Rebecca Traister really gets at what I’ve been trying to articulate, about why it is that the open acceptance of sexist language over racist language is by no means an indication that sexism is a greater problem, and in fact might show why sexism might be an easier problem to overcome:
I think also that, in the United States, race (especially when combined with class) remains a more formidable barrier to professional, political and economic success than gender. Hillary Clinton may have a harder time getting elected than Obama because, frankly, Obama can be comfortably looked at as an exceptional black man, not as a harbinger of what’s to come, whereas Hillary will stand in for all those pushy broads coming to take your jobs, college admissions letters, and your seats in Congress. If Hillary’s success is less exceptional, does she deserve my vote as much as Barack?
That gets to the heart of it. Sexism is perversely the only real tool to enforce sexism, but racism has classism as the back-up plan. Strangely, the figure of the exceptional black person can be used to excuse racist oppression of everyone else. It provides a way for the racist to say, “Look, it’s not society that oppresses black people, since Figure X is permitted access. All those black people living in poverty have every opportunity are just inferior/only have themselves to blame.” Obama has already been used in service of this kind of argument, when William Saletan used his success to argue that other black people who don’t share it are just born stupid.
Update: As this has the potential to spin completely out of control, my point is that there’s not a competition. Putting the two into competition is childish, ignores the fact that there are plenty of people getting double and quadruple doses of racism and sexism, and puts one in danger of losing perspective. My sole point is that it is easier to be openly sexist than openly racist in the mainstream because systematic racism is all too effective a means of oppression.
I think sometimes that if the amount of violence directed by men against women on a global scale (abuse, killings, rape, etc…) were just directed between one racial group to another that everybody would be screaming for UN involvement.
But since it’s just women…*shrug*
I also think that classism is used as a tool to enforce sexism against women. It’s the poorest of women that are most likely to fall through the cracks of the justice system and who have the least power to fight the men who victimize them.
Also, of the two (Clinton and Obama) which one is viewed with the most hostility because of their success? Which one is more CREDITED with making their own success (versus riding the coattails of others).
The only part of this that I buy is that racism is more insidiously institutionalized (it has to be, because it’s not as acceptable to be as in-your-face racist as it is to be sexist).
Nobody ever says (well, almost nobody) “Some of my best friends are women.”
Since most of us in the US still live in de facto segregated communities, it’s much easier to be a closet racist than a closet sexist.
Everyone knows the white [Christian] males take the gold in the Oppression Olympics.
After all, the white male is the Jew of liberal fascism…
Obama is anomolous for his age group. His parents were educated, his father was African and his mother was white, and he has met with a mix of barriers that are somewhat different from most African American males of the same age. That doesn’t mean that he hasn’t encountered racism but that his experience of it will be somewhat atypical.
He is not, however, anomalous compared to younger age groups of people. That alone may explain his appeal to younger voters. The age group that is just reaching the age of majority has a greater proportion of immigrant and second generation voters and post-Loving decision mixed race people than other generations of voters. These are the people who grew up watching the likes of Tiger Woods, Johnny Damon, Halle Berry, Derek Jeter and saw both people like themselves and their classmates. It doesn’t matter to them that Obama isn’t “black” - in fact, his unusual heritage makes him more of an everyman to youth than previous generations can appreciate.
YOu really don’t think class affects women? Boy, let me give a few pointers about that one. NObody says ’some of my best friends are women’ because those fucking women are expected to be their servants and their support staff already, reading minds and stuff like that already.
Poor women are supposed to be everybody’s whore. Rich men think we want them for their money and are constantly trying to entrap them. Poor men think we’re they’re punching bags. Everybody projects on us. Oh, yeah, and if we’re not humble and grateful enough, we’re the undeserving poor and sluts besides.
Shesh, I would argue that virtually all socially acceptable racism is institutional–if you’re not in Dog the Bounty Hunter territory, racism is a structural thing more than acts of prejudice. Sexism OTOH is still okay to speak.
Strangely, the figure of the exceptional black person can be used to excuse racist oppression of everyone else.
Nothing strange about it. Tim Wise’s excellent book White Like Me has a wonderful passage about his experiences working as an anti-racism advocate. After dispensing with the ‘what makes me an expert is that I’m white, which is itself white privilege in action’, he talks about the argument by exception, which he refers to as ‘the Oprah effect’.
He points out quite accurately that anyone who is willing to argue out loud that Obama, Oprah, Tiger or who the hell ever proves that racism is over is ignorant. And that you can show him he’s ignorant by asking, So since Madame CJ Walker was a millionaire back when that was real money and was as successful as Oprah, does that mean there was no racism when she was around? Really? Because I could have sworn that lynching was common back then.
Sexism is the only real tool to enforce sexism? Really? Wow, I must have been mistaken about the violence, the rape, the hatred, the contempt, and the rage then. And that’s across all cultures and including men who’ve been discriminated against hemselves, so you can add hypocrisy to that.
To pick up what ginmar said, classism and sexism have another overlap: Privileged women are less privileged than their brothers, fathers, and male partners. They don’t have the same degree of control over money; they have to spend a bigger share of their day doing scutwork; and they don’t get to boss around openly any family members over the age of 9 the way men do. They’re in an inferior class within a privileged class. I’m not saying this problem is especially urgent in a post-Katrina world, but it’s a caste hierarchy that subordinates women under men. Many liberals fume when anyone says so.
Yeah, so, on behalf of less privileged women, you might want to check the privilege.
Question….
Amanda’s statements were (of necessity?) somewhat sweeping. I didn’t hear her say that class is not an issue in the oppression of women, but rather that it doesn’t institutionally oppress women as women in the same way that it does with minorities.
I think in general, she has a pretty valid point. Certainly, the same class issues that affect minority men affect minority women, and in many (most?) cases, affect them disproportionately, for many of the same reasons that affect white women of the same class as specific white men.
Is it really classism as such that does it, or the different forms that sexism takes for different classes? Sexism takes as a given that women are inferior, but puts a different expected role on rich women (ornamental), middle-class women (wife and mother) and poor women (servants, mistresses, and whores.) Again- hugely sweeping. It isn’t so much that classism is what claims women are inferior, as that it defines the form that inferiority takes.
Or am I wrong?
Yeah, Peter, you’re wrong. I really have to laugh.
Also, I Must have missed it. Where exactly did Traister explain how the fact that everybody is happy with expressing sexism somehow means it’s less of a concern? Because the paragraph that Amanda highlights doesn’t explain that at all.
It doesn’t even touch it. And frankly, it’s just glaringly stupid and illogical. One kind of spoken hatred results in firings and punishment, while another kind—backed by rapes, beatings, hatred, and murders—-gets little to no punishment at all and it’s the second kind t hat doesn’t mean anything? Yeah, fail.
I don’t think it’s that classism makes either women or minorities inferior…it’s that class is used to oppress minorities moreso than it is women (since more direct oppression is still acceptable against women to a greater degree). It is still used in both instances, though (and even with rich women, the husband often controls the household expenses and unless the women makes her own money independently (and sometimes even if she does), she’ll have to grovel for an allowance like some child and will have difficultly pulling together the necessary resources to leave an abusive relationship if it becomes necessary).
I think it’s just amazing that people are ignoring the sheer physical power over women. Maybe you’re so disconnected from where you have to fear that power, but as somebody who got mugged while walking to my shitty job, I have to tell you, that’s the most disturbing thing of all. Oh, yeah, and class comes into it hwen you’re a poor woman who shows up in the emergency room with a handful of broken teeth and a bruised face, because the emergency room doc doesn’t give a shit about fixing up the face of some poor woman who’s never going to be a supermodel anyway. Thanks! It’s like there’s this whole class experience that’s missing from this piece.
Missing out on the sheer physical threat women face every day is just inexcuseable.
Wow; that article really nailed it for me - this bit, especially:
That’s my mental conflict, right there; I really, really like both of them. A lot. Neither are perfect, and I don’t agree with them on every single issue, or agree with their every vote. But I like them, and want both of their oppressed groups to succeed equally - it’s a little mind-boggling that in a recent history so dominated by white men has turned on a dime like this. You would have thought, with all the identity issues plaguing the US right now, it would have happened more slowly; a woman up against the white Christian male, or the black man, not both against each other. The only way I’ve been able to reconcile the mental conflict is to create my dream Clinton-Obama ticket.
I do question my preference for Clinton - am I doing the “that candidate looks like me!” thing, is there an unconscious racial bias? I hope not, on either count, but again, Traister articulated it for me:
There’s been eight years of Monkey Rule, and a hell of a lot of cleanup to do. The country - and the world - are heading into very tough times, and as bright and shiny and lovely as Obama is? I feel more comfortable with a more seasoned vet to steer the ship, like Hillary and her Goddamn Ovaries of Titanium.
One kind of spoken hatred results in firings and punishment, while another kind—backed by rapes, beatings, hatred, and murders—-gets little to no punishment at all and it’s the second kind t hat doesn’t mean anything? Yeah, fail.
Um, are you under the impression that African-Americans are not beaten and killed for being black even in the 21st century, or that black women are somehow immune from rape and domestic violence?
Um, if you want to separate race and sex don’t get snotty with me. THanks for assuming I’m stupid, though. Thanks for assuming I don’t know one fucking thing about black history. Thank for assuming I only think of one kind of women. Could that be some kind of class arrogance in assuming you need to educate the poor white trash?
So show me again, how racism isn’t regarded with horror and disgust while it’s okay to call Hillary Clinton a cunt. The last lynching of a black person was Michael Donald in 1992, but nobody calls the rape and torture and murder of women lynchings. Thousands of women have been lynched in this country, but nobody calls it that unless they’re black.
So your point, college girl?
Oh, and I know you from another board, too, so I know that “Um” that started your sentence was intended to be patronizing. WAy to prove the fucking class issue point.
I like it, too, how you ignored everything else I said to focus on what you assumed was ignorance on my part. Good job.
Actually, religion reinforces sexism just fine, and if you don’t think so, you haven’t been paying attention.
Any religion does. Just about all of the majority Western religions have some component of male domination in them, so ‘church-going men’ are often worse than an alternative.
What’s really fun is the way churches try and guilt women into believing that women are supposed to change and reform men. If your man keeps beating you, then you’re obviously not a good enough woman and don’t love him enough. And of course poor women are liable to have few options, church being one of them.
Yeah Ginmar, just like you went out of your way to assume the worst about her statement. Nowhere did she say she needed to “educate the poor white trash”. YOU said that. So it’s not really a credible accusation.
But anyway, as far as the class existance of “poor white trash” goes, it’s possible to go from the underclass to the overclass in one generation if you’re white. Much less probability of that happening if you’re not.
I predict that this is going to end well.
I realize that we are a pathetically dualistic society where every single thing must be distilled into an easily digestible dichotomy for knee jerk reactionaries but I have to point out that there are many people in this country who are neither black nor white. That there are as many poor white women and poor brown women as poor black women according to the National Poverty Center. That there are an increasing number of people who are of mixed race and who refuse to participate in either/or and instead choose both/and.
Hey, OLJB, nice going taking just one side. Fuck you. I know her from another board and she was patronizing from the start. So again fuck you, you patronizing shit.
So it’s possible to go from white trash to upper class in a generation? Yeah, sure. That’s the bootstrap argument so popular amongst the arrogant entitled. First, you have to have bootstraps. Second, it helps if you have a penis. Third, it helps even more if you didn’t have kids in your teens. Fourth, it’s the Condi Rice argument in white face, so fuck off.
More classicism. Let me know when you all want to stop blue skying about Horatio Alger and actually give a shit. But that’s okay. Y’all go on talking about how open sexism is a such a wunnerful wunnderful sign while the cleaning staff waits for the college girls to decide what’s true and what’s not.
Oh, yeah, OLJB, too—–She didn’t say she wanted to educate the poor white trash? I didn’t know I had to wait for my betters to issue a pronouncement as to what they were doing. My opinion of her actions is invalid unless she admits to it. So fuck you again.
I like it, too, how you ignored everything else I said to focus on what you assumed was ignorance on my part. Good job.
Actually, I assumed it was racism on your part, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I’d count the last lynching victim as James Byrd in 1998, personally.
Let’s see…all my adult male relatives have been able to decent jobs - white collar, even - without college degrees. Jobs with benefits, jobs that pay the bills. Not in “the old days” - like, last week.
My B.A. and 1.50 will get me a (small) cup of coffee.
Employers still refuse to hire women for full-time well-paying jobs which they’re qualified for, and justify unequal pay for the old reason of “needing to support HIS family,” and what’s a girlfriend to do when her boyfriend’s boss boasts of not hiring women? What good will bringing a suit do for her or her fiance? And yes, that’s a true story from up here in New England, happened to a colleague of mine a couple years ago.
Women denying sexism is important compared to racism didn’t work very well for any of us, white or black, a hundred-plus years ago. Stop letting the Hegemony play you into self-colonizing, self-abnegating, and thereby yes, pitting one group of non-WASP-XYs against another - because saying we XX should go to the curb doesn’t help, it’s being pitted against ourselves.
It’s not an either/or of deciding if sexism or racism is worse — it’s a both/and. Black women and Latinas get hit with the double whammy of racism and sexism, and often the triple whammy of racism, sexism, and classism. If you’re a poor white woman, you get the double whammy of sexism and classism and it’s hard to pick apart which one you’re dealing with at any given moment.
In the media, this argument has been white women vs. black men, and it’s pretty hard to argue that white women as a group have it harder than black men as a group.
No quicker way to make enemies among your liberal friends than by playing the my-oppression-is-worse-than-your-oppression game.
You can’t quantify any point in this discussion because there are no agreed upon standards for determining “worse than” when it comes to discrimination. Do you judge by direct numbers of people affected? Or by economic consequences, or by how overt the discriminatory behavior is, or by the history of the oppression or which group suffers more violence or… what?
This is a completely subjective discussion, framed overwhelmingly by people’s personal experiences and just serves to piss off natural allies.
And BTW, 1/2 Arab, 1/2 Native American atheist HIV-positive tranny Spanish-speaking disabled women are the most discriminated against group in the country and don’t you forget it.
Women denying sexism is important compared to racism didn’t work very well for any of us, white or black, a hundred-plus years ago.
I don’t see anyone here denying that sexism exists. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t be working in the pink-collar ghetto right now.
I do think that public awareness of sexism as a destructive force in society is about 15 or 20 years behind that of racism.
And I think that they’re both about equally destructive, especially when they’re combined into one corrosive package so you end up spending your day trying to figure out if you can’t get ahead because of racism or because of sexism.
That’s nice, Mnem, but the last lynching death in the country was this victim, dragged to death by a man in 2005. http://www.kmbc.com/news/9894086/detail.htmlOr doesn’t she count in your eagerness to do lecture theyour inferiors? Especially if they make you nervous? And how come you’re not acknowledging just how fucking arrogant your classist assumptions are?
You also ignored getting called on that patronizing ‘um’, too—-typical. You want your ass kissed for the lecture? Not that that’s privileged or anything. IF I want a lecture from some college girl, you can hold your breath till that happens.
http://www.kmbc.com/news/9894086/detail.html
I didn’t say class doesn’t affect women, ginmar. But the middle and upper classes are still 50% female. Women accomplishing is a direct threat to power in your own home, for the white upper class male. Obama isn’t going to make your black servants an iota more powerful. But your wife is always eligible to get a job.
Wow, I must have been mistaken about the violence, the rape, the hatred, the contempt, and the rage then.
These are all under the banner “sexism”. You reinforced my point nicely. Men have to get their hands dirty to oppress women. They have to beat, rape, call names. White people can avoid doing all those things and still manage to oppress the majority of black people.
Sexism is perversely the only real tool to enforce sexism, but racism has classism as the back-up plan.
Comes damned close to me.
Most men, whatever their class or race, know that any uppity woman can be slapped down and killed or raped if she gets really uppity, and the crime gotten away with if you present it before other men. It’s just about open season on poor women. No license required to hunt us.
Mnem, you’re not disproving the whole arrogant college girl thing by accusing me of racism, either. Apologize already. Your arrogance is disgusting.
Bell, thank god I didn’t deny that sexism is important. In fact, the very notion that my extremely minor point—that there’s a reason that one can say “bitch” but not “nigger”—somehow can be extrapolated into denying that I care about sexism, when fighting sexism is basically my fucking career, defies sense.
I think sexism is very important. I think it’s very powerful. I think it’s very oppressive. I do not underestimate the power of it.
I don’t need to pretend black people are doing better than they are in order to believe this. It’s not a competition.
“In the media, this argument has been white women vs. black men, and it’s pretty hard to argue that white women as a group have it harder than black men as a group.”
Actually, I WOULD argue that (or at least that they have it equally bad in different ways). I don’t like seeing this kind of minimalization of womens issues and concerns on feminist blogs, personally. A white woman may have a slight edge in the race wars, but she’s still likely to be abused, assaulted, raped and her accomplishments utterly demeaned unless she is appropriately subservient to her male oppressors. The problems with poverty, incarceration and drugs in minority populations are truly horrifying, but they in no way justify the minimalization of the horrors that all women suffer across the board (and the fact that minority women have it worse by suffering the double-whammy of racism and sexist should in no way reduce the horrors that white women suffer).
Changed the language a bit to note that I think that sexism might be easier to overcome. You can fight it head-on a bit more easily.
Ginmar, you don’t have to wait for someone to admit to what you think he or she did to accuse them of doing it. But it doesn’t mean any random internet accusation is anything more than hot air.
Anyway, back to the topic:
I think the important comparison between Obama’s and Clinton’s respective rises to power has less to do with the relative oppressions they overcame. Trying to determine whether sexism or racism is worse is a fools errand and ignores a lot of complexity anyway.
What’s more interesting is the kind of privilege the two have used to get where they are. If you look at H. Clinton, although she has dealt with sexism that B. Clinton never had to, the method by which she rose to power is directly tied to her husband’s connections in the established, overwhelmingly white power structure.
I haven’t read Obama’s autobiography, so perhaps others can fill me in on the reality, but my current impression is that his political success isn’t tethered quite as closely to the same, tired good-old-boy network (the rich white male patriarchy, etc). Perhaps my impression is wrong, but at least for me I think that explains some of the appeal of Obama over Clinton.
“My sole point is that it is easier to be openly sexist than openly racist in the mainstream because systematic racism is all too effective a means of oppression.”
I think this is somewhat invalidating of the very real systematic oppression of women, though (reduced wages comparable to men, lack of opportunity in the “blue collar” fields, lack of support and bias in the legal system) that exists alongside the blatant and socially acceptable open sexism.
hese are all under the banner “sexism”. You reinforced my point nicely.
So as long as men don’t leave a bruise it’s okay and it’s not that bad, not compared to racism. Of course, sexism never takes any form but violence.
That comes awfully close to dismissing any form of sexism but the worst kind. Is that really where you want to go?
Amanda,
Someone above did point it out, but religion is an excellent way for the privileged class to oppress women without getting their hands dirty at all. And, by and large, religious-based racism is on the way out (ie you rarely hear racism justified on the basis of bible stories in the mainstream, as opposed to coo-coo bananas fringe). On the contrary, mainstream acceptance of bible stories to advance sexism is alive and well - adam and eve, mary magdalene, samson and deliala.
Just to give a quick example - Mitt Romney still has to explain that he didn’t agree with the Mormon church’s decision to forbid blacks to join, even though that ban was lifted 30 years ago. On the otherhand, no woman can have a leadership position in the Mormon church TODAY. Yet no interviewer has called upon him to repudiate that.
Or doesn’t she count in your eagerness to do lecture theyour inferiors? Especially if they make you nervous? And how come you’re not acknowledging just how fucking arrogant your classist assumptions are?
You think that you make me nervous? Why would you think that? I don’t even know you.
Why is it classist for me to think that a poor black woman may have it harder than a poor white woman?
You also ignored getting called on that patronizing ‘um’, too—-typical. You want your ass kissed for the lecture? Not that that’s privileged or anything. IF I want a lecture from some college girl, you can hold your breath till that happens.
I didn’t see anything in my comment that said or even implied that I expect you to kiss my ass, or even to agree with me. As I said, the “um” was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt since what you said struck me as a racist thing to say.
Oh, I think it’s really invalidating to somehow note that sexism is welcome anywhere anytime yet is somehow less serious than racism. The part of Traister’s argument that Amanda says she approves of suposedly ‘proves’ how open sexism somehow…..proves that sexism is not that big a deal. And Amanda herself quotes my comment about how individual men shows how men have to ‘get their hands dirty’ to enforce sexism, as if that’s all that sexism is, and as if threats and fear of those things aren’t a punishment and enforcement of women on their own. But, hey, still not as bad as racism, I guess. AFter all, men have to get their hands dirty to deny women freedom, jobs, safety, indepedence, and everything else men take for granted.
Mnem, you’re not disproving the whole arrogant college girl thing by accusing me of racism, either. Apologize already. Your arrogance is disgusting.
What am I supposed to apologize for? You seem to think that I have full knowledge of your background and circumstances and therefore I was specifically condescending to you because apparently I’m upper-class and you’re not, or something.
Honestly, I have no idea if you’re dirt-poor or if you’re Hilton-rich. I don’t know you. Why are you assuming that I personally insulted you out of classism?
How much more blunt do I have to be before you get it? You treated me like I was racist and stupid and you used a convention that’s frowned on on another board we both frequent.In fact, it’s forbidden there because it’s patronizing and rude.
Next time, try and be less arrogant about assuming people are racist and stupid, which is what you started out doing here. Do I need to repeat that again, too?
How much more blunt do I have to be before you get it? You treated me like I was racist and stupid and you used a convention that’s frowned on on another board we both frequent.In fact, it’s forbidden there because it’s patronizing and rude.
ginmar, if I upset you, I apologize. I didn’t mean to do it, but obviously you took what I wrote much more personally than I expected or planned.
What you said struck me as being racist. Am I supposed to ignore that?
Men don’t have to get their hands dirty to kep women in line. The culture nicely does it for them. Ironically enough, cozily pulling one’s college degrees about one and talking about how only sexism keeps women down also silences women.
Let’s have a show of hands if you really want to discuss class and gender. How many people here now have college degrees? I don’t care if you all worked in fast food before, you’re upper class now, baby.
Now let’s have a show of hands here? How many non-educated manual workers who make less than pverty level post here? How many people don’t have computers—heh. That’s known as ‘being silenced by one’s position in life.’
This place skews educated and upper class. I’d venture to say that college educated women have a lot invested in making the reality of sexism disappear from their lives because if it’s still here and still powerful, well, one day, all your education and shit isn’t going to matter and you’re going to be replaced with either a younger or a male model.
This meshes up with what I’ve read elsewhere, about racism having to go underground due to it no longer being acceptable to be public about it. That makes it harder to fight, because it’s not as open.
Also, I had this comment window open whilst I rereread what you wrote, and it seriously took me like a half hour to get it. I was about to ask where the “sexism isn’t as great a problem as racism” was coming in, but I was reading you wrong:
the open acceptance of sexist language over racist language is by no means an indication that sexism is a greater problem
That doesn’t mean that “therefore, sexism is less of a problem than racism” follows. Thanks for your update; that prodded me to look closer before I commented.
(This is what happens when I only get three hours of sleep.)
Also, ginmar, concerning class mobility… I think your comment was in moderation before because I didn’t see it then. Just to be clear, the observation that white people have much higher rates of upward class mobility than people of color has nothing to do with Horatio Alger or bootstraps. It’s an extremely simple and well documented observation. How many generations of “huddled masses” of white Europeans have come here as one of the lowest rungs of the class ladder, only to disappear from the underclass within a century? And how many fewer generations have those people’s ancestors been in America than (for example) decendents of slaves who face far worse class mobility?
I’ve personally enjoyed all sorts of oppurtunities and priviliges in my life, economically and educationally. Most can be traced back to the fact that my grandparents were Appalachian “poor white trash” instead of Black Appalachians. That and my male gender. But there were no bootstraps involved. Just the fact that it’s easier to get access to the connections that provide opportunities in this society if you are white. Gender and class background play an undeniably huge role in this equation. But regardless of other factors, the very fact of being white is an enormous unearned advantage.
Why am I not surprised that OLJB just now mentions he’s a white male? Shocking.
I’m sitting here thinking, “Sexism is more socially acceptable than racism…so that makes sexism less of a problem?”
I’m confused. I kind of thought that, all else aside, a form of oppression that is more socially acceptable is so because it’s less challenged in the public consciousness, and more deeply held by more people.
I don’t think it’s useful to argue about which oppression is worse, racism, sexism, or classism, because ultimately, the only people who win that argument are the racist, sexist, classist establishment who get to sit back and watch as the rest of us argue.
What are you, MNem, the racist crusader? Sorry, but your judgement’s skewed. You could have asked for clarification. Instead you arrogantly charged in and pissed me right the fuck off. So, yeah, reconsider your actions. I’ve been writing about sexism and racism from the poor white trash uneducated woman’s point of view for six years. You acted like your judgement was perfect and convicted me. That’s arrogant.
And can the ‘ifs’. I’ve been pissed for several posts now about your comment, so was I too subtle in expressing that or something?
Amanda’s point about the latent power of systemic racism vs. the overt power of systemic sexism undermines the arguments about Clinton’s and Obama’s electability.
The openness and ferocity of the opposition to Hillary Clinton measures the acceptability of open sexism over open racism - it is not really a measure of her electability. It is easier for progressives to gauge the backlash that a female candidate will provoke simply because sexism still persists through its public countenance.
On the flip side, Obama seems to be the more electable candidate because systemic racism no longer engages in pervasive and explicit public expressions of racism. The existence of coded language since Nixon-Reagan registers this phenomenon. The backlash that a black candidate will face in the general election is not as easily measured.
It also suggests though that Obama may be more vulnerable because Republicans only needs to smear the exceptionalism of Obama’s blackness in order to marshal the power of systemic racism. Clinton’s mundaneness and public battle with systemic sexism is then a better defensive posture in a political election.
Yeah, and heterosexual too. Just for the record.
You acted like your judgement was perfect and convicted me. That’s arrogant.
I asked a question. I apologize. I’ll make sure not to ask any questions again.
The idea that sexism is more pervasive than racism, and will prove harder to eliminate, may or may not be correct. I don’t think that deciding whom is more opressed at the moment is very useful, either. I think that its’ one of those “Outside context” ideas, i.e., those that exist outside of the paradigms that must of us use to make sense of the world. These tend to sound very strange, and often provoke anger. People who advance them are often dismissed as crazies, or characterized as being motivated by some unsavory motivation.
Paradoxically, the sheer incredulity and anger provoked by outside context ideas may indicate that there is something to them.
“Paradoxically, the sheer incredulity and anger provoked by outside context ideas may indicate that there is something to them.”
Or it could indicate that the idea is pointless and stupid on its face. Sexism is more overt and therefore less of a problem than racism? Give me a break!
Erm…*re-reads thread*…or it could also indicate that people are reading more into someone’s words than what they’re actually saying. *cringe*
::raises hand::
just now began college, junior college, on full federal grants. i’ll be 27 in april. couldnt afford to go to school before. the most money ive ever made in a year was $7,000. i spent most the time since high school waitressing or working minimum wage retail.
and to be honest, i prefer waiting tables to higher education. i miss reading books i actually want to read, and i miss doing work where i’m more independent and i dont have to have a set schedule and follow specific rules constantly. after this semester i might transfer into the schools cosmetology program so i can finish school faster and go back to relative independence career-wise.
i get my medical care at a county clinic, and if im lucky my medicaid application will be approved once i file appeal.
and i love pandagon and the conversations here. the only time i have ever felt silenced or dismissed have been when people made occassional offhand comments about tattooed toothless rednecks. and even then i found an ally and a friend in a regular poster here, mark foxwell.
and i wont side with you in the opression olympics. i kno damn well that if i was a poor female (as i am) and of color i would have it far worse than i do already.
becos i will never be followed in stores, or pulled over for driving while black/brown, or lose out on an apartment or job becos of my color.
i suggest you read “unpacking the invisible backpack” via the google.
becos right now i live in a culture where “flesh colored” bandaids match my white skin.
Can’t even admit you were wrong, can you, college girl? Class in action. Jesus fucking christ already.
Sexism is more overt and therefore less of a problem than racism? Give me a break!
Yeah, and it only gets really ugly when men get violent, like it only takes a few violent men to keep lots of women in fear. Jesus.
Amanda, I’m still really confused about what argument you’re trying to make. Here’s my current reading: You argue that because racism is more hidden in everyday society, it is therefore more difficult to overcome, because racist oppression can go on under the radar. Sexism is more open and blatantly practiced in everyday society, so it can be engaged and battled. Is that what you’re trying to say?
I agree that it’s not a competition, but I’m not sure I understand the point of this post. And I disagree that sexism will be easier to overcome than racism. Sexism is a lot more socially acceptable than racism, but 1) the two aren’t entirely separate things and 2) I have no idea what the different levels of social acceptance mean for how easy or hard it will be to fight.
Thanks, Jessica, but I dn’t need any advice on the subject, thanks. I’m 44, disabled, and grew up in an abusive house in an abusive neighborhood and got abused at school by boys of all colors. I really don’t give a fuck what some kid has to deal with when his penis gives him an excuse to abuse. Unlike you, I’m not going to college, so once again, you can stuff your advice. I don’t need advice from anybody going to college. Shovel my fuckin’ snow if you want to do something helpful. Shove your advice.
Rebecca Traister really gets at what I’ve been trying to articulate, about why it is that the open acceptance of sexist language over racist language is by no means an indication that sexism is a greater problem, and in fact might show why sexism might be an easier problem to overcome:
A form of abuse being so accepted that it’s not even noticed means it’s not as big a problem? Yeah, that might be why people started comparing and contrasting racism and sexism, Amanda, right there.
Evidently the first thing they hand out at colleges these days is a lectern and a soapbox so that one can immediatley start lecturing and sneering at one’s inferiors. The minute one crosses that hallowed threshold one is above all others.
No, no class issues there.
Thank you, Sheesh, I didn’t mention one important thing: The farther outside of context an idea is, the more easily it is to misinterpret.
*sigh* I am college-educated and it don’t help my grammar none.
Can’t even admit you were wrong, can you, college girl? Class in action. Jesus fucking christ already.
I don’t apologize for questioning your opinion whether sexism or racism is worse.
However, after reflection, you’re right that I’m letting my snarky responses get out of control. The way I stated my opinion was rude and disrespectful to you as a longtime poster, and for that I apologize.
Changed the language a bit to note that I think that sexism might be easier to overcome.
You can not be serious. The one thing that men of all races can usually agree on is their disdain for women.
What I don’t get is, if the Oppression Olympics don’t make sense, Amanda, then why are you engaging in them?
You can not be serious. The one thing that men of all races can usually agree on is their disdain for women.
Indeed. There are few things in life more touching than when a bunch of guys assemble and agree that, verily, Ye Olde Bytche asked for it and they gave it to her.
I may need to wipe my eyes a bit.
It’s so hard to compare racism and sexism when so many men unite with all their institutional power to screw women over literally, figuratively, and in every way possible, while the only option open to women is….harsh language in the face of a male power structure. Pity the poor males, indeed.
You know, perhaps the *idea* of “institutional racism” needs a revamp.
I get the sense that the terms obscures rather than clarify the nature of racism.
In any event, I’m not going to comment on any topic inside this spectacularly unproductive thread. Take the hate down just a tad?
Most men, whatever their class or race, know that any uppity woman can be slapped down and killed or raped if she gets really uppity, and the crime gotten away with if you present it before other men. It’s just about open season on poor women. No license required to hunt us.
Bureau of Justice statistics state that violent crimes against women are significantly more likely to be reported to police than crimes against men, for all races:
See Table 91b here: http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0505.pdf
For assault, the BoJ estimates 54.7% of those against women are reported, as opposed to 41.8% against males (2005 stats, see table 93).
What little research I’ve found suggests that sentencing for violent crimes is harsher when the victim is a woman; the full articles are not available online, however.
Given the limited time for searching, I have not found any comments on successful prosecutions for violent crimes by gender of victim.
Please present citations which back your comment, or indicate the basis for your statement.
“In any event, I’m not going to comment on any topic inside this spectacularly unproductive thread. Take the hate down just a tad?”
Come on, shah8. Once you get past the billowing clouds of acrid smoke coming off the flaming bags of shit being left on various commenter’s “porches” by other commenters, it’s really not so bad…
Ah, look, it’ s the rapists apologist acting like reported crimes mean shit.
Go fuck yourself.
Here’s my problem with this. The idea that one kind of prejudice/hatred — that leads certain people to physically attack another kind of person — can be less important than another kind.
And basically, the shear amount of crime against women of any color — simply because they ARE women — can beat out most other crimes against “type” in the world.
That’s what I thought. Keep ranting.
Mnemosyne: The way I stated my opinion was rude and disrespectful to you as a longtime poster, and for that I apologize.
Given the way she has been referring to you throughout this thread, I really don’t think it is you who should be apologising. Being from a poor background is not a justification for being an idiot, and accomodating idiocy on those grounds is also classism - have you considered how you would be treating someone making those comments if you assumed them an equal?
Hey, Phoenician! One of my cousins used to be married to a man who beat the shit out of her, oh, once or twice a week, however often he got plastered slowly enough that he wasn’t too drunk to walk by the time he was drunk enough to get mad.
Eventually, she did report his crimes to police — because she had to choose between either doing that, or seeing my mother blow his worthless fucking head off. (No hyperbole; I was there.)
So that’s one report, for if I remember correctly about five years of being beaten and abused. By your standards, it’s the one reported incident that matters, not the five unreported years of torture. Nice to see how much you care.
(Can’t say I’m surprised, though, out of somebody who’d answer a description of a rape with “Um, safeword?” I sure do hope you aren’t expecting to live that shit down.)
Rapist apologist again.
Safe word, anyone?
Oh, lookie, he’s being dismissive. Guess he must have run out of the screaming, terrified woman porn he likes so so much.
And because it can’t be said enough; You rapist apologist scumbag.
At the risk of entering something truly ridiculous, I have to say there’s something distinctly wrong when “educated” is supposed to be a slur. Yes, it is a limited perspective, as are all personal perspectives.
I agree, though. This thread is sadly a lot less productive then it could be, amid all the grudge-wank and poo-flinging.
I do like the point clarified in the edit, though I might suggest that the issues of institutionalized sexism and racism don’t seem intensely dependant on the acceptability of open acts thereof.
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/12/28/real-consent-manifesto/
Just to be helpful in that aim, Aaron.
When educated people use their status to be arrogant and judgemental, you might want to reconsider that. Sexism may not look like a big, overt deal when you’re safely insulated from it directly, but boy is the perspective different from the shitty seats–especially when somebody assumes from the get go that you’re ignorant and racist.
I do like the point clarified in the edit, though I might suggest that the issues of institutionalized sexism and racism don’t seem intensely dependant on the acceptability of open acts thereof.
Yeah, and when people write like this it comes off as being show offy. WHat in the fuck does that even mean?
r if I remember correctly about five years of being beaten and abused. By your standards, it’s the one reported incident that matters, not the five unreported years of torture. Nice to see how much you care.
They’re not my standards, Aaron. I’m simply pointing at the Bureau of Justice statistics on the matter - the methodology is given there. I have not made any statement remotely concerning “the one reported incident that matters, not the five unreported years of torture”.
My point is that that particular statement by ginmar which I quoted doesn’t seem to be backed up by any evidence, and I asked her politely for her source or basis.
She seems unable to give it.
Quell surprise.
Given the way she has been referring to you throughout this thread, I really don’t think it is you who should be apologising.
As I said, I’ve been getting overly snarky on threads, and I overdid my disagreement on this one. I also had to go to a thread on another site and apologize for doing the same thing to someone else on a completely different topic, so the apology was, in fact, necessary here.
Piator, despite all his time haunting feminist websites, has ignored the most basic reality of women. Quelle surprise.
I guess he ran out of torture porn today.
Amanda, excellent post. Sexism and racism are two dimensions of a whole system, not contestants on a quiz show competing for prizes. That Clinton feels comfortable doing a little race baiting and identity politics, whereas Obama has to be ulta-careful not to be too black, tells us something about the disposition of prejudices amongst the chattering classes, but these two candidates don’t represent ‘women’ and “African Americans”, if that phrase has any meaning - it isn’t as if women or African Americans are going to do especially well under any of the policies they have proposed.
One of the attractive qualities of Hillary Clinton as a candidate, I think, is that she is prepared to fight dirty. She’ll do what it takes, and that is excellent. The dems face the dirtiest opponents in American history, and it worries me a bit that Obama sometimes gets snobbish about good old eye poking politics. I still like Obama better, but I hope he is learning a lot from the Clinton campaign. Here, I do think sexism is a drag on Clinton the way it isn’t on Obama. Clinton, raising her voice and doing a normal politician’s job of scoffing at her opponents, is accused of being a bitch - hell, a friend of mine who is a very liberal woman told me that was her first impression during the New Hampshire debate, and then she realized, wait a minute, this is simply due to the fact that she’s a woman. I think sexism extends especially to what Ervin Goffman called “performance” - the presentation of the self in public. Because our politics exists so much within the context of impression, sexism might be worse for an elected official than it is for, say, choosing upper management positions. The routine of presidential electioneering has been uniformly male, and this does advantage Obama - in everything from tone of voice to the violence allowed him to criticize Clinton. This is why I think the press is nutty to criticize Hillary’s use of Bill - whenever she has used him more, as in New Hampshire, she wins, because she is able to meet this sexist impression expectation.
Good God, PIATOR, how thick are you? You know, or should know, how strong the correlation is between “reported violence” and “actual violence” when the victims are women.
You KNOW, or should know, that rape, for instance, is reported in 1 of 10 cases.
And yet here you are going on about crime reports, as though that tells the story of how well men get away with violence against women. You should know better than that.
But I suspect you do, and you’re doing your usual “Apologist In A Time of Rapists” dance.
They’re not my standards, Aaron.
Bullshit they’re not. You might be speaking with reference to the Department of Justice’s reported numbers, but you most certainly are interpreting them as you please.
And, yes, I’ll concede your point that there’s no evidence of equal standing for the argument that those numbers are low because more abuse doesn’t get reported than does. But you’re on a feminist blog, and have been since longer than I was, and I’ve never seen you once even allude to having demonstrated that your interpretation is more correct than that taken by, oh, I don’t know, just about everyone else here, as far as I’ve ever been able to tell. Now how do you explain that? Ignorance — inexcusable and unbelievable, given the context — evidence I haven’t seen yet which I’m sure you’ll be happy to link to, or malice?
Oh, and lest anyone forget: “Um, safeword?”
Oh! I forgot to mention that there can’t be evidence of equal standing — because how can the Department of Justice accurately report on the degree of unacknowledged, possibly unrecognized error present in its own reporting?
…or, put another way, what Flewellyn said, only I didn’t put it in words nearly as good.
For assault, the BoJ estimates 54.7% of those against women are reported, as opposed to 41.8% against males (2005 stats, see table 93).
And, I suppose that you have evidence that the victim is more likely to be a man in all assaults? Or do you merely have statistics about what has been reported? Are you wanking to a bogus assumption? Do you care?
Or, as Aaron stated, “what Flewellyn said”.
I personally suggest a vote (Andy-Kaufman-style) as to whether PiatoR’s posts should be posted. Fucker has his own blog. Let him tweak there.
Nothing is foolisher than white women arguing how they have it worse…Seriously what the fuck are you guys accomplishing in this thread?
Oh, look, a man. Just what we need. Thanks for reducing everything to oversimplicity, asshole! Appreciate it!
Nothing is foolisher than white women arguing how they have it worse
Quote any one person that said this. Please. I’m calling bullshit.
And it’s “more foolish”. Gah, it’s like any MRA tweaking on a feminist website! Grammar problems and false assertions!
Teri wood: Women of color are six times more likely to be the victim of intra-racial crime rather than inter racial crime. They are more likely to be raped than are white women, who outnumber them by like four to one in the general population. They are often targets by men of different colors as well as men of their own community.
As women, we owe all women protection and allegiance. I don’t owe any man anything if he thinks abusing women—any women—is his prerogative. Fighting against the assault of women of color challenges sexist and classist assumptions. I don’t want to argue that some cases are more important than others, but when some victims are burdened more than others, what argument can one make?
My problem with comparing ‘isms’ is that it seems to pit men against women, and racism is often framed in terms of what black men suffer, not black women or other women of color. I don’t care about men and I won’t apologize. Women are my interest, period. Helping women is my interest, period. Men get all the attention. They don’t need my female ass helping them. Let the elitests focus on them. Often they take it out on women close to them. Women need other women. Feminists are concerned with women first. Doesn’t mean we can’t take on other causes, but women first. When it comes down to it, men can clean up their own damned house, because often enough they spend all their time tearing down women.
When we talk about racism we often wind up talking about black men and white women, becuase, well, white men face an embarasse du choix, not tribulation. Only when it affects men is it a human rights issue. Well, women are human beings, and only feminism takes that seriously. Flawed, certainly, but still there.
Well, when people get the chips off their shoulders long enough to actually post reasonable comments…..
*sigh*. Too bad, Amanda. Interesting topic, thread mucked up by inconsiderate asses.
God, I am so sick of people posting vague comments. Name names. The topic was flawed from the beginning. Sexism is easier to fight because what, it’s so invisible? Bullshit. If I’m one of the people you have a problem with, bring it on.
“They’re not my standards, Aaron.”
Bullshit they’re not.
When I wish you to speak for me, I will pay you. Until then, you don’t speak for me. You are not my spokesman, and anything you say does not represent anything I say.
Ginmar stated that most men “knew” they could get away with violent crimes against women if the case was presented before other men.
I pointed out that according to your BoJ, violent crimes against women are significantly more likely to be reported than violent crimes against men. What little indication I dug up suggested that sentencing for violent crimes against women was harsher than for violent crimes against men. I was unable to dig up anything quickly re successful prosecutions; apart from the differential for prosecuting rape, of which the vast majority of victims are women, I have never seen anything supporting the idea that violent crimes against women are less likely to be successfully prosecuted than violent crimes against men.
Ginmar’s statement seemed wrong, or at the very least unsupported - men committing violent crimes against women do not get away with it more than they would get away with violent crimes against men. I asked Ginmar for the basis for her assertion.
She, conspicuously, failed to provide it. You, in leaping to her defence, conspicuously failed to address my actual statements. Both of you displayed much heat in ad hominem attacks, but never actually provided anything to back up her statement.
Again:
- what evidence is there that, at least in comparison to violent crimes against men, violent crimes against women are “easier to get away with”?
- What evidence is there that violent crimes against women are less likely to be reported than those against men?
- What evidence is there that comparable crimes against women are less likely to be successfully prosecuted than those against men (noting the lower prosecution rates for rape than for, say, assault or murder)?
- What evidence is there that violent crimes against women receive lesser sentences than against men?
I’m open to evidence - a good comparative study such as that showing bias based on race would be illuminating. This, for example, shows evidence of gender bias in social services.
So far I haven’t seen such evidence. You or Ginmar turning red and ranting are not adequate evidence.
I had the same reaction as ginmar. BULLSHIT! People are always quick to pull out the “oppression olympics” line, which is fine if the person in question really doesn’t give a shit about the other group in question, but it’s invariably wielded against those who are using the only other tangible analog we have in this country to make people reframe how gender is treated. If we had to go on sheer logic alone, this country would be in worse shape than it already is. Dimwitted bigots need C-O-N-C-R-E-T-E examples. The sad fact of the matter is that women have always needed the race analog to help impress their perspective on the opposition, as sex inequality has consistently trailed in most respects throughout history. In fact, many legal victories for sexual equality were accidental, because racists would try to slap “sex” onto a racial discrimination bill in order to kill it, because it usually worked. So, my point is that calling it a “competition” is childish because anyone who tries to make their case by using race as a model for a desirable direction does not have any kind of “competitive” perspective of rights advancement. Recognizing that women’s rights have always trailed historically in no way disregards the more complex ways race, sex, and class privilege intersect.
I think open sexist language is mainstream because women as a class are divied up among the oppressing class, which allows for one-on-one desensitization and conditioning (low-level Stockholm Syndrome). Black solidarity is less penetrable and more formidable to white dudes.
Phoenician, you’ll have to excuse Women As A Class for not giving a shit about your MRA-like rants about how women-abusing misogynists Get Shafted By The Legal System, Those Wicked Cunts BE DAMNED! You’ll have to excuse us for not giving a shit about the guy who learned so much from pedophile newsgroups, like the fact that sex abuse doesn’t hurt kids, but it’s the non-abusers’ REACTIONS that do. Your sacred liberal white dude insights never fail to further solidify the obvious, which is that YOU ARE THE MOST THINLY VEILED MISOGYNIST WHO IDENTIFIES WITH LIBERAL FEMINISTS IN ORDER TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF YOUR OWN GUILTY CONSCIENCE!
I pointed out that according to your BoJ, violent crimes against women are significantly more likely to be reported than violent crimes against men
Nope. Just that They were more reported. You would have to have percentages on actual violent crimes occurring to say “more likely to be reported than violent crimes against men”. But seeing as how you are a shitwit, there’s no reason to believe you actually are worried about your own stupidity.
Ginmar’s statement seemed wrong, or at the very least unsupported - men committing violent crimes against women do not get away with it more than they would get away with violent crimes against men.
Stated like you have actual proof, which you have also NOT PROVIDED. “Reported crimes” is an utterly ignorant basis for representing “actual crimes”, shitwit.
Again, I posit a vote. Let PiatoR tweak at his own blog. He rarely contributes anything other than substantially-MRA-like horseshit.
Meh.
JackGoff, you’ve got a lot of sex poxes recommended at your blog. I’m sorry, but that makes me wonder too. RenEv? Anti-Princess? The fuck? They’re right in line with PIATOR and those assholes who tried to take down Hearrt’s site a while ago. Hell, they’ve gone after me. Ren Ev’s said she hoped Radfems would die choking on their own blood. She makes money off pornstitution. Why? Why are you promoting them? Do you know that some of them run an anti-feminist website devoted to bashing feminists?
Ginmar, I am sorry, but I don’t wish to talk about this here. I can set up a thread at my place if you would like, but this thread is not the place to discuss this.
What do you want? Feminism is feminism. You support those who support the commercial exploitation of women for fun and profit. “Not here” just means it makes you uncomfortable. “I shame the matriachy” based on a radfem blog? An anti-feminist who wants radfems to die choking on their own blood? You’re not on my side. You want me to die. Fuck you.
Ginmar, if they gave out medals in the oppression Olympics, you’d get the gold.
Wow, some anon troll has somethign to say. Shocker.
Jack, you need to explain yourself and your company. Sex poxes make sexism possible. You won’t deal with it, that’s your problem. You pick your friends. You’ve picked those who profit at fellating the patriachy.
Shocker. A man doing this? Wow, I’m startled.
Well then, that is that, Ginmar. I won’t deal with it on a thread that isn’t about “it”. I am sorry for doing so.
Ginmar, I habitually read your blog, and have considered myself a fan until this thread. That being said, might I suggest taking a deep fucking breath?
“Not here” just means it makes you uncomfortable.
“Here” is not your or my personal website to use as we see fit, Ginamr. I was going to set up a thread specifically devoted to your assertions on which only you and I could comment, but no. That is worthless.
No, RenEv, antiprincess, belledame222, and any other person you have a problem with are my friends. I’ve read their websites for a long time. And if that makes me an evil person, okay. I will only say “I am sorry” to you from here on out.
Ginamr
Shit. Damn typos. Of course, I mean “Ginmar”.
any other person you have a problem with are my friends
Should read: any other person that I link to whom you have a problem with are my friends
How am I anon? Not everyone has the privilege (to toss out one of your favorite words there) to have one.
Seriously, dear. Chill out—all that rage couldn’t be good for your heart.
So it’s true! Liberal white dudes love to belittle and minimize women–with condescending words and criticizing their “anger,” naturally–just as much as wingnuts on the right do! Real male feminists are unicorns. They’re feminist insofar as paying lip service to all the elements that don’t threaten their lifestyles and personal conveniences, and even then, they only bother to engage in it primarily for the ego-inflating moral superiority baby!
Is it wrong of me that I wish Malcolm X hadn’t had a change of heart about taking out all white men? Because they really haftagoalready.
For what it’s worth, I’m not a white dude. I’m a woman with rather radfem leanings.
(If any of that dismissal was directed at me.)
Ginmar, is there anything in particular which has happened to you or someone near you recently that has precipitated this rather intense thread hijack?
You are usually this passionate, but rarely this poorly aimed.
You’re right, K.A. I am no pro-feminist. I deserve derision. I always did. No matter what, I am distinctly sorry for ever blogging and linking to people that ginmar does not approve of. My blog is going to be duly deleted, and I will never post on any feminist blog again. Again, I am sorry.
34/115 comments - a full 1/3 of the thread. Ouch.
Oh, and KA, if you think I’m a “liberal white dude” you’re waaaay off.
Oh, geez, Jack. I understand if you’re a bit put off, but that’s just passive-agressive bullshit. You’re better than that.
You’re better than that.
No, I “want [ginmar] to die”, apparently. Apparently, I’m worse than “passive-aggressive”. Again, I am sorry for being completely evil and murderous.
Oy gevalt. Look, maybe you should try approaching her about this some other time. Acting whiny in public is not going to help.
moremalice, just talking to you? Don’t flatter yourself.
Now when did I say that all that attention was for little ol me?
Acting whiny in public is not going to help.
No, Flew. Whiny? What could I do, other than letting Ginmar dictate who I link to? All the people she has a problem with have been very good friends to me. We have all disagreed with each other and yelled at each other and discussed our issues with one another. I have not delinked them specifically because, despite all our issues with each other, I still respect them. That thread on RenEv’s where she made that horrific remark? I told her how completely disappointed I was with her. That we disagree with one another at numerous interval does not mean she is not my friend. I will not blog in fear of other people, no matter how much I may disagree with them.
I too used to to think that your blogroll determined your worth. I was wrong.
And also, acting like I want ginmar dead is a well-thought out argument which I am going to have to devote my time and effort to refuting? No, Flew, I have no reason to assume that this is going to end well.
Whatever, I’m whining. This is my is my last post. I am tired of all of this.
As far as I can see, JackGoff was forced to take shelter in passive-aggressive ridicule due to ginmar’s vitriolic attacks - she quite obviously was in no state to have a rational discussion. “You’re not on my side. You want me to die. Fuck you.” The assumptions and argumentative leaps made there certainly left something to be desired.
Perhaps ginmar should try approaching us about this some other time; as MsKate stated above, ginmar is rarely this poorly aimed, and I’m inclined to think that something else must have set her off take the this post and the comments in it so personally. I think even if she ultimately doesn’t feel like she owes any apologies, she could at least accept those offers of apology made to her.
Didn’t read the comments yet.
Frankly, her article sounds a lot like “just because I’m a girl it doesn’t mean I’m stoopid. I wouldn’t vote for a girl, not really. I’m serious, really I am. Please take me seriously. I’m special. I don’t think with my crotch.”
Pointing out that sexism is less visible than racism is NOT playing “oppression”, and it’s certainly not childish; it’s stating a fact. How can people learn anything if their blind spots aren’t pointed out? “Worse” isn’t exactly the issue, because “less visible” and “more accepted” automatically make it more difficult to overcome. It also doesn’t mean that the other oppressions are forgotten or ignored.
I’m also not seeing your point about sexism being more invisible because racism’s more effective. (?) Just…not clear at all to me.
I think Amanda’s class imagery is a bit one-sided and outdated (in her post, 32, re. domestic servants and housewives). Just because women make up 50% of the middle class (and I question the ability to say upper class when the inequalities in the corporate space, culture industry, and in wealth distribution are taken into account) does not mean that the actions and personal accomplishments of middle class women directly pose a threat to patriarchy, or white patriarchy.
For instance, take the petition from earlier today, “New York Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama!”
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NYfeministsforpeace/
How often do black scholars, Afrocentrists, and the grassroots African-American activists feel the need to get together to sign a petition to explain their support for the non-black candidate in terms of “blacks’ issues”? No doubt, there are black activists who support Hillary Clinton out of support for her positions on “blacks’ issues,” but are they collaborating to sign petitions that redefine “blacks’ issues” in such ways as to encourage support for the non-black candidate?
Most of the feminists who signed this petition appear to be college-educated, middle class professionals (including a contingent of feminist and gender history academics). None cite working-class credentials, union leadership, or anti-poverty advocacy. I really wonder to what degree working-class and underclass feminists are prone to consider Clinton’s Iraq war vote and withdrawal plan as the single most important issue in this election - so “closely intertwined” with domestic issues that it tips their support in favor of Barack Obama regardless of all other considerations.
My view is that their class ideology defines how these women view the election. And, it is questionable to what degree their class conceptions of women’s issues may be characterized as anti-patriarchal. I am certain they chose their words carefully, and they clearly state that the “first priority is to address domestic needs.” They do not use the phrases, “feminist issues”, “women’s issues”, or “women’s needs” - rather, the petition cites the gender neutral phrase, “domestic needs”. There is no effort to contrast policies or positions on gender equality - and hence no evidence articulated to the effect that pervasive public sexism in our discourse and institutional patriarchy will be more effectively challenged by yet another male president, white or black.
The whole piece is essentially about the Iraq War authorization vote - its outcome, its implications, and its consequences. For that reason, in the direct context of a political choice between Obama and Clinton, the petition reduces women’s issues to the candidates’ original positions on the Iraq War from several years ago. Although the petition nods to women’s issues in the introduction to their petition, their political agenda ultimately sacrifices or minimizes those issues as a simple register of foreign and military policy as embodied by the Iraq War authorization act.
So, this is what has repeatedly struck me about Amanda’s Democratic primary endorsements and other feminists’ endorsements of Obama - the compulsion to elevate the Iraq War authorization vote into a single issue litmus test of “women’s issues” or “gender equality.”
(Note: I know this will not be the case in a choice between Democrat and Republican for these feminists and I don’t doubt their commitments to women’s issues. However, in the Democratic primaries, candidates’ differences on women’s issues is too often reduced to a question of how one voted or admitted to mistakes in their Iraq War Authorization vote. Conversely, the same feminists also reduce the election of a female president to a generic historical achievement (or “cause for celebration”), and neglect to discuss how the election of Hillary Clinton as the U.S. President would be a fundamental and direct attack on patriarchy and sexism in America.)
Don’t hold your breath.
By the way, did anyone else notice that JackGoff was taking ginmar’s side, right up until she attacked him?
Joe makes some excellent points.
And so, although we are generally mortal enemies and she banned me from her blog eons ago, does ginmar.
This is all of course a continuation of the discussion that Gloria Steinem began with her NYTimes article a few weeks ago. And Gloria was right then, she’s right now.
This isn’t an issue that really involves conservatives - they hate women and non-whites pretty much equally. This issue is one for liberals. It is not acceptable among liberals to compliment someone by saying “that’s very white of you.” But few liberals even think twice about complimenting someone