Geraldine Ferraro spoke to Shepard Smith about sexism in the campaign. She provides further evidence to support her claims. Halfway through Ferraro and Smith attempt to discuss standards to determine what is and what is not sexism, which would have been incredibly helpful, though they do not finish this aspect of the conversation.
Again, the purpose of these posts is to try to determine how to interpret sexism, especially in relation to context, and to find corrective frames for this problem. There are three problems to Ferraro's argument: she equates almost all media to Obama supporters, her examples do not prove her argument as she states that little political comments lead to a larger conclusion of sexism, and she does not account for other factors as at one point it seems that attacks on Clinton based on sexism. However, this is a much better discussion of the problem than previous examples.
1 comment:
I find the idea that we have to learn how to interpret sexism troubling, Solon. Plain and simple, those of us who have been the victims of it, whether that sexism was intentional or unintentional, know how to interpret it. I daresay that individuals who have been the victims of racism would say the same thing.
Post a Comment