Saturday, May 31, 2008

Political Comments Response (part 1)

Yes, Yes, Yes! I’m really glad to have an open discussion concerning the comments I received on my last two posts. I will address the comments on “Racism vs. Sexism” first, followed by the comments from “Tell the Truth.” I will go through each of your points and offer my point of view on them based on the facts I’ve gathered. I will address each of your comments with care and respect. Thank you for reading “The Vortex!”

“Discrimination due to race and sexism is not the same, obviously…discrimination against race stays in a society for generations, discrimination against sex CAN be gone within a generation.”

I’m not sure if I’m fully grasping the distinction you’re making here. I read this as saying “because of the racist conditions of society, racism lingers for generations. But a female baby doesn’t have pre-determined conditions of discrimination awaiting her upon birth.” I would have to disagree based on everything I’ve witnessed, read and studied. If a set of boy and girl twins, born to the same parents, garnering the same level of education, and holding the same career post/title/position were to run life’s course, the research shows that the girl will end up being paid less and perhaps overlooked for further positions of advancement in comparison with the boy. So I would contend that women historically (from generation to generation) certainly are discriminated against. Within a generation, any exoneration of discrimination “CAN” appear to have disappeared for an individual, but not for the group as a whole.

As you (and I) both noted, racism and sexism aren’t the same, but I was keen to point out that there is incredible overlap between the two, and the opinions I expressed in that post were concerning that overlap. But once again, to demonstrate that women are “generationally” discriminated against, all you have to do is look at where women are today and consider they’re place in society historically. As I pointed out, Shirley Chisholm’s 1969 speech could be considered prescient with respect to society today. Susan B. Anthony’s struggles are still present today. Finally, the notion of female inferiority is as old as Biblical times. 1 Peter 3:7-9 makes reference to women as the “weaker vessel.” If that doesn’t demonstrate discrimination against women from generation to generation, I don’t know what does.

“Sexism and racism works both ways…”

Totally agree, and that is a point that I made in my “Tell the Truth” post. In many primaries, Clinton garnered roughly 60-70% of the female vote, while Obama has accrued roughly 90% of the vote of African American in the last 4 months of primaries. Now I don’t know if your reasoning as to why more women vote than men, or even if that’s true, but that wouldn’t shock me, especially since there are statistically more women in this country than men. But both realities trouble me greatly. I hardly doubt that 70% of the female population has truly looked at the platforms of all the candidates and come to conclusion that Clinton is their candidate. And Black people, seriously, are a monolithic voting block in my opinion (despite decrying this notion for years). It is inconceivable that a single demographic could look at all the candidates equally and come out with the same opinion unless the other candidate had done something insidiously wrong to them. The Clinton’s have been advocates for Black people in many ways for dozens of years, so much so that it has been a running joke within the Black community for over 10 years that Bill Clinton was the first Black President. So 90% for Obama whom many still don’t know much about? Really?

“No host in any show would make a racist or sexist remark…the best policewomen on the sexist side are the wives…men might be leading the nation (publicly), at home women are”

Absolutely, positively disagree. I can roll out a laundry list of commentators who have made both racist and/or sexist remarks in print, on TV and on the radio over the years (and could easily start with Rush Limbaugh and Don Imus). But in this campaign alone, there have been countless overt sexist statements aimed at Clinton, as well as many that could easily be construed as such even if they weren’t intended to be sexist. Many of the statements seem to come from one of the news outlet I watch the most—from many of the commentators I’ve admired over the last several years—MSNBC. I reported on one such statement at this site a couple months back in my post “David Shuster and MSNBC” (please note that my angle was not only about the sexist remark, but was asking if there was perhaps validity to the assertion made by Shuster). Here are a few other examples:

Every time Hillary comes on t/v “I instinctively cross my legs”

–Tucker Carlson, MSNBC

Hillary is “a patriarch with a vagina”

–Jane Fonda, Actress

“How do we beat the Bitch”

–old lady at McCain campaign rally in reference to Hillary Clinton

“She morphed into a scolding mother, talking down to a child”

–Jack Cafferty, CNN

“When she reacts the way she reacts to Obama with just the look, the look toward him, looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside of Probate Court.”

–Mike Barnicle, MSNBC contributor on Hardball with Chris Matthews

“Men won’t vote for Hillary Clinton because she reminds them of their nagging wives.”

–Neil Cavuto, Fox News, during a segment about Clinton and Nagging Wives

“And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, ‘take out the garbage’.”

–Man during Cavuto’s segment about Nagging Wives on Fox News

Male high profile politicians that were endorsing Hillary Clinton are “castratos in the eunuch chorus.”

–Chris Matthews, MSNBC

And if there are indeed a comparable number of “sexism police” and “racism police” out there, why didn’t we hear from any of them about such comments (by the way, can you name 1 such sexism policeman, I still can’t…certainly not 1 with as a high a profile as those on the racism side). On the flipside of the coin, even when race may/could be a lesser factor amongst a field of other more significant factors in any situation, you get someone crying foul on the basis of race (as I pointed out in my post concerning the New Hampshire primary).

Finally, I think the notion that the wives police the husbands who have commentator jobs only points to further sexism and so-called traditional roles for women in relationships/society. I find such a comment inherently sexist.

So on your comments we agree on a couple points, but overall, I tend to disagree. But like I said in the post, you don’t have to take my word for it. Examine the evidence I’ve presented, look toward those who have lived the life (like the Black Female Politician Shirley Chisholm), and call a spade a spade based on that.

-Maelstrom

PS: I should also say that I agree, Hillary coming out now and “pulling the sexism card” does make her look weak, no matter how true. However, I would caution against telling her to quit talking about sexism because there are tens of millions of women who are outraged at how she’s been treated in the media (whether they are correct or not). So it’s not just Hillary talking about sexism now, it’s a lot of women who are leading that charge on her behalf.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

1) I wanted to make the destinction, that while 'race' is a discrimination factor due to pre-judgment and financially starting positions, 'gender' lacks the latter reason. (No, there are more reasons) The pre-judgement could (does not have to) go away, because it is just a state of mind, within a generation or two. The difference in financial positions are longer to stay.
3) I was wrong because I do not watch enough MSNBC and FOX.
3b) My statement did not imply traditional roles. Traditionally, women were not allowed to speak up when the man talked. They were serving food and then retreating into the kitchen. Telling him he is a sexist, surely was out of the question. So both partners criticising each other is something great that the society has achieved. And should be honored. The issue arises, while (nearly) all partners of male achors are female (and might personally feel offended) only a minority is of AA origin.
You could now state that: well even if a women is discriminated because of her gender, a male person should also feel personally offended. But that is not true. You cannot feel the pain another person is feeling, cannot morph yourself into someone else's head. Everybody who says he can, is a liar.

Anonymous said...

Furthermore:
while women get unfairly lower wages in lots of jobs, we have to also acknowledge that in certain well paid jobs they get the same pay, as senators, in large parts of the public sector. We don't have to feel that we need to discriminate against men in public offices just to make up, equilize, the pain that women experience in the private sector. Two times wrong does not make it right.

And last, I believe the society does not need any "cops" that check out for discrimination against gender as those figures exist checking discrimination against race. Because discrimination has become a witch hunt. "You used the N-word, you are a racist" is not a statement that is helpful. It paints people into shape they might be not. Why is it OK for an AA to use the N-word but not for a white one? Both persons are supposed to be the same.
The N-word has the same power as knowledge and desire to oppose had in the middle ages: You are marked as a racist / witch. "Finally, we found another one." It has become something genetically, you can not get rid of. Even after years of redemption, he still is a racist.
I am not saying that there are no racist statements in the world, but people make them for different reasons: Some want to gain attention and use their radio show and the free speech amendment to increase their audienc because nothing increases their fame more than a racist statement. Then there are those that truely believe in them and I don't want to waste any time on these people who do not deserve any word. But then there are also people that use the word because they loose their mind in the heat of the moment, they say things they don't mean. They just feel they have to say "something". And while nobody should loose their control, referring to Michael Richards, it is not hate why they use the word. But still these people are marked as racists, life-long. Can they rehabilitate? Can they continue their job? Often not. Witches died and death is something totally different than loosing your job. But it still does not make the race-witch hunt right.