« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Not All Sexism Is Equal
I will start with a disclaimer: I am a white male.
I watched a video today about the sexism that Hillary is facing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke64670GkZ8&watch_response), and was disappointed at the broad (pun actually not intended at all) brush that was used, and is being used by many of those crying foul on the sexism issue.
The spectre of sexism is getting a lot of attention in this primary. Obama is sexist! His supporters are sexist! The media is sexist! Generally, the rebuttals I see can be distilled to, "Oh yeah? Well, Hillary and her supporters are racist!" This is not a fulfilling answer to the issue.
Granted, there are real, genuine, bigoted sexists out there. I know, as do you, that there are people who WILL NOT vote for a woman, simply because she is a woman. I have no tolerance or respect for these people; these folks have a problem, and are a problem, and we'd be better off freezing them in carbonite.
What distresses me is that there are plenty of people who don't like Hillary because of her record, or because of her tactics, reardless of her gender, and they are being painted with the same brush as those who are genunie mysogynists.
1) People who don't like Hillary, and choose to display their distaste in sexist terms.
Hillary lost me when she voted to go to war. Her credibility was dashed. She lost me more when she chose to stay in the race when it became evident that she couldn't win without changing the rules. She is a sore loser, and is willing to destroy the party out of bitterness, rather than exit with class. These behaviors would turn me off of ANY candidate, male OR female.
A lot of people agree with me on this one. We have lost respect for her because of what she has done, regardless of her gender.
So people attack. And the weapon that many people are using, in this case, is the word "bitch." Some are calling her shrill, some are making reference to tratitionally (but not necessarily accurate) "female" characteristics, such as monthly instability or her pant suits.
I don't like it, and I don't approve. But the fact is, many people out there turn to the nearest, most convenient weapon they have in order to demonize the opponent, and in this case, that weapon is sexist language and imagery.
This is sexism not in its purest form, but in its laziest form (at least the real sexists have the balls to stand up for a prejudice they truly believe in). It's dispicable, but it's a behavior displayed as a reaction to hating Hillary. It's hating the candidate brings out a more latent or passive sexism, not being sexist that makes them hate the candidate. It's not an excuse for acting like a total jerk, but I think that it's untoward to suggest that everyone that displays sexist attitudes towards Hillary opposes her because of that sexism.
I don't like Bush. I think he is a dick. The word "dick" is certainly not gender neutral. Does the fact that I call him a dick suggest that I am sexist against men? Of course not. Granted, if anyone could make me hate men simply by being a man, it would be Bush. Despite the many opportunities I've offered, no one has yet accused me of sexism for saying that Bushy-Boo is a dick.
2. People who don't like Hillary, and are branded as sexist simply for their opposition to her.
This one is what really chaps my hide. Those who can't stand Hillary, and are intelligent and classy enough not to start slinging epithets are STILL being branded as sexist. In other words, when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Some examples:
- Obama made a motion to indicate that he was brushing criticism off his shoulder, and Geraldine Ferraro said that it was sexist, because it belittled Hillary. Seriously? If he were brushing off the criticisms of McCain, would he be a racist? Ageist? Slimebagist?
- Obama said, "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically, when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal." His use of the word "periodically" with the phrase of "feeling down," has been called a reference to her menstrual cycle. This is quite a stretch, methinks. If you look hard enough, you can find anything.
How about Olbermann's comment about someone taking her into a room, and only he comes out. Is he advocating violence against women? I think he was more likely referring to violence against someone who is harming the greater good out of stubbornness and personal arrogance. I don't condone violence, but it's ridiculous to assume that an allegorical refernce to violence towards someone who happens to be a woman has to necessarily be translated into violence against women as a whole. I'd say he's more guilty of advocating violence against candidates than violence against women. Bobby Kennedy, anyone?
Granted, it's out there. Sexism is alive and well. Look at advertising, pay scales, double standards. We have a long way to go. I believe that if we had a female president, it would go a long way towards decreasing the sexist attitudes in our society. But let's call a spade a spade (will anyone call me out on my obvious racism on that one?). Opposing Hillary does not a sexist make.
Comments (39)
Damn... I thought she said "Obama is so sexy.
Never mind... I'll go back to complaining that there is too much sax and violins on television.
May 29, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will start with a disclaimer: I am a white male.
I watched a video today about the racism that Obama is facing, and was disappointed at the broad brush that was used, and is being used by many of those crying foul on the racism issue.
The spectre of racism is getting a lot of attention in this primary. Hillary is racist! Her supporters are racist! The media is racist! Generally, the rebuttals I see can be distilled to, "Oh yeah? Well, Obama and his supporters are sexist!" This is not a fulfilling answer to the issue.
Granted, there are real, genuine, bigoted racists out there. I know, as do you, that there are people who WILL NOT vote for a black man, simply because he is blak. I have no tolerance or respect for these people; these folks have a problem, and are a problem, and we'd be better off freezing them in carbonite.
What distresses me is that there are plenty of people who don't like Obama because of his record, or because of his tactics, reardless of his race, and they are being painted with the same brush as those who are genunie racists.
May 29, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to get my point exactly.
May 29, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! :)
May 29, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up among racists whites in the south in the 50s and 60s. I am white. Using a cultural reference that only Southerns really understand, I am not, nor could I be, racist because my mother would disown me. This is a very strong motivation.
I now live in the north. Cultural signals of racism abound around here. Geraldine Ferrero and Hillary Clinton exhibit exactly the same cultural signals. They do not "dislike" blacks, they simply assume cultural superiority. They expect blacks to appreciate all the good work that they (northern white racists) do in their behalf. This condescension is of a piece with their upper class noblesse oblige where they don't really respect the poor, either. It is extraordinary they such folks could accuse someone else of elitism.
So, yes, this election has been shot through with racism.
May 29, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Oops, hit "send" too soon...)
I don't see as much "lazy racism" as I see "lazy sexism" however. I guess that the difference, in my mind, is that when I see people being blatantly and publicly racist, I think it generally comes from the heart, whereas I think that a lot of the blatant, public sexism comes from laziness rather than a genuine mysoginism.
I could be wrong, though.
May 29, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that from my time in KY and WV, there are plenty of women office-holders. Perhaps not in the senate so much, but still, women don't have a huge problem getting into office.
However, I did find a number of people who wouldn't vote for a black man, and talking to KY family friends who've been here for generations, it seems that there are counties with a less than 3% population of black people.
May 29, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case you're not being ironic, politicswatch, I'd like to share some numbers with you.
However, women make up 51% of the population in both KY and WV.
KY ranks 47th in percentage of women in the state legislature. That's up from 49th in 2007.
WV ranks 46th, which is down from 45th in 2007.
Total number of women in state legislative leadership positions (all parties) in the U.S.: 55. About 1 per state.
21 states have no women in legislative leadership positions at all. Zero.
Compare all the states here.
But clearly, racism is the much bigger problem in this country.
May 30, 2008 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
So why don't women vote for other women for office? That is the question you have to answer. Women are a majority of virtually every electorate.
May 30, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you?
May 30, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not a white male and I have never seen as much sexism in any campaign as I've seen in Hillary Clinton's. Yup, Hillary has been running a thoroughly sexist campaign with the underlying message that she deserves to win because she'd be the first woman president.
Imagine that: "Vote for me because I'm a woman."
Now, imagine any male in this day getting away with this message: "Vote for me because I'm a man." He'd be strung up by his balls.
When Hillary wants to paint with a broader brush, her message is, "Vote for me because I'm a woman and I'm white." Nice, huh?
We've been subjected to coded racist messages in GOP campaigns all along but, not since the segregationist era have we seen such a blatant appeal to the racial biases of America -- and never in memory from a Democrat.
If I see one more whine about Hillary wounded by sexism, I'll puke. We all have to deal with jerks sometimes, but Hillary Clinton has been mostly treated respectfully in the media (see the study by the Pew Center that proves this, despite the pouting of Clinton and her backers, here: http://www.journalism.org/node/11266) occasional sneering by members of the order of jerkdom, notwithstanding.
As Clinton herself said, when Obama complained about media bias during the last debate, "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
If Hillary Clinton were so badly maligned, she would never have been the frontrunner. She lost that status all by herself, and I can't wait to see the back of her.
May 29, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the media was so respectful that they invited the founder of Citizens United Not Timid onto their television programs. Why don't you view that video linked to in the original post and then tell me how respectfully she was treated?
As to the original post. Yes, people can oppose Clinton for non-sexist reasons. Many do.
However, I disagree with you giving a pass to those who oppose her for non-sexist reasons but express their opposition with sexist rhetoric. I do this for several reasons. Foremost, why should I trust that their real reason is the stated one when they express their opposition with words like bitch?
Their use of that word harms not just Clinton but all women. It is a message saying that women need to comply. No one has used a comparable word to go after Obama without severe denunciation as a racist.
Anyone using the term loses all credibility with me. I have no reason to believe their argument that they are not being sexist nor any reason to trust them. Why? Because they think it's okay to cause harm to every woman just so they can express themselves. They place their convenience and their prejudices above the welfare of every woman on the planet. That goes double for those who go even farther with references to castrating, etc.
If people cannot make an argument without using language that harms all women, I don't care what they think or what they have to say. They have thrown away their right to respect.
You see, I honestly do not believe people who say they oppose her for x, y and z and then use sexist langauge and try to claim it's not sexist.
May 29, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm willing to cut people some slack on this, though I try to get them to stop. Why?
Well, starting this past January I started going to a student group run by my friend Jesse which discusses men and feminism. We talked about sexual stereotypes, how women's studies classes often teach ladies to see sexism behind every corner and confront it angrily, how we can recognize and overcome what vestigial societal sexism we might have stuck in our heads and speech patterns. Now, from doing all that discussing, I have come to realize that the Hillary campaign and sexism-screamers are going about it wrong. Whereas Barack has been running as a candidate and gave a speech dispelling racism and putting it to rest as best he could, Hillary has been using sexism when it suits her and complaining when it doesn't. She didn't come out and speak about it. I never heard anyone try to challenge societal stereotypes. I just hear "saying shrillary is sexist, wah, I hate you."
If Hillary was the nominee, I would love to spend some of my time fighting what sexism she might face, but at the same time, I can only do so much if the candidate won't address it head on, especially if Hillary also has positioned herself as more masculine than Obama in several cases. She didn't challenge sexism, she gave in to the sexists, played by their rules, and the sexists didn't let her win and gained the knowledge that they can get her to do what they want.
May 29, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see, you are enlightened about sexism from attending a discussion group that talks about how women's studies encourages LADIES!!! to see sexism. The mind boggles.
Is this a men's liberation group? Some discussion group about how to protect the patriarchy. Is it organized by the campus republicans? I know they organize lots of anti-feminist groups. Democrats aren't known for active organizing against feminism, but who knows? Obama's supporters certainly bring a whole new dynamic into the party - something they often brag about. Is this an example of it?
May 30, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that there are a fair number of women who use the b word too. Sometimes impolitely and sometimes proudly. I have an acquaintance who drives a sharp little pick up truck with a bumper sticker that says, "I'm not a b****, I'm the b****, and that's Ms. B**** to you!" She also shoes her own horses and makes her own hay and laughs a lot. People seem to like her.
May 29, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
p.s., I should have added that folks treat my friend with respect 'cause they know she'll smack 'em with the hoof trimmers if they don't!
May 29, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes and some African Americans use the racist anti-black epithet among themselves. I don't see white people using that as an excuse to use it too.
May 30, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some whites have tried:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQGklw7hyK0
Not necessarily successfully, though, but I have to take his argument seriously. We live in a world of double standards, for better or for worse.
May 30, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, I didn't give anyone a pass. I said pretty directly that I find lazy sexism pretty dispicable. In fact, I think it's worse than direct sexism, because (work with me on this one) at least the real sexists are standing up for their genuine, heartfelt prejudice. I don't suggest that anyone give either type of person a "pass."
However, you and I would be hard pressed to separate out those who hate her because she's a woman, and those who hate her for other reasons, and then get all sexist as a result. I'm merely saying that we have to acknowledge that people do fall into both categories, and that it's incorrect to suggest that every individual who opposes Clinton does so because of sexism.
May 30, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that there are people who oppose her for non-sexist reasons: the war, doubts about Whitewater, etc. fear that she is polarizing. Her lack of charm and poor public speaking. I can understand that.
But that explains opposition, not hatred. Rational opposition is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the obsessed, foaming-at-the-mouth haters. You know them. They overflow here. Sometimes they try so hard to sound rational, but their hatred won't let them and the ugliness begins to spew.
I would argue that those who foam at the mouth about Obama and obsess on the Jeremiah Wright issue are also not motivated by ideological and political opposition but by racism.
There's a vast difference from the sort of political opposition we normally see and the over-the-top rabid stuff that this campaign has brought out. Racism inspires obsessive and unhealthy hatred of Obama and sexism inspires obsessive and unhealthy hatred of Clinton. Sadly, sexism is more tolerated and accepted so people are more comfortable sharing their filth with the world.
And the world laughs and giggles. The media, the pundits, and the posters here think sexism is such a giggle.
Anyone with any honesty would admit that sexism is more accepted and tolerated than racism in the mainstream. Anyone with honesty will admit that the level of sexism directed at Clinton and their toleration of it because they oppose her has made sexism more acceptable against all women. Everytime you ignore some cretin calling Clinton a bitch or a whore because you don't like Clinton, you make that more acceptable against all women.
Now when I said you, there, I was not talking about you, the original poster, whom I think is a thoughtful person who is concerned about sexism, but just is willing to excuse it because it's Clinton.
May 30, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could grant every one of your arguments and yet none of them explains why Sen. Clinton has lost this election. We can punish all the sexists out there and extinguish sexist language but that won't explain how the voters made their choices.
She has lost because among all women, young women and black women, and probably a lot of white older women in the West found more to like in Sen. Obama than in Sen. Clinton.
May 30, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oregon activist makes an interesting claim:
"Anyone with any honesty would admit that sexism is more accepted and tolerated than racism in the mainstream."
I agree but you'd be surprised at why. As a progressively minded woman, I hear a great number of so-called "feminist" arguments from acquaintances. I find them sexist. They're still smarting about the boss who groped them 20 years ago, or didn't give them a raise, or the guy who left for a younger woman, or whatever.
And they believe that what some OTHER man or men did to them, way back when, gives them the right to act in a biased fashion against all men, today.
THAT'S sexism. Racism is still with us and still more poisonous and powerful, as you'd notice if you looked at the unequal treatment of whites and non-whites in the justice system or paid attention to the range of coded to blatant messages on the various cable networks.
May 30, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And she's had no trouble taking advantage of the affirmative action of her famous name.
Frankly, that would be okay with me. If then she didn't use sexism as an excuse against any and all legitimate criticisms.
I am 58 years old, a white female and a proud feminist. I've seen women really struggle and make it on their own. Hillary Clinton made her life choice to hitch all of her aspirations through her husband's career. To pretend for an instant that she isn't where she is because she's a Clinton is just one in a long line of intellectually dishonest memes from her campaign.
May 29, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've put your finger on a big difference between how the two candidates are handling issues of racism and sexism.
When complaints come from the Obama side about racism, it's not about the occasional marginal cretins who hurl epithets. The serious complaints are in response to efforts to be divisive and to pigeonhole him as "the black candidate", and therefore not suitable for a wider audience. Witness Bill Clinton's "Jesse Jackson won SC" and Hillary Clinton's hard working white people comments. While many Obama supporters undoubtedly regard the election of an African American to the presidency as a historic achievement, this has never been a talking point from the candidate himself.
Clinton, on the other hand, positively revels in the equally historic achievement of electing a woman president. Clinton constantly emphasizes her gender as a positive reason to vote for her. When she calls out people for sexism, the reason certainly isn't the inherent divisiveness. This makes it all seem much more tactical rather than principled.
May 30, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Peter,
Dick is not the equivalent of bitch just as honky is not the equivalent of the anti-black racist epithet. You ignore the element of power. Men have power in society so any epithet calling them out is less abrasive and offensive than epithets directed against those without power. It's not the phonemes in the racist epithet that make it offensive, it's the power dynamic that it reveals.
You are on the winning side of the two most powerful forms of structural oppression, so perhaps your experience doesn't well suit you to theorize about sexism and how it works.
May 29, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps not, but it's the only perspective I have. I don't think that it disqualifies me from having an opinion, nor does it disqualify me from being able to try to view the world through the glasses of realism.
If only women could theorize about women, and only blacks could theorize about blacks, we would all be very lonely and isolated.
And as infrequent as it's been, I have, in fact, been directly victimized for the following things:
1. Being white - when I was mugged, I was told by my attackers that it was because I was white.
2. Being male - one of my womens' studies professors told me that she was unwilling to review my grade with me, because she was less concerned with one man's grade than she was about thousands of years of female oppression. If I wanted, I could take it up with the dean.
3. Being gay (actually, looking gay, but it still scares the shit out of me whenever I'm threatened) - When I was in Colorado, I was told by a cop, "better cooperate with me, faggot, or i'll throw your little faggot ass in jail."
So no, I'm not in a "marked category," but I have at least had a flavor of it. Does that make me at least a little bit qualified to make observations about race and gender?
May 30, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. That's why I don't call her a bitch. I call her a jackass.
May 29, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that to a Democrat, that should be a compliment. ;)
May 29, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's a fair point. I think I'll switch to butthead.
May 29, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer noodge.
May 30, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also have a bone to pick on all the feed back about saying that Mrs. Clinton is sometimes shrill. I looked it up in the thesaurus right after she called the "impromptu" press conference about "Shame on You, Barack Obama!"
Shrill: syn. penetrating, strident, blatant, noisy,harsh, discordant, acute. See: loud.
Her face got burned into my brain from that clip. I can see her red and rash and apparently furious, vexed, incensed, inflamed, galled, chafed, piqued, riled, boiling, in high dudgeon, and bitter.
As nearly as I can tell after studying the subject, Mrs. Clinton was "shrill" that day. So as a white woman about Hillary's age, I resent the heck out of being called sexist for calling a spade a spade, a rose by any other name . . . well, you get the point.
Also, as has recently been pointed out, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius and Clair McCaskill are all pretty successful women who managed to get elected to the senate and to the governor's mansions of Arizona and Kansas without being overly harsh, without taking on the warrior archetype and without using gender as a fighting tool. Absolutely nobody finds that attractive and I don't see how anyone could think that it would be an impowering argument to use. Yes, there are times when we want to yell, unfair. But it is ever so much more effective to win instead.
May 29, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most overtly sexist comment of this campaign was James Carville's "cohones" comment. The rest of the sexist comment-fare has been less pointed than the racial comment-fare offered by the Clinton campaign. HRC didn't scold James for being crass and rude. I wonder why.
HRC revels in whipping up her "you-go-girl" coalition...proof is the mass "you-go-girl" protest rally scheduled for this weekend.
I'm a "broad" abroad...from this distance I struggle to understand the kinship based on gender. I don't support her for very specific reasons, and none of which have to do with the fact that she's a woman.
May 30, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's so difficult to talk about this because there are so many pitfalls, not the least of which is the Oppression Olympics where people try to argue whether sexism or racism is worse. Totally unproductive. They both suck.
The other problem is Clinton herself. She's not a great standard for representing this issue because she's almost as willing to use sexism as she is to decry it. She has pushed the sexist meme that she is the tougher candidate - testicular fortitude, three cojones, makes opponents look like pansies - all blatantly sexist. She has also never said anything against the sexist attacks that have been made on Obama - the charges of being a wimp and a pansy. She's also never said anything against the attacks on Michelle, which is ironic because she was subject to those same attacks 16 years ago.
That said, there has been some terrible sexism on the campaign trail. But the most egregious examples have mostly come from the right wing. Some has come from media, and some has come from anonymous Internet assholes. Very little has come from Clinton's actual political opponents. But it all has been conflated in the minds of some Hillary supporters, which is why we've got this situation where any criticism is viewed as sexism.
That's the part that pisses me off. I've never been a Clinton supporter. Her vote for the war, her subsequent refusal to admit it was a mistake, and her general hawkish behavior have always guaranteed that she was my last choice, even though I pretty much assumed she would win the nomination and assumed I would vote for her in November.
I was surprised the first time my feminism was questioned by a Clinton supporter. Then I was hurt. And now, it's happened so many times, I'm just alternately pissed off and resigned about it.
It isn't good for feminism, though. On the one hand, it's good to have some of the sexist crap exposed to the light of day so it can shrivel up and die. But on other, Clinton is simply not the best standard bearer we could have on these issues. Too much baggage and too much willingness to cynically both use and decry sexism.
May 30, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh, Carville's comment is worse than "when Hillary walks into a room, men cross their legs"; "she's a castrating bitch" "Citizens United Not Timid", "she's a fucking whore"
I could go on, but the intellectual dishonesty of your comment really doesn't merit it.
May 30, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So are you saying Carville helped or hurt her chances for getting elected?
Where does Bill rate on the feminist scale. Did he help or hurt her get elected?
May 30, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which Obama campaign surrogates said those things? Which mainstream media outlet aired those comments?
If these are comments that came from TPM or other blogs then they are personal views expressed by sexist assholes, not the Obama campaign. There is a difference, certainly btwn James Carville bloviating like that and some blogger hiding behind a moniker. Who is intellectually dishonest here? Me? Right...
Please enlighten me if those comments came from the Obama campaign. I live abroad so don't listen to the nightly news, although I would suspect that any of the things you wrote would make it to the BBC World News.
May 31, 2008 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I reject and renounce Hillary for many things, but first among them is the scrim of sexism she has created in the hope that it will obscure her own mismanagement, behind-the-scenes.
May 30, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do think gender is an important factor fueling some of the Hillary-bashing.
But I also think it would be helpful if people would stop thinking of "sexism" and "racism" as sins that belong to individuals. "He's sexist, and she's racist, but the gal over there is totally innocent."
Instead we should think about the ways that gender and race affect all of our perceptions. All of us see Obama differently because he's black. All of us see Hillary differently because she's a woman. If we could get beyond pulling motes out of other people's eyes, we might be able to have an interesting discussion about the consequences, good and bad.
For instance, HRC has done a fabulous job counteracting any prejudice against women as military leaders. She's perceived as plenty strong. Where she continues to feel the bind of gender is that people have a tendency to see strong women as dangerous monsters. I wasn't impressed with Hillary's campaign; I think it was less honest and more destructive than it could have been. But I also do think that the outrage on the left has been magnified by expectations about gender. Not because "Obama supporters are sexist," but because we live in a world where gender simply still does shape the way people are perceived.
May 30, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Opposing Obama doesn't make me or millions of "bitter, uneducated, gun-clinging voters" racist.
May 30, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment