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.

Racism vs. Sexism

I am kickin’ myself in the pants for not posting this a couple months back, because now it is the major talking point of every news outlet. Several weeks ago I had begun a post about two issues that severely affect the potential for equality in this country; sexism and racism. Since it is the talk of the news these days, I’ll give my synopsis of how I view it from a political perspective, in light of the Democratic Presidential Nomination.

There is a long history between fighting discrimination against minorities (largely led by Black people) and Women in this country. I’ll start by pointing towards two very famous Americans, Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony. We all know Douglass as that great Black abolitionist and thinker who sported a signature hair-style. Likewise, we know Anthony as the lady who raised the issue of inequality towards Women, which ultimately earned her a spot on a piece of American currency. Many of us, however, are unaware that Douglass and Anthony were close friends and viewed their struggles for equality as one-in-the-same. Indeed, in many of her early writings, Susan B. Anthony made it clear that both Women and “the Negro” were being inhumanely treated, under-represented, and unlawfully disenfranchised by America.

A huge shift in their relationship occurred in 1869 when the 15th Amendment was debated, and supported Black Men’s right to equality, but not Women (incidentally, several States still haven’t ratified this Amendment…how shameful). Douglass was in support of the Amendment, but Anthony took offense to it. Thereafter, she largely spoke only on the behalf of Women since men, even Black men and her friend Douglass, seemed not to care for Women’s rights to equality.

It is well known that Women did not “earn” the right to vote until 1920 (with the passing of the 19th Amendment), and Black people until 1965 (despite the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and the 15th Amendment of 1869).

Today it is also well known that Women earn roughly 0.75 cents to every dollar that a man makes for doing the same job. Likewise, Blacks and other racial minorities are significantly encumbered by a system of social inequality (though not the only factor, but in my opinion the major factor) that punishes them longer for crimes that the majority population is also guilty of, often limits how high in the ranks one can climb at the job, and has left many behind with respect to education (among myriad other things).

“So who is more discriminated against?” many are now asking as a result of the race between Obama and Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nod. What I once thought was an incredibly great thing, a Black person and a Woman truly being considered for the nation’s highest office, has now turned my glee into disappointment. I suppose the only good thing is that this race has pulled the sheets off of some very ugly social realities we have in this country, and hopefully it will elicit action to truly resolve them.

I first had the idea to write on this topic back in January when Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary over Obama, whom many thought would win the Primary by double digits. The day after, I was watching Chris Mathews show, Hardball, on MSNBC. He had a guest on the show that I hold in the highest esteem for his incredible intellect and understanding, Michael Eric Dyson. Because Clinton won despite all the polling, Mathews and Dyson were vehemently trying to make the case that Obama lost because people are racist (or vote on racial lines), but wouldn’t dare admit their racial bias to a pollster. Now as often as I agree with Dyson, I recall thinking that he was totally off-base this time. There were numerous factors that could’ve caused the incongruence between the polls and the actual vote. In fact, it is my opinion that age was the greatest factor, with youths favoring Obama heavily. It just so happened that the NH primary occurred during the Winter break for many of the college students, so I imagine that had enough of an effect to give Clinton the victory (the same in other States, like Texas, where spring break may have played a role).

The case that Mathews and Dyson made that day became symbolic of how the remainder of the contest was going to play out in this sense; at any turn that race could be injected as a possible reason for opposition to Obama’s candidacy, it would be injected. It was at that time, back in January, that I began to point out to many people in my circle that there are many well known “race-police” (Jackson, Sharpton, Dyson, etc), but not many “gender/sexism-police” (can you even name one…I can’t).

I think it’s great that we’ve moved into an era where someone can’t just make racist remarks without backlash. Indeed I am certainly one who could be classified as a race-policeman. When someone makes a statement that is racist, or unnecessarily racially charged, I will call them out. But it cuts both ways for me racially, whether that’s for or against racial minorities. Furthermore, it cuts all ways for me: what’s wrong to say about racial minorities is wrong to say about Women; unfair treatment toward minorities is unfair treatment for Women too, in cases that are congruent (have to put that caveat on there so people don’t accuse me of saying that issues that face minorities are the same as issues that face Women or the Disabled or whatever…there is much overlap, and I’m referring to issues within the overlap).

Specifically speaking, there are people who have racial problems, and who have and will continue to be against Obama because of his skin color. Likewise, there are people who are against Clinton because she’s a Woman.

So we’ve moved from racism being the accepted reality, to it being lawfully unacceptable but publicly and privately accepted, and finally to it being lawfully and publicly unacceptable, while being privately practiced. There’s still work to be done on that last front, but there has been progress. Unfortunately Women are still one step behind. This primary season has made it clear to me that it is still publicly acceptable to be sexist against Women.

I always thought that we’d see a White Woman be President before we’d see a Black man be President. Of course I don’t know how this race will turn out, but I am rethinking that notion now. I have made the point countless times how sad it is that women are maligned in society, even here at this site, but I didn’t realize how accepted it was for Women to be so publicly discriminated against…I thought it was mostly private and institutionalized, not public and overt. I was wrong.

Many would still contend that race is the greater of the two evils. I would contend that depending on the arena, one or the other may be more explicit. Having done my research and looked through History, I would contend that Politically, Women may have it harder than Blacks. But you don’t have to take my word for it…

...the great Black Woman politician who ran for the Democratic Nomination for President of the USA in 1972, Shirley Chisholm, said the following in a 1969 speech before the House of Representatives:

“As a black person, I am no stranger to race prejudice. But the truth is that in the political world I have been far oftener discriminated against because I am a woman than because I am black.

Prejudice against blacks is becoming unacceptable although it will take years to eliminate it. But it is doomed because, slowly, white America is beginning to admit that it exists. Prejudice against women is still acceptable. There is very little understanding yet of the immorality involved in double pay scales and the classification of most of the better jobs as "for men only."

By the way, I would recommend reading her entire speech. She makes numerous valid points about inequality toward women that are, sadly, largely true today even though she made the speech almost 40 years ago. (http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/equal/)

I guess my point is that many in the media have indeed discriminated against Clinton, for whatever reason, but have been enabled by our lack of concern for the tone we take toward Women. The same types of statements made regarding her would rarely, if ever, be accepted if leveled at a Black person like Obama. And even now that she points out the incongruent treatment, many in the media are saying that she’s “just crying” because she’s losing instead of considering the wealth of evidence out there that is consistent with her point.

As a reader of this blog, don’t you join the chorus of media personalities that dismisses her point as her just being a cry-baby. Sexism is real too, and we’ve seen far too much of it in this campaign for it just to be overlooked.

-Maelstrom

Just look at how Clinton has been portrayed in all areas of our society during this race

DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER:

I absolutely DO NOT endorse the anti-Obama rhetoric or the comments posted for these videos. I just want you to consider some of the media comments within the videos that demonstrate the points I've made above!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QUmbjoEp2lU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bacxWGk88L0&NR=1

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vjG-jdybbIg

Introducing Mr. Imus

Over the course of the last week many people became familiar with a man by the name of Don Imus. In case you still aren’t aware of who he is, let me fill you in. Don Imus was a CBS nationally syndicated radio talk show host who also had a television simulcast on MSNBC. He is often credited as being the original “shock jock” (that is to say that he was the first Howard Stern). Over the years he had taken on a much more intellectual and political radio persona, however he maintained many of the elements in his radio show that made him a shock jock.

He is currently in the news because last week, following the NCAA women’s basketball championship game, he made gender-cruel and racially incendiary comments toward the Rutgers women’s basketball team. The phrase that is most notably quoted from his near-minute tirade is “nappy headed hoes,” in reference to the predominantly black Rutgers team.

There are plenty of viewpoints that I could attack this issue from (including the implications of a phrase such as nappy-headed, to the issue of the lee-way money and influence can offer someone in his position), but I will try to be as targeted and focused as possible. I will direct most of this post toward explaining why I think Imus was well deserving of being fired, and briefly why comparisons of Imus to Hip-hop artists are misguided and ill-informed to a large extent.

In fact, let me start with that latter point.

Criticisms of hip-hop artists have become a major part of the conversation since this story gained nationwide attention. I’d like to say that for years rappers have been the topic of criticism by countless black leaders and commentators (including Bill Cosby, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton). The verbal disrespect and the visual denigration they have propagated toward women, black women in particular, cannot be overstated. The negative nature of much (not all) of the culture is indeed reprehensible. However, the only similarity between Imus’ comments last week and the kinds of lyrics that we’ve become accustomed to hearing from rappers is the word ‘ho.’ And perhaps that is why the phrase “nappy-headed ho” is the only one the mass media, which is certainly dominated by white men, is the only one that we keep hearing about from Imus’ rant.

I would like to point out that Imus (and the guest on the show that day) went on to make very racially charged insinuations and gender/racial comparisons between the Tennessee and Rutgers women’s basketball teams. He even went so far as to compare watching the teams play each other to watching the Jigaboo’s playing the Wannabe’s (a reference to ‘School Daze,’ one of Spike Lee’s earlier films addressing the nature of classism amongst black people). The point I’m trying to make is that people who are upset that Imus got fired because “black rappers talk like this all the time” are looking only at a three word phrase that was apart of a much longer, more inflammatory discourse than the media is focusing on (seriously, dig up the entire tirade, I’m sure its somewhere on the internet, and you’ll understand what I’m talking about).

Imus has made racists statements totally unrelated to the kinds of misogynistic statements that (black) rappers have made over the years. Among some of his more recent racist statements are characterizations of Barack Obama as “that colored fellow,” referring to black female PBS news anchor Gwen Ifill as “the cleaning lady,” and discussing black female tennis players Venus and Serena Williams as savages that belonged in National Geographic instead of in Playboy magazine; AND THE LIST GOES ON, SERIOUSLY (a short list is included in the wikipedia.org entry about Imus)!

Certainly rappers aren’t saying such things. The two are not the same and I wish people would quit with the comparisons. Rappers are a different kind of evil which I have addressed in the past (see my 6/23/04 post ‘What’s a Tip Drill’), and will likely address in the future.

As for Imus being fired, people keep saying that “he is a good person and that it is wrong to fire him over this instance,” and “why didn’t they fire him before (when he made adverse statements) if he was so wrong this time,” and that “you have to take the man as a whole instead of just looking at one statement.” And the one that is frustrating me the most, “we have Free Speech, he should be allowed to say whatever he wants.”

Well, let me clear all of those arguments up by simply pointing out that any number of “good people” have been fired from various kinds of jobs for carrying on in behavior that their employer deemed detrimental to the company. Imus is a person who worked for large corporations, and they reserve the right to fire him for such behavior (I’m sure it was in his contract somewhere).

To briefly address the issue of Free Speech, I’d like to point out that Free Speech was totally exercised in this instance and not hampered at all. Imus exercised his right to Free Speech by saying what he said, the community and community leaders (including the very eloquent Rutgers Team) exercised their Free Speech by expressing their disdain for his comments, Imus’ corporate sponsors freely spoke by pulling their sponsorship from his shows, and his employers spoke by pulling him from their programming. Free speech was indeed exercised and not encumbered at all.

I hate it when people cower behind “free speech, free speech” when these types of situations come up. What you have to understand is the context under which you have free speech. There are regulations on virtually everything because virtually everyone has to answer to someone. We also have the “right to bear arms” as part of the Bill of Rights, but that doesn’t mean that anyone can get a gun and that you can use it whenever, where ever and however you feel. So for the people crying “free speech,” are you also crying that a criminal has the “right to bear arms” when a masked fellow sticks up the local grocery store with a gun?

Free speech comes with many benefits, but can also come with consequences.

One thing that I find very interesting in watching countless hours of news coverage on this topic is that many of the people who are defending Imus by crying Free Speech were on board with the FCC for fining MTV and CBS and other stations during the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction, and were upset that Bono (of U2) said the “F” word during a live telecast. So you want to regulate the F-word and a split second of a breast that most of the world didn’t see until after the news kept replaying it in slow motion, but you don’t want to censor a man who spews vile, hateful things ad nauseam everyday. I think there’s something seriously backwards with this.

On to my next point…

I know plenty of people that have been axed from their job for far less egregious offenses (like being consistently late) despite the good work they do or the good people that they are. So on this point, isn’t it fair that someone who has consistently engaged in detrimental behavior also be fired from his position. Sounds like the American way to me.

In my opinion, the great good that could easily come out of the Don Imus controversy is that now the hip-hop community may actually have to adjust the very low standards that the lyrics of the music and the imagery of the videos have set…

…And that is a great thing.

Till next time,

Maelstrom