Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Cha-Ching!; or, The Wondrousness of Others Doing Your Work For You: McEwan's "Hillary Sexism Watch"

Some have insisted that one cannot claim a pattern of sexism in the media's treatment of Hillary Clinton, based on what one is seeing with one's own eyes. And, those holding that position like to illustrate the tenuousness of anecdote by offering up ostensible counter-anecdotes, such as a pundit ceding that Hillary Clinton has run a smart campaign, or predicting that she is poised to win in a given state.

For the second time today, Harrogate offers up as an authority Melissa McEwan, who he has long considered one of the most entertaining and thought-provoking voices in the blogosphere. McEwan's post on the matter today constitutes both an archival spectacle and a testament to using the internet to do media scholarship.


There may be Readers out there who are growing tired of this topic. To those Harrogate makes his humble appeal, the topic is important and deserves to be taken seriously. If there is a possibility that popular culture is continuing to wink and nod at gender-charged denigration (that one's for M), then it is worth probing. And if the charge can be substantively defended, then this is something we need to address. And finally, fatigue is a poor plea to make here, arguably just as poor as "Iraq fatigue." Verily and yea and forsooth, the stakes being nothing less than the Presidency of the United States, and maybe more importantly still, who we are as a people, and what it is we value.

8 comments:

M said...

There is definitely more than a possibility that we continue to wink and nod at gender based denigration.

M said...

And my earlier point was that we really don't need a definition of misogyny, Harrogate. I think all of us on The Rhetorical Situation know it when we see it. It, unfortunately, has become the 300 pound elephant in the room. We all know it exists, but we all fail to acknowledge it. Like racism, we've stopped talking about sexism. I find it odd that we seem to believe that sexism no longer exists when women still make 77 cents for every dollar men make.

Oxymoron said...

Except in NY, Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, Dallas, and a few other big cities, M. It seems that women have not only made strides to close the wage gap between men and women, but have actually overstepped the gap. In these large cities, women ages 21-30 make as much as seventeen to twenty percent more than their male counterparts.

Of course, on a national scale, these women do make less than men, but that gap has closed considerably. On the whole, twenty-something women now make 89 cents for every dollar that men make.

Source

M said...

Well, that's great if you happen to be a 20-something white woman living in a major urban area, which I do not. Keep in mind, I"m talking about on the national average. Furthermore, oxymoron, women of color continue to make significantly less that their male counterparts. African American women make 71 cents on the dollar that white men do and Latina women make 58 cents. And pay equity, as you can see from these statistics, isn't just a gender issue. African American men make 74 cents and Latino men 62 cents. Check out this link for more information: http://www.now.org/press/04-07/04-24.html.

Oh, and the wage gap has increased in the past 7 years.

Oxymoron said...

As you point out, the wage gap varies by region, age, and ethnicity. To this list we might also add career field and a number of other indicators. Issues of wage equity are complex, and I don't think that these complexities ought to be ignored in order to make such claims as "sexism exists because women make 23% less than men." There's far more to that statistic than such statements suggest. That is my point.

M said...

Fair enough.

solon said...

M, you wrote: "Furthermore, oxymoron, women of color continue to make significantly less that their male counterparts. African American women make 71 cents on the dollar that white men do and Latina women make 58 cents."

I would like for you to clarify something: what other factors are you considering when you discuss inequality in wages?

I say this because the $.77 per dollar comment in your first post may not be as clear cut. Neither is the above quote.

I know there are difference in wages, however I would like to know what you think the factors involved are.

harrogate said...

:-0

Yet another first for The Rhetorical Situation--our first Utterly Hijacked Thread.

At first, Harrogate was disappointed. But then he realized, hey, your blog aint swimmin' amongst the big fishies, unless you've got a whole lotta hijacking going on.