-
Website
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com -
Original page
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/misogyny-takes-holiday-not-bloody.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
And of course you're right. While the misogynist attacks on Clinton might fade from public view (though never end), they will always just shift to another woman. Because ultimately the target never changes. Misogyny is always aimed at women as a group.
(Oh, who am I kidding.)
What's been particularly difficult about the last several months for me is not the misogyny from the people we expect it from. I always knew that liberals could be sexist, misogynist assholes. But this was the first time I really felt it, that it felt like an organized attack from people who actually think they're progressive. It's probably because I'm somewhat young, just 30, that this has felt more personal to me.
It's not just that they hate us. Such a large number of them are really, really eager for any rationalization that allows them to act on it.
Unleash a barrage of hate against Hillary Clinton and THEN she loses (cause and effect isn't the important thing here; timing is) and THEN another barrage of hate will be unleashed against her or someone else.
Have you seen this BillO fox news clip (from riverdaughter) of Hillary supporters who are saying exactly that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nbp3KddRvA
:)
Obama, at this point, would have some major 'splainin to do. He doesn't understand that women are citizens with the right to control their own bodies. He's not horrified about reports of songs about bitches being played at his campaign rally. He never visibly cared about the bullying behavior of his supporters at caucuses. A female reporter asking a serious question for which he's unprepared is trivialized into a sweetie.
It goes on and on and on and on and on. From major to minor and all across the board. And all quite acceptable.
That's the big difference to the racism we've also had on disgusting display. That gets called out.
Outrage about sexism? About as common as a competent appointee in Bu$hCo.
You're right, they've lost lifelong Democrats unless the leadership, and Obama, and the whole boiling of them, do a 180 turn, and reject their own and everybody else's sexism, and . . . if pigs could fly . . . .
The MSM and the Republicans will, but the fauxgressive boi blogs (and the women who've been determined to ignore the sexism aimed at Clinton) won't. She's married to their candidate, so that makes her the right kind of woman, and going after her would be by definition attacking him.
It's especially crucial that the party and the Obama campaign acknowledge that.
It is, but I'm not holding my breath. A blogging friend who supports Obama, but has at least appeared to recognized the rampant sexism in this campaign, put up a "let's kiss and make up" post that set my teeth on edge. This isn't just about preference for one candidate over the other, and the damage that has been done doesn't go away with a smile, a handshake, and a quick sweep under the rug.
Good point.
That's my prediction.
Woman, know thy place.
I don't even bother trying to argue these things on alternet anymore. Everyone is so "I hate women, what, you gotta problem with that?" over there. What can one say?
Sure, they will. Until their Shiny Precious Candidate of Rainbows and Unity Ponies fucks up on an issue of importance to the Creative Class Blogger Boyz, like, I don't know, net neutrality. That's when it's going to start. Because it will. It always does.
It's not really about Hillary Clinton, unfortunately. It's about the fact that most men and lots of women in this country either hate women or don't care enough to say it's wrong. It will happen again. Over and over.
I'm feeling kind of depressed about this today.
Sexism = normal
White feminists' (and I am one) tone-deafness about race has really disturbed and embarrassed me during this primary season.
I am not surprised that the DNC, the MSM, and the fauxgressive blogosphere have been sexist. They already were, and they will continue to be. It has helped me to remember that they are not my community.
But it seems like, far too often, white feminist critiques of what is truly an ugly pile-on on Hillary and her campaign (including ones at this site) have failed to check their own racial privilege. This post, for example, failed to note Cocco's blindness to race privilege, blindness to the active racism being used by people on the right and the left. That blindness makes our arguments less convincing, less nuanced, and less able to create real change.
There is a trick I've used to critique others' writing - if the writer followed my critique and made the changes I suggest, would it change the tenor of the piece? Would the argument, by necessity, have to change? I think that if white feminists were more attentive to race politics (rather than simply resorting to facile reversals, like Cocco's, and Steinem's earlier this year, and Ferarro's, etc.), I'd be more convinced that their arguments are aimed at creating systemic change. As it stands, that second-to-last paragraph of Cocco's makes the whole damn essay ring untrue to me.
Perhaps my disappointment arises most from the fact that I am increasingly aware of my own racism - I'm so fucking aware of it, and I'm saddened by the fact that some of the leaders of a movement I call home have clearly not done that work themselves.
In short - I think Cocco is right, but her facile racial reversal makes me doubt her intentions and the ability for white feminism to make substantive change. Zuzu's failure to note Cocco's blindness to race privilege just adds fuel to the fire.
kliofem, Cocco's reversal is not facile, it's spot on. Neither Cocco nor zuzu (nor anyone else here) has denied the presence of racism in this campaign. But racism has been called out, over and over, as it should be, while sexism has been ignored, laughed off, or embraced by far too many people who call themselves progressives. Can we talk about that for one comment thread without hearing, "but, but, but racism"?
Also there are things like Hillary's Iraq war vote that some people can never forgive. If some folks can thats' all well and good.
If there's a better analogy to use, great, bring it on! Because we really need to get people to understand this!!!!!
I must not have made myself clear. I apologize for that.
My point is not to trade a gender critique (like Cocco's) for a race critique. My point instead is that the either/or construction that Cocco actively participates in (and Zuzu obliquely participates in here, by not calling Cocco out) doesn't get us anywhere. It fails to get at the root of the issue - that white-supremacist capitalist heterosexist patriarchy tears everyone down who doesn't fit their very narrow definition of humanity. In a way, then, the forces ripping Hillary and her campaign apart are the same forces that compare Obama to Curious George. They may be embodied in different individuals, but they are all on the same damn team.
You may see Cocco's reversal as "spot on". I see it as a deep failure to recognize what we're really up against.
Because of this I don't think that its' bad if folks bring up racism when someone is discussing sexism. Just like if me and other black folks are discussing racism and a woman (especially a black woman) mentions how they have been hurt by sexism. I think that is a good thing since so many people are hurting and feel powerless to end it. At least they can bring up issues that concern them and maybe from this there will come a consensus and understanding. Or maybe everything will go down in flames and everyone will take their oppression ball home
If it's an analogy, it's a poor one. That's the issue. Because there's no way to make the racism/sexism comparison without making one sound better than the other.
I disagree that people understand racism better. As a nation, we are as profoundly ignorant of our racial history as we are of our gender history. We are as profoundly unable to deal with the continuing force of racism as we are the continuing force of sexism. While each of these ideologies operates in different ways, I am unwilling and unable to say that one is "worse" than the other. They both fucking suck and are fucking evil - and they're both about making sure that only a tiny minority of people actually have any real power.
making one group sound better off than the other.
See: Oppression Olympics
Ok, I don't get that - which group is supposed to be "better off" when an analogy is made? To me, it says "you get why this example would be bad, so you should understand that this other example is also bad." That's not a contest, that's saying both groups suffer discrimination. And I don't mean that we as a country truly "understand" racism, but that blatant examples are understood. Whereas the article and the comments it generated on Alternet shows that even the most blatant examples of sexism are met with: "well, I don't like Hillary's policies" (therefore nutcrackers in her image are ok).
And if there's a better analogy, let me know!!!
You're right - using the term "Oppression Olympics" was lazy and not smart of me. I meant it critically (ie, criticizing the use of the phrase) but I didn't make that clear.
Look, I know that this issue has been hashed out in other threads. I have stayed out of those threads - lurking, but keeping out of the discussion. I jumped in here because no one had yet called Cocco out in this thread yet. I think it's important to call out the moments when I see privilege being enacted, and since no one had, I jumped in.
The point is not to diminish the importance of calling out and acting against racist remarks, or to somehow argue that sexism is worse than racism. And I'm really not sure why you're making that analogy the issue here. We don't have to diminish the importance of calling out racism in order to say that calling out sexism is important and that it is not being done nearly enough.
No, she argues that racist attacks are taken seriously by the media, but sexist attacks are not.
Exactly - and, by extension, that the MSM is somehow "better" about race than they are about gender. I don't think they are. Do you?
So how would you make the point?
To argue that the MSM's medias treatment of any issue is a signal of that media's seriousness misreads how media functions in this country at this time.
Cocco could have left that paragraph out of her essay. But she made a choice to be divisive by putting it in.
She should have left out the analogy, because it does more harm than good. (Honestly, what purpose does that paragraph serve in her essay?)
What should she have done instead? How about noticing that this primary season has meant that both racism and sexism are flying everywhere, in public spaces. That the only people who seem to be benefitting are Rupert Fucking Murdoch and the CEO of GE. That unless us progressives can sidestep these moments of being pitted against each other, we're fucking doomed.
Look, last night I got in a huge argument with someone who failed to see the sexism against Hillary. My point is, we've got to be able to fight on both fronts, and we've got to learn better ways to do it than the way Cocco did.
Both sexism and racism, though different historically, both are systems of oppression. And they have some similarities in their practice. Which it seems logical to compare.
So, can someone explain why this is divisive? And suggest another analogy that isn't?
Same reason I am, most likely. And yes, the deafening silence from almost every major Democrat is utterly disgusting, especially considering their personal relationship with the woman in question. Which is not to say that they shouldn't call this shit out regardless. I think loyalty is highly underrated, and so is decency, and so is feminism.
Right now I'm not feeling especially eager to vote for any Democrat in November. They've been utterly silent while Clinton's been gender-trashed six ways to Saturday. I don't matter to them, so I don't know why my vote should either.
sorry if I contributed to the derailment.
Which just makes his silence on the blatantly misogynist coverage louder.
I created a NEW VIDEO: "We've Come a Long Way, Baby!"
It's about Obama's silence on sexism against Hillary Clinton and his own sexist remarks.
If you approve of the video, I'd appreciate your help in spreading the video by creating a post on the video and ask that you and your readers go to youtube to RATE, COMMENT & mark FAVORITE the video.
Thanks.