HRC says that sexism is worse than racism. I am sickened by these statements. I am a male of European descent. I am married to an African-American woman.
To say that sexism is as bad as racism makes me laugh. I agree that their is a glass ceiling in America for women and it is sad. The truth is that there is still a steel boot for African-Americans.
Looks look at the facts. Women are less likely to get the CEO job. African-Americans are less likely to get a job.
Women are more likely to be harassed by a police officer.
African-Americans are more likely to be shot by a police officer or to go to jail.
Women are less likely to be paid as teachers for the service they provide.
African-Americans are less likely to graduate from high school.
Women are less likely to get a good settlement in a divorce hearing in front of a judge.
African-Americans get longer sentences in front of a judge.
I don't remember any woman being lynched in the south.
I don't remember women being forced to sit on the back of the bus because they where woman.
Hillary has brought out the worst in this country with her race baiting "Hard Working Americans, White Americans" and has proven everything that the Republicans had said about the Clinton's is true.
Sexism, Racism, and Reality: Healing From A Hard Campaign
As Hillary Clinton's campaign winds down, commentators are talking about sexism. Good. It's infested this race, and many of us have deplored it. But reality is multifaceted. While Sen. Clinton has faced bigotry, so has her opponent. Maybe there will be a chance to learn from this hard campaign as the Democrats work on healing their party.
Many supporters of Sen. Clinton have chosen to avoid the topic of racism. That leaves the impression that they think you can't fight racism and sexism at the same time. I don't believe that. In fact, I think the only way to fight racism and sexism is at the same time, since they both come from the same root insecurities.
This could be one of those "teaching moments," where we get to see our prejudices exposed in the harsh light of day. But too often we're given vague generalities instead of information we can use. Take Libby Copeland's Washington Post op-ed. Copeland says that Americans have created the phrase "poor Hillary" to diminish her. "At some point along the way," she writes, "Hillary Clinton became 'poor Hillary' and it stuck ... You don't find too many references to ... 'poor Barry,''' she writes.1
But a Google search on the phrase "Poor Hillary" reveals only 47,000 hits. There are 25,000 for "poor Obama" or "poor Barack." Sen. Clinton hasn't been trivialized. In fact, the media that has so plagued her has also helped her: Far from diminishing her as "poor Hillary," they trumpeted her inevitability and front-runner status for many months. Clinton supporters who complain about press coverage tend to forget how instrumental the media was in giving her an early lead in this race.
Copeland writes:
"Is it about her womanhood? Or is it about this woman? Is that a false distinction? ('Poor Hillary: right gender, wrong woman,' goes the headline on the Web site of a Scottish newspaper, as if you can separate the two. (emphasis mine)
But if you can't separate the two, then there's only one way to prove you're not a sexist: You have to support Hillary. Yet her opponent is an African American. Does that mean you have to choose between racism and sexism?
Copeland continues: "The person who once conjured a vast right-wing conspiracy now refuses to exit a race she's almost surely lost, and it Drives. People. Crazy." True (and I like. the. periods.) But is that because of sexism? Think about it: Clinton's campaign keeps raising the race issue. She's told voters that McCain is more qualified to defend the country than the probable Democratic nominee. She threatened to obliterate another country. Couldn't that be why she's Driving. Democrats. Crazy?
And about those "cards" - race and gender - here's a little thought experiment: Imagine Obama had told the Associated Press last week that "real Americans, hard working Americans - American men - will vote for me." Think back to Hillary's "LBJ/Martin Luther King" comment, then imagine that Obama had said "Susan B. Anthony was a great talker, but it took Woodrow Wilson to get women the vote." And imagine that a prominent male member of Obama's campaign had said "she's lucky she's a woman, that's the only reason she's where she is."
I'll ask it again: Can you really fight sexism in our culture while looking the other way at racism?
Marie Cocco's editorial offers many more concrete examples of gender bias, and is therefore much more instructive and constructive. But, while she lambasts DNC leaders for their silence on sexist t-shirts and toys, she fails to note that they've been equally silent on those "Curious George"/Obama t-shirts - or those that read "Who Killed Obama," or "Jews Against Obama" - or all the other hideous racist items available on the Internet.
Marie Cocco's wrong to say the DNC has treated sexism and racism differently. It's hard for any rational person to argue with her main point, however. This campaign has revealed "the darker stain ... the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture."
Rachel Sklar asks, "... why are people so stubbornly resistant to allowing that sexism might have been part of this campaign?" Which people, exactly? Are there really a lot of people who think that sexism had nothing to do with Hillary's losses?
Clinton's losing for a number of reasons, including sexism. But let's not forget, she was decisively leading in Democratic polls a few months ago - and she was a woman then, too. Is her drop in approval a sign of sexism? Are Democrats that responsive to Chris Matthews or Fox News? Or isn't it more likely that voters have responded to her political choices?
As for the media, coverage of Sen. Clinton's private life has often been sexist while the Rev. Wright coverage has verged on racist. Both Clinton and Obama have struggled against prejudice during this campaign, and both of them have led the way for others that will follow. Neither is a victim, and both are pioneers.
Jodi Kantor asks the $64,000 question: "If many of Mrs. Clinton's legions of female supporters believe she was undone even in part by gender discrimination, how eagerly will they embrace Senator Barack Obama, the man who beat her?"
Here's some food for thought: More than 100 American service women have died in Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqi women - possibly hundreds of thousands - have also died. American women will lose control over their own reproductive rights under a McCain Supreme Court. How can any feminist remain neutral - or vote for McCain - in 2008?
In order to fight sexism and racism, we all need to teach ... and to learn. It does a disservice to sincere critics of Hillary Clinton when people conflate them with the people who sell Hillary nutcrackers or form organizations called "C.U.N.T." More importantly, it misses an opportunity to instruct. It cheapens the coin of anti-sexist rhetoric, and dulls people to the very real prejudice against women that pervades our society.
Hopefully Obama's supporters recognize the reality of sexism in this campaign, or will recognize it in the weeks to come. As for Sen. Clinton: She's had to endure ugliness and prejudice, but in the end she was the architect of her own destiny. With a different strategy and different moral choices she'd be on her way to the presidency.
The key to Democratic unity lies in recognizing that both of the party's candidates have triumphed over adversity. That understanding can be healing for Democrats and empowering for women, without losing the opportunity to teach the country about the realities of sexism.
________________________
1Related post: "Why Do Democratic Obama-Haters Keep Calling Him 'Barry'?" I don't know if it's fair to include Copeland in that number, but the question's worth asking.
RJ Eskow blogs:
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"As Hillary Clinton's campaign winds down"?
Winds down? Terry McAuliffe must told Chris Matthews they're going to the convention, and laid out just exactly what their strategy to win is.
R.J. Eskow -- I applaud some of the points in your article.
In that vein I must say that my primary concern has been the biased campaign rhetoric against Senator Clinton that was engaged in by the DNC and by some national and state members of the Democratic party, but particularly abhorrent were the blatant sexist attacks by the MSM and pundits when it came to Senator Hillary Clinton's candidacy.
Collectively, what those behaviors prove is that the Democratic party is not the political party for women should join. Not even one stalwart male [or female for that matter] in the Democratic party stepped forward to denounce the demeaning language used by the MSM or pundits against Senator Clinton throughout this campaign -- and that includes her opponent, Obama.
The Republican party stalwarts would never have remained silent and permitted the sexist/misogynistic rants that were repeatedly aimed at Senator Hillary Clinton if she were their candidate. Bottom line message to women -- consider joining the Republican party, make it into a party that values women and families -- vote for McCain in the general election.
We've been trained to recognize racism. Sexism is subtle and most of the time unquestioned even by women. In fact, I think women are far more sexist than men. It's engrained in us and as women we are raised and taught to think in ways that demote our gender. It's not just when Keith Olbermann says that someone should take Hillary into a room and only one of them should walk out of that room. It's out here in the comments when you read "any woman but this woman" or the comments where there just isn't justification for the hatred. Those are a testament to that commentor's self worth or female rivalry. I don't think racism runs that deep, maybe it did once, but not now. Olbermann could not have made that comment about any man, let alone a black man, and still have kept his job.
"That understanding can be healing for Democrats and empowering for women, without losing the opportunity to teach the country about the realities of sexism."
Unfortunately, "that understanding" will take decades and the lack of it will most definately affect the outcome of this election in the fall.
I fail to see the sexism in "any woman but this woman". Frankly, that's an idiotic statement as we are not picking based on "woman" at all. I based my choice on the two candidates running, Sen. Clinton in her entirety and Sen. Obama in his entirety. I preferred Sen. Obama. For women to call other women sexists because they make that choice is just plain silly. For you to claim that I chose Sen. Obama instead of Sen. Clinton because I in some way am more sexist than you is reductionist and deeply misguided. I'm sorry that Sen. Clinton will not be the first female president, but I had to base my choice on who I thought was the better candidate, not on who was female. For you to devalue my choice and make incorrect assumptions about my choice is almost as offensive as all those comments you are quoting from the media. You are making huge generalizations based on your own interpretation of reality. Sexism and racism are no doubt part of me; they do not define me or completely influence all my decisions.
I am so tired of whtie women whining about sexism. Take a survey of black women regarding which has hampered them the most in their professional careers sexism or racism. I believe the presence of racism would far exceed that of sexism for black women.
So, stop your whining white women. i'm tired of it.
Welcome to the damn party Senator Clinton! Try being Black and a female all at the same time. Sexism definitely exist and so did racism but I am not going to use either of those cards b/c there are things that Clinton and Obama did to turn voters off. There were things "policy wise" that I didn't agree with them on always. I voted for Obama. And it had nothing to do with race or sex (see I have this dilemma being a Black woman) I voted for a Obama b/c America needs a new start and I saw him as the one that could give it to us, but I didn't think by voting for him that I was a sexist. If Condoleeza Rice was running on the GOP side she would def not get my vote and she a Black woman like me. So I think the silliness of voting for McCain is going to be a dangerous step backward that women don't want to take. Short of Satan being the Dem nominee there is no way I am voting for McCain. My rights mean more to me than holding a grudge! If black people were truly holding a grudge we would stay at home during 90% of the elections.
Just go read Taylor Marsh's blog. She is activlty campaigning for Hillary supporters NOT TO VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IN NOVEMBER. That just says it all about Hillary Clinton. That she would let her supporters sit home or vote for McCain is outrageous. Hillary's new slogan should read 'If I don't win, nobody wins'. Disgusting.
Once again, I quote Shirley Chisholm: "Of my two 'handicaps' being female put more obstacles in my path than being black." When I read criticisms of Senator Clinton, I'm astonished at how facilely people resort to the worst kind of "harpy" name-calling -- which, for some, is the summit of their ability to communicate at all. Isn't it enough to say that Clinton ran a terrible campaign, demonstrating an inability to gauge the temper of the country, a lack of leadership and failure to adapt?
Chisholm again: "Racism is so universal in this country, so widespread and deepseated, that it is invisible because it is so normal." The same can be said of sexism -- yet when the subject of sexism comes up, so few people call to account those who say things like "these girlies asked for a 'fair' fight" and so many think "Citizens United Not Timid" is actually clever.
I wonder it it wouldn't have been easier if Edwards (or another 'traditional' candidate) had caught lightning -- instead of grappling with racism and sexism and, too frequently, ageism, we could be absolutely focused on routing the Republicans. But we are the people who grapple and there's honor in that. "Both Clinton and Obama have struggled against prejudice during this campaign, and both of them have led the way for others that will follow. Neither is a victim, and both are pioneers," Mr. Eskow notes and I thank him for that.
Senator Clinton and the rest of the old school feminists completely missed the mark when their idea of breaking through the glass ceiling meant morphing themselves into one of the boys.
They really don't get it that being a champion of women's rights is to be a champion of the issues that are important to real women - the mothers who want to protect their children from a regime who would so readily sacrifice them up for oil interests, the working women who leave their children at daycare to go to work making half the salaries of their male counterparts, the women who want affordable healthcare for themselves and their children, equitable public education and affordable college tuition. Seriously, do I need to go on?????
Senator Clinton - you lost because YOU got lost. It has nothing to do with your gender, except that you turned your back on women's issues to advance your personal ambition!
The Obama campaign waged a dishonest and sexist campaign.
I encourage truly progressive democrats to vote for all Democratic candidates with the exception of Obama. Write in Hillary's name.
Please provide some examples of the "dishonest and sexist campaign." I believe that most of the people railing against Sen. Obama are angry that he didn't "wait his turn." A question for you, "What would you do if he asked Sen. Clinton to be his running mate?" If you have a different answer than above, it only proves that you are not thinking things through and are expressing an emotional response rather than thinking about issues or substance. Let's face facts, both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton are almost identical on the issues and McCain is going to be another term of Bush. This country cannot afford to have the GOP in charge for another term. The Supreme Court, Iraq War, Health Care, Jobs, Trade, and the Constitution are amongst the many reasons that we must support the Democratic candidate. Search your heart and you'll know the stakes are just too high.
The nomination race has brought forth alot of hateful and ugly things. It has been very disheartening to watch. And there will be more once the presidential campaign is underway. It is very sad. I hope for Mr Obama's success. I think he will help with the healing.
I've always thought Stanley Crouch's "flip test" was a good means of analyzing racial/sexual attitudes. Thanks for employing it. Both sexism and racism have played roles in this campaign. I don't think Obama played the gender card but the Clintons certainly played the race card when their backs were against the wall.
After eight years of watching the Clintons in The White House, the current discussion certainly fits into their pattern of blaming everyone but themselves for whatever situation they're in. Clinton's problems have less to do with her gender than her character. Had her campaign been less arrogant and better managed and had she done less pandering and fact meandering, I don't think we'd be discussing sexism to the extent that we seem to be.
"Think back to Hillary's "LBJ/Martin Luther King" comment"
There was nothing wrong with this observation which accurately describes our system. Citizens can march and protest and present the case but it still takes the people in power to make the law. We have to work together -- so it matters whom we elect. Everyone has to do their part or nothing gets done. LBJ was no prize but he did his part on that one.
How is this racist?
So you agree then that women' right issues, championed by women are only there because white men thought , what the heck why not give it a try?
Hilary is a very weak person and does not have ethical courage.
Not Hillary -- cylindar, though.
I don't think there's been so much as a whiff of sexism in this race.
You're obviously not a 'wise' sage, then.
Hear, hear!!
These candidates must be exhausted. In '06 it seemed that any strong democratic candidate would walk through the primaries and the general election.
The past two terms of incompetence should have solidified the party. We had finally found common ground and would move forward to reclaim the office and begin restoring civility amidst this storm of chaos.
However the party has fragmented terribly. We're failing miserably to capitalize on the repubican's weakness thereby allowing them time to regroup. McCain's hope is to sway the moderate voters (that will be deciding this election). fortunately McCain's incompetence has been the dems saving grace.
It's a tremendous spectacle to see the dems break the wasp mold and present two vibrant candidates. However, a fragmenting of the party has occurred.
Here's the conundrum: Clinton is correct in saying she has the Reagan dems, but it's because she's running a moderate platform. Obama is the likely winner of the primary, though his supporters have been saying this since January haha, but his platform is decidedly more liberal.
The moderates will decide this election. If Obama wants to win he must reach the moderates. If he can't he will lose.
Clinton could do well with the moderates, but she's being called a republican by the more liberal dems. Which may not vote for her in a general election.
Neither camp is open to working with the other, and so we've reached a stunning impasse.
All the while giving McCain what he sorely needs..... more time..
The only identity issue that influenced the outcome of the campaign is that Democrats rejected all the white males straight away because they want change. The person who paid the highest price for sexism and racism in this campaign is John Edwards.
There is a big difference in how the two remaining campaigns handled the racism/sexism.
Obama's campaign fights all the racist websites, racist Tshirts, racist posters, racist emails, racist comments from Hillary supporters - by informing people, and by minimizing the impact in various ways. That's why Rachel wasn't aware of it.
Hillary, with all her campaign expertise, decided to attack the media, complain that she was being treated "differently," have media pundits censured, etc. She and her surrogates made all the sexist stuff very noticeable. The "reinscribed."
A second difference is one that Michael Moore pointed out - Hillary attempted to exploit the racism, and generate fear of a racist response to Obama, through her campaign. Obama responded, but never in kind. He never tried to make people afraid that Hillary would lose the general election because she's a woman.
Because Hillary's prominent supporters chose to harp on the sexist stuff, we're more aware of it. But that didn't help Hillary. Nor did her attempts to exploit the racism that still exists in this country.
Obama's strategy in this, as in almost everything, was superior. And that's why he won.
Ah, the truth that people don't want to acknowledge. Add another factor, in that she has parted ways with the democrats in such that her policy announcements are more in tune with the right than the left. Now, is she still a Democrat, or is this too just one of the many faces of Hillary?
AND FEEL ALRIGHT!
LET'S GET TOGETHER..
ONE HEART!
ONE LOVE!
The majority of the hate mongering has come from the Obama camp. They refuse to talk about race frankly and any time some one tries to bring it up, they are called racists. One has only read the Obama supporter's posts at HuffPo over the last six months to see how mean spirited they have be toward Hillary. Now, as usual, Obama supporters want to recast the events as if each side was equally guilty for what Obama has fostered. Once the Dems nominee has been determined we can expect that hate machine to be directed as McCain. the Dems only hope is to come to their senses and pick Hillary. Then you will see what a civilized campaign will look like.
You need to read the article again RESIDENTCHIMP. You're not getting it. You're so invested in your own venom and self loathing that you can't think straight.
"Then you will see what a civilized campaign will look like."
How laughable when it was Sen. Hillary Clinton's own campaign that coined their strategy "kitchen sink" politics!!
It wasn't Obama emphasizing that he's the one who can best win a certain race set of voters, it was Clinton. It was Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro who suggested Obama wouldn't be where he was if he wasn't black, nevermind that NO ONE in the Obama campaign has brought up the rather obvious point that Hillary Clinton wouldn't even be considered for this race if she were not the wife of a popular Democratic president. Clinton has had to let go far more people from her campaign for divisive and hate-filled rhetoric than Obama has.
They're are plenty of Obama's people who brought that point up about HIllary and none of them were ever driven off the field. When Ferraro stated the obvious, she was pilloried as a racist. Again, I will challenge anyone to show that the huffers posting here in support of Hillary are far more polite than those supporting Obama.
You wish to just point to HuffPo for an example, but I have no doubt that you are probably a fan of Taylor Marsh, or Hillary44, right? You, when you make comments that are false, when you post statements that are inherently wrong, expect to be smacked. But, to equate the reaction of posters who admonish you for false statements, for you to label them as "mean spirited", is disingenuous at best! By the way, the is a fact: Ferraro IS a RACIST! Poster child for the Dixiecrat Democrats!
The majority of the hate mongering has come from the Clinton camp. They refuse to talk about race frankly and any time some one tries to bring it up, they are called racists. One has only read the Clinton supporter's posts at HuffPo over the last six months to see how mean spirited they have be toward Obama. Now, as usual, Clinton supporters want to recast the events as if each side was equally guilty for what Clinton has fostered. Once the Dems nominee has been determined we can expect that hate machine to be directed as McCain. the Dems only hope is to go with the will of the voters. Then you will see what a civilized campaign will look like.
Can we get a list together of all the Republican slogans, tired old platitudes, and other labels to avoid real debate? I'll start...
Hate mongering, hate speech, cut and run, tax and spend, appeasers, radical leftists, anti-patriotic, I'm proud of my country, do you love America?, Soft on terror.
Can't think of anymore right now, anyone care to contribute?
Maybe after we have properly identified all these pseudo-intellectual labels and talking points to avoid real debate, we can have a real debate with these people.
Posted May 19, 2008 | 11:57 AM (EST)