Sexism vs Racism

[KennedyGuy]

http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2008/01/palefoot-front.html
by Molly Ivors

snip
Steinem notes that generally, in the race for equity, black men have clocked in ahead of women: "the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter)." Which is not to say that it's an Oppression Race, just to note that American history does have precedent in this arena. Why?

The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.

As far as I know, no one has yet shown up at an Obama rally with a sign that says "Eat Watermelon," although a parallel event did happen at a Clinton rally yesterday.

Think about this: were someone to do something equally offensive at an Obama rally, the public outcry would be deafening. And it should be. But the public outcry from the left should be deafening, too, and I'm seeing a whole lot more about the authenticity of tears than the patently offensive nature of the attacks on Senator Clinton. But the silence is deafening, isn't it?
snip

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. That's Fucked Up

SALEM, N.H. -- In an unprecedented display on the campaign trail, two young men interrupted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton here on Monday night, screaming: "Iron my shirt! Iron my shirt!"

[Anouka]

8. That event was so planted, why bother buying it?

It was meant to give Hillary Clinton a one liner sound bite. But it makes no sense whatsoever.

Who's buying what she's selling? Why?

People who feel the 'iron my shirt' pull aren't going to bother attending a Hillary Clinton rally with cardboard signs, so haphazardly. They're going to be (older?) men who take their caucusing seriously enough to pay attention to the candidates of their choice and make sure that they win in New Hampshire.

They are going to be organized.

They are going to be a lot more of them than just the kids who ran the stage.

And they are going to be focused on something a lot more substantial than 'iron my shirt'. Who cares about that? how about holding up signs about abortion and/or gay marriage?

That Hillary Clinton took this seriously, and expects us to take this seriously, is appalling. It makes me think of the strange situation with the 'hostages' and the 'fake terrorist' saying he targetted Hillary because he liked her health plan ad!

It's bullshit.

Don't buy what Hillary Clinton is selling.

She is BAD for the nation.

She makes BAD choices when she feels threatened.

She blames other people for her own decisions.

She is NOT presidential.

She is scheming. She is cynical. She is not above theatrics to pretend to what Obama draws organically. She is not above theft, as we've seen with how she's stolen from both Obama *and* Edwards.

She should not be the Democrat nominee for 2008.

And for her supporters, please wake up. You are not going to get what you want from her anymore than you're going to get a Bush impeachment from Pelosi.

WAKE UP.

[Bitwit1234]

2. Becasue the Obama supporters use the bash Hillary meme

to try to drag her down, they approve of sexism. But you are 100% correct, suppose people followed Obama around, bashed him, called him racial names used his race to try to promote another candidate, what in the heck do you think would happen. BUT

This is happening to Hillary and all they do is laugh and giggle and yeah yeah, because it is sexism and it helps their candidate. The MSM doesn't even tell any thing negative about Obama and what there is would fill a book, because they think they will be accused of racism. Just look at the free pass he is getting. This country is going to more messed up than ever with Obama's run. Just wait and see.

[KennedyGuy]

3. exactly my point..

[pipoman]

4. I think a Presidential Candidate's skin should be thicker

than to give a shit about such things. I don't think that the media should dwell on blatant racism or sexism beyond reporting on it which they did. I'm not so sure they would report on the other example she used because of the level of offensiveness. Frankly I think to compare this to racism in the context she did is almost as bad as holding the BHO sign she made up, she could have as easily made an argument without using that example....maybe it is a window into her belief, is that what she thinks of when she sees Obama?

[unpossibles]

5. sadly, I agree

I've noticed that sexism - and homophobia, which is a bastard child of sexism in many ways* - far exceeds racism, even to the point where people don't notice it. Hell, sometimes I've accidentally not noticed some of the more subtle instances, and I try to be aware of this kind of thing for a variety of reasons.

Sadly, I think it is because sexism exists throughout most cultures, even those who are oppressed or hated themselves. I won't repeat it, but John Lennon had an interesting take on this, and sadly it seems to be true. To compound the issue, I've noticed more and more women who seem to hold anti-feminist views, which I generally blame on a variety of responses to how the media and culture react toward feminist beliefs. Much of it is backlash, but this backlash is propped up and exploited over and over.

Again, it's sad that so many will even deny that sexism exists, and try to make ridiculous statements about how "they need to lighten up" or whatever, in an attempt to reduce the seriousness of the problem, and to deny their own part in it. Personally, I feel horrible when I find myself falling into this trap, and generally try to be aware and make positive changes where necessary - like catching myself saying "so-and-so doesn't have the balls to____" or whatever. Sure, some will say it's just language or that it's harmless, but is it? I don't think so. Our language and our actions define who we are, and I completely understand the desire to not allow oneself to be defined by others' negative language and actions.

Like most "-isms" often the problem lies with over-generalization. Say someone has one (or even 50) bad experiences with people who are in Group A (whatever that group is), they then incorrectly ascribe their personal problem to the greater group. While I will agree that this happens to every group - even men, which I have personally encountered - the obvious power discrepancies are what make it more of a problem. In other words, I do feel that women can be sexist (or blacks racist, or any other human trait applied to any human), the fact that women still do not have equality changes the dynamic.


* The reason I lump homophobia in with sexism is because using a slur against gays is often an attack on perceived gender roles. In other words, to make fun of a gay man, one generally would make disparaging comments on their masculinity (which would be more ironic if not so prevalent), and sometimes directly borrows language from sexist slurs. For lesbians, it is often a similar idea, but one which our culture is somehow simultaneously more accepting of, yet also more distrusting. Straight men are often fascinated with the fantasy aspects while being afraid of the idea that they are not needed. But regardless, the slurs often revolve around the perception of gender: gay men are "sissies" or worse, gay women are "bullish" or some other "manly" adjective.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. John Lennon had an interesting take on this, and sadly it seems to be true

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5lMxWWK218

[Anouka]

7. I am sick and tired of the racism in (white) feminism. Stop feeding it.

"Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women"

My mind is blown.

What is this expectation of jealousy that always pervade any mention of this subject, in this manner? as in 'how dare!'

White women have benefited the most from affirmative action. White women have made the most gains in earning power, where white men have remained static, and black men have actually FALLEN.

What is this continued fear of the black man and anger towards the black man that people who write the above sentence are trying to exploit?

Why must 'women', still, be shorthand for 'white women'?

At what point will feminism deal with its history of racism towards non-white men......... and non-white women?

The feminist struggle, too often, has seemed less about equality and more about white women being bitter at not enjoying the full privileges of what it means to be white. 'How dare!' those black (men) receive the vote before white (women).

And black women have swallowed it up, bit their tongues, even as the bitter reality of what was really going on burned. Ask World War 2's black FEMALE pilots about the betrayals of the (white) feminist movement.

'Woman' never includes the struggles of women of color, precisely because of how female writers insist on framing the vote as 'blacks' before 'women'.

As if blacks (of both sexes) earned something which was not their to have, before (white) women. As if to be black is to be the Frightening Other Man, the Competing Other Man; as if to be woman can never include being non-white.

Strip away the bitterness to what lays at its core.

Instead of this bitterness and half-cloaked yearning for the fruits of full white privilige, I'd love to see feminism represent the black struggle as INSPIRING to feminism. I'd giggle at that type of revisionism, because in spite of it not being true for too many in the past, it can be true to the present and for the future.