"Clearly, in an age when the dangers and indignities of Driving While Black are well-acknowledged, and properly condemned, Striving While Female – if it goes too far and looks too real — is still held to be a crime."
Friday, June 06, 2008
Since you may be too tired to click through
Here is another quote from the piece Darr mentions in the previous post:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I remember hearing the argument before that the reason she's a senator and the reason she was able to run for president is because her husband cheated on her.
Huh?
Like the people of New York are stupid enough to elect and REelect her because they feel sorry for her? Whether you love her or hate her (there doesn't seem to be any middle ground... which I also find very interesting), her accomplishments in the political world seem undeniable.
I have been so pleased to hear several people the past few days acknowledge the fact that when this country finally does get universal health care, her name will be all over it.
I saw this comment and was a bit jaded about the rest of the article because of it. I personally don't equate obstacles to female striving with the harsh realities of driving while black. I don't think they're even in the same ball park, frankly.
Having a glass ceiling to break through is something that exists for everyone (including some white dudes). But the day you go outside of your home and have to deal with the paranoia involved with police harassment is the day you will have to worry about a lot more than your corporate/political promotions.
The fact that anyone could even equate the two is pretty sad.
Not too tired, rather bischen schadenfreude fatigued. I'm desperately tired of watching that creepy grinning dolt walk away with the press while the hangers-on pray that BO and HC do each other one more blow.
I'm praying for a healing and outstanding message of unity on the morrow... anything less is Bubba-esque (the thing I found most objectionable about HC -- the spotlight-absorbing, finger wagging, loudmouth dallying lout).
Would that she had divorced (not necessarily, but it would have helped) herself from the useless galoot). If you ever wondered why I couldn't countenance another freakin' Clinton, he's the exemplar. Were she Hillary Rodham, freebooting woman, my thoughts would not have been so constrained).
Sorry -- I guess I'm still trying to explain my thoughts at this less than salutary time. Feel free to leave this out or add at your discretion.
[And yes, I just gave you the word "salutary" to look up, if that's not already embedded in your vocab]
P.S.: I recently spent time at DA11, a part (building) of Apple that few know exist (no signs, no lobby, just an airlock that'd almost do NSA proud). Very interesting stuff.
I can't speak for the author of the piece but I don't think she's equating the two but comparing the two. Racism, when we see it is recognized and condemned. Sexism, on the other hand, is accepted. And many times to be allowed into the male-dominated club that is patriarchy, women will laugh and turn on their own. At no time during the run for the nomination did the mainstream media comment on Obama's package. But we heard all about Clinton's "castrating" ways. We had the nutcracker gadget. We were inundated with comments about her hair, her dress, her growing older, her cleavage, etc. And yeah, it has a damaging effect to cut a woman down to the sum of these parts.
But that's the thing, Christie: they are apples and oranges. You can't compare the two, unless you're choosing to whine over the situation. Had she compared Racism with Wife Abuse, it would have made more logical sense. But saying Racism and barriers to upward mobility are somehow comparable is just plain ineffective and wrong.
Especially when you consider the fact that there are more female CEOs than black CEOs, more employed white females than black males, more financial stability in white families than black. I think the entire issue is specious and divisive, at best.
Hillary didn't lose because she's a woman. She lost because she's Hillary, and ultimately, she just wasn't that likable when it came down to it. She was out of touch with the youth that propelled Obama to victory.
People can see that as Sexism, if they want to, but call it like it is: an asshole is an asshole, be they female or male, black or white. And Hillary proved her assholery to an extent that discomforted EVERYONE, not just white, sexist males who are living the Patriarchy.
I'm unclear on where that leaves Post-Feminism, though. Maybe now we've entered the era of Proto-Post-Feminism? Where it's an ideal for a woman to be judged by fellow women based on her merit and honor, rather than the simple fact that she lacks an extruded glans? I dunno.
Nancy Pelosi for VP!!!
Incidentally, I don't think the media treated Hillary fairly either. But I'm certain we'll see some hideousness emerge regarding Race in the weeks to come as Obama is forced to weather the storm of racist oppression to prove himself the "castrated house negro" that white folks will feel comfortable voting for. It's already starting, with the so-called videos of his wife (who supposedly hates "whitey").
Oh the fear, egads!
The comparison isn't meant to equate sexism and racism but rather our reactions to sexism and racism.
Racism has been identified as bad and we continue to work on erasing that badness, feeling the appropriate level of abhorrence when we are confronted with it. Sexism is so ingrained in how we treat women that we fail to see it. We fail to give validity to claims of sexism. Why? Because it's just a bunch of women whining?
In a fairly quick search I did find a Forbes article that explains some 50% of African American males go on to start their own company, which could explain why you see less Af. Amer. male CEOs. As late as 1996, there was only one woman CEO of a Fortune 500 company. The numbers are climbing, as of 2007, there were 12, but this only represents 2.4% of the Fortune 500.
Here's a link to a government site that lists out which groups and how many have been recorded as working:
http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Q
f-ESWM05.htm
Sexist remarks made throughout Clinton's run for the nomination played a significant role in determining whether or not she won. Compare that to the mostly positive and respectful tone that was shown to Obama for nearly the entire time. She wasn't likable enough - why might that be? Perhaps because of the media's portrayal of her? She was described as shrill, nagging, castrating, driven (for women this is bad), calculating (ditto on the bad for women), etc. The "assholery" came from the mostly male-dominated media that sought to lessen the importance of her campaign. She was told she couldn't use the claim of experience but held responsible for her husband's decisions. She knew the nation needed health care reform and tried to make that happen. She failed, yes. But when is trying and failing something to be mocked and scorned?
For a woman who spent her entire adult life working to improve circumstances for the less fortunate, forgoing the high-paying attorney job right out of law school to go into public service, Clinton is ABSOLUTELY deserving of our respect, and she has shown herself to be honorable. Is she perfect every waking moment, no. But then no one is.
First off, I disagree with your statements about how society views racism as abhorrent while allowing sexism to simply run on. I think the views on violence have undergone a change, yes. But at the same time, I don't see that the underlying philosophy has changed much. Racism and sexism continue to perpetuate themselves, despite what people say. I suppose what flummoxes me is how we can equate a barrier that often results in incarceration or imprisonment (indeed, violence) with one that simply inconveniences or embarrasses a person. In my eyes, those things are not the same. And while your perception of sexism simply being accepted is one that carries much weight, I just don't see how media blabber and teasing could result in the total dismantling of Hillary's entire womanhood.
Did the Forbes article mention how many black CEOs there are in comparison to white females?
I am confused by the government source you provided. At once, it says there are a higher percentage of Black males working than white women, but it also says there are a higher percentage of black males who are unemployed. Maybe I'm just dense, but I can't wrap my head around how both can be correct.
You said: "Sexist remarks made throughout Clinton's run for the nomination played a significant role in determining whether or not she won."
I don't know about that. Maybe there is a conspiracy among a certain cross section of men to keep women out of power? I really didn't base my opinions about Clinton on whether or not the media liked her or was sexist toward her. In fact, I would have liked her more if I perceived her treatment as unduly negative. I tend to root for the underdog. I didn't like Clinton way back, even before she decided to run. I'm sure you remember our office debates about how I wouldn't vote for Clinton even as far back as 2006? I do concede, however, that the media took sides and showed Obama more respect during the campaign. You can call that sexism, if you want.
Clinton wasn't likable enough in my opinion for several reasons, none of which had anything to do with her womanhood. My dislike of her had more to do with her track record of siding with Republican stances on many occasions (the war just being one instance). She walked the middle road way too often, so it's no surprise she got hit by a truck.
And I never heard anyone say Hillary was shrill, nagging, or castrating. She was certainly portrayed as driven, but that's a good thing. This whole thing is like a Reality TV actor saying they were portrayed wrongly when they themselves took part in much of the negativity which painted them.
For instance, the whole Florida delegate count thing was just underhanded and negative. It made her look desperate and coercive. It did not reflect well on her likability.
I have to say that, yes, the male media was involved in some major "assholery" as well. But the issue of her experience comes to mind as a prime example of how she dismantled her own campaign! She came out saying she had all this experience and Obama was a relative idiot, but when it came down to it, she was not that much more experienced than Obama and her record seemed to indicate she was less effective at her job. I don't see how it's sexist to point that out, and it made her lose a great deal of credibility right out of the gate.
"But when is trying and failing something to be mocked and scorned?" Frequently, in our world. Everyone gets mocked and scorned when they try and fail. That's just the way of the world.
Surely, Hillary got my respect, and not for any of those things you mentioned. She just didn't get my vote. And I consider myself a feminist.
You said: "Clinton is ABSOLUTELY deserving of our respect, and she has shown herself to be honorable." I just don't see where she proved herself honorable in this campaign. She even held on with every fiber of her being, knowing she had already lost, and spiting half the Democratic party in the process. Is that honorable? Nope. Selfishness is never honorable. Desperate pleas for "do-overs" are never honorable. Has she even conceded yet? Oy.
What?
Again with the equating. If you truly feel the effects of sexism on an individual are limited to mere inconveniences and embarrassment, I'm not sure where we can take this conversation. I'm trying but I really can't understand where you are coming from.
How I'm reading your response is this:
Racism = barrier that results in imprisonment (violence)
Sexism = inconvenience or embarrassment
Which seems to fall in line with my assessment that we give much more credence to racism than we do to sexism. Make an off-color comment about a Jew and you're in trouble with pretty much everyone around you. Make an off-color comment about a women, nobody really cares. That's precisely my point.
The government source was a quick find to give us some numbers to work with since you mentioned the differences. If I had more time, I could probably find more information that was less confusing.
As far as male minorities in government go, consider this as one reason why it might be that there are more women than minority men in Congress. By and large, men have similar issues so it is entirely possible that minority men have not felt a great need to go into public service because they felt as if their needs were being met. Women, on the other hand, have had to increase their numbers in government in order to ensure their concerns were raised and addressed. (I'm thinking of breast cancer screenings in my head as I type this.) And this is just one possible theory to explain the lack of minority presence. I'm sure there are many others.
I'll direct you to Gail Collins's op-ed piece in the NY Times called "What Hillary Won" now. She says things I'm thinking far better than I can:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/opinion/07collins.html?em&ex=1213070400&en=a74d63ee7d8a160d&ei=5087%0A
The quote I most appreciate:
"Here’s where the sexism does come in. If Barack had failed in his attempt to make history by becoming the first African-American presidential nominee, you can bet we’d have treated his defeat with the dignity it deserved. Even if he went over the deep end at the finale and found it hard to get around to a graceful concession."
"For all her vaunting ambition, she was never a candidate who ran for president just because it’s the presidency. She thought about winning in terms of the things she could accomplish, and she never forgot the women’s issues she had championed all her life — repair of the social safety net, children’s rights, support for working mothers."
I think you've confused the issue here. I never equated sexism with mere embarrassment. I was saying that while Driving While Black is a racist tool that results in undue incarceration or violence, media mocking females who are obsessed with upward mobility is an entirely different animal, one that usually ends up in mere embarrassment.
Surely, if mocking females resulted in their being incarcerated or abused by police, I would be behind the author's original stance of how Racism and Sexism are equal in this situation. But since that's not the case, I am simply calling bullshit on it.
I hope that clarifies my opinion.
As far as people making off-color comments, I tend to regard those people as ignorant, regardless if they're making comments about women or different ethnicities. And I've heard of plenty of people losing their job for suggesting women aren't on a par with men (for example, the guy who got fired from his university position for stating most women don't have a mind for science), whereas there have been several situations where the same comments about blacks result in a mere hand slap and an acceptance of asinine, bell-curve rambling.
As far as speculation about how Obama's failed candidacy might have been expected to unfold, that's entirely all it is: speculation. Then again, I can understand your position, how it's viewed as a mocking event by most media that she failed, but if Obama failed, it would not be (at least outwardly). It would, however, be a celebration by those racist elements of the country, especially those quiet racists, so many of which inhabit our very own party. In any event, good to have us all on board and fighting for the same goal now.
Post a Comment