Yes, sexism still exists.
THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.
Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?
Gloria Steinem posed this question in her New York Times column of January 8. I think it is pretty obvious what the intro was designed to do. It challenges us, the readers, to self-reflect and admit that gender does play a significant role in how we perceive a person, much less a candidate for President of the United States of America.
Yes, sexism still exists.
It's easier to be subtly (and outwardly) sexist than it is to be racist. It's not like Senator Hillary Clinton is the first woman to deal with this issue - women before her and women beyond her have suffered just the same, as Bob Herbert points out in his NYT column of January 15. But gender is more poignant in this case because she is running for the most powerful office in the country. And she could win. However, it is ingrained in the fabric of our society that it is acceptable (or at least not taboo) to be sexist. Meanwhile, racist comments are immediately met with passionate outcries and calls for apologies. Where is this vocal outcry for misogyny?
Yes, sexism still exists.
Before you lash out at me, I'm not pretending that racism does not still exist or that it is still not a problem. However, what I am saying is that the gender barrier is not viewed as as serious a roadblock as the race barrier.
Gloria Steinem put it well:
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
Yes, sexism still exists.
Take MSNBC correspondent David Shuster, for example. He asked last week, "Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" Pimped out? So campaigning for someone is now called "pimped out?" Yes, I get it, she's making calls to superdelegates. But my question is, if Oprah Winfrey - or Michelle Obama - were to make calls to superdelegates on behalf of Senator Obama, would Shuster dare say that Oprah was "being pimped out?" And no one is saying Bill Clinton is getting "pimped out" (though he arguably is).
Yes, sexism still exists.
Chris Matthews. Oh Chris Matthews. On Morning Joe January 9.Let's not forget -- and I'll be brutal -- the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit. She won because everybody felt, "My God, this woman stood up under humiliation," right? That's what happened.
Yes, sexism still exists.
Now, I like MSNBC, and I generally enjoy the commentary of Keith Olbermann and the Obama-loving Chris Matthews et al. But MSNBC is not the only station or news outlet and David Shuster and Chris Matthews are not the only journalists or voices to use these kinds of comments that demean gender during this race.
Today's Boston Herald points out the differences in photographs that news sources use when they depict Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.News organizations often publish photos of Hillary Clinton...that make her look crazy, while pictures of Barack Obama...portray him as cool and reflective.The piece continues to highlight some of the many examples of sexism when it comes to Senator Hillary Clinton.
...
Typically, Hillary looks like a crazy person, her mouth agape, her eyes as bug-eyed as the runaway bride’s. Meanwhile, Barack Obama typically looks cool, calm, collected - or, better yet, pensive and reflective.
Yes, sexism still exists.
John Kerry choked up on the Senate floor on January 24, 2007, when he announced that he would not run for President in 2008. There was some commentary about it when it happened, but no one dared suggest that the emotion was manufactured. Or that it meant that he was anything less of a strong leader than he was before. Yet we all know what happened to Senator Clinton when she showed her emotions. Castigated. Lampooned. She was too much of a woman, a weak woman, they said. Stone-cold and heartless when she doesn't show emotion. And weak when she does.
Yes, sexism still exists.
Nicholas Kristoff offers his view in his column today in the NYT.
In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite, so they could prove themselves and get on with governing. But in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices — and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man.
...
“It’s an uphill struggle, to be judged both a good woman and a good leader,” said Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a Harvard Business School professor who is an expert on women in leadership. Professor Kanter added that a pioneer in a man’s world, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, also faces scrutiny on many more dimensions than a man — witness the public debate about Mrs. Clinton’s allegedly “thick ankles,” or the headlines last year about cleavage.Yes, sexism still exists.
And why should this discussion be limited to this presidential race?
"Nappy-headed hos," anyone? I doubt that Don Imus would have said "Nappy-headed bros."
"A Girl's Got the Gavel! But What's She Wearing?" No man - be it Dennis Hastert or Dick Cheney - gets scrutinized on his wardrobe as much as Speaker Nancy Pelosi does.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Yes, sexism still exists.
10 Comments:
Good point. Sexism does still exist, as does racism. It's also good to point out that almost everybody falls victim to feelings of prejudice sometimes, whether they acknowledge it or not. Racism isn't about just the unabashed bigots in our society, it's about the varying degrees that we see or feel on a daily basis. Sexism is certainly the same way.
But a couple things..I don't understand the point about Oprah and Michelle Obama. If Shuster had said that about them wouldn't it have been the same implication? I was under the impression that the comment was considered degrading to Chelsea, not Hillary.
I do think that the average female candidate faces scrutiny that a male candidate wouldn't, and she has to try extra hard to prove that she is tough etc. However, I really don't think the crying issue was a good example. Most of the coverage I saw was just typical punditry examining how voters would react. Would they see it as genuine, would they see it as forced? In fact, Chris Matthews continually compared it to the Edmund Muskie moment, when a male candidate for the presidency was lampooned and ridiculed for tearing up.
Personally, while people like Matthews should watch their bias, there is nothing wrong with examining the possibility that anything a politician does is manufactured. Most politicians, including the ones I vote for, are capable of doing anything to get votes.
MSNBC and CNN hire horrible commentators like Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and Lou Dobbs, all of whom are largely on TV to incite hate against just about any vulnerable member of society. However, the daily kos crowd needs to lay off Chris Matthews. Sometimes he thinks aloud and says things that sound alot more outrageous than they actually are.
As for Don Imus, would he have said "nappy headed bros?" Absolutely. No questions asked. I'm sure he's said far worse.
Short answer: no, it might be a start but it will take generations for the racism and sexism in the US to fade.
I agree with all of your points except the first one. Maybe I am just an overly optimistic person but I think if this woman in question was as charismatic as Obama it is definitely possible that she could be in his position.
We also can't forget that Hillary Clinton is not just any woman running for President. She is the wife of Bill Clinton who had a very public sex scandal and is/was a very controversial President. This changes things for Hillary, it shouldn't but it does. Is sexism a part of this? Of course it is but it is not the only reason Hillary Clinton receives extra scrutiny. Feel free to tear me apart on this point Suchita!
I have family members, I won't point them out specifically except to say that they are women and over the age of 60. These family members say they will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton. They claim it is because they don't think she would be a good president... I am not so sure, while the media would tell us that women and people over 60 love to vote for Hillary this serves as an example of sexism coming from an unexpected place. One other side note, these family members in question ALWAYS vote Democrat...
If we do elect a Democrat to the White House in November it will be a start. Not the end of racism or sexism in our country but it will be a step in the right direction. The question is how big a step it will end up being.
You beat me at posting the Boston article. Dam you womenz! =P...
“Yes, sexism still exists.”
It does, but I don’t agree with all your examples of it here. I also don’t agree that any time a man (or woman) views Hillary Clinton negatively it is because of sexism, it can easily be because she is Hillary Clinton.
1. Gloria Steinem’s “biography” could easily be that of a US president if they were competitive enough.
2. I would say subtle racism and sexism are the norm when it comes to either phenomenon these days. Social forces make it too controversial to be outwardly either for most people. There are exceptions to this of course, but they are a lot less frequent than 5-10-15 years ago. Also, extreme events sometimes can let the subtlety here go out the window as well (Hurricane Katrina, September 11th, and the 1992 LA riots come to mind).
3. Chris Matthews is wrong. Senator Clinton got where she is on merit. I believe if she never married Bill Clinton she would still be a very potent force in American politics today. I really don’t like her, but I must respect her capabilities as a leader and a politician. Why I don’t like her (besides the fact that she is too liberal for me)? I think she is close to a Democrat version of Mitt Romney and the same goes for Bill Clinton. The difference is Hillary and Bill (and their staffs) appear to be a lot better at getting away with it.
4. I agree you could have something with the Boston article, but we have to keep in mind that in 2004 there were plenty demonic pictures of Howard Dean going around in expectance that he would be facing Bush in November 2004. So this may just be a case of people demonizing someone they don’t like by visually representing them with the lousiest, scariest, and/or most humiliating pictures they can find.
5. On the crying issue... I would sympathize with Hillary Clinton in the “first crying” if I didn’t view her and Bill Clinton as very calculating politicians. If it was Kathleen Sebelius crying, if it was Margaret Thatcher crying, there is no way I wouldn’t sympathize, and there is no way I would be sexist and think of them as “weak”, in fact I would see it as a sign of human strength…but I just don’t trust Hillary or Bill when it comes to these things (potential public “performances”). I am very suspicious of Hillary here, because she is Hillary Clinton, not a woman.
I will completely agree that anyone who thought Hillary was “weak” for crying was being sexist. There is definitely a double standard there.
6. Nicholas Kristoff is right about “sex appeal” issues being more unique to women public figures than men. The same goes for “women things” like their outlets, hair styles, as you pointed out (although we can’t forget John Edwards lol). This is a case of sexism, but I’m not sure it would fark Hillary’s general election chances more than other legit stuff.
7. We need to be careful of making news commentators the pulse of America on the sexism issue, although certain it is saying something that many of our commentators are rather chauvinist males.
In conclusion, sexism is a significant a theme in American politics and political life, but we need to be very careful about calling every example of a woman being called out sexist. Otherwise, we may start misdiagnosing the symptoms of the problem so much that we don’t go about solving the problem. Also, if Hillary Clinton loses the nomination or the general there are so many reasons besides the fact that she is a woman that she could lose I wouldn’t blame ONLY sexism…
Almost forgot... All in all a good post Such, I look forward to your responses to our comments.
Jack,
The "pimped out" comment is degrading to both Chelsea and Hillary. Degrading to Chelsea, obviously. If you look at it in this light, I show the double-standard exists because Bill's involvement isn't termed "pimped out." The comment is also degrading to Hillary. Oprah and Michelle Obama are both out there campaigning for Barack yet they're not being "pimped out." Why the double-standard?
As for the emotion/crying, I disagree that it was not a good example. Much of the coverage I saw and discussion I heard (not just in the media but with people one-on-one) went beyond "examining how voters would react." The mere point that people questioned the reality of her emotion is a problem. I brought up the Kerry example because he (or males in general) don't have to prove they are both soft and tough. They just have to be tough.
The bigger problem is not that people claimed that the emotion was manufactured (a problem in itself) but that people bring up in the same sentence her "sudden" show of emotion and the belief that she is emotionless. I'm not explaining myself well here, but to sum it up, it's a "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't" situation.
I'm not saying Chris Matthews is the devil incarnate. I'm saying that his comments are flat out wrong and do show that sexism still exists.
As for Don Imus, I feel that he perceived the women's team as an easy target. It's easier and more acceptable to criticize a women's team than it is a men's team, even if both would be on the issue of race. And the word "ho" is demeaning in itself.
Andrew,
Steinem's goal with her intro was a bit different from mine. My goal was to point out that we need to challenge ourselves to think about the role of gender and gender discrimination/double-standards in our world.
That being said, I believe that if Barack Obama were a mother instead of a father, there would be a lot more shouts for him to stay at home and raise his kids instead of gallavanting around the country.
Why does Bill's sex scandal matter here? Because we (society) make it an issue. We (society) still ask if she was doing the right thing by staying with him, if she was forgetting what feminism was, if she was a horrible mother. Meanwhile, questions of his quality as a father were few and far between.
As for the fact that Hillary is Bill's wife - it's not all she is. She's not running on his record; she's running on her own work. Sure, she brings up time in the White House but it's in the context of her work as First Lady. I'm talking about things like SCHIP. We can't ask questions like "Since when does being someone's wife make you an expert." Check out my post from a while back about the Daily Cardinal cartoon for more on that point.
I agree with your point about people who subconsciously disfavor Hillary because of her gender. You'd be surprised at some of the "campus elite" who have said things along those lines in my conversations with them.
btw excuse me for not editing my post - at all lol - I just noticed a bajillion grammatical mistakes in there
David,
0. Yes, it could just be that it she is Hillary Clinton. But explicitly or implicitly it is often because of our (society's) views on gender.
1. See my response to Andrew.
2. Yes, explicit sexism/racism is less frequent today than x years ago. But it still exists. And both are present in subtleties. However, I will continue to argue that there is less outward racism than sexism because it is more dangerous (in every interpretation of the word) to be racist.
3. I agree that Chris Matthews was wrong. I vehemently disagree with your claim that Senator Clinton is equivalent to Mitt Romney. And you can't convince me otherwise.
4. The demonic pictures of Howard Dean appeared after the scream and usually stand by themselves. These pictures of Senator Clinton are not only alongside photos of Senator Obama - as if to make a distinction - but they are also unprovoked. It reflects biases not only in the photographers (who may be male or female) who take the pictures but also in the media sources that publish them. It's as if they are looking for her to just "be a woman."
5. Again, I disagree with your critiques of Senator Clinton as a "very calculating politician." I just don't believe that the emotion was a calculated political move.
6. John Edwards's haircut was an issue because of its cost. It was never an issue before that knowledge was public. However, Condoleezza Rice's boots and Hillary's hair and Nancy Pelosi's suits -- those are issues simply because the media chooses to make them issues. Double standard.
7. Yes, many are chauvinists. As is Ann Coulter. And they reflect general American societal sentiment on this issue. It's like the Avenue Q song - "Everyone's a little bit racist." Well, everyone's a little bit sexist.
8. I agree that we can't jump to claim everything as sexism (or racism). I could just dismiss it and say "perception is reality." However, there are legitimate concerns here. If Senator Clinton loses the nomination or the general, it won't be just because she's a woman, but her gender and our (society's) feelings on the issue will most definitely be a factor.
First off, John Edwards is a straight up stud. Why this isn't discussed more is baffling to me.
The reason that more is made of women's clothing is because there is considerably more variety in women's clothing. Just about every male politician wears the same thing, the variety coming only in tie color, which, for presidential candidates, is almost always red or blue.
But if you want to talk about subtle prejudice, any reference to male vanity often includes underlying insinuations of homosexuality.
As a woman in the military service I see and deal with sexism all the time. Yes it is hard being a woman but I am over sensitive. Sometimes I see people clain sexism to get ahead, know the acusations were false.
Post a Comment
<< Home