54 comments

• 

  Acrimonious Astraea

  1 year ago

  That's a great piece in many ways. It's good to finally see this kind of thing, but so enraging that it comes so late in the game.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  RKMK

  1 year ago

  I hadn't read it yet, so thanks for linking! I agree that misogyny won't exactly take a holiday, but maybe, just maybe, it won't be so daily in-your-face depressing?
  
  (Oh, who am I kidding.)
  reply
• 

  Bill in Birmingham

  1 year ago

  I saw this last night. It is the first thing I have seen in the MSM that has stated the obvious through this whole sordid process.
  reply
• 

  Acrimonious Astraea

  1 year ago

  I imagine they'll just go after Michelle Obama if Obama becomes the nominee. They just won't have a couple decades worth of misogynist anger at her in particular to tap into.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  TA

  1 year ago

  Why on earth should misogyny take a holiday? It's operant conditioning, among other things. Reward the behavior: get more of the behavior.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  votermom

  1 year ago

  so fed up they're seriously considering leaving the party
  
  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
  
  :)
  reply
• 

  Ari

  1 year ago

  I won't miss the anticipation over whether the two of them will manage to geta long again so that you guys can have a cool president and a cool vice-president. But maybe I'm an optimist. <.< >.>
  reply
• 

  quixote

  1 year ago

  Damn right that there are people who've left the Democrats over this. Men as well as women. Not very many men of course, but even some of those. ( Biology is not destiny, regardless of what the behavior of the huge majority of Y chromosome holders would seem to indicate.)
  
  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 . . . .
  reply
• 

  Kathy

  1 year ago

  "I imagine they'll just go after Michelle Obama if Obama becomes the nominee."
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  TheSeaHag

  1 year ago

  Yeah, I'm in the "we can't miss it because it won't go away" camp. And personally, I'm not willing to let it scurry back under the rug. No. The misogynist assholes who've been throwing shit at Clinton and, by extension, at all women, are going to have to deal with the mess they've made. A lot of us are really, really angry about this and we are not willing to just forgive and forget.
  reply
• 

  Acrimonious Astraea

  1 year ago

  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.
  
  Good point.
  reply
• 

  votermom

  1 year ago

  What's worse (from my pov) is that fauxgressives will defend Michelle because she's good while Clinton "deserved to be trashed."
  That's my prediction.
  Woman, know thy place.
  reply
• 

  madaha

  1 year ago

  I'm reading the comments on the alternet posting of the article, and, as always, I feel sick. People saying "I'm sick of the word misogyny". REALLY? Well, I'm sick of misogyny full stop! And people saying, it's not misogynistic to hate an individual woman. Well, it sure is, if you express that hate by calling her a ho, or making nutcracker dolls in her image.
  
  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?
  reply
• 

  madaha

  1 year ago

  Ok, just posted at alternet. I'm expecting to be called a c*nt very soon now.
  reply
• 

  CE

  1 year ago

  What's worse (from my pov) is that fauxgressives will defend Michelle because she's good while Clinton "deserved to be trashed."
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  NoBlood4Hubris

  1 year ago

  Racism = bad
  
  Sexism = normal
  reply
• 

  kliofem

  1 year ago

  I think that Cocco's piece is really compelling - except for the second-to-last paragraph.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Kathy

  1 year ago

  *sigh*
  
  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"?
  reply
• 

  tenacitus

  1 year ago

  Kathy I disagree with you about Michelle Obama there are a number of comments that I read at Tennessee Guerrilla women where folks were saying all kinds of sexist things about her, so in some ways it has started already. However as I have written elsewhere sexism is as American as lynching.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  madaha

  1 year ago

  I think using an analogy like racism helps people to understand how offensive sexism is, and it's not racist to do so. Analogies are a good teaching tool.
  
  If there's a better analogy to use, great, bring it on! Because we really need to get people to understand this!!!!!
  reply
• 

  kliofem

  1 year ago

  Kathy,
  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.
  reply
• 

  madaha

  1 year ago

  kliofem: it's not a trade, it's an analogy. Why is that bad, if it helps people to understand? Because people seem to understand racism more than they do sexism, no?
  reply
• 

  kliofem

  1 year ago

  Oh - and I should note that neither of these two candidates get that racism and sexism (and class and homophobia) are intertwined either. That's part of the reason why this shitstorm has raged on to the degree that it has - clearly, they're not about making substantive change, either.
  reply
• 

  tenacitus

  1 year ago

  Personally I think that both sexism and racism are equally important and I am glad that people are discussing both of them on the web inn these boards. I would like to believe that most people here are sincere in wanting to see all people treated with respect. From all my readings of history I have seen that when one type of oppression is fought against if others are also not removed everyone gets back to where they started.
  
  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
  reply
• 

  madaha

  1 year ago

  exactly
  reply
• 

  kliofem

  1 year ago

  Madaha -
  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.
  reply
• 

  kliofem

  1 year ago

  by "making one sound better than the other," I mean:
  making one group sound better off than the other.
  
  See: Oppression Olympics
  reply
• 

  Kathy

  1 year ago

  kliofem, I fail to see where Cocco or zuzu or anyone else here says that sexism is worse than racism. Using terms like "Oppression Olympics" to derail discussion is disingenuous at best.
  reply
• 

  rrp

  1 year ago

  kilofem, I don't think that Coco is making the Oppression Olympics argument. I think she's pointing out how misogyny enjoys (/sarcasm) a different position in public discourse. To point out that no one would make a tap dancing or watermelon eating Obama doll (though I'm not so sure the idea of the latter isn't floating around in the fetid swamp of someone's imagination) is not to say that racism is gone, just that it isn't relayed in the same blatant way that misogyny is.
  reply
• 

  madaha

  1 year ago

  kliofem:
  
  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!!!
  reply
• 

  kliofem

  1 year ago

  In the second-to-last paragraph of Cocco's essay, she argues that racist attacks against Obama would not be tolerated. I read that to mean that "we're all so much more enlightened about racism, but not about sexism". This erases the racist attacks that have occurred, and it implies that Obama (and black folks generally?) have it easier than women. That's the kind of false hierarchicalizing that I'm talking about.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  zuzu

  1 year ago

  kliofem, the point of the analogy is that Imus was rightly called out and faced consequences for his racist remarks. However, equally vile, and far more pervasive, sexist bullshit that has been thrown at Clinton by media people has gone unremarked, let alone unpunished.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  zuzu

  1 year ago

  In the second-to-last paragraph of Cocco's essay, she argues that racist attacks against Obama would not be tolerated. I read that to mean that "we're all so much more enlightened about racism, but not about sexism". This erases the racist attacks that have occurred, and it implies that Obama (and black folks generally?) have it easier than women. That's the kind of false hierarchicalizing that I'm talking about.
  
  No, she argues that racist attacks are taken seriously by the media, but sexist attacks are not.
  reply
• 

  kliofem

  1 year ago

  But it's always done by way of the analogy! And that's my point! I'm far more convinced by any argument (and the Hillary Sexism Watch series has been a really good example of this) that pointedly avoids the sexism/racism analogy. Cocco's argument falls flat when she makes a reversal that doesn't hold water - either logically, or politically.
  reply
• 

  rrp

  1 year ago

  And Cocco's making an important point about what's acceptable and what's not acceptable in media. It is not erasing the racist attacks on Obama. Instead it shows how they're forced to be more subtle, less obvious than sexist attacks on Clinton.
  reply
• 

  kliofem

  1 year ago

  "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?
  reply
• 

  zuzu

  1 year ago

  It's not an either/or situation, kliofem. It's a both/and. You don't have to disappear racism to call out sexism, or vice versa. But using an analogy to racism being taken seriously to point out that sexism *also* deserves to be taken seriously does not in any way disappear racism.
  reply
• 

  zuzu

  1 year ago

  But it's always done by way of the analogy! And that's my point! I'm far more convinced by any argument (and the Hillary Sexism Watch series has been a really good example of this) that pointedly avoids the sexism/racism analogy. Cocco's argument falls flat when she makes a reversal that doesn't hold water - either logically, or politically.
  
  So how would you make the point?
  reply
• 

  madaha

  1 year ago

  Again, if you've got a better analogy, then help a girl out! I would love a different one. This one, unfortunately, makes sense for now.
  reply
• 

  rrp

  1 year ago

  That's not a reasonable extension, it's a naive one.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  kliofem

  1 year ago

  Part of my critique of Cocco (and the racism/sexism analogy) is that it's so rooted in the long history of white feminism - from the suffragists, to Firestone, to Steinem, to current feminists like Cocco. It's a divisive rhetorical tool. It always has been, since the 19th century.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  kliofem

  1 year ago

  rrp - You're misreading me. I mean that Cocco thinks the MSM "gets" racism (or at least makes hay of sexism). I think the MSM actively foments both.
  reply
• 

  kliofem

  1 year ago

  Madaha - I'm saying that the racism/sexism analogy is too flawed of a rhetorical tool to be useful. So I refuse to use it. If that's the only way we can make the argument about sexism in news coverage, then we've got some fucking work to do on our own end.
  reply
• 

  kliofem

  1 year ago

  I've got to get back to work. Sorry for posting and then leaving.
  reply
• 

  eleanora

  1 year ago

  Why am I unsurprised that a thread discussing sexism has yet again morphed into a discussion of racism? Great post, zuzu, and I agree with the OP. The silence from the Democratic Party bigwigs has been palpable and taught me a great deal about just where I stand with them and how hard they'll fight for things that matter to me. Depressing, but enlightening.
  reply
• 

  madaha

  1 year ago

  Huh. I guess I need further schooling, because I don't see why it's divisive. Saying that it always has been doesn't explain why it is. To me, it's an analogy, which compares two like things, to suggest a corresponding meaning.
  
  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?
  reply
• 

  CE

  1 year ago

  Why am I unsurprised that a thread discussing sexism has yet again morphed into a discussion of racism?
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Toonces (MeM)

  1 year ago

  I've been trying to think of another comparison that works but it's just hard. I can't imagine Obama saying "Not now, ghetto/trashy/hobo" to a reporter dressed shabbily, or had the reporter been a man with a high voice or maybe even a man dressed as a woman, I can't imagine him saying "Not now, fag/Nancy/queer" (yes it could be flipped on someone else but Obama's example is both easy and timely and relevant what with the silence and all), so there were many making the analogy with Clinton saying "boy". Edit: not that I can imagine Clinton saying "boy" in that context, but it just seemed to work as an analogy. I'm certainly open to different ones.
  reply
• 

  rrp

  1 year ago

  I don't think that Cocco is saying that clearly and I think that although there are unreasonable analogies to be made (and have been made) between different oppressions, this isn't one.
  
  sorry if I contributed to the derailment.
  reply
• 

  ligedog

  1 year ago

  I'm just not sure what Howard Dean had to do with any of it or what he could have done differently. He has made every effort to remain an impartial figure in the race.
  reply
• 

  zuzu

  1 year ago

  Howard Dean could bloody well call out the misogyny in the coverage without endorsing Clinton, just as he managed to call out Fox on its race-baiting related to Rev. Wright.
  
  Which just makes his silence on the blatantly misogynist coverage louder.
  reply
• 

  zuzu

  1 year ago

  To pursue that further: he should be calling out media bias against Democrats, whether it's based on sexism or racism. But so far, he's only done that with racism.
  reply
• 

  GeekLove08

  1 year ago

  I helped create the "Mad is Hell" video (re. media bias against HIllary Clinton) along with IndyRobin.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  KendallJ

  12 months ago

  Part of the reason we don't discuss gender issues is because as soon as we do, we are told OH what about race??? While, sometimes gender needs to be talked about on center stage. The issue needs to be about women, all women of all races. Racism should not pre-ampt discussions of Misogyny and it too often is. Misogymy is the largest and most pervassive form of discrimination and oppression in the world, and no it cannot be covered up or drowned out by issues of race.
  reply