silky hair, dresses provocatively, and smiles seductively.

Women who dress or appear the fantasy are instantly less threatening than their counterparts who have better things to do with their time. Imus and men of that ilk need to learn that professional ladies are way more interested in making a difference in the world than fulfilling their dick’s latest fantasy. The prevalent mindset that a woman’s best place is in the salon really needs to die a quick death.