Introducing "Sexism Ed"

The most prevalent, yet least well understood bias remaining in our country is sexism.

Eradicating sexism will take more than just occasional activism. We also need to educate the public on what sexism is and why it hurts our country.

Today, The New Agenda launches our "Sexism Ed" campaign with our video series Searching for Sexism.

We believe the 2012 presidential race will include at least two women candidates. Women candidates also running in House and Senate races could deliver a significant shift in power. The New Agenda hopes "Sexism Ed" will raise awareness and create a more even playing field for women candidates of all political parties.

"Sexism Ed" won't be easy. We have our work cut out for us! Here's some highlights from Episode 1 of Searching for Sexism:

• More than half could not define sexism;
• 1 in 3 thought some women deserve sexist treatment.

Our hope in launching Searching for Sexism is to deliver the notion of sexism in a digestible form which will lead to discussions around water coolers, kitchen tables, board rooms, and election war rooms.

 

Follow Amy Siskind on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AmyTheNewAgenda

Comments

[LynneSpreen]

08:02 AM on 09/17/2010

This'll be interesting, Amy, and good job on the video! I think it's a worthy effort in that awareness is the main prerequisite for change. Obviously many peeps don't have the faintest idea of what it is, which depresses me. I'll be looking forward to your upcoming posts.
Lynne Spreen
www.AnyShinyThing.com
A Blog for Smart Women of a Certain Age

[artgurrl]

08:47 PM on 09/16/2010

An example of sexism is basing one's vote on whether that person has the same plumbing as you do without attention to the message and policies of that candidate.

[Lisa Shields]

12:33 PM on 09/16/2010

Name calling aside, I was sort of stunned at the viscous attacks rained down on Hillary Clinton while her husband was in office. Her refusal to hand him over to the scandal mongers made her a target of hate and derision.

Fast forward to the last several years, where other politicos, notably those who ran on platforms of "family values" got caught with a lot more than their hands in a cookie jar...and observe how THEIR wives were treated. You saw compassion, kindness, and empathy. No one called them "closet lesbians", or suggested that they were somehow perverse, to have ambition beyond being known as a wronged woman.

Perhaps that is more a double standard then sexism...or maybe it is both.

[dancingstu]

02:29 PM on 09/16/2010

It just seems to depend on the letter next to the name on the ballot.  "R", it's a lapse in judgment that he can work to overcome and she is such a good wife to stay by his side.  "D", she's too educated and she should focus her energy on raising those kids.

[Petunia Politik]

12:16 PM on 09/16/2010

The following is an excerpt of a comment made in response to a National Review Online article about Secty of State Hillary Clinton's popularity:

Zagare
09/15/10 11:10
Link
Report Abuse
"Personally I hope she runs against our Celebrity-in-Chief in 2012, but first she'll need a new trainer and a new hairdresser because she has let herself go to a surprising degree over the last two years, and she doesn't need any more negatives."

And the beat goes on...

[LynneSpreen]

08:12 AM on 09/17/2010

Petunia, I agree that you wouldn't usually see that said about a man, but I do remember when comments were made about a year ago about the increasing weight /obesity of Huckaby. Also back then, we heard about Romney's "movie star good looks" and much was made about John Edwards' hair. But when criticism is leveled at women candidates, there's more at stake. It's not just about their looks. It's about whether they are going to be allowed into the "club", and finding spiteful ways to exclude them based on gender.

[lovelalola]

11:48 AM on 09/16/2010

I liked the video. Nice approach. It was hilarious watching the young guy try to explain why it was okay to call Sarah Palin a c**t, but not Hillary Clinton. How is it that this stuff is not obvious to people? It's not though, so I guess you have your work cut out for you. Good luck.

[robbcoffee]

11:45 AM on 09/16/2010

I think the biggest barrier to teaching the public about sexism is that it benefits (or rather seems to benefit) a lot of people.
Corporations make a lot of money based on the insecurity women have about their attractiveness an the double standards they face in the workplace connected to attractiveness.
Women who work in exploitative environments do not react well to people pointing out that exploitation. This runs from brothels to strip joints to Hooters.
Likewise women who use exploitative products don't take well to people pointing out that they are being exploited... as it tends to incriminate the very people who raised them and much of what they built their careers on.
And that's before we get around to men, who like any privileged group, tend to see rising equality as their own punishment.

I'm all for this education you present, but sadly I don't expect impact without wider social change.
Everyone, on the intellectual level, recognizes sexism in blatant discrimination... but no one sees the more subtle and more primal sexism because nobody wants to.