Yesterday I had lunch with my friend "D," a political junkie like me, and we were discussing Sarah Palin and I mentioned that I thought that like Hillary, she was enduring a fair amount of sexism and scrutiny rooted in sexism by the mainstream media, political pundits, and progressive-liberal Democrats, and Obama-maniacs (and I count myself in the last 2 categories), and maybe her harshest critics are other women of all political stripes.
Now. As many regular readers of this blog know, I am hardly a Sarah Palin fan, but I have tried to restrain myself and to really examine the rhetoric around Palin, both the hagiography (she seems to be Saint Sarah as far as some people on the Evangelical conservative right think) and the demonization (I don't think she's a sign of the apocalypse, although her voice does feel like demons dancing in my brain--and I mean her literal voice not the content of what she is saying. If there is a purgatory and I'm meant to be there, then it will be filled with the voices of Fran Drescher, Rachel Ray, Rosie Perez, and Sarah Palin--and doesn't that say something that these particular FEMALE voices are the ones that drive me stark raving mad?)
When "D" asked for examples of sexism and comparisons of what Palin is facing versus what Clinton faced in the primaries, I noted that one thing was the belief that opponents can't be too hard on Palin for fear of charges of sexism--that we can't expect Palin to stand on her own two feet and that particularly men have to be careful of being perceived that they are being too hard on her. And I mentioned my own harsh critique of Palin, wanting her to be smarter and more knowledgable than she appears to be, to which my friend said that there was nothing wrong with having high expectations (or even just basic expectations) for political candidates for higher office.
But on reflecting more about this, I do think that the scrutiny around Palin has some hints of sexism--at least that as a woman in politics, like Clinton and others, Palin is not immune to the double-bind expectations that we have of women in the public sphere. That they have to be feminine, and yet not too feminine. That they should be both independent and yet utterly maternal and devoted to their families. And I think that for some partisan folk, it's easier to go after Palin rather than McCain because McCain seems untouchable in certain ways--due to his stint in the Hanoi Hilton, his age and health (although there are some really awful commercials hinting that his cancer is more wide spread than he is leading us to think and that he may keel over any minute--the ad is sponsored by some independent group but I can't help thinking that it was in such POOR TASTE and I'm not sure if it was an ad meant to hurt or help Obama, because if people THINK that this group supports Obama it could actually backfire and help people sympathize with McCain. Either way, it was a BAD AD).
So we go after Palin. And to be fair, there's a LOT to go after. So it's not entirely the fault of the media or pundits or Democrats. But still. I think that in some ways, going after Palin takes away from what this election should really be about--how to get our nation going in a progressive direction (at least it is for me). I also find it odd that more scrutiny of Cindy McCain doesn't hit the mainstream. Because I recently read a piece in The New Yorker about her that was just disturbing. Among other things, McCain's adoption of Bridget without consulting John McCain (she also got her pilot's license without ever letting him know she was taking lessons), and her deliberate forgetting that her father had a family that he left for her Mom (in other words, Cindy has an older half-sister yet consistently refers to herself as her father's "only child" which is offensive to say the least and a stark contrast to the Obama family dynamics), and the separate spheres that she and John McCain seem to lead their lives.
Finally, for a BRILLIANT post looking at the intersection of racism and sexism, head over to What Tami Said for he post entitled "Dear Liberal Elites" (yes, that means ME and YOU). As usual, Tami said it much better than I ever could.
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
Post convention thoughts
I teach in an English department. I know the power of narrative, how persuasive the right combination of words can be. And I study popular culture and am aware of the strength of certain images and symbols. Politics, to a large degree, is about rhetoric and spin: it is about persuasion.
A LOT has been written about Sarah Palin, about what she does and doesn't do for the Republican ticket, about her being a heart beat away from the presidency and what her selection says about McCain's judgment in choosing her.
I was going to do an entire post about Sarah Palin and about the RNC, and comparing the RNC to the DNC, but there are so many other bloggers and media outlets who have already done this work (I'll embed some links within my post--it's nice, because essentially these posts are ones I would have written, perhaps in a different style/format, but they tackle the topics I would have tackled).
What I want to end the week with now, and the two solid weeks of being glued, alternately, to CSPAN, CNN, and MSNBC, are a few thoughts about what I would like to see happen (I know this probably *won't* happen, but I thought I'd try to be hopeful and stay positive, because there's just TOO MUCH NEGATIVITY, and I'm tired of the sniping).
*I would like to see an end to coded racist language against the Obama family, in particular, and African Americans, in general. I'd like to see an end to coded racist language against all people, but the truth is, in my opinion, African Americans get the brunt of this more than other racial groups in the U.S. The word "uppity" should only be used, in a vernacular fashion, to refer to objects that are placed beyond someone's reach, as in "Can you please grab that book for me? It's too uppity for me to get it." The word "uppity" SHOULD NOT be applied to a U.S. Senator who is also the Democratic candidate running for President, and by the way, is the first African American representing a major political party, as in this quote by Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland:
*I would like to see an end to people equating Islam with terrorism or Muslim culture/references with Islamic terrorism. Here's a choice quote from another U.S. congressman:
*I would like both parties held accountable for telling the truth, about themselves and about their opponents. A great website to check out is FactCheck.org, which keeps track of both parties and holds both campaigns accountable for their misleading statements or outright lies.
And while The Daily Show is probably not as unbiased as the above site, their juxtaposition of key political figures and pundits is worth noting as we move forward in the final push to November 4:
*I do think that the families and particularly the children of politicians and public figures should be off limits. At the same time, I think that political candidates should not try to make political hay out of their children.
*I think people should be more respectful in their critique of Sarah Palin. Although I find the Republican call of "sexism" a bit hard to swallow in light of the treatment that Hillary Clinton has received during the last year and a half (and really the last twelve years because she got a lot of disrespect based on gender during the Clinton administration), I do think that there's quite a bit of sexist rhetoric, especially in the blogosphere. And if people want to critique Palin, they can do so without using sexist language. Critiquing her, just like critiquing any of her male peers, is fair game--having unfair gender expectations of her, is not.
*I would like people to recognize that women, just like men, are complex creatures. And that just because you are a woman does not mean that you can speak for all women or are in favor of what, politically, we refer to as "women's rights." Same thing goes for being African American--Barack Obama does not speak on behalf of all African Americans. He does not "represent" black American. He is not running for president of the American "black diaspora." He is running to be President of the United States.
*Having said that, I wish people would start to recognize the pervasiveness of racism and racist thought in this country--or perhaps conversely, how difficult it is to recognize white privilege and white supremacist thought. Notice I didn't say "racist people"--Jay Smooth already covered this a few months back. But I've had numerous conversations with friends who have older white parents who are struggling with their internalized racism--these are older white Democrats who have never voted Republican and don't plan to vote for McCain, but they balk at voting for a black man because the picture of Barack Obama and his family is NOT the picture they have of a first family. These are not bad people--and they have raised children who are liberal and progressive minded.
But really--THIS is the reason I teach what I teach, why I focus my research on race, and why I started a blog called Mixed Race America. Race is such a pervasive part of American culture/society/history/politics. It's large and amorphous, fluid and flexible. No one is ever "right" about race, and just when you think you've figured everything out, something changes, something happens, something erupts to blow your previous theory and conceptions, of race, right out of the water.
*And really, what it all boils down to, for me, about Obama and his historic candidacy and the issue of race are two lines from a Pat Parker poem:
"For the White Person who Wants to Know How to Be My Friend"
The first thing you do is to forget that i'm Black.
Second, you must never forget that i'm Black.
A LOT has been written about Sarah Palin, about what she does and doesn't do for the Republican ticket, about her being a heart beat away from the presidency and what her selection says about McCain's judgment in choosing her.
I was going to do an entire post about Sarah Palin and about the RNC, and comparing the RNC to the DNC, but there are so many other bloggers and media outlets who have already done this work (I'll embed some links within my post--it's nice, because essentially these posts are ones I would have written, perhaps in a different style/format, but they tackle the topics I would have tackled).
What I want to end the week with now, and the two solid weeks of being glued, alternately, to CSPAN, CNN, and MSNBC, are a few thoughts about what I would like to see happen (I know this probably *won't* happen, but I thought I'd try to be hopeful and stay positive, because there's just TOO MUCH NEGATIVITY, and I'm tired of the sniping).
*I would like to see an end to coded racist language against the Obama family, in particular, and African Americans, in general. I'd like to see an end to coded racist language against all people, but the truth is, in my opinion, African Americans get the brunt of this more than other racial groups in the U.S. The word "uppity" should only be used, in a vernacular fashion, to refer to objects that are placed beyond someone's reach, as in "Can you please grab that book for me? It's too uppity for me to get it." The word "uppity" SHOULD NOT be applied to a U.S. Senator who is also the Democratic candidate running for President, and by the way, is the first African American representing a major political party, as in this quote by Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland:
"Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said. Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.”
*I would like to see an end to people equating Islam with terrorism or Muslim culture/references with Islamic terrorism. Here's a choice quote from another U.S. congressman:
"Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that Obama's middle name – Hussein – is relevant to the public discourse surrounding his candidacy, saying in March that if Obama were elected, 'Then the radical Islamists, the al Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror."
*I would like both parties held accountable for telling the truth, about themselves and about their opponents. A great website to check out is FactCheck.org, which keeps track of both parties and holds both campaigns accountable for their misleading statements or outright lies.
And while The Daily Show is probably not as unbiased as the above site, their juxtaposition of key political figures and pundits is worth noting as we move forward in the final push to November 4:
*I do think that the families and particularly the children of politicians and public figures should be off limits. At the same time, I think that political candidates should not try to make political hay out of their children.
*I think people should be more respectful in their critique of Sarah Palin. Although I find the Republican call of "sexism" a bit hard to swallow in light of the treatment that Hillary Clinton has received during the last year and a half (and really the last twelve years because she got a lot of disrespect based on gender during the Clinton administration), I do think that there's quite a bit of sexist rhetoric, especially in the blogosphere. And if people want to critique Palin, they can do so without using sexist language. Critiquing her, just like critiquing any of her male peers, is fair game--having unfair gender expectations of her, is not.
*I would like people to recognize that women, just like men, are complex creatures. And that just because you are a woman does not mean that you can speak for all women or are in favor of what, politically, we refer to as "women's rights." Same thing goes for being African American--Barack Obama does not speak on behalf of all African Americans. He does not "represent" black American. He is not running for president of the American "black diaspora." He is running to be President of the United States.
*Having said that, I wish people would start to recognize the pervasiveness of racism and racist thought in this country--or perhaps conversely, how difficult it is to recognize white privilege and white supremacist thought. Notice I didn't say "racist people"--Jay Smooth already covered this a few months back. But I've had numerous conversations with friends who have older white parents who are struggling with their internalized racism--these are older white Democrats who have never voted Republican and don't plan to vote for McCain, but they balk at voting for a black man because the picture of Barack Obama and his family is NOT the picture they have of a first family. These are not bad people--and they have raised children who are liberal and progressive minded.
But really--THIS is the reason I teach what I teach, why I focus my research on race, and why I started a blog called Mixed Race America. Race is such a pervasive part of American culture/society/history/politics. It's large and amorphous, fluid and flexible. No one is ever "right" about race, and just when you think you've figured everything out, something changes, something happens, something erupts to blow your previous theory and conceptions, of race, right out of the water.
*And really, what it all boils down to, for me, about Obama and his historic candidacy and the issue of race are two lines from a Pat Parker poem:
"For the White Person who Wants to Know How to Be My Friend"
The first thing you do is to forget that i'm Black.
Second, you must never forget that i'm Black.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Senator McCain, tell us what you REALLY think about race in America?
This Monday I wrote that there was more to say about John McCain and the topic of race in America. But the truth is, I have actually written about this topic before. In March, I called on journalists to start asking John McCain to talk about race ("Calling on McCain to talk about race")--because doesn't it strike anyone that as a white American man detained in an Asian country as a POW and one who regularly used a racial slur against Asians, "gook," until he disavowed its use in the 2000 campaign--doesn't anyone think that John McCain has opinions about race in America? Particularly since his family is mixed-race with the addition of the daughter that Cindy McCain brought back from Bangladesh unannounced.
[By the way, does it strike anyone else as a bit odd that Cindy McCain was able to just bring back a baby from Bangladesh into this country and she seemingly did it without first discussing the matter with her husband and the rest of her family? And then there's the whole background check, the paperwork, the months and sometimes years of waiting. She went to Bangladesh, toured an orphanage, and then brought back two little girls, one she kept and the other that got adopted by friends. And John McCain's reaction is "Whoa, honey! Didn't realize you were bringing back souvenirs!" but then he quickly says how delighted he is, but how much would you give to go back in time and be a fly on the wall at the McCain house?]
And besides one audience member at a town hall event in Ohio, doesn't anyone want to ask John McCain about women and gender issues, especially in light of the sexist slur he used against HIS OWN WIFE? ("Who is John McCain?").
Plenty of other bloggers I respect have also commented on John McCain and race and who this straight talker REALLY is:
Tenured Radical has an excellent post about the use of the phrase "the race card" and the McCain campaign's invocation of this specter.
What Tami Said has a post detailing the various racial slurs that McCain is overheard to have made at bar he liked to frequent in DC.
Angry Asian Man also has commented about John McCain's racism and his use of the slur "gook," plugging a book by Irwin Tang--and here's a video in which Tang talks about the importance of understanding John McCain's particular brand of Asian racism:
Finally, in case you haven't heard, there's been a scuffle between John McCain and...Paris Hilton! McCain used images of Hilton and Britney Spears in his latest negative campaign against Barack Obama, calling Obama a . . . CELEBRITY and likening him to Spears and Hilton. Paris Hilton then shot back with a video of her own with the help of the Internet sensation "Funny or Die":
President Hilton? I hope not. But this campaign season just got a bit wackier.
[By the way, does it strike anyone else as a bit odd that Cindy McCain was able to just bring back a baby from Bangladesh into this country and she seemingly did it without first discussing the matter with her husband and the rest of her family? And then there's the whole background check, the paperwork, the months and sometimes years of waiting. She went to Bangladesh, toured an orphanage, and then brought back two little girls, one she kept and the other that got adopted by friends. And John McCain's reaction is "Whoa, honey! Didn't realize you were bringing back souvenirs!" but then he quickly says how delighted he is, but how much would you give to go back in time and be a fly on the wall at the McCain house?]
And besides one audience member at a town hall event in Ohio, doesn't anyone want to ask John McCain about women and gender issues, especially in light of the sexist slur he used against HIS OWN WIFE? ("Who is John McCain?").
Plenty of other bloggers I respect have also commented on John McCain and race and who this straight talker REALLY is:
Tenured Radical has an excellent post about the use of the phrase "the race card" and the McCain campaign's invocation of this specter.
What Tami Said has a post detailing the various racial slurs that McCain is overheard to have made at bar he liked to frequent in DC.
Angry Asian Man also has commented about John McCain's racism and his use of the slur "gook," plugging a book by Irwin Tang--and here's a video in which Tang talks about the importance of understanding John McCain's particular brand of Asian racism:
Finally, in case you haven't heard, there's been a scuffle between John McCain and...Paris Hilton! McCain used images of Hilton and Britney Spears in his latest negative campaign against Barack Obama, calling Obama a . . . CELEBRITY and likening him to Spears and Hilton. Paris Hilton then shot back with a video of her own with the help of the Internet sensation "Funny or Die":
See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die
President Hilton? I hope not. But this campaign season just got a bit wackier.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Why you should care about golf
I know I have written about my appreciation (dare I say love?) for golf elsewhere in this blog, but I want to take a moment and talk about why you should care about golf.
[This is a course in Whistler, British Columbia]
First of all, I'm not trying to argue that golf is problem free or that anyone should be enamored of golf. For many, watching golf on tv is about as stimulating as watching paint dry. For others, going out once on the fairways and having the most frustrating time hitting a tiny ball with a thin stick was an exercise in pointlessness that they never want to repeat. And for the socially conscientious among us, how can we sanction a game (and for many, this is a game and not a sport--begging questions of athleticism and physical prowess) that has all sorts of "-isms" associated with it? Elitism, sexism, racism, anti-environmentalism, and homophobia (OK, last one didn't end in "-ism" but I think you get my point).
I was reminded of all these issues when I read this entry in Poplicks' blog titled "Equality at any cost?" The post was about the recent flap at Phoenix Country Club over the inequitable status of their female members--recently The New York Times reported on this case of gender discrimination at elite golf clubs (click here).
[By the way, if the topic of gender discrimination and elite golf courses rings any bells in your subconscious, it's because around 2002-2003 there was a BIG FLAP about Augusta National, host of the annual Masters tournament (what some in golf circles believes is THE premiere golf major of the four majors--U.S. Open, British Open, and PGA Championship). Martha Burk, chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, organized a boycott of Augusta National due to their discriminatory practices--specifically, they do not allow women to join the club. If you want a thorough and fairly unbiased account of this issue read Alan Shipnuck's The Battle for Augusta National: Hootie, Martha, and the Masters of the Universe. What I can tell you as a golfer and as someone who just finished the book, is that the Masters continues to be held every April; Augusta National continues to bar women from its club; and most people seem to have forgotten about all of this...except maybe we shouldn't have.]
Poplicks asks:
And my answer is yes.
Because if you don't think your life is touched by what goes on at a golf course, particularly an elite golf course, think again. Most major business deals happen on golf courses. Most executives in Fortune 500 companies golf. Corporate sponsors of golf tournaments proliferate on the PGA and LPGA. Unless you are living totally off the grid in the U.S., your life is touched and impacted by corporate America in a fairly significant way. Where you bank, where you shop, the car you drive, the bank that holds the mortgage on your home (or the home you rent), the television you watch--this is all corporate America. And the people who sit on the boards of these companies, who make decisions about finances and environmental issues and who to hire and more importantly promote within the upper ranks of their businesses--these people golf.
We want, we NEED the people at the top levels of corporate America to be conscientious of women, people of color, working-class and poor people, queer people, the environment and so many other issues that impact the lives of people who are not in a position of power and influence. If corporate America continues to discriminate, on and off the golf course, this is NOT good for any of us, regardless of whether you identify with a disenfranchised group,, because we are ALL impacted by discrimination and at bare minimum, how could you perpetuate sexism when all of us must have at least one kick-ass woman (hopefully a mother/grandmother/sister/daughter/niece/aunt) in your life that you would never want to see discriminated against.
I'm not trying to overstate the case--like golf is a means of mind control for the elite (like the Borg in Star Trek--they are trying to assimilate you one fairway at a time) but I am trying to demonstrate that the culture of Corporate America is tied up into golf -- that golf functions more like an institution than a mere game. And so as an institution with power--especially a diffuse and nebulous power (which makes it all the more tricky to pin down) the kinds of discrimination that continue in elite clubs and on golf courses is something we need to combat.
Putting aside issues of race (although there are HUGE inequities of race going on at elite courses) and looking at gender discrimination, there are some telling quotes by academics who study the link between that damn glass ceiling that women bump their head into in Corporate America:
[Above quotes taken from Members of the Club: The Coming of Age in Executive Women by Dawn-Marie Driscoll and Carol R. Goldberg, New York: The Free Press, 1993]
[Above quotes taken from Diversity in the Power Elite: Have Women and Minorities Reached the Top? by Richard L. Zweigenhaft and G. William Domhoff, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998]
I'm not suggesting that everyone run out and learn to play golf (although I do enjoy it myself) but I do think that we should care about whether or not Phoenix and Augusta and Burning Tree and other clubs are excluding women. And just as you can't pull apart race and gender, I guarantee that clubs that act in a discriminatory fashion towards women are not exactly rolling out the welcome mat for non-white players.
[This is a course in Whistler, British Columbia]
First of all, I'm not trying to argue that golf is problem free or that anyone should be enamored of golf. For many, watching golf on tv is about as stimulating as watching paint dry. For others, going out once on the fairways and having the most frustrating time hitting a tiny ball with a thin stick was an exercise in pointlessness that they never want to repeat. And for the socially conscientious among us, how can we sanction a game (and for many, this is a game and not a sport--begging questions of athleticism and physical prowess) that has all sorts of "-isms" associated with it? Elitism, sexism, racism, anti-environmentalism, and homophobia (OK, last one didn't end in "-ism" but I think you get my point).
I was reminded of all these issues when I read this entry in Poplicks' blog titled "Equality at any cost?" The post was about the recent flap at Phoenix Country Club over the inequitable status of their female members--recently The New York Times reported on this case of gender discrimination at elite golf clubs (click here).
[By the way, if the topic of gender discrimination and elite golf courses rings any bells in your subconscious, it's because around 2002-2003 there was a BIG FLAP about Augusta National, host of the annual Masters tournament (what some in golf circles believes is THE premiere golf major of the four majors--U.S. Open, British Open, and PGA Championship). Martha Burk, chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, organized a boycott of Augusta National due to their discriminatory practices--specifically, they do not allow women to join the club. If you want a thorough and fairly unbiased account of this issue read Alan Shipnuck's The Battle for Augusta National: Hootie, Martha, and the Masters of the Universe. What I can tell you as a golfer and as someone who just finished the book, is that the Masters continues to be held every April; Augusta National continues to bar women from its club; and most people seem to have forgotten about all of this...except maybe we shouldn't have.]
Poplicks asks:
"Is equality always worth striving and fighting for in principle even when one struggle for equality still reifies or leaves untouched other structures of inequality?"
And my answer is yes.
Because if you don't think your life is touched by what goes on at a golf course, particularly an elite golf course, think again. Most major business deals happen on golf courses. Most executives in Fortune 500 companies golf. Corporate sponsors of golf tournaments proliferate on the PGA and LPGA. Unless you are living totally off the grid in the U.S., your life is touched and impacted by corporate America in a fairly significant way. Where you bank, where you shop, the car you drive, the bank that holds the mortgage on your home (or the home you rent), the television you watch--this is all corporate America. And the people who sit on the boards of these companies, who make decisions about finances and environmental issues and who to hire and more importantly promote within the upper ranks of their businesses--these people golf.
We want, we NEED the people at the top levels of corporate America to be conscientious of women, people of color, working-class and poor people, queer people, the environment and so many other issues that impact the lives of people who are not in a position of power and influence. If corporate America continues to discriminate, on and off the golf course, this is NOT good for any of us, regardless of whether you identify with a disenfranchised group,, because we are ALL impacted by discrimination and at bare minimum, how could you perpetuate sexism when all of us must have at least one kick-ass woman (hopefully a mother/grandmother/sister/daughter/niece/aunt) in your life that you would never want to see discriminated against.
I'm not trying to overstate the case--like golf is a means of mind control for the elite (like the Borg in Star Trek--they are trying to assimilate you one fairway at a time) but I am trying to demonstrate that the culture of Corporate America is tied up into golf -- that golf functions more like an institution than a mere game. And so as an institution with power--especially a diffuse and nebulous power (which makes it all the more tricky to pin down) the kinds of discrimination that continue in elite clubs and on golf courses is something we need to combat.
Putting aside issues of race (although there are HUGE inequities of race going on at elite courses) and looking at gender discrimination, there are some telling quotes by academics who study the link between that damn glass ceiling that women bump their head into in Corporate America:
"In the course of our study of issues confronting top executive women, we would ask women what, if anything, they saw as a barrier to further advancemet in senior management, in rainmaking success, in gaining membership in The Club. Over and over again, we heard variations on the same theme: golf" (162).
"'I finally learned how to play. Golf's not so hard, but thd problem is the country clubs. They are the most sexist, and don't allow women to play at the times the men are playing. One day I had three male clients from Detroit flying in to play golf with me. They arrived at ten A.M. and we had to sit around until we were allowed to tee off at one-thirty'" (162).
"Jane Blalock [former pro-golfer and president of a sports marketing firm] is well aware of the final reason many women have not yet caught the golf fever: the discriminatory attitude of many country clubs toward women players" (166).
[Above quotes taken from Members of the Club: The Coming of Age in Executive Women by Dawn-Marie Driscoll and Carol R. Goldberg, New York: The Free Press, 1993]
"In a study of executives who manage 'corporate-government affairs,' Denise Benoit Scott found that the women in such positions 'share meals with staff members and other government relations officials but never play golf.' In contrast, men in such positions 'play golf with a broad range of peole in business and government, including legislators and top corporate executives.' As one of the women she interviewed put it: 'I wish I played golf. I think golf is the key. If you want to make it, you have to play golf.'" (52-53).
"A few months before Bill Clinton was elected president, his future secretary of energy had some pertinent comments about the importance of fitting into corporate culture and the relevance of playing golf. 'Without losing your own personality, said Hazel O'Leary, then an executive vice president at Northern States Power in Minnesota, 'it's important to be part of the prevailing corporate culture. At this company, it's golf. I've resisted learning to play golf all my life, but I finally had to admit I was missing something that way.' She took up golf" (53-54).
[Above quotes taken from Diversity in the Power Elite: Have Women and Minorities Reached the Top? by Richard L. Zweigenhaft and G. William Domhoff, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998]
I'm not suggesting that everyone run out and learn to play golf (although I do enjoy it myself) but I do think that we should care about whether or not Phoenix and Augusta and Burning Tree and other clubs are excluding women. And just as you can't pull apart race and gender, I guarantee that clubs that act in a discriminatory fashion towards women are not exactly rolling out the welcome mat for non-white players.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Do we have to choose between racism and sexism?
The spin post-New Hampshire primaries has been interesting, to say the least, as well as the hype leading up to them. Of particular note is Gloria Steinem's editorial in The New York Times, "Women Are Never Frontrunners" (January 8, 2008) where she actually makes a claim for sexism being more oppressive than racism (or perhaps to put it in a different way, where she seems to be arguing for gender being the greater liability than race in achieving equity in the U.S.).
I was thinking of either writing to The New York Times or writing a blog post in response to Steinam's op-ed, but then I saw that Tami at "What Tami Said" has already said everything I would have said (and said it better). In her post, "Dear Steinem: Ain't I a Woman too?" (January 9, 2008) Tami lays out all the problems with Steinem's (il)logic in continuing to rank oppression, most especially, the notion that African American men became eligible to vote 50 years ahead of women. Here's Tami:
"Steinem separates the race issue from the gender issue as if there are not some of us affected by society's views of both. Ain't I a woman, too?
[Steinem]:'That's why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).'
I assume that at 18, Gloria Steinem cast her first presidential vote in the 1952 election. Certainly society did not prevent her from doing so. My paternal grandfather was a 53-year-old black man living in Mississippi that year. He was not afforded that freedom. Do we really want to go here? Apparently not."
Read the entire post--it's smart and totally on point. And it reminds us all that ranking oppression or separating sexism from racism is truly a losing proposition for us all. Choosing between Obama and Clinton is not choosing to support sexism over racism. Both are historic candidates. But they are also, fundamentally, politicians and presidential candidates who have platforms and who want to serve in public office and have a sense of civic responsibility. I know the inner-cynic in me reads all of this very differently, but as an Obama supporter and a die-hard Democrat, let me take the higher road and say that all of these candidates, and I'm going to be extra magnanimus and include the Republicans (*take deep inner breath*), want to be President of the United States because they feel they want to make the United States a better place. We may feel like one candidate has a better plan and better vision than the other, but (and now I'm going to focus on the 3 Democratic front-runners) at the end of the day, what we want (as Democrats--so I'm speaking to my fellow-travelers now) is to have a viable Democratic candidate we can support. We don't want to start telling people that if they vote for Edwards they hate black people and women. Or that supporting Obama is against our best interests as women or to be a Clinton champion means supporting racism.
What we want is a win in November 2008 and an end to racism & sexism because they are oppressive systems that actually work well together and you really can't end one without the other.
But listen, don't take my word for it. Read Tami's post--because she really says it best.
I was thinking of either writing to The New York Times or writing a blog post in response to Steinam's op-ed, but then I saw that Tami at "What Tami Said" has already said everything I would have said (and said it better). In her post, "Dear Steinem: Ain't I a Woman too?" (January 9, 2008) Tami lays out all the problems with Steinem's (il)logic in continuing to rank oppression, most especially, the notion that African American men became eligible to vote 50 years ahead of women. Here's Tami:
"Steinem separates the race issue from the gender issue as if there are not some of us affected by society's views of both. Ain't I a woman, too?
[Steinem]:'That's why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).'
I assume that at 18, Gloria Steinem cast her first presidential vote in the 1952 election. Certainly society did not prevent her from doing so. My paternal grandfather was a 53-year-old black man living in Mississippi that year. He was not afforded that freedom. Do we really want to go here? Apparently not."
Read the entire post--it's smart and totally on point. And it reminds us all that ranking oppression or separating sexism from racism is truly a losing proposition for us all. Choosing between Obama and Clinton is not choosing to support sexism over racism. Both are historic candidates. But they are also, fundamentally, politicians and presidential candidates who have platforms and who want to serve in public office and have a sense of civic responsibility. I know the inner-cynic in me reads all of this very differently, but as an Obama supporter and a die-hard Democrat, let me take the higher road and say that all of these candidates, and I'm going to be extra magnanimus and include the Republicans (*take deep inner breath*), want to be President of the United States because they feel they want to make the United States a better place. We may feel like one candidate has a better plan and better vision than the other, but (and now I'm going to focus on the 3 Democratic front-runners) at the end of the day, what we want (as Democrats--so I'm speaking to my fellow-travelers now) is to have a viable Democratic candidate we can support. We don't want to start telling people that if they vote for Edwards they hate black people and women. Or that supporting Obama is against our best interests as women or to be a Clinton champion means supporting racism.
What we want is a win in November 2008 and an end to racism & sexism because they are oppressive systems that actually work well together and you really can't end one without the other.
But listen, don't take my word for it. Read Tami's post--because she really says it best.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Race and Politics -- Part II
For those of you just tuning in, I started to talk about race and politics in yesterday's post ("Race and Politics -- Part I"), and I left off with those provocative questions--especially whether, as Southern Dem believes, all Republicans are racist.
So how did we get on this topic? The upcoming caucus & primary of course. And most especially, who is more electable: Clinton or Obama. Part of me hates to even bring this up because it starts to feel like the game of ranking oppression--what is worse in this country right now, sexism or racism? But it does seem like it's the question that is out there, even if people aren't always phrasing it in such bald terms.
Southern Dem believes that Obama is not electable because of so many racist Republicans. He says we haven't seen the really bad racist stuff come out, yet, but that he's sure Karl Rove and Co. are already planning a nasty and underground negative and racist campaign against Obama playing off of everyone's fears of black men and combining it, in Obama's case, with his name (which conveniently rhymes with Osama) and his background (he lived in Indonesia for a time and did attend a Muslim school). Southern Dem did not seem overly worried about the rampant sexism in the Republican party--and perhaps more disturbing, the sheer vitriol directed at Hillary Clinton for just being Hillary Clinton. Southern Dem just really believes that as nasty as things may get for Clinton, it will be a game of dirty politics that will bring up stuff about Bill Clinton and his infidelity. And that while people may publicly acknowledge their hatred for Hillary based on gender, the simmering hatred of racism that people feel for Obama has gone undetected because it's underground and it will only take the sleeping giant of the racist Republican National Committee to awaken the masses of racist Republicans against Obama. In other words, we may not like Hillary Clinton, but she's still a white woman and still has a chance to be the President of the United States. But this country just isn't ready for an African American head of state.
And all I kept thinking about was the answer I gave to one gentleman who asked me this question when I was passing out "Obama for America" literature back in June (yes, that's right, I went campaigning for Obama, and I even blogged about it in "Walk for Barak," June 12, 2007). I was asked whether the country was ready to elect a black president. And I said that I had to believe that we were. That I have to believe in and envision the country I want rather than the country I suspect I have. That I didn't want to be naive about race, but that the country I want to live in and support is a country that will elect an African American for President of the United States. And if I can help make that happen, I will.
So how did we get on this topic? The upcoming caucus & primary of course. And most especially, who is more electable: Clinton or Obama. Part of me hates to even bring this up because it starts to feel like the game of ranking oppression--what is worse in this country right now, sexism or racism? But it does seem like it's the question that is out there, even if people aren't always phrasing it in such bald terms.
Southern Dem believes that Obama is not electable because of so many racist Republicans. He says we haven't seen the really bad racist stuff come out, yet, but that he's sure Karl Rove and Co. are already planning a nasty and underground negative and racist campaign against Obama playing off of everyone's fears of black men and combining it, in Obama's case, with his name (which conveniently rhymes with Osama) and his background (he lived in Indonesia for a time and did attend a Muslim school). Southern Dem did not seem overly worried about the rampant sexism in the Republican party--and perhaps more disturbing, the sheer vitriol directed at Hillary Clinton for just being Hillary Clinton. Southern Dem just really believes that as nasty as things may get for Clinton, it will be a game of dirty politics that will bring up stuff about Bill Clinton and his infidelity. And that while people may publicly acknowledge their hatred for Hillary based on gender, the simmering hatred of racism that people feel for Obama has gone undetected because it's underground and it will only take the sleeping giant of the racist Republican National Committee to awaken the masses of racist Republicans against Obama. In other words, we may not like Hillary Clinton, but she's still a white woman and still has a chance to be the President of the United States. But this country just isn't ready for an African American head of state.
And all I kept thinking about was the answer I gave to one gentleman who asked me this question when I was passing out "Obama for America" literature back in June (yes, that's right, I went campaigning for Obama, and I even blogged about it in "Walk for Barak," June 12, 2007). I was asked whether the country was ready to elect a black president. And I said that I had to believe that we were. That I have to believe in and envision the country I want rather than the country I suspect I have. That I didn't want to be naive about race, but that the country I want to live in and support is a country that will elect an African American for President of the United States. And if I can help make that happen, I will.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Duke Lacrosse--The Exonerated?
Today I heard that Mike Nifong, the disgraced D.A. who mis-handled the Duke Lacrosse rape case, apologized to the three men he originally accused and said that there was not substantial evidence to link them in the rape case. And as various magazine and newspaper articles, and even a book written by the former Duke Lacrosse coach all emphasize, these young men were all victims of "racial profiling" and are, instead, innocent of the charges brought against them.
And in the wake of this media storm, I'm not sure what to think with respect to the woman who brought these accusations against the men. I certainly feel sympathy for her, because regardless of whether she made up her story or she was, indeed, sexually assaulted, she more than likely did not bargain for the reception she received at the house party in which the lacrosse players were present and she more than likely did not think when she was a little girl that she wanted to earn extra money to support herself through college by taking off her clothes for drunken college boys.
If she did lie, well, then that's a topic for another post--because it is damaging for women to lie about rape--there are so many women who are raped every day, many by people they know. And they are afraid to come forward because of the criticism and judgment they will face--most especially the idea that they are lying. And in some cases (a few I know personally) the man in question probably didn't think that he was raping a woman who was crying or saying no, as incredible as that is to believe. There were two such cases of women I went to college with, who told me their stories of male friends raping them, while they were sleeping, even after they had said no--but because they were drunk or because they were making out, or because they were friends, the idea that they could accuse these men of rape never entered their minds, and they were both clear that they were sure that these men had no idea that what they had done was rape, even though the women just lay there, and in one case, she cried the entire time. So if this woman did lie, well, she's doing a lot of damage for a lot of people.
But putting aside the veracity of her story--the larger problem I have with the exoneration of the Duke lacrosse team is over issues of race, class, and sex. There are the facts of the largely white team members and the two women, one African American, the other half-black, half-Asian. There is the overheard racist remarks outside the house ("Thank your grandaddy for my cotton shirt") and the racist comments that the women reported went on inside the house. There is the privilege that comes with wealth and with attending an elite university like Duke and with playing for an elite sport like lacrosse. And then there's the fact that this group of young men, athletes, who ostensibly represent their school, didn't think twice about hiring women to take off their clothes for them. Strippers, exotic dancers, whatever language you want to use, it's women who, I believe for the most part, are doing this to gain money, a lot of money relative to the labor involved, although perhaps not a lot of money relative to one's mental and emotional well-being. I don't know. I have acquaintances who have worked in strip clubs before, and they talk about a feeling of empowerment, but mostly they talk about how good the money is, and that the cash flow outweighs the crap they have to put up with.
What I'm trying to get at is that regardless of whether or not these men sexually assaulted this women--I don't feel the Duke lacrosse team is fully exonerated. Yes, they may not have perpetrated rape, but are they totally innocent of the white privilege, the class privilege, the very male privilege that they wear as casually as they wear their uniforms? And Duke students who support these players, do they stop and think about the larger picture--that rather than seeing themselves as embattled victims of a corrupt legal system--as victims prosecuted by the media, perhaps they need to really think about what it means to have the privilege of attending Duke University or any four-year university--of having a college degree, something only 25% of the US population has. Shouldn't Duke students, lacrosse players and non-lacrosse players alike, owe it to themselves to question the kinds of privilege they walk around with and the ways in which subtle promotion of white male superiority gets produced around not-so-innocuous parties involving dark skinned women taking off their clothes at the command of white men?
And in the wake of this media storm, I'm not sure what to think with respect to the woman who brought these accusations against the men. I certainly feel sympathy for her, because regardless of whether she made up her story or she was, indeed, sexually assaulted, she more than likely did not bargain for the reception she received at the house party in which the lacrosse players were present and she more than likely did not think when she was a little girl that she wanted to earn extra money to support herself through college by taking off her clothes for drunken college boys.
If she did lie, well, then that's a topic for another post--because it is damaging for women to lie about rape--there are so many women who are raped every day, many by people they know. And they are afraid to come forward because of the criticism and judgment they will face--most especially the idea that they are lying. And in some cases (a few I know personally) the man in question probably didn't think that he was raping a woman who was crying or saying no, as incredible as that is to believe. There were two such cases of women I went to college with, who told me their stories of male friends raping them, while they were sleeping, even after they had said no--but because they were drunk or because they were making out, or because they were friends, the idea that they could accuse these men of rape never entered their minds, and they were both clear that they were sure that these men had no idea that what they had done was rape, even though the women just lay there, and in one case, she cried the entire time. So if this woman did lie, well, she's doing a lot of damage for a lot of people.
But putting aside the veracity of her story--the larger problem I have with the exoneration of the Duke lacrosse team is over issues of race, class, and sex. There are the facts of the largely white team members and the two women, one African American, the other half-black, half-Asian. There is the overheard racist remarks outside the house ("Thank your grandaddy for my cotton shirt") and the racist comments that the women reported went on inside the house. There is the privilege that comes with wealth and with attending an elite university like Duke and with playing for an elite sport like lacrosse. And then there's the fact that this group of young men, athletes, who ostensibly represent their school, didn't think twice about hiring women to take off their clothes for them. Strippers, exotic dancers, whatever language you want to use, it's women who, I believe for the most part, are doing this to gain money, a lot of money relative to the labor involved, although perhaps not a lot of money relative to one's mental and emotional well-being. I don't know. I have acquaintances who have worked in strip clubs before, and they talk about a feeling of empowerment, but mostly they talk about how good the money is, and that the cash flow outweighs the crap they have to put up with.
What I'm trying to get at is that regardless of whether or not these men sexually assaulted this women--I don't feel the Duke lacrosse team is fully exonerated. Yes, they may not have perpetrated rape, but are they totally innocent of the white privilege, the class privilege, the very male privilege that they wear as casually as they wear their uniforms? And Duke students who support these players, do they stop and think about the larger picture--that rather than seeing themselves as embattled victims of a corrupt legal system--as victims prosecuted by the media, perhaps they need to really think about what it means to have the privilege of attending Duke University or any four-year university--of having a college degree, something only 25% of the US population has. Shouldn't Duke students, lacrosse players and non-lacrosse players alike, owe it to themselves to question the kinds of privilege they walk around with and the ways in which subtle promotion of white male superiority gets produced around not-so-innocuous parties involving dark skinned women taking off their clothes at the command of white men?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
