I'm always a bit annoyed when the results of studies examining the "lingering" affects of sexism are released. One such study, on Title IX, has just been released. I do think these studies are important and keep the general public aware that yes, sexism and gender discrimination continue to exist in our country. But my immediate reaction is always, "Well, yeah. Didn't everyone know that?"
And of course the answer is, no, everyone didn't know that. Or at the very least, most Americans seem to believe that gender discrimination is a non-issue. I am continually amazed that people, especially the young women that I teach, believe that sexism no longer exists. I have been repeatedly surprised and angered by the lack of attention given the issue of gender discrimination in the current presidential campaign. The racist ways that Barack Obama has been treated (often by his fellow candidates) has received a fair amount of attention, and deservedly so. But those who recognize this overt racism seem less willing to acknowledge the sexism that is also pervading the campaign. Certainly Hillary Clinton has called attention to her gender (as Obama has called attention to his race), and there are those who would argue that by playing the gender card herself she should be prepared to be criticized for playing it. But, thus far, no one is saying that Obama should be prepared to be criticized for playing the race card.
It is a fact in this country that sexism has always taken a back seat to racism, and again, perhaps justifiably so. Historically, victims of racism has suffered much more than victims of sexism, but both minorities and women have suffered tremendously, and both continue to suffer. Further, racism and sexism know no boundaries, and many women are victims of both. But few people are surprised to be told that racism is still an issue in this country, but everywhere I go I meet people who tell me, "Sexism doesn't exist anymore." Why is that?
3 comments:
I think what is interesting about the large, Mid-Western University where you teach, is that the students seem to be oblivious to the institutional forms of discrimination and other forms of discrimination that exist culturally but we do not pay attention to. For example, I had a lengthy discussion in class about the phrase "Cotton-Picking Hands."
The students are aware of the obvious forms (black-faced video tapes); yet, other forms, such as MLK day Ghetto Parties they do not see. They are also able to perceive "reverse discrimination" admission policies; yet they do not perceive that "legacy admissions" fall under the same category.
For some students, Title IX falls under reverse discrimination for the way in which in cancels out Men's sports. If there cannot be a men's soccer team, that is sexism.
Finally, some of your students may not perceive gender discrimination because of religious beliefs. Some women may not notice discrimination if they are taught to submit.
In the campaign, not too many people has criticized Clinton because of her gender. She plays both sides of the card but it is not as big as an issue. If she wins the nominee, it will play a larger role. I imagine she will receive some attacks by conservatives, especially in relation to the military.
I think this is a really necessary post. I'm continually annoyed by questions of Bill Clinton needing to "defend" his wife (or "come to her rescue") on the campaign trail. Is Michelle Obama rescuing Barack when she campaigns for him? Granted, I think she'd be quite capable of doing so, but I wonder why it's not framed in the same terms. No, I don't wonder. I know it's underlying discomfort some feel with the idea that the frontrunner in this race is a woman. Ugh. Can't we get over it already???
I think your assessment of the university where I currently teach is correct, but I'm not sure that explains the almost identical reactions to feminism of young women at the two northeast universities where I taught previously--1 was an R1 school and the other a small community college.
Post a Comment