home

It's Not A Contest

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:12:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
This condescending dismissal of Marie Cocco's great column on sexism really annoys me. A.Serwer writes:

Like Marie Cocco, I could come up with my own list of Media Matters clips and offensive merchandise that I could use to argue definitively that racism is worse than sexism. But I'm not sure what that would prove, other than that I believe the prejudice I've faced is qualitatively worse than the prejudice I know nothing about.

Is is really impossible to just condemn sexism without comparing it to racism? As for making a list of examples of racism in the Media so that we can address that problem as well, I think that is a very worthy thing to do. I would support it. Serwer's attempt to trivialize Cocco's concerns is frankly, outrageous. When he writes:

I don't understand why for some people the Democratic primary has become a competition over who has it worse.

I think - look in the mirror when asking that question A.Serwer. That is on you. What a terrible, condescending and dismissive post.

Speaking for me only.

< State Of The Race: OR And KY | Does Unifying The Party Involve The Clinton Wing? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    It's Not A Contest | 202 comments (202 topical)
    I read that article this morning (5.00 / 16) (#1)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:16:58 PM EST
    I thought it was like the revelation that the emperor was wearing no clothes.  Sweetie.

    Would the sexism backfire?? (5.00 / 14) (#54)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:49:29 PM EST
    Clinton backer backlash

    An Ohio-based group of Democratic Hillary Clinton supporters say they'll work actively against Sen. Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee, arguing that Clinton has been the subject of "intense sexism" by party leaders and the media.

    [snip]


    "We have been vigilant against expressions of racism, and we are thrilled that the society has advanced that way" in accepting Obama as a serious candidate," Ruccia said. "But it's been open season on women, and we feel we need to stand up and make a statement about that, because it's wrong."

    With growing calls for Clinton to leave the race, she said, women feel like "we're being told to sit down, shut up, and get with the program."



    [ Parent ]
    It's always open season (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:42:10 PM EST
    on women. We've come "a long way" but there are still many miles to go. There is no serious lashing for gender bias.

    Very interesting piece on the news today about a 6' tall, 15 year old female basketball player in Beaverton, OR. She's black, and the reason she can no longer play at "The Hoops" is because she is so good at the game, the opponents they play against refuse to play if she remains on the team. They have kicked her out because she is a female.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Did you notice (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:12:43 PM EST
    at the end of the article, Ben Smith says:

    Oh, and they're doing O'Reilly tonight, of course.

    What is he implying here? that maybe they might be Republicans in disguise? or what?   If he is, I think he's in for a rude awakening, because people who feel this way AREN'T Republicans.  And they VOTE (or don't vote) as the case may be.

    I plan to join (if I can) and donate to the group.

    [ Parent ]

    This part (5.00 / 13) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:17:30 PM EST
    Cocco's approach basically excludes all women of color from the conversation
    suggests that Ms. (Mr.?) Serwer is not that smart. It's a completely illogical reaction. It's the epitome of false outrage.

    At the intersection of racism and sexism, (5.00 / 16) (#23)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:35:32 PM EST
    women of color bear witness to the complexity of both issues. I'm sure Serwer believes the outrage to be real. Instead of using this example as an opportunity to discuss the very real (and unquantifiable) prejudices that exist everywhere in our society, Serwer's illogical outrage simply throws up more barriers, further polarizing a dichotomy of injustices that were never a dichotomy to begin with. He does what he accuses Cocco of.

    Talking about sexism doesn't mean we can't talk about racism. Indeed, detailing one prejudice shouldn't start a game of "one-up-manship," as though one issue places all others into obscurity. If anything, this attack against the original piece on sexism brings out the intellectual prejudices that continue to manifest themselves in this primary season. When Serwer says this:

    But I'm not sure what that would prove, other than that I believe the prejudice I've faced is qualitatively worse than the prejudice I know nothing about.

    the real prejudice comes out. Racist hatred, of which he (?) is a victim, should act as a stepping stone to understanding the sexist hatred another receives. But, in this declaration, he shuts down any empathic opportunities to ruminate on his own misfortune--forgetting the (also) real misfortune of others and passing on an opportunity to build a stronger voice against all prejudices.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, and by intellectual prejudices (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:51:21 PM EST
    I didn't mean the uneducated vs. educated problem we've seen this season.

    Rather, I mean that this person has conceptualized his own victimhood and is holding onto it as a symbol for what constitutes legitimate discrimination. For example, saying something like "You can't know my pain because you're not a [insert disadvantaged group]" is the wrong approach. Not every black person, not every woman, not every queer experiences the same degrees of hatred [and some receive none at all]. Tying the sense of hurt, or tying the experience of an -ism, to a status is neither productive nor accurate, and I suspect (from what this person wrote) that that is where he is coming from. His implied concept of sexism and racism seems more exclusionary than his claims of interdependence would have you believe.

    All -isms stem, fundamentally, from the same source of distrust and hate--no matter their social manifestations. He accuses Cocco of polarizing and barricading sexism in a privileged area, but then he seems to do the same himself.

    In any case, his views on sexism and racism, as they seem in this short paragraph, reveal less about the objective problems of biases and reveal more about his own biases.

    [ Parent ]

    fear too... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:56:45 PM EST
    I've found that distrust and hate are part and parcel of fear.

    [ Parent ]
    Well said. (none / 0) (#201)
    by 0 politico on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:03:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't know the writer, but how blind do you have (5.00 / 16) (#3)
    by bjorn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:18:20 PM EST
    to be to complain about something while doing the thing you are complaining about!

    We Must Live With The Fact That There Are (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:44:59 PM EST
    always going to be those who don't get it, or just plain choose not to get it.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 11) (#4)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:20:16 PM EST
    I really don't like to bring up the Rev. Wright, but his comment about that word that Hillary ain't never been called is kind of emblematic.

    One of the reasons the Democratic coalition is so dysfunctional is that so many of us fail to understand it's not a competition over whose problems are worse.  Not everyone can have their way every time.  Racism and sexism are BOTH serious problems and good Democrats should be focused on fixing BOTH of them - not on bickering over which one of them should be fixed first.

    It is fair to note, as Cocco does, that our collective radar seems to be far more attuned to instances of racism than sexism.  That is not to say that sexism is a bigger problem than racism or that we ought to ignore racism in order to deal with sexism.  It's simply to note a fact that we shouldn't be comfortable with.

    Actually Cocco did NOT make that point (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:22:07 PM EST
    But Serwer exemplifies it.

    [ Parent ]
    No? (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:36:28 PM EST
    Would the silence prevail if Obama's likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they'd compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama's sex organs play?

    That strikes me as a clear argument that we are more sensitive to incidents of racism than sexism.  Which, as I said, is different from arguing that sexism is worse than racism, a debate that benefits no one.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:40:24 PM EST
    I was wrong in that point. That said, I think it was not the main thrust of cocco's argument.

    Indeed, it would have been better has she not included that in her penultimate graf.

    [ Parent ]

    She had to include that in her piece (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by Just another person on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:45:06 PM EST
    to get people's attention. Without a comparison of how things are actually different when you're discussing race, or any other discrimination for that matter, people tend to think you're over-reacting or making a fuss about something that's not there.

    [ Parent ]
    That's right... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:48:28 PM EST
    see my post above.

    It is not possible to speak about sexism without qualifiers or comparisons. It is not accepted that women have any barriers to success in America.

    [ Parent ]

    Contextually it's relevant (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:50:54 PM EST
    in that both are bad and both should be roundly criticised...where in reality, one would trigger outrage while the other goes ignored, unopposed...indeed lauded.

    I don't think that she's using either example as points in a contest re: who is the more oppressed identity group. Whereas the responder appears to be turning this into a "I'm more oppressed than you" thing.

    [ Parent ]

    Add to racism and sexism (none / 0) (#136)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:33:28 PM EST
    xenophobia,
    homophobia,
    religious persecution,
    agism and lookism
    (I am sure I sam not listen them all)

    They are all forms of oppression that create systemic barriers to achieve equal human rights.  Grade them to divide people and we all lose while mainstream society maintain power and control with scatter and ineffective challenges.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 8) (#64)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:52:33 PM EST
    I think a lot of people will not understand what the big deal is unless it is framed in that way.

    When your argument is that our society is unduly comfortable with casual sexism, then the likelihood is that your audience will be comprised of people who are unduly comfortable with casual sexism.

    It's no use to decry Hillary nutcrackers if the reaction is going to be "shrug, what's the big deal."  I'm not sure how to make people understand what the big deal is, other than to draw a comparison to other things that they do consider a big deal.

    [ Parent ]

    Excellent post, Steve (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by kmblue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:40:44 PM EST
    I think people don't get it unless
    a comparative example is drawn.

    [ Parent ]
    Those remarks by Wright (5.00 / 11) (#19)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:31:21 PM EST
    make it impossible to defend him, and I get really, really upset when good liberals try to guilt themselves into doing so.

    Wright's sexism is just as bad as his racism, IMHO.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe there are many entrenched (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:37:03 PM EST
    powers and organizations, gays, minoritys, women, who have a vested interest in promoting the politics of victim hood.
    my victim hood is greater than your victim hood.
    its always been a pet peeve about the gay movement.  what does it gain us?
    my motto has always been, I may be many things but I am nobodys victim.


    [ Parent ]
    That's what was so different... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:20:55 PM EST
    ...about Jesse Jackson's presidential race in 1988; remember the Rainbow Coalition?

    Rather than creating false dichotomies between Democratic sectors (religious vs. secular, gay vs. straight, black vs. white, younger folks vs. older folks, elite vs. working class), Jesse reached out to all of them under one banner.

    Of all the memes shoved down our throats this primary season, the one that purports Obama to be the "unity" candidate is the most outrageous to me.

    [ Parent ]

    This is what women face (5.00 / 21) (#5)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:20:56 PM EST
    when trying to discuss sexism honestly. It is either dismissed, or some braniac tries to claim that some other minority group has it worse.

    Never ever is it okay to just say, women are discriminated against every day in society and we need to do better. The male power structure feels threatened and immediately tries to shut us down.

    As evidence, note the continued failure of the ERA. Note that women are still getting paid less than men for equal work. Note that maternity leave is disappearing and being replaced with "disability" pay, as if motherhood and pregnancy were illnesses. Note that Barack Obama thinks it's all right to call perfect strangers "sweetie" and offer women kisses in return for votes.

    We've got a long way to go, baby.

    You said it but it is too bad (5.00 / 11) (#24)
    by bridget on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:35:41 PM EST
    so many female Obamafanatics showed similar fake outrage.

    Women didn't come together to fight misogyny during this campaign and this bothers me more than I can say. I expected more from a lot of women I used to respect, esp. the older ones. Women like Barbara Ehrenreich. Clinton hate or Obama love, whatever, blinded them. It's sad and embarrassing (for them).

    [ Parent ]

    Barbara is also on (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by bjorn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:40:36 PM EST
    my sh!t list and I told her politely of course why I was so disappointed in her.

    [ Parent ]
    I was so appalled by her support (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:46:54 PM EST
    of Obama (because it was so unthinking) that I made it a big part of one of my posts on Teh Media and Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    What bothered me was that (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by bjorn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:50:12 PM EST
    "Hillary's religion" is a big problem, implying that going to prayer breakfasts on the hill was the same as being part of an evil cabal of white men???!! I thought she was above that kind of crap, so you are right, her support of Obama made her do some really stupid, unthinking things.

    [ Parent ]
    that article revealed serious mental illness (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by fiver2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:56:27 PM EST
    It made no sense.  It was the weirdest screed.  She must be embarrassed about it.  Must be.

    [ Parent ]
    All the more idiotic (5.00 / 10) (#91)
    by tree on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:08:14 PM EST
    after it was revealed that Obama has attended the same prayer breakfasts.

    [ Parent ]
    SERIOUSLY? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:11:33 PM EST
    OMG.

    Don't drink the brown Kool-Aid, Barbara!!!

    [ Parent ]

    Seriously... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by tree on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:14:49 PM EST
    LINK

    [ Parent ]
    thank you so much for this! (none / 0) (#137)
    by bjorn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:34:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You're kidding. (none / 0) (#125)
    by pie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:27:19 PM EST
    I never knew that.  I know my pals at the old blog kept bringing the Ehrenreich article up.  I was like wtf?  Very disappointed in Barbara, too.

    People have suspended disbelief willingly.  Sad.

    [ Parent ]

    Nickel and Dimed (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:52:53 PM EST
    Gee, the people she wrote that book about and made all that money, I guess don't see the world her way.   Makes ya think.  You can put on the outfit for a few days, but if you don't get class consciousness, you just don't get it.  

    [ Parent ]
    Not a zero sum game (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by fiver2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:21:18 PM EST
    Did Maria Cocco make a comparison between sexism and racism in her article?  If so, I missed it.  Why is any recognition that sexism has played a role in this race met immediately with "Well, the racism has been worse!"  Isn't it possible that both have played a role?

    She did not (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:22:37 PM EST
    Serwer is the one who started a contest.

    [ Parent ]
    In fairness, Cocco's penultimate graf says (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:39:26 PM EST
    Would the silence prevail if Obama's likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they'd compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama's sex organs play?

    While that may be a fair point, in thinking on it, it would have been better had Cocco not included that in this piece.

    [ Parent ]

    good point, but .... (none / 0) (#57)
    by fiver2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:50:26 PM EST
    That's fair.  I'd forgotten about that piece of the article.  Nevertheless, her point appears to be that sexism has gone unrecognized.  Not that sexism is worse.  It would even be consistent with her article and she may even agree that racism is more damaging, more poisonous, and has happened more frequently during the campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    That's how I read it (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:08:32 PM EST
    any sign of racism in the campaign is met with lots of noise, sexism? 'crickets'.

    [ Parent ]
    Just this a.m. I was thinking about (4.40 / 5) (#96)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:10:19 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's statement Obama's explanation of his position on war in Iraq and funding the war constituted a "fairy tale."  How in the world is that a racist statement by Clinton?  

    [ Parent ]
    They bought it (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:12:25 PM EST
    hook line and sinker.  Same tactic as the WMDs. I tell you.  They are such dupes.  

    [ Parent ]
    Recently Bush sd. he was quite disappointed (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:22:24 PM EST
    how poor the intelligence was upon which he relied to invade Iraq.  But I thought the intelligence wasn't the problem.  

    [ Parent ]
    It wasn't (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:56:14 PM EST
    The "fairy tale" comment was about judgment and pointing out all the times post-2002 speech against the war where Obama contradicted his anti-war stand.

    It's on YouTube and worth a view.


    [ Parent ]

    Sorry about the first versions (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:21:29 PM EST
    I had messsed up the coding. fixed now I hope.

    BTW, thanks BTD for providing Marie's (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by bjorn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:24:06 PM EST
    column. I thought it was excellent, the strongest point being the deafening silence from our political leaders.

    Well said. (5.00 / 11) (#27)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:36:20 PM EST
    I honestly think women has become much more passionate in support of Hillary both because of overwhelming sexism in media and political 'old boys' culture, and the absence of outrage from the so-called leaders.  

    When a woman called Hillary a B**ch in front of McCain, Party leaders (male AND female) should have raised hell.  Not one person, not Dean, nor Pelosi, nor Obama, nor Edwards, nor any other candidate, nor Boxer, nobody said anything.  Neither did (IIRC) any of the women's group.

    There have been some tepid, academic discussion of sexism.  Meanwhile, women have noticed the floodgates of sexist behavior have opened and aimed at the first viable female presidential candidate.  

    [ Parent ]

    Boxer esp. is a huge disappointment (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by bridget on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:50:32 PM EST
    I still can't get over the fact that Randi Rhodes was able to engage in her nasty Hillary hate rant with impunity. Actually she was proud of it.

    Rush said re Hillary that Americans didn't want to see a woman grow old in the White House (paraphrase)

    and the women pols don't seem to care.

    [ Parent ]

    Depressing, isn't it? (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:12:16 PM EST
    I'm no fool, know it exists and have experienced my fair share, but the last few moths just make me want to scream. The silence is deafening some days . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Depressing, isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:12:46 PM EST
    I'm no fool, know it exists and have experienced my fair share, but the last few moths just make me want to scream. The silence is deafening some days . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, to Randi Rhodes (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:04:31 PM EST
    yet, Michael Richards and Imus took severe public judgments for similar acts only with a racist theme.

    Sadly, women often feed the sexism out of jealousy.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Totally Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Jane in CA on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:22:11 PM EST
    I've been very disappointed in Barbara Boxer. I've supported her since her first senate run in 1992, but I can't see myself voting for her again, given her deafening silence during this campaign.

    The prominent "feminist" women in politics who have remained shamefully silent over the last few months contribute to the problem just as much as the Kennedys and Kerrys, IMO.  

    [ Parent ]

    And the Air America (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:16:03 PM EST
    hosts fell all over themselves to say the pimp comment about Chelsea was just the way people talked today and was no big deal.

    [ Parent ]
    You know what was truly sad? (none / 0) (#153)
    by CLancy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:44:45 PM EST
    Neither did Hillary. She's one of our leaders as well. Unless I missed something along the way. In fact, when directly confronted with sexism on the campaign trail, she usually laughed it off. Does that mean she tacitly approved it also? No, it doesn't. That being said, I don't really like the notion of the (mostly male) party leadership riding in to defend her against sexism. Expecting it also seems a bit, um, sexist.

    This column isn't the first on the rampant sexism and misogyny exhibited during this campaign, nor will it be the last. I'm sure there will eventually be numerous scholarly articles & books on it as well.

    Also, Cocco seemed to be inviting the comparisons to racism (which are problematic and usually infuriatingly tinged with partisan feelings right now). The better of those future scholarly pieces will probably analyze how race AND gender affected the campaign this year.

    [ Parent ]

    Somerby has pointed out that when the pol (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by jawbone on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:19:15 PM EST
    points out unfair treatment, it meand the pol (esp'ly if the pol is a Dem) is a whiner.

    Indeed, when Bill Clinton complained about unfair press coverage, he was attacked by the MCM.

    They do control the microphones that get broadcast, of course, so have an advantage.

    Somerby says that's why it's so sad the Dems don't have spokespeople in the MCM or it near environs who have the courage to speak out in defense of the pols attacked unfairly.  Until that happens, the MCMers will just continue doing what they do. Bcz they get away with it.

    The lib/prog MCMers want that next step up the run too badly -- and have nowhere else to make the big bucks. As the rightwads do.

    [ Parent ]

    Racism and Sexism (5.00 / 11) (#11)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:24:33 PM EST
    Are both still big problems in this country, in my opinion, but they take two very different forms. Remember how people expressed racism in the 80s and early 90s? Cheap jokes about "blackie" and sort of... silent acceptance of some sort of racism was acceptable back then. It still is to a degree somewhat, but the black community, certainly with the help of the Clintons, actually, fought against that and now racism itself is a faux pas in society. Those that are racist are usually racist in their own privacy, and the media doesn't have that silent acceptance anymore.

    Sexism is where racism seemed to be 20 years ago. It has a silent acceptance in the media, and I don't see a lot of women's advocacy groups fighting tooth and nail against this sort of thing--at least not yet. This election cycle could prove to be the tipping point. Now sexism is sort of unintentional even, and silently accepted and ingrained--even subconscious. Someone needs to make a ruckus about it.

    No (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:25:35 PM EST
    We might upset ASerwer if we do that.

    What a jerk.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed. (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:27:04 PM EST
    What an arse.

    [ Parent ]
    Good point (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jane in CA on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:34:54 PM EST
    My 83 year old father was terribly racist and even more misogynistic when he was younger.  My brother and I have both had to tell him -- a decade apart -- that he was not welcome in our homes, or around our children if he could not forego the use of derogatory racial terms.  Yet, we never applied the same standards toward his hostility toward women.  

    I've only recently started questioning why we called him out so strongly on his racism, but let his misogynistic comments go (largely) unchallenged ...

    [ Parent ]

    The Identity Politics Rule Book... (5.00 / 11) (#12)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:24:58 PM EST
    specifically states in Chapter 5 Section 245 Subsection B: Only one group is permitted to be oppressed, or to see itself as being oppressed, at any given point in time. If another group wishes to be oppressed, or to see itself as being oppressed, that group must wait its turn.

    If any group attempts to jump the line? There will be political ramifications for line jumping.

    /s

    Sort of snarky question (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:25:50 PM EST
    If Obama is nominated and wins, does that settle the argument?  Will it prove sexims is worse?  Probably not.  But the converse would result in self Shia style self flagellation parades up Market Street in San Francisco and 5th Avenue with every intellectual bemoaning the state of our nation.  

    Not at all (5.00 / 11) (#34)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:38:08 PM EST
    Because, you know, we're totally fine with a woman as President.  Just not THIS woman.

    Get it, sweetie?

    [ Parent ]

    Why, honey, I'll (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:17:32 PM EST
    vote for you if you give me a kiss!

    [ Parent ]
    I'm starting to enjoy posts (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by Nadai on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:27:26 PM EST
    like A. Serwer's.  They're like a marketing tool for feminism.

    "See, class, here's a prime example of the clueless sexist.  Notice the smug tone, the dismissiveness, the confession of ignorance.  Now over here is Rush Limbaugh..."

    By the time this election season is done, a revitalized feminist movement should have millions of new members.

    Reverse Racism Is Still Racism (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by JoeCHI on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:30:39 PM EST
    I resent being called a racist because I support Hillary Clinton.

    Further, just because I find Rev. Wright offensive and delusional and question the judgment of the Obamas for having sat in his pews for 20 years doesn't make me a racist either!

    The problem I find when discussing sexism, (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Florida Resident on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:31:54 PM EST
    specially this days, has been that someone always claims something like;  
    Cocco's approach basically excludes all women of color from the conversation

    or similar.  What remarks like these do not realize is that sexism is a problem is a problem in all of society, including minority groups.  
    BTW let us not forget that women are a majority that is treated as a minority.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by neoliberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:33:25 PM EST
    "Would the silence prevail if Obama's likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they'd compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama's sex organs play?"

    She drew a direct comparison with race in her article. Yet you criticize the response to it for... bringing race into it?

    Her point was (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:35:59 PM EST
    that people discount sexism, but not racism.

    Not that one was more important than the other.

    Obviously.

    [ Parent ]

    No... (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:37:03 PM EST
    He's talking about the responder's saying that one is worse than the other...when they are both bad and should be addressed at the same time.

    [ Parent ]
    That's a fair point (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:36:10 PM EST
    But I do not believe it was the main thrust of her piece. Do you?

    [ Parent ]
    So Serwer's response to Cocco (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by chancellor on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:35:12 PM EST
    is to say "Can you top this?" How incredibly juvenile.

    It's all about how well you got along w/your (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by vicndabx on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:36:46 PM EST
    mother and how you saw the men in her life treat her.  That's we're the respect for women and their perspective begins.  Just because I don't see something happening doesn't mean it isn't.  Nor should I discount the pain caused.  Geez, and these are supposed to be the smart people.

    'scuse the typo (none / 0) (#33)
    by vicndabx on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:37:37 PM EST
    where

    [ Parent ]
    Bigotry's bigotry: HRC a target of foes, 'friends' (5.00 / 10) (#32)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:37:29 PM EST
    Apart from the column, the comparison isn't a matter of what 'Ism is worse on the individual, but bigotry being allowed, indulged in and even encouraged on an individual who is in the spotlight running for office.

    The same number of racist slurs leveled at Obama for being black would receive a response in media and from partisans and non-partisans.

    The same amount of media time fomenting racist-based fantasies and attacks -- those being criticisms having nothing whatsoever to do with his own words and deeds -- would bring forth a heated Dem response.

    Their silence on the sexist pile-on HRC has had to endure is one reason I'll support her, but not the DNC any longer (or slur-slinging TeamObama in the GE.)

    did you see Boston Legal last night? (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Josey on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:04:52 PM EST
    one segment showed pics online of Hillary, Obama, and McCain.
    Viewers were shown approx 10 mocking pics of Hillary - and 1 each for Obama and McCain.
    Oh and Shatner farted in response to Hillary's name.
    It was disgusting!

    [ Parent ]
    But at least (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:30:20 PM EST
    Shatner's character admitted she was the one the he couldn't beat, if she was the dem nominee. And Obama as Whitney Houston was pretty funny ("He's too pretty to win!").

    [ Parent ]
    Boston Legal's not on my TV menu (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:31:00 PM EST
    Given Shatner's performance prowess, I presume the fart was barely believable? (Shatner the guy's funny, but this is indefensible.)

    Due to a flexed work schedule I only follow a couple of shows, and even those, only semi-regularly.

    I've got a whack of recorded TV to catch up on during the summer should Sen Clinton be muscled out before ALL the votes are cast and counted at the convention, though.

    That means MI and FL FIRST, and 2210 determining the Dem ticket.

    This season of Boston Legal sounds hot though.

    [ Parent ]

    In an earlier post (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:39:50 PM EST
    someone mentioned a "million woman march on Denver". I've been floating that idea with the women I meet, but most of them cannot afford to make the trip or have family obligations that prevent it.  However, one of them suggested this, "What if there was an election and women stayed home?" The problem with her idea is that many men would prefer it if women did just that. How can we send a message that we've had enough?  I stopped watching TV shows that allow misogyny and sexism to pass as entertainment, and I've tripled the number of books I usually read because there is very little left to watch. I'd like to see another run made at passing the ERA, but the young women I know don't seem to think there's anything to gain by it.  Where's the outrage?

    Young women today (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:58:12 PM EST
    think if they don't see sexism, it doesn't exist.

    Meanwhile, women in their mid-twenties are injecting poison into their faces to avoid even the faintest appearance of aging. Nope, no double standard there!

    [ Parent ]

    And also (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Just another person on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:00:52 PM EST
    if it's not happening to me, it's not a problem.

    [ Parent ]
    biology too (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by nellre on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:03:21 PM EST
    People are animals at the top of the food chain. We're still driven by some hidden agendas

    [ Parent ]
    Young women (none / 0) (#120)
    by CST on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:24:40 PM EST
    I think we know pretty well that it exists.  We are also wary of crying wolf though.  There are some things I have read this election period, written by feminists of the boomer generation, that infuriate me.  As if I am somehow abandoning my gender or I hate my mother or I am scared of my boyfriend so that must be why I am voting for Obama.  These arguments make it harder to take the real ones seriously.

    That being said, we know plenty well that it exists, and many of us do get angry about it when we see it.  We are just hard to convince that we are actually seeing it.

    Also, I think there is a bit of a backlash against the products of the feminist movement.  Our mothers wanted to have it all, family, job, etc... and we saw them almost kill themselves in the process.  So I know plenty of women who would like nothing more than to stay at home and take care of the kids.   And they are very wary of people who would criticize them for that - and they are criticized by other women who claim they are being "feminists".

    [ Parent ]

    Have you read the pieces on Huff Post (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:27:45 PM EST
    [left side of the page] by women such as Ehrenreich and others who call out Hillary Clinton for running her campaign like a man, etc.?  Do those columns raise your hackles; do you generally agree with them?  I'm curious.  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't read Huff Post (none / 0) (#138)
    by CST on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:35:00 PM EST
    But yea, when I read stuff of that nature it pisses me off too.

    [ Parent ]
    Good. (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:09:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I never understood that either - (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by pie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:30:39 PM EST
    women criticizing each other for life choices.

    Talk about undermining your sisters.  And both sides have done it, so both are equally responsible.

    Solidarity, baby  (or sweetie  ;))

    [ Parent ]

    I know what you mean (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by CST on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:37:48 PM EST
    I am one of those who could never give up working - I think I would go crazy trying to take care of kids all day.

    But some of my best friends feel exactly  the opposite, and that's cool with me.

    [ Parent ]

    The fact that Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by pie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:45:15 PM EST
    is not only a successful career woman but a great mom is one of the reasons I admire her so much.

    It makes me ashamed of other women who seem to hate her.  Certainly, there must be some jealousy involved.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree that when it comes off as criticism (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Just another person on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:46:33 PM EST
    it can be grating. But the underlying thrust is that when you make a life-choice to stay at home, you better be damned sure that your marriage is secure or that you're going to get a fat settlement, because after 10 years of staying home, it's going to be darned hard to get back into the work force to fend for yourself. Yes, it is a cynical view of relationships.

    Also, unfortunate as it is, for every woman who decides to stay home with the kids, another woman's choice to go out and work is questioned - "if staying at home is good enough for A, why isn't it good enough for you." It's a lousy reason to question a woman's choice to stay home, but it's a reason.

    Another reason that was brought up in a discussion I had a long time ago with a feminist friend - for every woman that stays home, there is less incentive for employers to provide facilities like day-cares and flexible work hours for working mothers. Working mothers lose critical mass in the work-force and soon their concerns are marginal. It is unfair on mothers who chose to stay home, I agree, but their choice does adversely impact women who choose to continue to work. And contrary to popular belief, I don't think we're in a post-feminist era yet where working mothers have it made.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:36:31 PM EST
    that you absolutely have every right to vote for whomever you please. No one should attack you and make you feel like you are betraying our foremothers because you support Obama.

    However, pretending that Obama and the press are not sexist towards HRC is, in my opinion, a sad denial of reality. I hope you are objective enough to realize that "you're likeable enough," "the claws come out" and "periodically down" were sexist dogwhistles from Obama.

    And clearly, feminists who have been fighting for equality for decades are going to be upset about such things.

    [ Parent ]

    Sexism (none / 0) (#163)
    by CST on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:55:27 PM EST
    I'll give you one out of three:

    "the claws come out" and one you didn't mention "sweetie".

    The other two really don't bother me, mainly because I could see someone saying the same things about a male, any male - especially "you're likeable enough".

    However, I never thought Obama was perfect, or the Messiah, and Hillary has certainly said some unfortunate things as well.  So I think as far as offensive comments go it's a wash.  I am willing to give them both the benefit of the doubt and say that we all make mistakes and I think there are some things engrained in our language by society that we can't control, so sometimes we slip.  I have said some things that were unfortunate too.  I think ultimately you can tell by how they treat the people around them.  For me, Michelle is the ultimate vouch for Obama.  I think she is strong, intelligent, and sometimes puts her foot in her mouth.  But the fact that he decided to marry someone like that tells me a lot about him.  Although Michelle could back off Hillary a bit, I think she sometimes falls into that women criticizing women for their choices a bit too much (the Monica comments).

    The press however, is unforgivable.  They are systematic and consistent with their treatment of Hillary.  I have heard significantly worse things, more often, from those guys at MSNBC than I have from any of the candidates.

    [ Parent ]

    Mothers (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:37:55 PM EST
    Our mothers wanted to have it all, family, job, etc... and we saw them almost kill themselves in the process.  So I know plenty of women who would like nothing more than to stay at home and take care of the kids.

    I want to understand why you are angry at the mothers and absolve the fathers that got it all.  They had the super mom, the second income , the social director, the athlete, yet, those dad's did sort of sat by as the woman was killing herself.  

    I did not want it all for myself.  I wanted to make sure that if a "divorce" was to come, that my children and I would not plunge into poverty as is the case with divorces.  We did not want it all for ourselves, that is just insulting.  

    We fought for choices, for women having the choices to do what they wanted.  Working and being a mother was a choice that was not allowed or even permitted.  Our struggle to make that acceptable, makes your choices possible.  So, the culture wars were not for our ego, they were about setting precedents.  Do you maybe see why we don't buy the Obama narrative?  

    [ Parent ]

    I am not angry at all (none / 0) (#169)
    by CST on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:06:39 PM EST
    I am just telling what I have seen and heard.

    It's not about anger towards mom at all, it's about wanting something different for themselves.  Not because mom did a bad job, just because that's not the life they want.

    I didn't mean to suggest that it was all for ego.  I just mean to say that some of us don't want what you fought for, because we saw it backfire.  I think we are all appreciative of the freedom to choose whether or not to work.  I for one, could never stay at home, I'd drive myself crazy.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry that you don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Cream City on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:20:52 PM EST
    that you think what we fought for backfired, that you think you don't want what we fought for -- because you want the right to choose.

    That is what we fought for.  But bless your heart, anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    "just hard to convince" (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:45:45 PM EST
    well, it could be because of the acceptance level of sexism and also, the progress that was made by the Boomers. They've broken barriers down to an extent that you didn't live through some of it. Many of us chose our acceptance and our battles from experience that you may not have. Doors are open for women that weren't previously open, but that doesn't mean that rampant sexism isn't actively working against us daily. Our radar is prob on a different frequency than the younger woman.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think that is the world brought to (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:51:12 PM EST
    you by the last round of feminism that makes it difficult for you to stay home and raise your children.  Many of us did just that.  I used to push a stroller when I marched for women's causes. I think that it is the economy - specifically the cost of buying a home in many parts of the country that requires the two income family.  I would love my daughter to be able to stay home with her child, but her mortgage requires her income.  However, her company does have flex-time and good maternity leave policies that were unheard of in the 50's and 60's. She is able to work four days a week and have a day home.  I work on a contract basis and can do "baby sick days" for her.  It's not a generational war between women when you really get involved.  Don't buy the "spin".  You can have it all now, but we learned the hard way that maybe you can't have it all once.  Many of support Hillary because we see in her Presidency a better world for our daughters.

    [ Parent ]
    Bingo! (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:31:05 PM EST
    The so-called "Mommy Wars" are a fiction created by the political right to divide and conquer women, and to deflect attention from national policies that make things difficult for working families, such as lack of daycare and paid parental leave.

    [ Parent ]
    Having it all (none / 0) (#193)
    by Nadai on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:49:34 PM EST
    But the reason women don't "have it all" isn't because of feminism.  It's because too many men don't pull their weight at home and with the children, and too many offices are set up on the assumption that all good workers have a wife at home to take care of the maintenance of living.  To blame women for not being able to completely transform the world - especially in the face of active opposition from men/employers who aren't being blamed at all - strikes me as grossly unfair.

    [ Parent ]
    What I did was reregister undeclared (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by nellre on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:01:50 PM EST
    Lots of others here have too.
    If we did that en mass it'd speak loud and clear.

    [ Parent ]
    boycott General Electric (none / 0) (#75)
    by Foxx on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:00:41 PM EST
    JUST for starters.

    [ Parent ]
    I have a feeling that (5.00 / 14) (#40)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:42:08 PM EST
    the hate directed Hillary's way, and the form of its expression, may have opened up a Pandora's Box of sexism in our culture, taking us back some decades in what's considered acceptable for people to say about women.

    Just as an example (not even one involving hate, but just the coarsening of our language), does anybody doubt that if a politician other than Obama had referred to a woman reporter as "Sweetie" even just a year ago, he'd get no end of grief for it?

    I wonder how many women supporters of Obama are going to feel when they find themselves, in the future, the target of very condescending language in the workplace or elsewhere, protest about their treatment, and can find no sympathetic ear for their complaints.

    I don't see how this toothpaste goes back in the tube anytime soon.

    I think you're essentially right (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:46:17 PM EST
    That's why WWTSBQ is even funny at all. Because it reflects something real--and quite disturbing.

    [ Parent ]
    I also think that (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:46:41 PM EST
    a lot of the stuff we have seen directed toward Hillary would have caused a firestorm in the PC left if they had been directed at any other woman.
    I think some part of this is unique to Hillary and what is considered acceptable to say about her.


    [ Parent ]
    I mean (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:48:33 PM EST
    imagine a Sandra Day Oconnor nutcracker.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:14:38 PM EST
    Absolutely disagree.  This is typical piling on using gender.  It is a gang mentality that has been used to denigrate females since elementary school.  A woman will be a target, sexism the weapon, and the excuse is... it's not all women, just that woman that deserves it.  I saw it as a child, I have seen it in families and watched it at work.  Targeting is a way to belittle and demean a woman.

    [ Parent ]
    Have you ever noticed (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:33:01 PM EST
    that when boys want to really put another boy down in school, one of the frequently used "slurs" is to call each other "girls"?  The football coach at our local high school made the mistake of telling his squad to stop being "a bunch of girls".  Our female principal responded by opening the team up to the real thing.  Gosh, that year they had the best place kicker ever, and she did it barefoot. God I miss that woman in our school, but she earned her retirement.

    [ Parent ]
    that is probably only (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:37:45 PM EST
    because he is afraid he would get in trouble if he used an unflattering epithet for being gay.
    poor coach. his choices keep getting constrained so he uses the dependable fall back.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by nell on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:40:38 PM EST
    is the punching bag. Because of the way society has maligned her, people feel like they can take out their frustrations about women in general on her. If you hate your female boss that is more powerful than you, you can't say anything to her face, but you can make fun of nutcracker Hillary all day and vent your frustrations. She is the punching bag for the way society really feels about women.

    The sexism that has shown its face during this campaign is disgusting and the silence of so many leaders in the Democra