Sexism, Racism, and Reality: Healing From A Hard Campaign

Sexism has infested this race, and many of us have deplored it. But reality is multifaceted. While Sen. Clinton has faced bigotry, so has her opponent.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

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.

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.

________________________

Related 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:

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot