-
Website
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com -
Original page
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/12/hillary-sexism-watch-114.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Wow, can I ever second that emotion. I'm beginning to wonder if we've just become the generation of arrested development? I tried to discuss this with friends recently and I was shot down for being humorless, old before my time, out of touch, a stick in the mud... I just wonder -- are we ever expected to grow up and become the wise elders of the tribe? Or is the sole point, now, to be "cool" -- read: immature. And to dismiss sexism as just a "natural" play between playful sexes?
Great post. Thanks.
.
etc.
And I am an undergraduate woman. I don't need to be told about the "real" problems women face-guys like these are the biggest, immediate threat to me on campus. They drink like crazy, they think they're smarter than they fucking are in class, and they do all this crazy hazing shit and creepy stuff that I don't even like to think about. It's behavior like this that creates a nasty, misogynist culture--and if you've read A. Ayers Boswell and Joan Z. Spade's article "Fraternities and Collegiate Rape Culture" this is all the more clear.
And while college girls that do GGW or take photos of themselves at party doing stupid shit are shamed until they're silenced, boys will be boys.
Right. *fumes furiously*
I also wish someone would figure out the over-under age at which point men graduate from 'too young to know better' to 'too old to know better'. It's also damn frustrating to realize that young sexist guys get a pass because they haven't matured yet, whereas old sexist guys get a pass because they grew up in a more sexist time and therefore we should just be grateful for whatever teensy broadening of mind that maturity might have accidentally brought to them.
the boys will be boys argument is totally bogus though.
I would suggest a job for Jon Favreau at State ... and a copy of this photo as the entirety of his permanent file there, ... and which ever shithole where he might be assigned.
WLP- he was working for the Obama campaign at a time when I was being told that the trolls on the internet weren't reflective of Obama's staff. I guess I was right and the naysayers were wrong. They had a simple fix for this photo, they could have had a party that didn't include a lifesize cardboard cutout of their opponent. The cutout indicates planning, planning is intent, and that makes the sexism intentional. That is enough for me. They were active members of Obama's staff and they were intentionally sexist. The camera didn't put the cutout in the room.
So, WLP ... simple truths, cameras seldom lie, the internet preserves idiocy forever , and your permanent file is no myth ... in other words, what Hawise said.
Um, right, these two guys were just having a profeminist discussion when they decided, hey, wouldn't it be a great act of protest if we pull that cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton from our closet, grab a beer, and act like we're fondling her to show how terribly objectified women are! *rolls eyes* Convenient too, as Hawise pointed out, that the cardboard cutout of Hillary just *happened* to be in the closet.
Let's assume that this was just a "harmless joke" (it's not, at least in my humble opinion); this MAN (not boy) is obviously immature and as such unsuited for an important position in the administration. Sack him now, maybe he'll decide that it's time to grow up.
And I agree with everything YoungFeminist has said :)
Obviously, those of us who called b*****t on the way that the Obama campaign leveraged misogyny during the campaign have been completely vindicated (as if the list Shakes has been keeping didn't do it already).
Here's the misogyny, completely out in the open, unabashed. The photo isn't even seen as a problem, else why put it up on FaceBook? That's the culture of the Obama campaign that some of us dealt with over and over again -- and were vilified for standing up to.
The real issue is whether Obama will hold Favreau accountable in any way. I'm guessing no, and that will be the first sign that the Obama administration is all about loyalty and not much else. Quelle surprise. (Though, naturally, I'll be happy to be proved wrong.)
If I had a nickel for everytime someone told me to "lighten up," I would be able to bail out the auto industry myself, lol. sob.
How old do you have to be till you're expected to take responsibility for your goddamn actions?
Yes. I can't second this enough. Every little action like this contributes to the culture that thinks rape is fine, sexism is funny cause it's true!, and what women are worth is directly proportional to how attractive they are. I really can't second it enough. I want to shout - it's guys like this, "all-American hometown boys," fratty boys who are college women's biggest threats.
you might be right, but that doesn't make the end judgment a valid logical argument.
you are all probably right, they were probably being douches- but you have NO real way of knowing this.
what they did is not the issue, the photo being used in print / in the media would make it problematic. They did not do that. it was an internal joke on facebook - that is I think the real problem- because the act of putting it on facebook makes them endorse the symbolic value of the photo on top of it all. but then again that is iffy - because maybe someone else put it up mocking them. they did not necessarily put it up themselves. Anyway. photos do lie. anyone who smiled for a photo when they felt like crap, seeing the photo some time later knows this.
and as far as the cardboard cut out being there- why was it there? what was their intent- that is all speculation and not the point of my criticism. my criticism is simply this- watch for your own biases - no representation is transparently obvious.
Also, please explain how a 27-year old head speechwriter is at all competent to be in politics in any capacity if he does not know that Facebook is primarily a public space and that anything he posts there would eventually make it out to the general media.
I hope that's Reines' and Clinton's way of saying Favreau can have a job fetching coffee for Hillary Clinton's pedicurist when Hell freezes over.
At 27 years of age, Favreau's both old enough to be past the "cooties" phase and young enough to have experienced our enlightened "post-feminist" times.
The parody/satire/ironic defense of bigotry is some tired-ass bullshit.
There is no possible way to explain how this idiot can be employed by the new administration. Fire his sorry ass now.
I'm 55, and for the last 30 years of my life, I have looked at everything I've ever thought about doing in terms of what could all the possible consequences of my actions be, and can I live with those consequences, good and/or bad before deciding what to do. I would venture to guess that those 2 never even thought there would be any consequences for this photo (and with the way things usually go where sexism is involved, there probably won't be any, unfortunately). It doesn't mean they necessarily hate HRC, as you seem to think we all think, but it does show that they have no respect for women, otherwise they wouldn't have done this and made a record of it that will follow them for the rest of their lives. Do they really want to be remembered for this?
I'm with car. I don't see any other possible reading than misogyny. I am so over folks-- any folks, of any party-- taking out their societally approved sexism and racism on symbolic representations of Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama.
The problem of the men being Obama staff is incidental to the colossal lack of judgement that that picture implies and I want you to consider how it would look if it was a cut out of Obama held by female Clinton staffers. Consider if it was still male Obama staffers and the picture was from earlier in the campaign and the cutout was Kuchinich or Biden. They didn't have to personally put up the picture for its very existance to scream immature fratboys who shouldn't be put within a parsec of public policy or international diplomacy.
I luckily did not have to deal with "Greek-system" mentality because sororities and fraternities were deeply unfashionable when and where I attended college, but I remember some offensive things said in my presence (they bothered me at the time, but it was a while before I figured out why).
And I'm beginning to suspect that males (and some females) between the ages of 15 and 30 should be resident on [a separate] small and distant planet until they can prove that they were not raised by wolves. (Proving to whom is a different can of worms.)
65.
OK, that's enough curmudgeonry for the day.
D. Potter- I hate to correct you but 65 is the age for men, 12 is the age for women. Before 12 we are only responsible for the actions of the rest of the world but not our own.
WTF Ms. Brown? Shouldn't we be most disappointed with Sen. Obama, who hasn't commented at all? Clinton is the victim of this abuse, and at the same time has been accused, over and over and over, of playing the gender card. It's completely understandable that she's unwilling to open herself up to further abuse.
*sigh* Here we go again - if Obama doesn't fire this person and destroy his life publicly, that must mean he's complicit with what he did. Is this the standard we going to hold him to?
I am offended by the picture, but also have done many colossally stupid things that I only learned after-the-fact were stupid or offensive. Learning from them and becoming a bit wiser is part of the process so that you don't do the same stupid things again.
Some people here want "zero tolerance" - you did it, doesn't matter why, clean out your desk. The problem is that zero tolerance doesn't work.
Yep. Sure is.
This isn't about *poor* Favreau. It's about Clinton and all the women everyday who are subjected to this kind of stupidity. It's not our responsibility to help this guy "learn from his mistakes."
Learn to logic. You're assuming that people who object to the image only find it sexist because it comes from Obama staff. That's mistaken causation. The actual objection is that we find the image sexist based on its content *and* happen to be additionally outraged that such a thing comes from someone on Obama's staff rather than just some random douchewad guys yukking it up somewhere. It would still be unconscionably sexist in either case, but the idea that one of these guys is a big deal speechwriter for the President-elect of the US makes it even more galling. This is someone who should get it, should know better, but clearly does not.
Furthermore, I'm annoyed that you would resort to first person plural to describe 'our' attitudes and 'our' presuppositions, do some handwringing on 'our' behalf, and eventually conclude that the problem is all in 'our' heads.
That stuff is standard concern troll technique, which you may feel free to blow out your ass at your earliest convenience.
Say what you think, and go ahead call others out if you think they're not being fair about this. But don't make a blanket assumption that you know the mind of everyone here based on your own set of presuppositions and then project onto us some bullshit strawperson opinion for you to argue against .
All sorts of problems if one was to really do this, of course, but I suspect it would be the only way to get through their heads how bad their behavior is. And it would require playing up some homophobic assumptions, which is bad. But it's the only "take someone who deserves respect as a human being and turn them into a sexualized object" that I can think of as an equivalent that would get through their skulls.
Here's an idea. Dude is a speechwriter, let him write a convincing apology and see how we feel after that.
@ Hawise, I think Favreau was already appointed as director of speech-writing for the White House.
That is a much more reasonable position - even the condemned are allowed to throw themselves on the mercy of the court.
... [sigh] ...
It's been 40 years since the so-called Women's Rights Movement started to pick up steam/get some attention back in the Sixties. Have we truly made NO progress since then?
And I guess this just proves how frat boys like their women -- stiff, immobile, and unable to fight back.
"Way to go boys! I'm so impressed.
MANhood at its very best!"
[Say ... that could be a slogan! Remember -- you heard it at Shakesville, first!]
PS: No offence to those who admire him, but I always did find Obama's speeches just a little too glib.
Hyperbolic much?
Better that Favreau and dudes like him should be able to publicly flog and humiliate women with impunity. Don't you worry your privileged little head how high that price is.
And if I were you, I'd read more carefully what YoungFeminist has to say - because I really don't think that " to fire someone" equates to "flog someone publicly".
Besides, what better way to teach this guy that his actions were wrong than to fire him for it? If that cardboard cutout had not been cardboard but a real woman, I'd count that as gross misconduct and sack him for it on the spot.
If you reversed the sexes, and this was an adult 27 year old woman groping an Obama cut out, she would not get hired. (At least not until the publicity died down, maybe, and then only if she had some serious contacts.)
I think that one of the best things Obama is going to teach the youth of the nation is that the internet is in fact a communications device developed by the Army, and not a super secret club where "adults" are banned, and you never have to grow up. I would be overjoyed if the other thing his administration started was dismantling the double standard for men vs women employee behavior.
Extra bonus, I wonder if one of this guy's "friends" was in competition for the job and posted the picture?
Heh. Or as some also say, Ouch. (Correct me when necessary. I occasionally goof.)
Jessica (and Speedbump): Exactly. Mr. Favreau may someday develop judgment. The problem is that he's shown that currently his is faulty. Keelhauling is probably more than he merits, but winking at it will not help him to learn. (As one of the "people that *don't* post misogynist pictures on facebook" I was almost tempted to submit a résumé.)
unless there's a top-secret hillary clinton cutout bunker at obama hq, these asshats would have had to put some degree of *effort* into procuring a cutout from the campaign. and seeing how it was located/brought to a party with a lot of obama campaign workers, it's not a huge jump to assume the intentions were less than pure.
but you know what? it doesn't even matter. no matter how they got the cutout, these jerks were inappropriate, immature, and offensive, and they should face consequences for that. for those who would whine 'but he learned his lesson!! let's give him another chance!!' - what about the millions of other capable writers in this country who were never given this chance at all? He knew what an important position he had and he pissed all over it, and is now (hopefully) a liability to the new administration. Heckuva job, Jonny.
And if he's also the douchebag that wrote that 'we may not agree on abortion, we may not agree on gay marriage' shit from the candidacy acceptance speech, it couldn't happen to a nicer person. Civil rights aren't something you _agree_ on, scuzzbag.
Me neither, we must be BFFs at heart. I could submit a resume but then I wouldn't have so much time for all the stupid apps that my friends send me ;)
That caught my eye before the hand did too.
Second, anyone who still thinks this is no big deal?
Imagine if this were McCain's speechwriter and a cutout of Michelle Obama.
Not buying it. No sympathy for Favreau. Why should Obama be held to a lower standard than, say, John Edwards, who spoke out against and accepted the resignations of Melissa McEwen and Amanda Marcotte? If it's religion you're mocking, you must go. Just women? Aaah, he's probably sorry. Just scold him and let him off with a stern warning.
As for Hillary Clinton disappointing Campbell Brown: Is Brown also "disappointed" when women go and get themselves raped by guys?
I'm NOT asking for sympathy for him. But a lot of people here have tried, convicted and sentenced him in one fell swoop. He is still entitled to a chance to explain himself, to apologize, to show genuine contrition.
But no. He hit a big red berserk button, so no quarter shall be given.
And when someone else does something that offends another group, will you be so quick to demand that person be fired too?
What kind of government do you want - the kind where it's workers are expected to do nothing but go to work and go home? No social life, no contact with anyone outside of work on the off-chance that they might somehow and in some way offend some group that will demand their head on a pike? A government of automatons?
People who find humor in wit and good conversation, not insults and misogyny. People who can socialize without turning into brainless jerks. People who treat their co-workers with respect. People who meet their opponents with lively intellectual debate, not insults and adolescent groping.
There is no shortage of decent people around. But as long as decency is seen as irrelevant to job qualifications, or as a detriment (no humor!), and being a jerk is seen as a sign of good humor and collegiality, we're going to have a government of jerks rather than descent adults.
When people do stupid things they should be treated like they did a stupid thing. His boss is really the one who suffers because he has to lose him as an employee. The Obama administration has a slew of questions on its job application for exactly these reasons - full disclosure now means (one hopes) fewer embarressments later on.
Why are you so invested in defending this misogynist behavior? How does such defense benefit you personally?
Yeah, why shouldn't Favreau be given an opportunity to explain how mimicking sexual assault is hilarious? Can't you all see how tragic it would be if a dude was ever held responsible for his actions? QQ
Can you read his mind? Can you honestly tell me that he should have no right to at least show contrition before he gets shown the gate?
Then how is this any different from a drumhead trial? We make an example of him, and then no one else will ever do the same.
"Decisions were quick. Punishments severe. Appeals denied. Those who came before a drumhead...were doomed"
Seems to me that's exactly what you're asking for. Do you think if Favreau were to even give an outstanding apology, that would make his actions any less harmful? If he were really sorry, he would step down from the position himself.
"And when someone else does something that offends another group, will you be so quick to demand that person be fired too?"
Uh, vague?
"What kind of government do you want ... A government of automatons?"
For that entire paragraph, I'm going to quote wiggles: hyperbolic much?
Masks and faces. Very dispiriting.
No but I can see the shit-eating grin on his face and his hand on Hillary Clinton's breast. He had a chance to be "contrite" before he posed for that photo.
Oh cut the drama already. No one's throwing his ass in the stockades for christ's sake.
Probably not, but he is entitled to at least show that much before being dismissed. To do otherwise smacks of summary judgment.
And peoples, do not post stuff to facebook that you don't want to share WITH THE ENTIRE WORLD. Bad, bad idea. Just an aside.
Young Feminist: I could be one of your professors and I see the behavior, subtly, in class. I know I have more than a few of those types in class and it makes me cringe. Sometimes it is difficult for me to get past those boys, and think of what a horrible anti-feminist environment you must be living in (and, I might add, it doesn't stop at the faculty meeting door, either). Then I engage with feminist women and men in class and I think "Ah! They are out there! They will survive! I will nurture them!" We are out there and we care...
What kind of government do you want - the kind where it's workers are expected to do nothing but go to work and go home? No social life, no contact with anyone outside of work on the off-chance that they might somehow and in some way offend some group that will demand their head on a pike?
Oh. for. fuck's. sake. Many of us us manage to go out, have social lives and even drink alcohol without taking pictures of ourselves doing extremely misogynistic shit and posting them on Facebook. If Favreau is incapable of this, then yes, maybe he should stay home. Or maybe he should refrain from working high profile government jobs until he grows the fuck up.
OFFS. I don't give a shit if he's really really really sorry now that he's been caught, really, I promise. If he hasn't got the message by the age of 27 that this is grossly inappropriate behavior, well, maybe having his ass fired will deliver it to him FedEx.
And who's stopping him from showing contrition? It seems to me he's showing all the contrition he chooses to show.
You mean that metaphorically, right? *looks around a little paranoid*
Otherwise, thanks for the reassurance! Feminist professors rawk my world! ^_^
If you're still actively, gleefully sexist? Yes. You should be fired from your job. Maybe you can go work at one of those MRA-funded men's violence shelters.
Actually, I think I should say "work on changing my ways", because with as ingrained as sexism (or any other '-ism') is ingrained in this country, I don't think anyone changes their participation in it overnight. Teaspoons, if you will.
You mean, like if a bunch of Hillary staffers uploaded a bunch of pictures to facebook mugging around an Obama cutout with a noose around his neck? Fuck yeah. What the fuck is wrong with you, speedbump?
Sure. Elsewhere.
If I don't show any remorse? What about if I do? What about if without anyone saying anything to me about it, I apologize to the person I made the remark to? What about if I think about myself in sexist terms, e.g. thinking "god, I should really wear makeup, even though I hate it, because I'm just not attractive enough" (a though which I have, in fact, had)?
Where is the cutoff? What are the criteria?
Yeah, Favreau has an opportunity here to work rilly rilly hard at not intentionally and enthusiastically degrading women for lulz. I know that's super-duper difficult and all, but with enough focus and dedication he might be able to manage it someday.
*gazes wistfully into the enlightened future*
God, I have no idea why I read this blog, then.
Seriously, that's what really bothers me here - that there is to be NO MERCY shown. Yes, he fucked up. Yes, what he did was wrong and he should be held responsible. But to completely write him off, and assume that he can't ever change, is not only hopeless, it's downright frightening.
I, personally, don't think that. I think everyone is capable of growth and change. On the other hand, I don't think that has too much to do with whether or not he should have a prominent job with the administration.
I don't know what you mean when you say "mercy". No one here (as far as I can tell) is talking about an olde-style shunning where he'll never be accepted into polite society ever again. It's just a matter of realizing that there are consequences to your actions. Saying "Hey, that was completely inappropriate, and means you're not suitable for this particular job at this time," isn't at all the same thing as saying no one can ever change and one incident will doom you for life.
Is she serious? First of all, one need not go further than looking at the comment section in the WaPo to learn that sexism isn't 'obvious'. There, a majority of the reactions are textbook examples - from "It's fun", "It's a petty issue" to "She should be grateful". Sexism is everywhere, and Ms. Brown would be dishonest if she didn't know that. Yet, she chose to focus on Mrs. Clinton's flip-flop (?). What the ****..?!
Imagine the cardboard was not Mrs. Clinton's, but Mrs. Obama's and the jerks in the pics were Mrs. Clinton's staff. Or imagine GOP staff holding a chained cardboard that impersonates Mr. Obama. If anyone still doesn't understand what's wrong with it, then send me a picture of your mom or daughter - I will draw a cardboard and have some 'fun', then post the result on the Facebook.
I posted my outrage on Ms. Campbell's page yesterday, but the comment still hasn't showed. As a matter of fact the page hasn't approved any comment yet since the story was posted 24 hours ago.
So what exactly do you mean by "being held responsible" then? Say "Bad boy" a couple of times and maybe finish it off with a "Go, and sin no more"? How is being fired incompatible with being held responsible?
I agree with you - there are and should be consequences to those actions. I also agree that he shouldn't have a prominent position in the administration. But, what seems to have been said in this thread is that he shouldn't have a job, period. (And, that I shouldn't have a job, period, because I've made mistakes in my life in the past - and, given that I am emphatically not perfect, will make them again. Even if the remarks in question were not made at my job, or even while I had it or was applying for it, which didn't seem to matter here).
As for mercy, what I mean by that is not writing off people who have made mistakes in their lives. I, like you, believe that everyone is capable of growth and change (I have to believe that, or else I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. I'm a social worker.). I have to believe that I am capable of growth and change. I also think there's a big difference between what you said - "That was completely inappropriate, and means you're not suitable for this particular job at this time", and condemning someone. It's the difference between holding someone responsible for their actions, and holding those actions over them forever.
I just don't think I should hate anyone, regardless of their actions. Because how does hating someone make me any different from that which I profess to work against?
Sure. During your period of unemployment after being fired.
You seem to be asking that Favreau not be punished at all for what he did. Is that really your position?
Asking that he be fired isn't hating him or putting him in jail for the rest of his life. It is asking that bad behavior have swift and certain consequences.
Also? This was a recent picture. This isn't something he did when he was 19 and being hazed by a frat. This isn't past behavior being dredged up to ruin the guy now. Your personal examples of past behavior and current job have nothing whatsoever to do with this situation.
My problem was where people apparently wanted MORE than that.
Maybe I'm too sensitive to read this thread right now.
I agree with Disgusted. This commenter obviously has something invested in the privilege to be a rude, bigoted asshole.
Yes, certain consequences. Fine.
But can we slow things down a little bit? People are acting like he should have been fired 15 seconds after the picture popped up.
Examples?
People are acting like he should have been fired 15 seconds after the picture popped up.
A picture that would violate HR standards in most companies would be an immediate firing offense. Why should this be any different? Just because he's on "our" team, we should give him the benefit of the doubt?
Like what, for example? You're going to have to quote someone here calling for more than that, because I've read this whole thread and haven't seen any such thing.
No. Not even close, thank you very much.
"This commenter obviously has something invested in the privilege to be a rude, bigoted asshole."
Excuse the hell out of me for actually wanting something resembling fairness out of the process rather than the lightning-fast destruction others here are claiming.
Because in most companies that I've worked for, the worker would AT LEAST be allowed to explain himself BEFORE being canned. You want him to explain himself AFTER he's been canned - which is a little ass-backwards.
Firing != "destruction"
Sure, he should be allowed to issue an apology. As he's tendering his resignation.
Explain WHAT, exactly? Is he somehow supposed to provide evidence that just off-camera, someone was aiming a gun at him and forced him to do it?
Quotes please. Where exactly was it said that Favreau should never have work again, be left on the streets to starve, and forever condemned by society? I think you are exaggerating what are mostly reasonable demands from people here that Favreau should not be allowed to maintain his current position.
And while you're groaning about how much people hate Favreau here, you're missing the point --Favreau is NOT the victim. This is not a support group for Favreau to learn from his mistakes. It's a feminist blog, and we're attacking the misogyny in our culture that entitled Favreau to do what he did. I hope Favreau does learn from his mistakes. He could get a job in a women's shelter and see how funny physical assault is there.
"Because in most companies that I've worked for, the worker would AT LEAST be allowed to explain himself BEFORE being canned. You want him to explain himself AFTER he's been canned - which is a little ass-backwards."
Okay, Speedbump. He can apologize. Then he should be fired. Didn't we hash this out already? Why are you bringing up the same points again?
Because some people (I'm looking at YOU wiggles) thinks that it isn't good enough. And apparently I'm just as bad as he is for actually expecting a small amount of process first.
This is precisely the comparison that came to mind when I first heard about this story. If I had a job in which I were able to hire or fire people and became aware that one of my employees, even a talented one whose work I greatly admired, had been photographed symbolically humiliating and threatening one of my other employees, then posted that photograph to frakking Facebook, I would have to dismiss him. Because that's not just one failure of judgment, it's two-- and because it's important to me, as an employer, that my employees treat each other with respect *even if they don't like each other*.
Arguably, optics are even more important in politics than in other fields. If I were Obama and wanted a drama-free cabinet, I'd have to let Favreau go. You're not required to like your co-workers, but if you can't keep your scorn and hostility to yourself, you're not going to go far in a field that demands diplomacy.
This isn't a criminal trial. He doesn't have the same right to due process because being fired from a job is not the same level of consequence as being thrown in jail.
In this case, we have clear evidence that he violated a standard of behavior that should be expected of everyone, and especially of everyone in Obama's employ.
Violation = firing. End of story. Again, why should he deserve special treatment over anyone else who violated those standards?
To quote wiggles: "If you're still actively, gleefully sexist? Yes. You should be fired from your job."
Sounds to me like there's a process involved there.
Really, Speedbump, you sound very much like you're not understanding how harmful this is to women and how inappropriate the behavior is for someone especially in Favreau's position is. This is the speechwriter for the President Elect. Do you just not view sexual harassment as serious?
Did I call for his "head on a pike" or something? I must have blacked out.
Small amount of process: Look at the damn photograph.
I'm not saying the guy should never hold a job anywhere ever again. I hear Jamba Juice is always hiring.
What is there to explain? What could he possibly say that would make this appropriate?
...
No, no. Don't EVEN try to pull this shit. Sexual harassment is serious, and just because I demand something a little more than summary firing does not mean I don't care. You aren't a mind-reader either, so don't try to judge what I think.
"I'm not saying the guy should never hold a job anywhere ever again. I hear Jamba Juice is always hiring."
Real funny.
Favreau's keeping that job, or having a different job in the Obama administration, cannot possibly be justified under these circumstances.
My brother once worked for a Very Large U.S. Corporation. They had a holiday party at which a VP got drunk and began sexually harassing two secretaries. On Monday morning, his desk was cleaned off and he was GONE.
Absolutely, one hundred percent fair. If you don't think so, you've got a deep investment in keeping alive misogyny and sexism. Zero-tolerance. That's it. Anything less, and you tacitly approve of misogyny. I'm tired of the excuses, the forgiveness, the explanations, the justifications. It's wrong and that's all there is to it. If we for one second demonstrated the outrage these kinds of acts deserve, we'd be a hell of a long way toward equality. Right now we're nowhere near it.
So what exactly do you propose happens?
Wow, that's a pretty narrow-minded way of looking at things. It's almost Bush-like in it's "either you're with us, or you're a misogynist".
Life, like it or not, is NOT cut-and-dried - and expecting zero-tolerance in this is like expecting zero-tolerance towards violence in schools. You're gonna catch a lot of bad people, but a lot of innocent individuals are also going to get caught.
So if I hug a co-worker, and someone else reports me for sexual harassment because I gave that person a hug, you'd have me fired? Glad I don't work for you.
"So what exactly do you propose happens?"
He makes a public apology, he makes a donation to whatever charity you believe is appropriate, and THEN he is dismissed from his position. Fair and in-line with a lot of sexual harassment policies in other areas of government.
Cry me a fucking river.
OFFS. He posted a photo of himself groping an image of a Senator who is now the SOS on Facebook. We don't need to wonder if he's a misogynist.
Another rhetorical question: is it ok because it's only Clinton?
OMG, there is no comparison between this and what's going on in the picture at the beginning of this post. You clearly do not understand the problem here at all.
""So what exactly do you propose happens? -He makes a public apology, he makes a donation to whatever charity you believe is appropriate, and THEN he is dismissed from his position."
So, some people here don't think we need to bother with the false sentiment of giving to a charity and the likely forced apology. What does it matter? It's superficial formality.
YoungFemenist - I was responding to Disgusted's position by pointing out what zero tolerance really means. It means that there is no wiggle room, no excuses. And it means a lot of innocent people who didn't do anything wrong will lose their jobs and careers over a misinterpretation. Please to be reading who I quote before jumping to conclusions.
ZOMG you're calling for him to be flogged in the town square!!!1
LOL
Are you trying to make an argument about "reverse sexism" here? Because there's no such thing. Thanks for playing anyway.
That was directly from Disgusting's post. Perhaps you should be a little more specific about what story you're comparing to? And frankly, even if you are comparing to the story of her drunken government worker, I stand by my statement. The comparisons aren't apt. You just don't understand this, and I'm inclined to think it's the result of MP. You seem convinced that there will be a myriad of cases in which women report sexual harassment and men are wrongfully convicted. This is feminism 101, seriously, and I don't feel like wasting my breath explaining it to you.
(head desk moment)
OUCH!
That's what I'm referring to - right there. Either you have zero tolerance of it, or you approve of it. It was THREE PARAGRAPHS down from what you quoted. So for the last time, please do not take my words out of context.
Here's the thing: I definitely agree that the behavior depicted in that photo is juvenile, disrespectful, and wholly inappropriate for someone in Favreau's position. However, I don't see it as necessarily sexist in nature. It's a fairly gender-neutral phenomenon for people to disrespect/demean authority figures they dislike by defacing photos of them - think graffiti, photos as targets on dart boards, etc.. If these guys had drawn devil horns on Clinton's photo cut-out or dressed it n a clown suit and then posed with it, that'd be juvenile, demeaning, and unprofessional as well, but not sexist.
What raises the issue of sexism here, in my view, is the breast grab, because it's demeaning in a *sexual* way. However, I don't know that sexually-demeaning is necessarily the same thing as sexist. It's just another way of disrespecting someone, and it's effectiveness isn't based on the fact that she's a woman, but on the fact that sex is seen as a private and somewhat "dirty" act in our society. It would be equally demeaning for someone to grab the crotch of an Obama cut-out, and I guarantee there are plenty of sorority parties where that kind of thing can and does happen. Grabbing the breast Clinton's cut-out is thus not about asserting male dominance, but about taking a liberty that people ordinarily don't allow.
Zero Tolerance is defined as "any infraction of existing laws and regulations, regardless of mistakes, ignorance, or even extenuating circumstances, will be met with full punishment."
The key words there is ANY INFRACTION. You demand that any infraction, no matter how small, no matter as a result of ignorance or mistake, must be punished to the maximum. That is what you advocate, and it DOESN'T WORK.
But when you fuck up, hugely and monumentally (as we see here in a photo of a man mimicking a sexual assault of the soon-to-be secretary of state), you prove that you've changed by not doing anything like it again, and working to change the actions of others, over a long period of time. In the mean time, he should suffer the consequences that might help this poor, poor thing to learn that what he did was wrong. For his own good.
That, and I don't really like the idea of me voting, putting in effort to help others vote, and donating time and money to a campaign for a candidate who then ignores this kind of behavior by his staff. Maybe it's just me...
You don't know if mimicking sexual assault against one of the most slandered women in the country is sexist? Do you read this blog? At all? Do you know what sexism IS?
It is. And aside from being sexist, it's the reenactment of a sexual assault for laughs. If that isn't misogyny, the word has lost all meaning.
Grabbing breast, pulling hair back while forcing object into mouth is not rather plainly imitating a sexual assault, and thereby is degrading to the image of Clinton, in a sexual, dehumanizing way?
Just curious, what WOULD you consider to be a sexist display?
If you want to work for the President of the United States, you have to be an adult and act like one. Posing in a stupid pose with a cutout figure while drunk and posting it on your facebook page is juvenile. Therefore, no job for you. Is that easy enough?
Okay then. It's pretty weird. But since Darth Vader and Hans Solo are not members of an oppressed group that's more frequently subjected to sexual violence than the rest of humanity, whatever yanks your chain I s'pose.
No, it's not the equivalent of misogyny, which is an institutionalized form of keeping women in line, lessening our importance and dehumanizing and objectifying us. Since the fictional characters you are referring to are not in a marginalized group (unless you regard people from other planets who are fictional an oppressed group - good luck with that), it simply isn't the same. Disturbing, yes, but not similar in the sense that a behavior used to keep a member of an oppressed or marginalized group in line or to remind members of one of these groups that they are not the accepted norm and you are using their difference as a weapon against them is.
The racist equivalent has already been described by several other people earlier in the thread. I would have the same feeling about mocking a person in a wheelchair by pretending to tip them over.
As Speedbump completely ignored my analogy earlier, I am forced to conclude that he is, in fact, Favreau, or another astroturfer in Obama's employ.
In this case - probably nothing. But that's NOT THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE.
Disgusting wants zero tolerance. "Zero tolerance" means that any infraction leads to maximum punishment - no exceptions. Should this guy get the maximum punishment of being fired? Yes.
I was asking if other, smaller situations, even ones such as giving a colleague a hug or saying they look nice, should also lead to immediate termination. If they don't, then it's not zero tolerance she wants. If she does, then a lot of innocent people (or people who are trying to simply be considerate and compassionate) are going to get fired too.
Is this clear enough now?
Thanks for the replies. I think "sexism" means treating someone in a different (generally negative) way because of their gender, and "misogyny," apart from being specifically directed at women, introduces an active disdain/hatred into the equation. I just don't see how this is necessarily either. Like I said, sexually demeaning behavior toward a photo is pretty common on the part of both young men and women, and what makes it demeaning is it's sexual content, not the gender of the target.
And Melissa, you said in your reply that sexually-demeaning is the same thing as sexist. So, just to clarify, if the genders had been reversed - i.e. female staffers grabbing an Obama cut-out - you feel it would still be sexist? If so, is that because sex and gender are inherently linked in your view, and thus any sexual comment/behavior is also a comment/behavior directed at a person's gender?
Well, that clears up why you continue to sound like you don't understand how seriously Favreau fucked up. You've been talking about an entirely different situation!
Yes, because Disgusted brought it up. I was responding to her, and yet my words get misconstrued horribly.
Except the first person to bring up "zero tolerance" in this thread was you. In response to people saying this guy should be fired. Which you agree with. So what exactly were you arguing against for the two or three hours before Disgusting posted her(?) comment about zero tolerance?
I don't know - maybe a bit of rush to judgment? A bit too much of reflexive action. You know - something we have complained that the current people in charge have done?
It's not that I get off on doing that to Mr. Vader, I've just done it as a joke on hypersexualization before. I wanted to know if it's ok to sexualize groups not at risk of sexual violence.
Except you're agreeing that this guy should be fired. So you're judging him without hearing his story too.
On that, I'm inclinded to agree. Whether or not this was sexist behavior, it was totally unprofessional, and I have no real problem with this guy getting fired as a result.
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Sexism. Toward. Men.
There's no racism toward white people.
There's no classism toward rich people.
There's no ableism toward people without disabilities.
etcetera etcetera etcetera
Now stop being ridiculous.
Epic. Fail.
"Boys will be boys" indeed. This is what boys do. And that is why feminism exists.
And I repeat, because he is ignoring me: Favreau = Speedbump. If not literally, than in every way that matters.
So the Supreme Court was wrong when it held that a car wash that offered discounts to women, but not to men, was acting in a sexist manner? It was wrong when the EEOC settled a sex-discrimination suit against a family restaurant (Jillians) that refused to hire males to serve food because they classified it as a "female" job?
I will not dignify that with a response. If you believe that, than ANY answer I give you is automatically wrong.
Personally, I think it's kind of ridiculous to selectively redefine terms to favor your point of view and simultaneously ensure that only people versed in movement insider-speak know what you're talking about. That said, to avoid getting into a side discussion that misses the point of my question to Melissa, I'll just reword it:
If the genders had been reversed - i.e. female staffers grabbing an Obama cut-out - you feel it would still be an example of gender-based prejudice? If so, is that because sex and gender are inherently linked in your view, and thus any sexual comment/behavior is also a comment/behavior directed at a person's gender?
Can you draw me a picture of how they're different? D:
If that's your intent, it's fine to do that to fictional men, or enhanced men, as is the case here.
*shudders at the thought of Mr. Vader as sex object
I know someone who writes slashfic about Hans Solo and Luke Skywalker. I don't get it, but it's not exactly a problem in my mind, as long as they stay in the character. I was more than disturbed when she started writing slashfic about Kerry and Edwards. That wasn't something I could stomach for a number of reasons and I do think it's over the line when the people are actually real people and not fictionalized characters. YMMV.
I honestly don't know how many famous people deal, but then I don't really care to draw a lot of attention to myself.
If you can't take a few minutes to learn feminism 101 before commenting on a feminist blog, that's really not wriggle's problem.
Wiggles is using the formulation that sexism is gender-based prejudice + the institutional power to oppress the object of that prejudice. Hence, while women can be prejudiced against men, they can't be "sexist".
I do agree with car that this was a stupid thing to do, no matter whom the cardboard cutout was of -- could have been Betty Boop.
Those things are sexist. But they're not sexist toward men. Same with "ladies drink free" specials at bars. Same with the fact that Hooters only hires hawt young busty women to serve their crappy buffalo wings. Same with the fact that it's about 1000X easier for women to get jobs dancing at strip clubs.
Read more. Go inform yourself.
Those examples you've mentioned sound like institutionalized sexism against women, Speedbump. Kind of like only women can be nurses because it's a position of caretaking and serving beneath the dignity of men. Men should be the DOCTORS.
The thing about feminism is that it is good for men as well, because men will not have to always be so
"manly". Men will be able to be themselves.
I disagree. I did take a minute to look up what she was talking about, and found the prejudice + power formulation I just described. Nevertheless, I think re-defining terms in that way undermines the credibility of the legitimate point being made and is really about giving the person using the term a sense of superiority by distinguishing themselves from the "ignorant" masses. It's like new doctors suddenly pronouncing centimeter as sauntimeter or new lawyers throwing around legalese every chance they get. Just makes them look like puffed up jerks.
So if you make $250,000 dollars a year and you're turned down for food stamps, you're a victim of classism? Am I a victim of ableism because I don't get the prime parking spots?
And I don't think it's a redefinition of the term. People wouldn't talk about "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism" if they didn't understand that the terms racism and sexism only go one way.
Considering I've never even heard the term and had to google what the hell it means, I seriously doubt it.
wiggles made an assertion. I was trying to counter that assertion. That's all.
Bars and other businesses will use the fact that women generally make less money than men as a way to drum up business. In the case of bars, it's often an effort to get more women to show up so more men show up.
Parallel situation: Hillary staffers, one wearing an "CLINTON STAFF" t-shirt, mugging for the camera, "jokingly" holding a noose around the neck of a cutout of Obama. Would "zero-tolerance" be an inappropriate reaction then? Would Clinton be condemned as condoning gross racism if she didn't fire them immediately?
They're trying to downplay Favreau's actions because they don't want to acknowledge how their own crappy behavior perpetuates sexism.
bleh, I said he should be fired. I was making issue with the swiftness that some people seem to have, and with the idea that we should have a zero tolerance policy towards sexism (which, as I have pointed out I don't know how many times, won't work.
Forgive me for trying to add dissent to the argument. I'll go away now.
Zero tolerance, no matter what the situation, DOES NOT FUCKING WORK! How many times do I have to explain this?
The situation you describe is EXTREME, and they should be fired. But after a reasonable process where they are allowed to offer contrition and their resignation. A zero tolerance policy, however, affects not only the extreme but the innocuous and the mistaken.
Again - putting a zero tolerance policy in place for anything is dangerous and harms more innocent people than it catches the not-so-innocent.
You're right that individual people in oppressed minorities may hold and express prejudice against people in the dominant group.
But because they are in an oppressed group, that individual prejudice has no power to go beyond that individual.
A child may hate and even assault an adult. But because the child is physically smaller and is legally under adult authority, that hatred and violence is ultimately meaningless. One five-year-old kicking her teacher is not going to create a snowball effect of children en masse suddenly oppressing all adults.
The converse, however, is a whole different story, as I hope you would understand.
Dave, if such a thing did happen and an involved sorority member posted the resulting photo on a social networking site, I would say that would be grounds for the incoming administration not to hire any participating party. It's hostile and threatening to sexually assault symbolic representations of your co-workers.
And this one isn't?
No, the situation I describe is an exact correlation. Threats of rape and sexual assault are weapons used against women in exactly the same manner as threats of lynching are used against black people: the implication of violence if they dare step out of line and get "uppity." It is exactly the same thing. The fact that you look at this as "not that bad" speaks volumes about you, and all men who agree with you.
Imagine a situation where you are working for an obnoxious, controlling rotter who frequently takes credit for your work, and who humiliates you as often as possible. [Hell -- you may have actually worked for such an individual!]
Now -- imagine two photoshopped pictures: one with your boss on his knees, his hands tied behind his back, and his face ... er ... ahem ... in your crotch, so to speak. And you smiling. The other photo has YOU on your knees, hands tied behind your back, with YOUR face in his crotch, and HIM smiling.
Which photo is the more disturbing to you, and why? Try this, perhaps, with a co-worker [one you like and respect] instead of yourself, and answer the same question.
[Edited to remove the potentially offensive "SOB" and replace it with "rotter."
Get bent.
Seriously, get bent. You won't honestly debate. Anyone who does ANYTHING sexist should be fired - end of discussion. And anyone who doesn't agree with it obviously wants women to be mocked, raped and assaulted. No matter that zero tolerance (which was implied and then directly stated by PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG) has NEVER worked anywhere in this country.
This is ridiculous, it is asinine, and it is an echo chamber.
This is one part of your ongoing argument that I just don't get. Why do you think the firing should wait until after an apology? Why can't the firing and the apology happen at the same time? What's so important about a delay?
If you agree that firing is an appropriate response, then why should there be any delays in doing so? You seem to be asking for an investigation/explanation period which might somehow mitigate the final judgment, and that's just not necessary in this case, or in any other in which the evidence of the offense is clear and unequivocal.
If there were legitimate questions about whether a firing offense had occurred, then absolutely, a delay would be appropriate. But there are no such questions here. He acted in an offensive, unprofessional way, and that should violate his terms of employment. End of story.
Unfair and discriminatory, yes. Sexist? Not really. It doesn't perpetuate a centuries-long tradition of oppressing women.
I can't speak for the others but yes, that is what I'm saying.
Unless there is some question as to whether the sexist act actually occured, then yes, a sexist act should be an immediate termination offense. Anything less is contributing to a hostile work environment for women.
Only one or two people in this thread mentioned zero tolerance (and not until long after you started arguing). Others were just saying that in this particular case the guy should be fired. Which you agree with. So I honestly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. How could I debate even if I wanted to?
And the silence from Speedbump is deafening, no?
Inappropriate speech writer is inappropriate. What is so hard about that? If a big Fortune 500 company has a zero tolerance sexual harassment policy, shouldn't the administration whose slogan is "change?"
Seems you are already bent, no?
Wow, hyperbolic generalization. What a surprise.
Let's talk about the specific case. Do you agree that perhaps the head speechwriter for a newly-elected POTUS might be held to a slightly higher standard of behavior than Random Anydude? That the target of this display is a US Senator who very likely will be the next Secretary of State makes the whole situation even more troubling.
Favreau's situation is not actually a referendum on all dudes, everywhere.
Sure it is. It's part of a pattern. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen a dude act in this exact manner towards any woman higher than him in seniority (professor, supervisor, boss), any woman who makes him feel a little insecure about his Total Dudely Awesomeness, that Total Dudely Awesomeness that comes with his possession of the correct genitalia and automatically places him as superior to half the population through no effort of his own. This behaviour is common, and epic in proportion. It needs to be nipped in the bud immediately, and severely. Otherwise, how else will they learn? This entire thread shows that talking about it is an exercise in futility. Men get all sensitive and emotional and storm off in a hysterical huff. Simply showing them the door should be a highly effective example of actions speaking louder than words.
Some men do. The issue is figuring out how to break the pattern of gender stereotypes that insist on men having specific attributes and place in society and women having another and that "manliness" is not and cannot be disturbed or threatened by having a female superior or boss as well as "femaleness" not being eradicated nor dangerous to "manhood" when a woman is strong, highly intelligent, in a higher position of authority and not on display as a sexual toy or merely a servant.
*Edited later: I know this is obvious to many people, but I needed to say it.
The fact that the above scenario seems "hyperbolic" only underscores how protected and valuable sexism is -- for men.
Very early on in the thread someone mentioned Samantha Power's having called Clinton "a monster" as representative of the culture of the Obama campaign. Yes. Moreover, she was summarily fired and is now unlikely to find a high ranking or public place in the administration, although she is on the transition team. So, now a dude is found to have publicly demeaned Clinton. What kind of message will the new admin be sending, exactly, if a woman and a man commit a similar offense and the man gets a softer punishment?
Off to practice my projectile vomiting skills.
An echo chamber in which you've continued to comment on for the past several hours now freely though.
Sweeping under the carpet is really the only reason anyone ever implies "reverse __ism." It's intended to silence any discussion of a real problem by pretending systemic oppression is equal across the board.
It may be second nature for him to demean women, but I don't see what other intention he could have had. Has Obama responded to this yet? I'm seeing news that Favreau's apologized to Clinton, but not that Obama's taken any action toward Favreau.
Maybe Obama's action will be the inaction of simply hiring someone else to write his speeches.
Sorry, the sentence I quoted was part of a larger whole which I found objectionable. I should have quoted more:
Seriously, get bent. You won't honestly debate. Anyone who does ANYTHING sexist should be fired - end of discussion. And anyone who doesn't agree with it obviously wants women to be mocked, raped and assaulted. No matter that zero tolerance (which was implied and then directly stated by PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG) has NEVER worked anywhere in this country.
That? Is hyperbole. Which is what I was objecting to. Not the concept of holding people responsible for sexist behavior.
I keep seeing this repeated ad nauseum, but I haven't seen any supporting evidence, just the assertion that zero tolerance doesn't work. Did I miss a link or something?
I was wondering the same thing, Bethany, and, no, I don't think either one of us missed a link. I suspect it WOULD work -- if it were universally applied. At the very least it would cause people to reflect a moment before doing something like this and ask: "Could this be perceived as sexist? Could I get fired for this?"
FTR, my own charges of hyperbole were in response to Speedbump's horrified gasping that posters here are out to see Favreau subjected to a drumhead trial, publicly humiliated and flogged, his life destroyed, his head placed on a pike, and that we'd prefer a government of automatons forbidden from all social interaction.
I mean seriously.
I don't know that any and all sexist action or speech should be cause for firing. I've listened to coworkers (male and female) at different jobs actually make ev psych arguments with straight faces. It pissed me off but, unless they're managers explaining how they won't hire women for accounting jobs because they're inherently bad at math, I wouldn't want them to be summarily terminated for it. This incident with Favreau goes way beyond retrievable ignorance though.
You're not getting it. The point isn't that there's no such thing as reverse prejudice, but that there's no such thing as reverse sexism/racism/ableism etc.
The "isms" are all about systemic, broad-spectrum, persistent and institutionalised prejudice. They're what happens when the prejudice of a lot of members of a dominant majority becomes common practice.
The reason there is no such thing as reverse sexism is because women as a group simply do not have the kind of broad economic and political power necessary for any of their individual prejudices against men to become systemic.
Even if the entirety of Mich Fest suddenly rose up en masse and went on a killing spree targeting all men in a 10-mile radius, it still wouldn't be sexism, because that act wouldn't actually do anything to dismantle the underlying economic and political power structure that favors men. It would absolutely be an act of unconscionable prejudice by several hundred individuals, but it wouldn't be sexist.
This is not to say that members of oppressed groups cannot actively participate in any of the isms. Many do, because they have other privileges of which they may not be aware. Racism among white GLBTs, for instance, is a problem, as is homophobia among many straight PoCs (this is usually because of a level of self-absorption among some oppressed folks that causes them to forget what privileges they may have.)
But it's patently impossible for a person in an oppressed group to participate in oppression of the specific group to which they are considered second class, because that oppression simply does not exist. White women may perpetuate racism against PoCs, but they cannot perpetuate sexism against men, because such a thing doesn't actually exist.
Yes, but we're not talking about legal action, we're talking about an employer maintaining a work environment that is respectful of all employees, in this case women. Also, sexism isn't a physical addiction. Though the way some are so put out to change their behaviour, you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise.
Also, since we are talking about behaviour, I'm pretty sure that always giving negative reinforcement to unwanted behaviour is the best strategy. But then it's been a long time since I took Intro Psyche.
Your culture is broken, please develop new one.
The primary was a disaster for women. This is only the beginning of the fallout.
Why that suddenly fair now you're the one proposing it, as opposed to when the other commentators were?
You know, it's entirely possible that the guy thought, deep in his heart, that posing for this photo was somehow mocking sexism... But when you fuck up, hugely and monumentally (as we see here in a photo of a man mimicking a sexual assault of the soon-to-be secretary of state)
If mocking sexism was his intent, then the level of mismatch between intent and outcome suggests that he is perhaps not the right person to be helping the POTUS with his speeches. Even those who don't care about the sexism might take a moment to consider what this says about his fitness for his specific job.
Yes, "bawdy humor" which degrades a woman is just good fun. All the lower class, non Americans know it.
*eye roll*
Ah, yes. How quickly we feminists forget that wanting women to be able make their own choices about whether and how to express their own sexuality is actually anti-sex prudery.
opps :)
When an action is absolutely unequivocally sexist, what's to "tolerate"?
All I know is, when I showed my 12-year-old son the picture and said, "What do you think?" he stared in utter disbelief. Then he shook his head and hung it, and sighed. "What's next?" he asked. "Pretend-raping her?"
Duh, people. Duh.
Finally--start arguing in good faith. When you insist that posters like YoungFeminist and Wiggles calling for Favreau's head on a pike or to be publicly flogged (your words) because they they think he should be fired for this, you come off as histrionic and irrational. They never said any such thing, and your dramatics does not make me take you or your arguments seriously. Again--people have been fired or have had job offers rescinded for things they put on Facebook (or for being on GGW, or their personal websites and blogs) before--sometimes for far less offensive content than the one Favreau posted. No heads were on pikes, and no one was publicly flogged. They were fired. Big difference between the two, and I suggest you learn it, and start arguing in good faith.
Your rhetoric is old and reeks of mothballs. Please buy a better brand in the future. If you cannot afford it, have a nice hot cut of STFU.
Sincerely yours,
Sheelzebub
And going through the comments helped me see that this is another way in which internalized sexism affects me. I think, "I'm sure he's sorry. I'm sure he didn't mean it, and maybe he shouldn't be punished so much..." isn't what I honestly think. It's a condition of living in a misogynistic culture, where we're taught to give men (especially young, white, good looking and talented men) a break.
So, yes. I can absolutely say, now, that he should be fired. Thanks, Shakers. You always manage to steer me back on course.
I cannot count, on both hands, the number of times my body has been grabbed, by a complete stranger, and I have genuinely felt that I was about to be beaten or raped. Nor can I count on all my fingers and toes the number of friends I have who have been the victims of a completed rape. I've been a victim of an attempted rape. I live my life in fear of rape, never walking through parking lots without my finger on the panic button for my car and a firm grip on my pepper spray. I can't go out alone after dark without first trying every avenue to have someone with me. When I go to parties or bars, I always have someone with me, to make sure I get home alright, and it is usually my job as a friend to watch over my female friends, to make sure that if they're drinking, they get back into their apartments without someone attempting to drug them or attack them while they're impaired. And that's just the beginning of how a fear of sexual assault controls MY life. And I've NEVER BEEN RAPED. It would take volumes for me to begin to discuss the changes I've seen in the lives of my friends who HAVE been raped.
Sexual assault against men happens. But it does not happen in the terrifying numbers against them that it does against women. Rape against men is not a mass scale tool of violence by (some) women to control men, as a group. The same cannot be said of rape of women. Most male assault is committed by men, primarily men who identify as straight.
Mimicking sexual assault against a man is wrong. It is bad. It is probably a sign of some underlying issues. It is not "reverse sexist." If a black person called you "honky" or "cracker" once, that means you were at the receiving end of someone being an asshole. It does not mean you have been a victim of "reverse racism."
I get what you're saying, and I agree - the societal context makes a *huge* difference to the impact these things have on people. As a man, daily activities like walking to my car at night don't involve any particular need for caution beyond common sense prudence. And although I've had to deal with persistent unwanted sexual advances and even groping from fellow students or co-workers a number of times over the years, I've never once felt a sense of danger or threat. I always knew I had the physical ability to put a stop to it if I needed to and a social structure in place that would back me up. Women generally don't have that ability and support. As a result, someone behaving in a sexually demeaning way toward a photo of a guy just isn't going to have the same impact on me that such behavior towards a photo of a woman is likely to have on women.
However, that difference in context means we all have to second-guess our own perceptions a bit. As a man, I think it's incumbent on me to consider whether my context is blinding me to the sexism in a situation. Likewise, though, I think it's incumbent on women to consider whether their context is causing them to see more sexism than is really there. To you, it may seem obvious that a guy pretending to grab the breast of a woman's photo is a display of sexist domination designed to undermine her specifically as a woman. To me, it seems equally plausible that it was just a generic use of sexual vulgarity to disrespect an authority figure he didn't like. The truth of the situation is probably somewhere in between.
This thread proves that American liberals and Bill Donahue have more in common than you'd think.
do you think he would have grabbed the crotch of a mccain cutout, while his friend licked its ear? because i don't.
Yes, and I'm sure he would have grabbed the crotch of a cardboard cutout of John McCain.
Ya know, normally I don't comment on these heavy threads. I figure there are smarter people on this site who can do a better job of explaining than I can.
But seriously, WTF people! This is SHAKESVILLE. You know, the feminist blog? Where we call out sexism?
This is fucking sexism, alright? Stop denying it already. Go re-read all the Feminism 101 posts cuz y'all are pissing me off.
ETA: More specifically, read this post about objectively identifying sexism. As in, it can be done.
Horse hockey. For exactly the reasons Esme pointed out, and which you claim to understand.
Sexual vulgarity is not what was being mimed here. Sexual assault was. And sexual assault disproportionately affects women, and is disproportionately used as a means of keeping control over powerful women. To a ridiculous degree.
You seem to think that there's some sort of equal amount of male-aimed sexual assault/exploitation/degradation and that's simply not the case.
Again: If this were a McCain staffer doing the same thing to a cutout of Michelle Obama, would you still think it was just generic "vulgarity"?
Yours is the new rhetoric of the professionalized left that has replaced an emancipatory program with sacralized language and a new kind of bourgeois propriety.
Ah, yes. It's just SO bourgeois to insist that women be able to choose whether to be sexually exploited.
Hint, Neanderthal: Wanting a world in which all sex happens with full, informed consent from all parties involved is not the least bit sex-negative, and is in fact the only truly sex-positive position on the matter.
If a woman doesn't want to be sexualized in a given way or by a given person, that doesn't mean she's anti-sex. It means she is exercising her right to decide whether, how and with whom she expresses her sexuality.
Or in other words: Yes we do, but not with you.
No, assuming these two guys are heterosexual, I don't think they would have chosen a sexual means of being demeaning towards a McCain photo. If they were gay, however, then yes I do think it's entirely possible they would have done so. Ditto if the staffers had been women.
Sheelzebub, Yes my rhetoric is old. Yours is the new rhetoric of the professionalized left that has replaced an emancipatory program with sacralized language and a new kind of bourgeois propriety. "Bourgeois," lol, can you smell these moth balls?
Ahhhh.....the old "I'm not a creep, you're just a prude!" defense, which was old when troglodyte Oook tried it with fellow troglodyte Froda, after she caught him molesting a picture of her that he drew on the cave wall. We're not just talking moth balls, we're talking fossallized dinosaur eggs. Fresher trolls, please.
Your grasp of statistical probability is seriously lacking.
I'm really dreading how this is all going to go down. I've been trying so hard to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, and I've been really impressed by some of his appointments (though not all of them), finally feeling some optimism. But if he lets Favreau keep working for him, all the intelligent, accomplished, refreshingly diverse appointments in the world aren't going to be enough to cover the stink of rank, raw, open misogyny.
1) You are apparently named Matt, despite evidence to the contrary.
2) You have not posted at Shakesville prior to this post.
Therefore, I assume you are new here.
Please go read the post I linked (and preferably all the other Feminism 101 posts) before you go any further. You are regurgitating VERY old arguments that have been heard, fought down, chewn up, spit out, and generally covered a long time ago.
You find it implausible that a couple of 20-something, politically active, gay men would strike a sexually vulgar pose with a McCain cut-out while at a party with a bunch of friends? Seriously? Do you have any gay friends in their 20s? As for the likelihood that female staffers would do that, I'll grant that this seems considerably less likely. Female sorority girls for sure, but probably not political staffers.
Anyway, my point is that people generally display fake sexual behavior towards the same gender they would ordinarily choose to display real sexual behavior towards. So the fact that two heterosexual guys wouldn't use sexually demeaning "humor" to attack McCain doesn't tell us much.
Sexual assault is not "vulgarity", it's crime. If these two guys were doing the same thing to a actual woman, who was either unable to respond because she was unconscious, or who didn't want them doing it (which I imagine would definitely be the case if Hillary was there in the flesh), they would be committing a crime.
This man wants to be in a position of high responsibility in this land, with influence over speeches and spin which effect thousands upon thousands of women. If he doesn't understand that sexual assault is not cute, not funny, not a joke -- then I don't want him any place where he can influence my president, or policy, or the shit that will happen to me as a woman. Period.
I find it implausible that a couple of 20-something, politically active, gay men who wanted to keep their positions in a newly-elected administration would do so. Seriously.
Also, if that situation happened, and it showed up on facebook, you can bet their asses would be canned before the day was out.
ETA: Because the right-wing would be all over it, and it the administration would be worried about offending the conservative Right -- but with women, I guess, not so much. 'Cuz everybody knows we'll fall in line, dontcha know. /snark
You are still missing the fucking point.
Does sexual ASSAULT happen to men? Yes. Does it happen with a frequency anywhere near the frequency of sexual assault against women? NO.
Thus, the miming of sexual assault against a woman takes on a completely different tone.
Also, I absolutely adore your stereotyping of gay men and women. Adore it. And I'm sure my many, many gay friends, none of whom have ever committed sexual assault against anyone, nor thought the idea of it was funny, would adore it, too.
Ooh, I forgot about those! Awesome, I'll get mine out, too! :)
Oh, and Dave -- yes -- and if they were doing that shit at a party and posting it on facebook, I would say: "What kind of ignorant ass are you?"
In this thread you have a great number of women, well versed in feminist and sociological literature, telling you that this act being committed is sexist, that they are mimicking an act which women frequently must endure, which they feel, because of their gender, is a threat to their safety. I see no way in which this can be construed as not sexist.
If you're new to this blog, or feminist blogs in general, perhaps you should read the Feminism 101 section. Particularly focusing on how blogs such as this one work as safe spaces for women to express their opinions. Men often feel a little odd when first coming here, because they are used to dominating a conversation. Before commenting in this space, you should read more.
Right now, you're coming off like someone barging into a 400 level gender studies class and demanding attention from all the students and the professor, asking questions that you could quite easily find the answers to yourself. Part of spaces like this is to teach people to LISTEN first rather than jump in and talk.
I...I honestly think that's the best mental image I've had all week...
^_^
I have a Disqus profile?! What the heck is that? I prefer to stay fairly anonymous on the web - which is why I post under random assumed names - so I'm curious where it's pulling information from. At the moment, for instance, I'm posting under the name Dave and using an email address registered under the name John Doe, so wth?! (Incidentally, nothing untoward or troll-like going on. I just prefer not to dump personal info on the Net.)
Anyway, back to the discussion at hand, I did do some poking around on the Feminism 101 site that was linked earlier, and I found it useful. This thread just kind of caught my attention initially though, and once the conversation was rolling, I figured I'd stay with it. I'm not kidding myself - I know I'm not making any startlingly original arguments - but generally speaking, I find that even old, familiar topics can make for interesting discussion.
If I catch you sock-puppeting, I'll ban you or remove your comments.
You're not making any good ones, either.
You're either arguing that sexual assault doesn't happen to women in gross disproportion, and/or that the behavior being imitated in this picture wasn't sexual assault.
Both of those things are patently false.
Disqus is the comments mechanism used here. I assume it tracks via IP address because when I click your name it takes me to a page with the name "Matt" and it lists all the posts you've made on this thread, plus some not at this website. You can click your own name in the comments thread and check out the page yourself.
generally speaking, I find that even old, familiar topics can make for interesting discussion.
See Esme's comment about "Right now, you're coming off like someone barging into a 400 level gender studies class and demanding attention from all the students and the professor, asking questions that you could quite easily find the answers to yourself. Part of spaces like this is to teach people to LISTEN first rather than jump in and talk."
Anyway, look, I'm not trying to barge into anything. I think y'all are seriously over-estimating the intellectual rigor of this particular thread at the point when I joined in, but whatever. It's getting late, and I get the impression the conversation is winding down. I can't promise not to flaunt my ignorance in a future discussion though! ;) Thanks for the chat and the heads up about Disqus. Night all.
Dave, I doubt that Favreau was consciously thinking "I'm going to do sexually demean Hillary Clinton." I doubt he was consciously thinking much at all. But that's irrelevant. Was Westmoreland thinking "I'm going to racially demean the Obamas" when he called them uppity? Probably not. But he never would have used that word if he were not racist. People use code words and the kind of arguments Adrian is using (e.g. people were telling black jokes before this country was founded, so anyone who complains about those jokes is an intellectual bigot who has contempt for our historical traditions) even in their own heads.
I don't think anyone is arguing that there was some kind of high-theory conversation going on. Rather, the regulars here have a lot of conceptual background that you, for example, don't. Sidetracking the conversation on this thread to bring you (or anyone else) up to speed is not something that should have to happen.
That is to say, whether this was a sexist action SHOULD NOT be the issue at hand, in this thread. Anyone who does not see that needs to go do some reading and listening before attempting to contribute to this thread.
Your IP is only visible to mods, I believe. If you want to remain completely anonymous, don't comment here. We use disqus because it allows us to control trolls better. Dave, I'd really like to suggest that if you want to engage in conversations here, you do some listening and learning before declaring that regulars here are overestimating the intellectual rigor of the conversation. Your arguments are tired, and those of us who post and comment here regularly have heard them thousands of time before. That kind of arrogance makes you look like a pompous ass, imo.
This is probably pointless, but what the hell: Dave, you call grabbing her breast (or, where her breast would be) "sexually vulgar". I would ask you to examine why you label it such. I mean, I love it when my breast is grabbed. Most women I know love it too. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Hillary Clinton loves it. So, why is this sexually vulgar when so often breast grabbing is sexually stimulating? If the answer isn't obvious, you really need to do some reading. It's vulgar because she doesn't know these men, because if she did know them she still wouldn't want them sexually because she's married and because she's not just some random woman (not that that would make it OK) she's (or was) the opponent in a political fight. And, just to be clear, a political fight is not in any way sexual. So why, when they were having a few beers, and shooting the shit, and relaxing, with a cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton (...?) in the hizzouse!!! did they use kissing and breast grabbing to mug for the camera? Why not, as political fights are often likened to boxing/wrestling matches, did they not mime an uppercut? Yeah, that would have brought up some ugly violence against women/eliminationist stereotypes too. But I think you're right, they wouldn't have done the same with John McCain. Is that because they're straight, or is that because they see sexual behaviour as another form of dominating?
And, really, I'm still trying to figure out what "generic use of sexual vulgarity" even means. You admit it wouldn't have been used on a male, so it's already not "generic". Good Grief.
I think personally that this picture indicates not necessarily a sexist attitude towards all women, but a lack of respect for this particular woman. In our culture, the most effective way to humiliate someone is generally sexual. Thus, as I said, I could very easily see a picture of someone "molesting" an Obama cutout. I do think it is surprising that a 27 year old would be so puerile, and this really is just in such poor taste. But I don't think that we can say, based on this, that Favreau himself is sexist. He might be, but I don't think the picture itself can prove that--it just proves that he can be a juvenile jackass.
I called my mom about this (she was one of ten women in her medical school class of over 300 and dealt with plenty of misogynistic jerks over the years, including plenty who made inappropriate sexual advances), and a lot of this comes from her: she felt that the picture was extremely juvenile, but not necessarily sexist.
I do think that "boys will be boys" is a ridiculous thing to say. You don't have to think the picture is sexist, but it is obviously seriously childish and distasteful, and ignoring that is wrong.
Lastly, some people compared this to a cardboard cutout of Obama with an Afro or something like that. I don't think that comparison quite works; if the picture was of these guys tying an apron onto Hillary or something like that, then I think it would work.
And why do you think that's the case? Sex in itself has nothing to do with dominance or power, so where did our culture get the idea that they could use sex to display or establish our own dominance or power? Why should "molestation" be considered humiliating to the victim?
Yes, tying an apron on is one way of putting a woman back in a submissive servant-helper role. Mimicking a sexual assault of her is another one, reducing her to a receptacle with no agency of her own. Both are a way of saying, "You may think you're powerful but this is all you are to me." It's pretty basic feminist theory.
"Do you want me on my knees? I'll give you a kiss."
"Now that’s my phone buzzing there--I don’t want you to think I’m getting fresh or anything."
"You're gorgeous."
"You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out."
"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."
Shit like that sets a tone; shit like that leads (many) men in the room to believe that women are to be treated in a different, lesser manner; shit like that--in any other office--would be grounds for a lawsuit.
And shit like that came directly out of Obama's mouth--why wouldn't *this* shit be seen as within the bounds in the Obama "workplace"? Yukking it up by forcing a beer bottle to the cardboard mouth of Hillary "Claws" Clinton? Grabbing the breast of Ms. Periodically? Why not? Party on, duuuuude!
Favreau mimes sexual violence but will probably keep his damn job, and that's unacceptable; Campbell Brown sets her sights not on Favreau but Hillary Clinton (for not responding in a way Brown approves) and that's unacceptable; people protesting this are being dismissed as killjoys, and that's unacceptable; Obama helped set the tone for a political season of sexism--out of which this kind of shit flourishes--and somehow, that's acceptable (or at least acceptable enough to not be a bar to the presidency). What is wrong with not just this picture, but the bigger goddamn picture?
Yesterday was the nineteenth anniversary of the École Polytechnique Massacre, and this is where we are: fucking hell.
For one thing, it's problematic because this isn't the way the vast majority of people use these words. For just about everyone (not to mention every dictionary under the sun) racism (to choose an example) is prejudice or discrimination based on race, full stop. Limiting the word to institutional prejudice or discrimination against specific racial groups in specific cultural contexts creates all kind of confusion - not least because not all the world is made up of the kind of neat binary hierarchies of oppression this kind of definition demands.
For another, society is not a monolith. Even if racism is by definition cultural and institutional, the idea that every institution and sub-culture within a society shares the same biases isn't really tenable.
To return to sexism, far simpler to say (as the OED does, actually) that it is sex-based prejudice and discrimination almost always directed against women.
disagree however you want, but wiggles definition of -isms are sociological in nature and correct. The "vast majority" of people can use a technical term however they want, that doesn't mean they are using it correctly. perfect example: paradigm shift. This is a technical term, used in anthropological disciplines to indicate a sudden and complete change in how the world is viewed by a sub-group of humanity, and in Western culture, can be applied directly to inventions of mass media and mass communication and the effect this had on how the culture as a whole related to the world. In popular lexicon, we used it to indicate a change in how we behave personally, akin to "changing gears" or changing the flow of our lives. If one compares the two usages, they seem to have the same basic meaning, but one is technically correct within the context that spawned it, and one is popular misconception of the first.
By referencing "every dictionary under the sun", I assume that means you have read every dictionary under the sun. I doubt this, mainly because if you had, you would have noticed that most regular dictionaries are mainly catalogs of common usage in a specific arena, and does not mean the be-all end-all of a word. There is a reason that we have medical and legal dictionaries, as well as dictionaries for different disciplines. These dictionaries may have a word that is spelled the same in each of them, but based on the context, has a differing meaning. Hell, the meaning of a word can differ across languages. Some words don't translate directly from language to language, and some languages have words that others do not. Does this mean that the basic concept does not exist from culture to culture? No, it means that the concepts are viewed differently through different cultural lenses.
Suggesting that your preferred definition of isms is inherently more correct is intellectually dishonest.
In actuality, you can indeed see the binary hierarchies almost world-wide, with adjustments of the standard to the specific group. Example: racial binary, between "white" and "non-white" does exist in most places that I have studied or visited. White in some areas may not look quite like it looks here, but it plays the same role. It can be found echoed through out most institutions and sub-cultures to a greater or lesser degree. The binary hierarchy of sex is also present world wide to differing degrees, even with differences in the definition of masculine v. feminine.
You seem to desire the simpler explanation at the expense of dismissing actual intellectual effort on your part to challenge your own small view of how the world works.
*headdesk*
Didn't we just explain this all upthread?
"Don't worry, sweetie. I don't think all women are pieces of meat. Just Hillary/that bitch at the office/that slut who got raped/etc., because she's Hillary/uppity/wore a short skirt/fill in the blank, etc."
It's not just about Hillary, it's about half the population of the world. If Hillary was an obscure CEO of a company, and one of its shipping clerks had posted the same picture on Facebook on Friday, he'd be expected to clean out his desk on Monday, and rightly so. Many, many people have been fired for less. At best, it shows an appalling lack of judgement; at worst, it's misogynistic. I know Hillary has been a favorite punching bag for conservatives for the last sixteen years (and the favorite punching bag of liberals for the last sixteen months) but that doesn't excuse it. If he acts that way to one of the most powerful women in the world (particularly since she's his future boss) then how is he going to act with other women who don't have either her fame or her power?
(spgreenlaw yesterday 11:21AM)
I'd say around the same age you understand the meaning of NO .. though some assholes never are able to grasp that concept either ....
Yes, I almost posted a link on this yesterday, myself, lola; makes it all the more disgusting, painful and frustrating.
Oh! LOL! I wondered what had happened to you Emma! I thought ... wait a minute ... that doesn't sound like something the Emma I've seen posting here would say ... !!
I've lost track of the number of times I've seen a dude act in this exact manner towards any woman higher than him in seniority (professor, supervisor, boss), any woman who makes him feel a little insecure about his Total Dudely Awesomeness, that Total Dudely Awesomeness that comes with his possession of the correct genitalia and automatically places him as superior to half the population through no effort of his own.
Just to back that up, here's an example of a very similar photo of temperance leader Carry Nation that was taken one hundred and six years ago.
disagree however you want [...] [rant] [...] You seem to desire the simpler explanation at the expense of dismissing actual intellectual effort on your part to challenge your own small view of how the world works."
Well, now ... aren't you just the most precious little thing, Dori ... And how recently did you graduate school? ... Or are you still studying? How impressive you are, dear ... I'm sure MT is now properly chastened for his temerity in suggesting that the OED could possibly be considered an appropriate authority on the meaning of English words.
If you want YOUR definition of sexism -- ie ALWAYS directed at women/EXCLUSIVELY directed at women -- to be considered for entry into a dictionary that is one of the world's leading authorities on the English language, I suggest you submit it. I wouldn't hold my breath for its inclusion however.
Webster's, BTW, has a very similar definition, but also adds that it is "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex." Does THAT sound like ONLY women can be discriminated against in this way?
Note that I am a feminist. Note that I am painfully -- personally -- aware of sexism at its worst. Note that as a former editor, I am also painfully aware of the modern tendency to bastardize the English language for partisan causes ... and I hate it.
Dictionaries were CREATED to avoid this very kind of argument. They were meant to create a standardized meaning, so this kind of confusion would be less likely to occur. So, tell me what YOU see sexism as, by all means -- define YOUR definition of the word, so we can better understand each other. But don't tell me that it is the ONLY definition, especially when two leading authorities on our [apparently] common language say otherwise.
And, most especially, don't try to impress with references to paradigm shifts and binary hierarchies to attempt to stun the opposition into silence. The only person who looks stunned is you.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3112/3087215807_...
"hey man loosen up dudes and dudettes! I dunno, it's like . . cuz they we're just partying man!. . It's funny!"
Are you denying that definitions change based on context? because that was the bulk of my argument. MT is trying to suggest that the definition of isms as prejudice+power is incorrect and irrelevant and that only the OED definition is correct, which is limited and ignorant at best. I am arguing that we are using a specific definition to describe a specific scenario, and that definitions are dependent on the context that the term is used in.
I think you misread my argument and I would appreciate it if you back the fuck up and re-read. I am not some one-comment troll, but a fairly regular reader/lurker/commenter. That particular comment was made before I signed in and I can't claim it while at work.
I don't eat cheerios, Dori -- they're crap. The box would be better for you than the contents.
As for you comment, I did read it -- thoroughly -- including your suggestion that MT has his/her "own small view" of how the world works. To this I say : "Back at ya."
Indeed, you are right -- the world changes, and words can take on new meanings. Once these new meaning pass a set of accepted criteria, and are considered to be more or less UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD by that new meaning, they are considered for inclusion in dictionaries of the appropriate language. Then, when you use this definition, you can be pretty much assured that anyone who is proficient in that language will understand what you mean when using it.
I give you the word "gay," for example. If you said that to someone in the 1890s, they would have thought you meant bright and cheerful. By the time the 1990s rolled around, people would have been unlikely to even consider that as a definition of the word, but would probably, universally, have assumed you meant homosexual.
The dictionary, today, reflects this "new" meaning.
The definition of sexism has NOT been so changed, and IMO, has no need of change. It has an appropriate definition by declaring that it is "typically"[OED]/"esp discrimination"[MWCD] against women.
We, Dori, as women, do not OWN the word sexism, as blacks don't OWN the word racism, if you get my meaning. We do a great disservice to one another -- not to mention to the language -- when we attempt to abscond with words/concepts we'd like to have all to ourselves. "My precioussss."
Or are you instead arguing that such a thing doesn't exist?
I don't know what your problem is with what I am saying, but you started out with mocking and insults and have yet to make ANY sense as to what about me or my comment was so objectionable as to warrant being demeaning as you were. I also said nothing terribly different than anything else said here on a regular basis, and infact tried to explain to MT where the holes in hir underlying assumption about wiggles' definitions were. I managed it without being rude, or insulting, so I would really like to know where you get off infantilizing me.
I think what's happening, here, Llen, is that the sexism that's being discussed is a kind of "institutionalized" sexism -- which is rampant. But sexism is sexism. If I refuse to consider a male person for a job I have open because I think all males are obnoxious and incompetent, then I am refusing them a job based on sexism. I'M sexist. THAT's what sexism is.
A sexism that is ingrained -- that is part of the way a culture lives, breaths, functions, is ALSO sexism, and IMO, a far worse/more dangerous KIND of sexism, but it is still defined by the same word, unless you care to coin a new word -- like sociosexism -- to define it.
My argument is for a common, proper, and universally-understood definition of the word. If you wish to veer from the dictionary definition, then do -- but don't claim it as THE new definition by virtue of your personal conviction. Or because everybody else here does.
'Show me the money!" -- so to speak (ie, show me the paperwork).
You disagree with the "prejudice+power" definition? Your prerogative. It is still the one being used in this discussion, and most of us, with the exception of MT and you apparently, understood that. No one is claiming that this is a new definition, just a context specific one. Unless you want to argue that context doesn't determine which meaning of a word is more likely.
And frankly, I think it was pretty fucking rude the way you responded to me:
None of that was necessary. Nor was accusing me of simply trying to "stun" people into submission by stating pretty observable facts. I didn't write that to impress you but to make a point, so you can stuff the condescending mommy shit.
This is not about "due process" or "(coldly)rushing to judgment". Unless this person were to allege that the photo is a fake, and back that up, he's gone. At once. That, of course isn't going to happen here.
Here is what this is roughly equivalent to: a manager in the company is caught on camera in the act of writing a racist slogan in the men's room (anywhere). Fired. Why? Because as an employee (of a company or of Obama) you have a face to the world, and it is partially the company's face. You have also just revealed that you are not to be trusted to have good judgment about sensitive things, and that you are "risk" in terms of exposing the employer to legal risk down the road. Employment is an "at will" thing. If one thinks he/she was wronged, there are venues to have that sorted out: wrongful termination (as with a whistleblower), discrimination if you are a member of a protected class (immature and stupid is not protected). 27 year old white guys don't have those protections, except for sexual harassment against themselves, and for good reason. Favreau can take his verbal talents to advertising firms, to film makers, and so on. Hey, he can write sermons for those Rolex watch wearing preachers and get a piece of THAT action. What he writes and what he says about it knows no limits; it need have NO bearing on his own beliefs or value system. He's a hired gun and there is no reason to feel he'll be hurt by this in the long term (unfortunately, in my opinion)
Taking this a step further: Any executive (like Obama in this case, although he is probably Teflon-like) who "winks" is building a case against oneself and the company. Consider: Down the road a few months, there is a sexual harassment case, and the aggrieved states that the organization had a systemic problem that it knew about and ignored. Hear the bell going "ding ding ding" in the chambers, for an examiner or jury who is sympathetic to the aggrieved? I sure do.
A couple of other points: I pay very little attention to what politicians say, especially the kind of "glittering generality" claptrap dished and spun in campaigns. What they say on the job about specific proposals as Congresspersons or governors etc, that's different; that's important. But it is precisely because people like Favreau write for politicians that I completely ignore it unless it is part of a spontaneous conversation with someone "probing" and testing the statements for credibility. Maybe younger people are unduly impressed with "what they hear" (from politicians) because they are not inclined to reflect about it, test it against their experience (which might be slight), or think through the practical implications. They are comfortable with sound bites and 15-minute campaign speeches. it's our culture not to sweat the details, not to pin down or confront people we like superficially, not to weigh potential adverse consequences. "Sounds good, let's go for it."
People who can "compose stuff that sounds really good" are a dime a dozen. Favreau is just one of those, and to think he is "important" (to say nothing of "hard to replace") is just foolish.
On an easy call, and a blatant one such this one --- let's have a little walking the talk. I'd like that.
Yeah, I probably should have thought of this and used a more creative handle. Maybe I'll call myself "the Emma that read the feminism 101 post" from now on... :-)
What Dori was (correctly) pointing out is that words can legitimately be used different ways depending on context. In the context here, we're talking in sociological and anthropologial terms, and thus a more restrictive, technical definition of the word "sexism" is appropriate.
You appear to want words to have only one definition or usage, and that's simply not the case. As pointed out above, there's already a perfectly good word to describe what you're arguing the word sexism (solely) describes: prejudice. Sociologically speaking, a situation in which a female boss dismisses a male employee based on hatred of men would be discrimination based on prejudice. It would not be be sexism.
The reason social science has defined the isms this way is to highlight the fact that they don't exist in a vacuum. It's easy to dismiss them, and pretend they don't exist, if we can declare that they're solely about individual prejudice, and acts of discrimination based on it. If we can cover up the reality that prejudice-based discrimination has become enshrined in everyday life in most of the world, then we can easily pass the buck on fighting it. We like to assume that if we only root out a few prejudiced people, then yay, we've conquered the problem of an ism.
Or are you instead arguing that such a thing doesn't exist?"
Of course not, Tal. Of course it exists. The point is that the word sexism means, effectively, prejudice against someone based on their sex. Both dictionaries I quoted acknowledge that this is usu against women, but they don't go so far as to say ONLY women can be victims of sexual prejudice. That would be a lie, and would be denying that men, too can be subjected to this kind of unfair, or even criminal, behaviour.
And, yes, I do think a new word that specifically defines institutionalized prejudice against women might be a good thing, especially as there are those who seem to think that men CANNOT be on the receiving end of sexist behaviour.
They can, and have been.
Coppercat -- Dori's definition is not a personal conviction thing -- this dialogue has been had by thousands of feminists over the 30 years that I've been a feminist (not to mention the dozens or hundreds of times its been discussed at this blog alone). The OED and Webster's simplify terms to their basest meaning in an attempt to provide a universally-understood definition of a word -- but imo, a dictionary doesn't define my experience as a woman.
Both of these definitions leave out the institutionalized nature of sexism -- (also, perhaps not surprisingly, most of these definitions were written by men) -- and without understanding the impact of institutionalized sexism as a force in world-wide culture, you empty the word of meaning, imo.
When a woman is denigrated at work and threatened constantly by a rape culture, that is the result of sexism.
When a man finds that this woman has a baseline distrust of men based on these experiences, that is also a result of sexism -- but not sexism toward the man because he is male -- rather, personal prejudice on the part of the woman because she has been the victim of sexism.
I think the point is that in this space Sexism = Prejudice + Power.
The corollary to that being that if a commenter is not willing to accept that, then that commenter needs to take a step back and not comment in this thread, because an understanding of that assumption is necessary to carry on a conversation here without derailing the discussion.
I seriously doubt you'd find anyone here who believes that men cannot face prejudice and even discrimination based on incorrect assumptions about their gender. In fact, I'm one of the biggest champions of ending rigid gender roles for men you'd probably ever meet.
But men do not face institutionalized sexism. Period. And thus the endless argument that there is such a thing as "reverse" sexism will always be met with anger from people who are approaching this from a social science POV that is attempting to educate the public about that.
Don't get me wrong--I've been accused of being a language prescriptivist before. I can't stand the use of the singular "they," for instance. I'm far more likely to push the use of new gender-neutral pronouns like "zie."
But in this case, we're telling you that the common definition of a word isn't always the correct one in every context.
Sure thing! ^_^
Once again... if racism weren't commonly understood to go only one way, we wouldn't have the term "reverse racism". Ditto for sexism.
And can I just say... I've been reading about this on other feminist blogs and seeing regular commenters and feminists argue this is no big deal and the guy shouldn't be fired. It makes me so glad for Shakesville and sanity.
This bit is an excellent analysis of the situation from a business perspective, particularly the firing bit that we were talking about before a bunch of dudes wandered in here to tell us that this isn't sexist.
Okay, let's say we have a university president. Let's call her, oh, I don't know... Mary Summerson. And she gets up in front of a bunch of people and tells them that she thinks that men are inferior to women, no two ways about it. She ends up forced to resign from her position and is never heard from again.
Now let's have another university president. We'll call him Larry Summers. He gets up in front of a bunch of people and tells them he thinks that women are inferior to men, no two ways about it. He ends up forced to resign from his position and is subsquently given a powerful position managing the economy of a nation.
That is why Larry Summers was being sexist, and Mary Summerson was being prejudiced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Francis
Indeed. It's breaking my heart to see so many otherwise-intelligent, educated and aware young women who just don't get why this is wrong.
I know some of them are suffering under the sports star problem (He's on our team! He can't be bad!) or are otherwise blinded by Favreau being young, cute and prominent.
But some of them have also been arguing (as we've seen here) that complaints about this are coming from a place of prudery. It's awful that so many young women have come to see sexual exploitation as some sort of legitimate exercise of women's sexuality, and are arguing that fighting against exploitation is somehow anti-sex.
I wish more of them knew that no, you really don't have to accept or embrace being objectified and reduced to your biological functions in order to get laid. (And also, that the guys who demand this of their potential partners are usually lousy in bed anyway!)
This. =/
By the time I finished, there were fresh posts wanting response, for which I unfortunately do not have the energy at present, as I suffer from ME/CFS. I'm afraid I've just "hit the wall" energy-wise, and must respect my limits.
I will take your suggestion under advisement, Llen; I have been trying to figure that out for myself. As a new poster, coming in to a well-established site, and one with such a specific focus, it's sometimes like walking in to the middle of a conversation among people who've known each other for eons -- so to speak. You're not sure whether you belong there, whether you're welcome, whether to feel like it fits. You watch how people interact with each other, how they speak, how they treat "outsiders."
In that way you hopefully come to know the "society/culture" you've just stepped into. I'm still trying to figure that out. AND you have all had these arguments so often before. I haven't.
Dori, I'm afraid you just tripped my trigger. Others before you have said the same things and I stayed silent; I'm just not one to put up with "preaching." Teaching, yes -- which requires knowing the level of the student you are trying to educate and trying to speak "their" language. You made no attempt, IMO, to do that. You just got up on the soap-box and began to disgorge all you had been taught. I don't know how MT felt, but I found it offensive.
PD, I will, if I live that long, be sixty in another year and a half. I have been female all of that time, and a feminist most of it. I DO know what sexism is, and have been subjected to it in the workplace, in health care, and in personal experiences ... [description of same removed by CC for personal reasons].
If the dictionary definition does not go far enough, then perhaps it needs a revision. But I personally still advocate for a word that PROPERLY describes the "institutional" variety.
You say: "The OED and Webster's simplify terms to their basest meaning in an attempt to provide a universally-understood definition of a word -- but imo, a dictionary doesn't define my experience as a woman."
No, it doesn't. It's not trying to. It's a dictionary. It defines words. [I'm not trying to be smart, here -- I'm concerned that you may hear snarkiness in those words, and it's not intended.]
"Both of these definitions leave out the institutionalized nature of sexism -- (also, perhaps not surprisingly, most of these definitions were written by men) -- "
[Ahem.]
and without understanding the impact of institutionalized sexism as a force in world-wide culture, you empty the word of meaning, imo.
Ah, but you see [again, no smart-ass, here] you define it as "institutionalized" sexism -- to differentiate it from any other kind of sexism. Was this only for my benefit, or did you do this automatically -- as if the word NEEDS greater/better definition in order for it to "work" in the way you mean it?
"When a woman is denigrated at work and threatened constantly by a rape culture, that is the result of sexism."
Indeed. Sexism directed against her because she is a woman IN A CULTURE/SOCIETY that deems her LESS than a man.
Sorry ... don't mean to cop out, here, but I'm fading fast and must go to preserve myself ...
The fact that nearly all dictionary definitions hint at this, but do not specifically state it is, to me, simply another example of how the oppressor attempts to control and define the oppressed.
Since the current usage of the words "sexist" and "sexism" are traced back to feminists, and those feminists clearly meant the oppression of women by cultures that embrace male supremacy, I would argue that feminists should be the ones to define its meaning. So in a way, yes, feminists DO own this word. Co-option (and attempts at redefinition) of terms that oppressed movements create to describe themselves and their own struggles is a traditional tool of oppression.
You were nasty to me, and I don't really care if you thought you were justified cause you heard me as preachy. I am under no obligation to explain these things here at all, and could have brushed MT off, but instead explained. The fact that it upset you was no reason to be so damn rude, especially considering the normal treatment of someone like MT here would be to tell hir to educate hirself and leave the rest of us alone.
By the way, the dictionary does not provide definition, it merely records the appropriate definition for the context it applies to. OED is general usage, while a collegiate dictionary would have definitions more in line with what is stated here, as a legal dictionary would define terms as they are used in legislation. Basic facts. Falling back on a single dictionary explanation to the exclusion of all others in an attempt to discredit a different definition is INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY, whether that upsets you or not.
with regard to dictionaries
Dictionaries are sexist too. They're written by humans. That's what institutionalized means.
Also
This
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/12/07/fa...
Wooooo~!
I can see that it's relevant to "sexism", given the gender binary we've got going. And I can see what the commenters upthread mean by it. It's just that, to me, it seems just as damned racist when a black person calls me "paki" as when a white person in a pub backs away from me because they've realised that I'm mixed race.
Again, I can see what people have meant - it just doesn't always *feel* that way.
I don't believe dictionaries define words. I believe they describe usage. I didn't cite the OED as an appeal to authority, but as a shorthand way to point out that, if the dictionary has done its job properly, restricting the word "racism" to mean what sociologists, anthropologists and so forth (contra many commenters above) call "institutional" or "systemic racism" creates confusion and robs the word of important utility.
I think I understand the impulse behind your desire to restrict the word. A Latinist of my acquaintance recently told the BBC that the suppression of anglicized Latin phrases in public officials' speech is "the linguistic equivalent of ethnic cleansing," thereby driving me nuts with the (I'm sure unintentional) implication that "ethnic cleansing" can be a victimless crime: out with the ancient Romans! But I'm sure I'd be equally frustrated by a sociologist or anthropologist (should one actually exist) who challenged a reference to ethnic violence in a society divided along tribalist lines as racist on the grounds that, by George, the oppression was just not sufficiently systemic and historical to merit the term!
And why do you think that's the case? Sex in itself has nothing to do with dominance or power, so where did our culture get the idea that they could use sex to display or establish our own dominance or power? Why should "molestation" be considered humiliating to the victim?"
I didn't realize I wasn't clear on this, but let me clarify: of course the victim of molestation or other forms of sexual abuse should never feel humiliated; it is the perpetrator's fault, not theirs. But it's just a fact that people often do feel humiliated when they are attacked in that way, which is a terrible thing. Hopefully that is changing as society's attitudes change.
Sorry, I didn't realize there was another Emma.
CopperCat--I think you're way offbase here in tone & message, but I hope--after being on the brutal end of such a horrific sexual crime--that you've found some peace in your life.
"Just for the record, the other Emma above who doesn't understand why this photo is sexist isn't me."
Weird when that happens, hunh? (I came across another Lola posting on some of the same sites I visit, but unlike your case, she hasn't said anything troubling--that I've read at least--but maybe I should modify my handle anyway).
"he awaited word from his man in Havana"
Which sounds nowhere near as servile as, say, "my man Jones" (as in valet /manservant ), whereas applying servility to women ("the charwoman will clean the carpet") just flows as easily as water.
I accept the rest of your post, but it is important to remember that the act itself is still sexist, regardless of the intent behind the act.
(The reference is a bit buried in the post, but search "intent.")
Please forgive me, but I'm missing the point you're trying to make here. Can you please clarify?
And the story has pretty much died away.
Like many stories potential harmful to Obama.
Not a good sign
I understand your point, here. Let me attempt to clarify, if I may (speaking for no one but myself), how I see how this works:
Very few of the isms are binary in that all oppression is directed at one side by the other. It's more that the isms FAVOR one side, and thus all others who are not that side (however many of them there may be) are disfavored and thus oppressed.
For instance, if we're talking about religious oppression in the West, it's not just Christians oppressing Jews. It's a small subset of conservative Christians with disproportionate economic and political power oppressing everyone else who doesn't believe exactly as they do--Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Atheist---even other Christians who don't fall in line.
Racism in the West isn't merely the oppression of people of African ancestry. It is the notion that people of Northern European ancestry are inherently superior to all others--white supremacy, in other words. Exactly how this has manifested for different groups of people with different ancestry has differed in quality, quantity and scope (and it could be, and sadly is, argued constantly whether one group has had it worse than others) but the base problem of idealizing white folk is the common thread among all.
Because this notion of white supremacy is so deeply ingrained in Western culture, even many non-white people have internalized it, and express it both in how they treat other PoCs, and in how they may see and treat themselves and others who share their ancestry.
So, while it may seem that a black person holding and expressing prejudice against someone of South Asian ancestry is a unique kind of racism, it's really not. It's the same old white supremacy, just manifesting in some of its victims as well as its originators.
How this works wrt sexism is that it's not just that women are oppressed by men, but that men, and all things that most cultures consider masculine, are considered ideals or superior or the default, and all things that are not--whether a cisgendered or trans woman or a man acting "feminine" or even random inanimate objects that are coded feminine--are considered inferior.
(One caveat on this latter bit, however: Because women have been oppressed for so long, it's really, really hard to tell which coded-feminine traits are natural and which are those that have been developed in us to make us better for the roles that we've been historically limited to. So it's not as easy as saying that any opposition to something coded feminine is inherently sexist. Sometimes opposition to those coded feminine things--such as, oh, self-sacrifice--is a legitimate objection to sexist structures.)
Does this make any sense, or did I just confuse things further?
Not a good sign
FWIW, given that the story broke late on a Thursday, it may be that it's developing further over the weekend, and will be discussed more when the weekday news cycle starts up tomorrow. At least we can hope so.
I was comparing these two definitions:
"a human female employed to do housework; "the char will clean the carpet"; "I have a woman who comes in four hours a day while I write" [syn: charwoman] "
vs
"a male subordinate; "the chief stationed two men outside the building"; "he awaited word from his man in Havana"
When it comes to describing forms of labor, this dictionary had a chance to compare like to like--both men and women in either 'servile' roles (i.e., charwoman and groomsman, say) or subordinate roles (a police chief could station both men and women outside the station--that example could work for both sexes). Probably never even crossed the mind of the person writing the definitions that they'd used two different standards.
Every one of the definitions is (to be kind) skewed. The first definition offers--to describe an adult male who-is-not-a-woman--a neutral image of both sexes on the bus--but woman as not-man? Why, she's cleaning house while he hunts! (The last example being particularly bizarre, as either she's a cavewoman--so why the housecleaning?--or she's trapped in an episode of Masterpiece Theatre and in great need of the charwoman offered in definition five).
Also--with not a *single* definition for "man" involving any woman-man relationship--we've got this lovely bit of shit: "a female person who plays a significant role (wife or mistress or girlfriend) in the life of a particular man" (where the fuck are these definitions from? "The Total Woman Crossword Dictionary"?)
Black people are perfectly capable of racism (eg Larry Elder, Bill Cosby), as women are capable of sexism (eg Ann Coulter, Maureen Dowd).
If it's up to HRC whether to give Favreau a job (which I'm inferring by her "currently reviewing his application" statement), I imagine she'll avoid the predictable Drama-Queen-Off-With-His-Head-Pulling-the-Gender-Card media memes by letting the story die quietly. Then, in a few weeks, she'll just hire someone who's not a douchebag.
I thought Favreau was currently director of speechwriting.
The 'reviewing his app' comment was snark.
Also, to all the troll bashers above: you're a huge part of what makes me love Shakesville.
Lateral racism is still racism, and relies on the hierarchy where whites are at the top. Lateral sexism is still sexism, and relies on the hierarchy where men are at the top.
for this very reason, an apology by the cardboard groper is not going to be enough. fire his ass.
I thought this picture reached the press as a result of his being vetted.
I'm also not sure how to interpret the response from Clinton's office. Further confusing me is the "good-natured fun" comment in Campbell Brown's editorial. It's not a direct quote and, because Brown's wrong on other points (like that Clinton listed "example after example of sexism" toward her during the primaries [far as I know, she never did that]), I can't tell if "good-natured fun" is Brown's interpretation or if Reines or Clinton actually said that.
I think Jon Favreau is cute and cuddly and a great writer. Elf is one of my favourite Christmas movies ever!
(The actor Favreau is who I thought of when I heard this story. "Really, he's a speechwriter for Obama now? Why'd he give up acting?")
snark. Favreau will be Obama' speechwriter
unless we do something about it. it is a gigantic insult to Hillary, to women, if he does not go. it is also a signal to men all over the world that this type of behavior is ok. touching a woman against her will is illegal. it is not
worthy of a process of handwringing, it is an HR/legal issue. if it happened where any of us work, consequences would follow. The National Hockey League just suspended a guy for making a very inappropriate comment about women he dated, in effect calling them whores. If the NHL an do something about a comment, the supposed beacon of change can fire the asshat groping sexist speechwriter.
Don't know how effective the link below is (as Larry Summers still ended up as a major player in the admin, despite all the letters sent to Obama's "transition" team) but you can send an e-mail here:
http://change.gov/page/content/contact/
<block quote>If the NHL an do something about a comment, the supposed beacon of change can fire the asshat groping sexist speechwriter.</block quote>
<applause>
Sexism is alive, when will the misogynist scum ever learn. The only solution is harsh punishment.
Also, thanks for the link, lola! :)
I too believe it is sexist, but I often lack the language to explain this to others, and some of the definitions given here (such as how sexism is institutionalized) have really helped me to clarify my position. I've even copied and pasted some of the comments ;-).
I just wanted to interject this and show my appreciation for the work you do here!
President-elect Obama's employment process includes a 63-question application and one of the questions asks whether the applicant has done anything that could embarrass the Obama team. I'd say this qualifies.
Anyway, I stuck with the entire thread and I am very grateful for you all.
http://change.gov/page/s/womensissues