"Do not make permanent decisions on the basis of temporary emotions."
Thursday, July 10, 2008
NOW's Media Hall of Shame
The NOW website has a fun quiz I thought the readers of the Situation might be interested in. There are a list of the "worst" and most "sexist" media offenses from the Democratic Primary season.
Well this clarifies things. Everything is self-evident and nothing is political, right?
It seems that trying to discern sexism during a winner-take-all political campaign is the worst time to do so. It is also a bad time to suggest language norms in society, especially when it lacks reciprocity for other "isms" and fails to note when candidates used sexism to their advantage.
Lacking a section on racism perpetuates treating people as "others." Failing to note when the Clinton campaign used sexism to their advantage calls into question the credibility of the list.
Back in March, some Democrats argued that Senator Clinton should drop out of the race because it was mathematically improbable for her to catch up in the pledge delegate count (and the Super Ds were not running to support) and that her unnecessary attacks may hurt party unity (which the prolong campaign and hard feelings between the campaigns, especially over Clinton's campaign debt, seem to be somewhat of a problem) Senator Clinton & Bill Cinton rolled out the argument that the "Boys Club" were pushing her out, which was not the intent of either argument. Yet, this, and the other numerous examples of Senator Clinton incorporating gender and sexism into her campaign to rally her base, fail to make the list.
And please, I am not writing this comment to support sexist comments and absolve these people of what they did, even though there are a few questionable comments. Some of the comments on the list are bad; some are taken out of context.
But I reject this as hate speech, especially if it will lead to another set of speech codes, which are constitutionally suspect for the way in which they swallow constitutionally valid speech. Further, as the letter suggest, trying to get people fired for their speech, even when some of the comments have elements of truth, is a dangerous precedent.
Just imagine how some students would like to fire their professors for teaching things they do not want to hear. All of this would be relevant.
The format of this movement, and its selectivity, makes it more political than ethical. It is a bad standard to adopt.
I am much more concerned by the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter that reduced the time women have to bring forth a complaint challenging equal pay or for Justice Kennedy's discussion of paternalism needed for women because they do not comprehend fully their abortion decision then they way in which partisan force make sexism a political argument and how campaigns speak out against it but rely on it to develop a base.
The Supreme Court's decisions may play a more important role to diminish the standing of women on a daily basis. They seems to be more troublesome, and more important.
Some of the comments directed at michelle obama seemed equally racist and sexist or perhaps more racist than sexist in one instance but this is NOW and it's a list dedicated to sexism.
I didn't see anything I thought could have been justified by "context."
Peggy Noonan: to understand this, there needs to be knowledge of a campaign and of political feminism. Clinton relied on multiple uses of political feminism throughout the campaign, depending on the situation. At times, she wanted to be treated like other candidates and not be treated as a women; at other times, which I mention in the first post, she wanted to be treated different than other candidates and relied on the "Boys' Club" argument as a reason fer her to stay in the race. All politicians rely on arguments to play some game; however, when when speaks ill of the sexism in the campaign, it would be best not to use it as an argument for your campaign.
Andrew Sullivan: This requires more knowledge about his thought than the quote provides. He believes that Senator Clinton is a poor choice as a proclaimed feminist leader because of her ethos as a "victim." You may reject this but this is not sexist, it is a question of the moral character of a "feminist."
Harrogate just went through nearly all of the clips.
Here are two related thoughts.
1)It may well be that most of the television and print personalities, and politicians in question, are not sexist.
What it is instead, they use sexist rhetoric as one of many ways to tear down the person, if the person is a woman that they cannot stand. If it were a woman they liked, or at least didn't hate, or if there wasn't a more appealing identity slot running against her, then the rhetoric would be different.
2)One common denominator you can bank on.
What you can bank on is, the lot of them are assholes. Spend some time reading them, watching them. How they enable. How the color green is the bottom line. How body counts, principles, ideas do not matter to them.
The questions of sexism, or of racism, are the very fucking least of their problems.
The people framing our elections are no better than the people running in them, or the people bankrolling those who run. Harrogate dares any of you to show decency in the personalities NOW holds under the light.
"The questions of sexism, or of racism, are the very fucking least of their problems."
The media certainly needs conflict to ensure that the revenue increases. And damn did the Democratic Party provide conflict. Almost all of it is a means to some end; the end, of course, depends on who you are.
The media needs conflict to generate viewers and revenue; the candidates need conflict to enrage their base and drive up donors. The people need conflict to care. I know that I sure do not care about the day to day issues of the general election right now. I don't care what Jesse Jackson says ever, and certainly not about his Nuts comment now, which can be both racist and sexist though it is not on NOW's list. I do not care about whether or not Phil Gramm believes that the recession is mental, which makes sense since the economy and the discussion of the economy is highly rhetorical (See Diedre McClosky's excellent work on The Rhetoric of Economics.)
"I don't care what Jesse Jackson says ever, and certainly not about his Nuts comment now, which can be both racist and sexist though it is not on NOW's list."
To be fair to the timeliness of the list, this has been up on NOW's website for sometime; I've only just posted the link today.
And as for this comment (and the many other you have made on this blog like it): "It is also a bad time to suggest language norms in society, especially when it lacks reciprocity for other "isms" and fails to note when candidates used sexism to their advantage."
You, my dear friend Solon, benefit from the fact that you are a white man every single day, whether you care to admit that fact or not. I'm frankly quite tired of your constant statements to the effect of "if a woman uses the gender card, she should be prepared to handle the backlash." I'd venture to guess that you've never been prevented from participating in some activity because of your sex or you've never been called some horrible name solely because your sex. Whereas I benefit from the advantage of my race, you benefit from the advantage of BOTH your race and your sex. It is very convenient for you to criticize women who use their sex to their advantage considering your sex has most likely never been seen as a disadvantage by anyone in your life.
That said, I don't happen to agree that most of the examples on the NOW list are sexist, and I do agree that they should be placed in their proper context to be understand fully. But what I find infuriating about your response and your many responses to my discussions of sexism is that at no point in time have you ever acknowledged that sexism does indeed exist or that Senator Clinton (and frankly most every other American woman) has most likely at some point in time been the victim of sexism. Why don't you give me a call the next time you're called a whore because you don't respond to the guy on the corner who whistles at you, OK?
Actually, I have stated that that there were sexist claims in the campaign. And, by noting the Supreme Court decisions concerning Equal Pay and Partial Birth Abortion, I have called attention to it in other areas (please read comment two). I have even discussed the Equal Pay Legislation that failed to pass earlier this year. By doing this, I have tried to discuss other forms of sexism in society, which may be more problematic to deal with since, in some cases, it has been codified into law and extend beyond a normal interpretive context.
Second, the purpose of focusing on comments concerning how the Clinton campaign relied on gender to create arguments is not to extend those all women, so I reject your comments on this matter. My discussions focus on this conversation over how "sexism" has been politicized and to discuss the interpretive aspect of it within the political campaign. This is not just an ethical dilemma as the concept of "sexism" has possessed a use value in terms or political and ideological reasons for many people. And it amazes me the way in which some overlook normal conventions of debate, such as burden of proof, to advance the claim. Of course, in these discussions, the concepts just "exist" without an interpretation, don't they?
As I have tried to discuss, while some individuals reify attitudes, comments, and stereotypes and, in same cases turn them into law, most of the discussions about sexism neglects the communication or interpretive nature of the claims. The psychological impact of any claim depends on the receiver of that claim and individual and group norms posses many variables. But I am not to know that since sexist claims can't bother me, not even out of empathy, right?
I also find the differences between the reactions of Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Senator Clinton quite striking as they provide a good example of the use-value of sexism and how individuals interpret and reify them.
Since we have long since passed the time we can reach common ground on this topic, I'll be mindful not to further this discussion so as to not infuriate you longer.
Not in an effort to diffuse flaming swords, which are healthy for discourse as often as not, being as how, once the clearing of smoke hath taken place, flaming sword discourses frequently lead us to surprising tracts of common ground.
Nay, not to diffuse but only to re-emphasize the importance of keeping an eye on the broader game.
To focus on the sociopolitical offensiveness or not of individual comments by high-profile pundits is in a real sense to let them off the hook for their general mendaciousness.
One of the real recent crimes, for example, being the Rocky-esque send off given to Tim Russert, an enabler if ever there was one.
Ok. Just to change the conversation slightly--because honestly, I don't understand where you're coming from--let me tell you what I'm hearing. Just by way of feedback from a stranger.
Before I start, I stand by what I said about context vis a vis that list. There isn't much that could rescue most of that stuff for me. In fact, for me the worst examples were not the over the top Clinton reminds me of my nagging ex wife statements but the examples where people were trying to make a legitimate critique of Clinton as a candidate and yet managed to do so in language that was gendered in really unfortunate ways, clearly without even realizing it.
I hear your point about interpretative frameworks but at the same time, it sounds to me like you're saying that if women would stop interpreting certain comments as sexist, they wouldn't be sexist. I fundamentally disagree with that premise. I told you that before.
To put it another way, I hear in your words the idea that women are making just a little too much of this.
Now, I'm not saying this is what you mean. I'm saying that when I read your comments, that's what comes across as the subtext of an argument about contextualized interpretation. And I don't imagine anybody making that argument if they didn't at some level believe that women were, in fact, making too much of things. On the whole, that's what I read here: that one must consider intention and context and the like. Sure, you can find an "ism" if you're looking for it but if you would only calm down, be rational...
You say:
"The psychological impact of any claim depends on the receiver of that claim and individual and group norms posses many variables."
And I hear "the problem is you and your decision to read sexism into everything."
And then you say:
"But I am not to know that since sexist claims can't bother me, not even out of empathy, right?"
My reply is that from my extremely limited, online only perspective, which is admittedly very, very narrow, I don't see where sexist claims bother you nearly as much as it bothers you when claims of sexism are made in ways you think are unfair.
Your energy is around making sure we don't claim sexism where none was intended or where, by way of context, the comment could be interpreted another way. In other words, sexism should not be our first thought as much as it is. And therein lies the (read: women's) problem. We overinterpret without proper attention to the dynamics of the discourse.
Now, your comment about empathy troubles me because no one is asking for your empathy. You have not experienced what women have. Period. And no one is asking you to "appreciate" or "sympathize." I haven't experienced racism the way the average american black person has. But my response to them is not empathy. When they tell me about their experience of racism, I've got two choices. Either I believe them or I don't. And if I don't, maybe then I remind them that, at root, their response and their lack of attention to context are the real problems.
I suspect we're at an impasse at this point but it's a pretty good feminist impasse for me to set up camp. The personal is political.
You wrote: "I hear in your words the idea that women are making just a little too much of this."
As I said before, I am not making a claim on all women as I do not know the experiences of each individual woman. Noting that interpretation is an individual act, depending on the knowledge and experience of those involved in the act does not lead to that conclusion.
Again, I do not know the experiences of all women. But noting that interpretation occurs on the individual level, though multiple people can reach the same conclusion on an issue, means that some claims can be interpreted to hold different meaning. To note that all women (or all of any group) will interpret an act in the same way leads to just as many problems as a potentially demeaning comment in the first place.
You wrote: "I don't see where sexist claims bother you nearly as much as it bothers you when claims of sexism are made in ways you think are unfair."
While some of my critiques are about whether or not the claims were just or warranted, I have been concerned about the larger argumentative strategy of "sexism" throughout the campaign.
When I have discussed sexism, the point was that people (including the NOW list) seemed not to care about sexism for its own sake but to care about it as a means to some other end. "Sexism" during the campaign an argumentative strategy to achieve some political or ideological goal (See Michael McGee's article n the Ideograph.)
My first comment on this post, about how NOW's list doesn't clarify anything, developed because it did not include the sexist comments out of the Clinton camp, such as the attempts to emasculate Obama or the Boys' Club argument. Yet these examples served as a larger strategy to favor Clinton.
Throughout the campaign, Clinton supporters discussed that it was sexist for Senator Obama to run as it followed from the notion that the younger, inexperienced man got the job rather than the older, more experiences woman. This argument was an attempt to gain more support for Senator Clinton, i.e. using "sexism" for a political end.
Critiquing this argument by noting Senator Clinton's lack of experience; how if Clinton supporters were concerned about experience, they ought to vote for Biden; or judgment, not experience (how every defined), is a more important characteristic is in no way to lead to larger conclusions about the experiences that all women face. Yet, by some, this is the conclusion reached that rejecting this argument is to support sexism.
And I am not saying anyone here made these argument. Yet, these examples provide evidence of a larger strategy of "Sexism." It is not that I do not care about the topic (why would I mention the Supreme Court cases?) But my concerns have been with the political use of "sexism," which may not help sexism in general since, as I have tried to discuss, is selective at best.
“I hear your point about interpretative frameworks but at the same time, it sounds to me like you're saying that if women would stop interpreting certain comments as sexist, they wouldn't be sexist. I fundamentally disagree with that premise. I told you that before.”
Any communicative act develops between a sender and receiver. Arguments are never self-evident and need some level of interpretation and, in the act of interpretation, each person possesses a responsibility in and to the act. Groups can form interpretive communities (Republicans and Democrats; Feminists and Marxists; Rhetoricians and Philosophers; Sociologists and Historians; those that study English Literature, those that study rhetoric and composition). While groups develop norms and conclusions about interpretation, individuals within the group can still reach different conclusions on a topic (The Log Cabin Republicans.) Additionally, there are times when some groups desire to control interpretation for other individuals or groups as the recent second amendment case of Heller is a good example.
Sometimes things go wrong in the interpretation process, such as a misinterpretation; other times, receivers manipulate the meaning of an act to form a resistance to the message. The large point is that, in any given message, there are points of uncertainty and potential points of resistance to a message as claims never exist as is. Trying to examine the intent, the context, or the responsibility of the receiver helps to increase clarity or provide resistance to the message.
There are times when a receiver may not interpret an act as being sexist or racist because they do not understand the content of the message. There are times when a receiver may refuse to acknowledge the content of the racist or sexist message as a form of resistance and empowerment, “I will not let this bother me;” or “I will show you why you are wrong.” There are times when a person hears the comment but refuses to acknowledge the psychological harm of the comment (it is in a joke; it occurred in The Sopranos and the person like The Sopranos; it is from a source they admire; is does not possess a significant harm.) Yet, to some degree, and this degree will vary from person to person, the psychological harm is subjective as it is filtered through the person’s experiences. A person could, in fact, refuse to interpret a message as being sexist, and because of the intersubjectivity of a communicative act, it would diminish the power of the sexist claim.
Hate Speech occurs in the same way. There are differences between hate crimes and hate speech. Usually, the crimes manifest themselves as physical act. However, the speech needs to be decoded through neurological functions of the brain. Yet, the psychological and subjective harm that develops from a speech act are much different than the physical harm from a hate crime. Because of the ability of the individual to interpret the message, they have the agency to develop resistance to the message and alter the power of that message.
And one last past: As you note that the “personal is political,” you may need to reconsider this remark in light of discussions that we have had over the role in religion in the public sphere. Religion is quite personal to some and would be an appropriate area of invention though there is a difference of using it as a form of moral argument and as the basis of law. Further, the ability of religion to be a powerful and persuasive in an open society occurs only for certain audiences that accept it. Others have been able to resist religion’s charms as an orthodoxy for quite some time by forming different religions or sects, or becoming secularists, agnostics or atheists.
Okay, I just had to weigh in (briefly, especially as compared to the rest of the comments) and tell you why I think you're all wrong! :)
First, I think that lists like this one are so not helpful to feminism--or any well-formed argument, for that matter. They're media sound-byte snippets and nothing more. I'm not going to go so far as saying they're intellectually dishonest, but I will call them intellectually suspect. The best they can do is potentially shame those on the list into doing better, but most of them probably don't know they're on the list and don't care. That said, if we can agree that the cure for bad (in this case, sexist) speech is more speech, NOW is certainly adding their two cents, which is never a bad thing. I just wish it were in a more thoughtful format.
(Incidentally, I know that lists like these get more public attention than intellectual debate and so I get NOW's strategy in using the list to generate attention. I just don't know how successful the strategy can be in the long run.)
On the other hand, I think solon's early comments were too black and white. In focusing on sexism in the political campaign that ended--which, admittedly, does seem the overwhelming point of the NOW list--we don't really get to the heart of NOW's true issue, which is sexist language, and sexism, in general. We get that solon doesn't like the Clintons--and I feel it bears reminding that he hates Bill even more than Hillary and that neither opinion has anything to do with gender. As I've said to solon many times, "Get over it. She lost. Be the bigger person and move on!" :)
Finally, I have a friendly (but serious, nonetheless) bone to pick with my dear M. One of my pet peeves is using identity politics to stifle a point of view. The whole, "You're a white man, so you haven't had this experience" argument is just so tired to me. If we rely on that as our defense, we get nowhere and, further, we limit our own sense of argument, as we can only argue from a narrow specific position of our own experience. As a white, straight, etc, etc, etc, woman, can I not take up the issues of women of color or of gay men or of children or... I know that your intent wasn't to shut down the conversation and, in fact, it's gotten really interesting and heated since then. But I think that outcome so often happens with the "white man" argument.
So I want to return to the discussion and apologize for the heated comments I directed at Solon. I was angry, but unfortunately, I didn't explain my anger as well as I could (or should) have. I want to apologize for my tone and for some of my comments.
Here's what I wanted to say: I'm increasingly frustrated that every time someone initiates a discussion about sexism (and, unfortunately, such discussions most recently do revolve around examples of sexism that has been focused on Hillary Clinton) it feels as though the discussion morphs into a diatribe against Hillary Clinton. Granted the threads that develop from various posts on this blog often go in directions that the original poster may or may not have intended. But I posted the link to NOWs sight in an attempt to actually have a conversation about sexism in the media, not to actually continue our interminable debate over Clinton. I find it hard to differentiate your comments about Hillary Clinton (and your evident and vehement hatred for her) and sexism, Solon, from your views on sexism more generally.
And in response to the first sentence of your post, I do think that sexism, racism,ageism, and religious discrimination are all incredibly political.
14 comments:
Well this clarifies things. Everything is self-evident and nothing is political, right?
It seems that trying to discern sexism during a winner-take-all political campaign is the worst time to do so. It is also a bad time to suggest language norms in society, especially when it lacks reciprocity for other "isms" and fails to note when candidates used sexism to their advantage.
Lacking a section on racism perpetuates treating people as "others." Failing to note when the Clinton campaign used sexism to their advantage calls into question the credibility of the list.
Back in March, some Democrats argued that Senator Clinton should drop out of the race because it was mathematically improbable for her to catch up in the pledge delegate count (and the Super Ds were not running to support) and that her unnecessary attacks may hurt party unity (which the prolong campaign and hard feelings between the campaigns, especially over Clinton's campaign debt, seem to be somewhat of a problem) Senator Clinton & Bill Cinton rolled out the argument that the "Boys Club" were pushing her out, which was not the intent of either argument. Yet, this, and the other numerous examples of Senator Clinton incorporating gender and sexism into her campaign to rally her base, fail to make the list.
And please, I am not writing this comment to support sexist comments and absolve these people of what they did, even though there are a few questionable comments. Some of the comments on the list are bad; some are taken out of context.
But I reject this as hate speech, especially if it will lead to another set of speech codes, which are constitutionally suspect for the way in which they swallow constitutionally valid speech. Further, as the letter suggest, trying to get people fired for their speech, even when some of the comments have elements of truth, is a dangerous precedent.
Just imagine how some students would like to fire their professors for teaching things they do not want to hear. All of this would be relevant.
The format of this movement, and its selectivity, makes it more political than ethical. It is a bad standard to adopt.
I would add further:
I am much more concerned by the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter that reduced the time women have to bring forth a complaint challenging equal pay or for Justice Kennedy's discussion of paternalism needed for women because they do not comprehend fully their abortion decision then they way in which partisan force make sexism a political argument and how campaigns speak out against it but rely on it to develop a base.
The Supreme Court's decisions may play a more important role to diminish the standing of women on a daily basis. They seems to be more troublesome, and more important.
Some of the comments directed at michelle obama seemed equally racist and sexist or perhaps more racist than sexist in one instance but this is NOW and it's a list dedicated to sexism.
I didn't see anything I thought could have been justified by "context."
Well, here are a few examples:
Peggy Noonan: to understand this, there needs to be knowledge of a campaign and of political feminism. Clinton relied on multiple uses of political feminism throughout the campaign, depending on the situation. At times, she wanted to be treated like other candidates and not be treated as a women; at other times, which I mention in the first post, she wanted to be treated different than other candidates and relied on the "Boys' Club" argument as a reason fer her to stay in the race. All politicians rely on arguments to play some game; however, when when speaks ill of the sexism in the campaign, it would be best not to use it as an argument for your campaign.
Andrew Sullivan: This requires more knowledge about his thought than the quote provides. He believes that Senator Clinton is a poor choice as a proclaimed feminist leader because of her ethos as a "victim." You may reject this but this is not sexist, it is a question of the moral character of a "feminist."
Harrogate just went through nearly all of the clips.
Here are two related thoughts.
1)It may well be that most of the television and print personalities, and politicians in question, are not sexist.
What it is instead, they use sexist rhetoric as one of many ways to tear down the person, if the person is a woman that they cannot stand. If it were a woman they liked, or at least didn't hate, or if there wasn't a more appealing identity slot running against her, then the rhetoric would be different.
2)One common denominator you can bank on.
What you can bank on is, the lot of them are assholes. Spend some time reading them, watching them. How they enable. How the color green is the bottom line. How body counts, principles, ideas do not matter to them.
The questions of sexism, or of racism, are the very fucking least of their problems.
The people framing our elections are no better than the people running in them, or the people bankrolling those who run. Harrogate dares any of you to show decency in the personalities NOW holds under the light.
No truer words have been spoken:
"The questions of sexism, or of racism, are the very fucking least of their problems."
The media certainly needs conflict to ensure that the revenue increases. And damn did the Democratic Party provide conflict. Almost all of it is a means to some end; the end, of course, depends on who you are.
The media needs conflict to generate viewers and revenue; the candidates need conflict to enrage their base and drive up donors. The people need conflict to care. I know that I sure do not care about the day to day issues of the general election right now. I don't care what Jesse Jackson says ever, and certainly not about his Nuts comment now, which can be both racist and sexist though it is not on NOW's list. I do not care about whether or not Phil Gramm believes that the recession is mental, which makes sense since the economy and the discussion of the economy is highly rhetorical (See Diedre McClosky's excellent work on The Rhetoric of Economics.)
"I don't care what Jesse Jackson says ever, and certainly not about his Nuts comment now, which can be both racist and sexist though it is not on NOW's list."
To be fair to the timeliness of the list, this has been up on NOW's website for sometime; I've only just posted the link today.
And as for this comment (and the many other you have made on this blog like it): "It is also a bad time to suggest language norms in society, especially when it lacks reciprocity for other "isms" and fails to note when candidates used sexism to their advantage."
You, my dear friend Solon, benefit from the fact that you are a white man every single day, whether you care to admit that fact or not. I'm frankly quite tired of your constant statements to the effect of "if a woman uses the gender card, she should be prepared to handle the backlash." I'd venture to guess that you've never been prevented from participating in some activity because of your sex or you've never been called some horrible name solely because your sex. Whereas I benefit from the advantage of my race, you benefit from the advantage of BOTH your race and your sex. It is very convenient for you to criticize women who use their sex to their advantage considering your sex has most likely never been seen as a disadvantage by anyone in your life.
That said, I don't happen to agree that most of the examples on the NOW list are sexist, and I do agree that they should be placed in their proper context to be understand fully. But what I find infuriating about your response and your many responses to my discussions of sexism is that at no point in time have you ever acknowledged that sexism does indeed exist or that Senator Clinton (and frankly most every other American woman) has most likely at some point in time been the victim of sexism. Why don't you give me a call the next time you're called a whore because you don't respond to the guy on the corner who whistles at you, OK?
M.,
Actually, I have stated that that there were sexist claims in the campaign. And, by noting the Supreme Court decisions concerning Equal Pay and Partial Birth Abortion, I have called attention to it in other areas (please read comment two). I have even discussed the Equal Pay Legislation that failed to pass earlier this year. By doing this, I have tried to discuss other forms of sexism in society, which may be more problematic to deal with since, in some cases, it has been codified into law and extend beyond a normal interpretive context.
Second, the purpose of focusing on comments concerning how the Clinton campaign relied on gender to create arguments is not to extend those all women, so I reject your comments on this matter. My discussions focus on this conversation over how "sexism" has been politicized and to discuss the interpretive aspect of it within the political campaign. This is not just an ethical dilemma as the concept of "sexism" has possessed a use value in terms or political and ideological reasons for many people. And it amazes me the way in which some overlook normal conventions of debate, such as burden of proof, to advance the claim. Of course, in these discussions, the concepts just "exist" without an interpretation, don't they?
As I have tried to discuss, while some individuals reify attitudes, comments, and stereotypes and, in same cases turn them into law, most of the discussions about sexism neglects the communication or interpretive nature of the claims. The psychological impact of any claim depends on the receiver of that claim and individual and group norms posses many variables. But I am not to know that since sexist claims can't bother me, not even out of empathy, right?
I also find the differences between the reactions of Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Senator Clinton quite striking as they provide a good example of the use-value of sexism and how individuals interpret and reify them.
Since we have long since passed the time we can reach common ground on this topic, I'll be mindful not to further this discussion so as to not infuriate you longer.
Not in an effort to diffuse flaming swords, which are healthy for discourse as often as not, being as how, once the clearing of smoke hath taken place, flaming sword discourses frequently lead us to surprising tracts of common ground.
Nay, not to diffuse but only to re-emphasize the importance of keeping an eye on the broader game.
To focus on the sociopolitical offensiveness or not of individual comments by high-profile pundits is in a real sense to let them off the hook for their general mendaciousness.
One of the real recent crimes, for example, being the Rocky-esque send off given to Tim Russert, an enabler if ever there was one.
Ok. Just to change the conversation slightly--because honestly, I don't understand where you're coming from--let me tell you what I'm hearing. Just by way of feedback from a stranger.
Before I start, I stand by what I said about context vis a vis that list. There isn't much that could rescue most of that stuff for me. In fact, for me the worst examples were not the over the top Clinton reminds me of my nagging ex wife statements but the examples where people were trying to make a legitimate critique of Clinton as a candidate and yet managed to do so in language that was gendered in really unfortunate ways, clearly without even realizing it.
I hear your point about interpretative frameworks but at the same time, it sounds to me like you're saying that if women would stop interpreting certain comments as sexist, they wouldn't be sexist. I fundamentally disagree with that premise. I told you that before.
To put it another way, I hear in your words the idea that women are making just a little too much of this.
Now, I'm not saying this is what you mean. I'm saying that when I read your comments, that's what comes across as the subtext of an argument about contextualized interpretation. And I don't imagine anybody making that argument if they didn't at some level believe that women were, in fact, making too much of things. On the whole, that's what I read here: that one must consider intention and context and the like. Sure, you can find an "ism" if you're looking for it but if you would only calm down, be rational...
You say:
"The psychological impact of any claim depends on the receiver of that claim and individual and group norms posses many variables."
And I hear "the problem is you and your decision to read sexism into everything."
And then you say:
"But I am not to know that since sexist claims can't bother me, not even out of empathy, right?"
My reply is that from my extremely limited, online only perspective, which is admittedly very, very narrow, I don't see where sexist claims bother you nearly as much as it bothers you when claims of sexism are made in ways you think are unfair.
Your energy is around making sure we don't claim sexism where none was intended or where, by way of context, the comment could be interpreted another way. In other words, sexism should not be our first thought as much as it is. And therein lies the (read: women's) problem. We overinterpret without proper attention to the dynamics of the discourse.
Now, your comment about empathy troubles me because no one is asking for your empathy. You have not experienced what women have. Period. And no one is asking you to "appreciate" or "sympathize." I haven't experienced racism the way the average american black person has. But my response to them is not empathy. When they tell me about their experience of racism, I've got two choices. Either I believe them or I don't. And if I don't, maybe then I remind them that, at root, their response and their lack of attention to context are the real problems.
I suspect we're at an impasse at this point but it's a pretty good feminist impasse for me to set up camp. The personal is political.
Anastasia,
You wrote: "I hear in your words the idea that women are making just a little too much of this."
As I said before, I am not making a claim on all women as I do not know the experiences of each individual woman. Noting that interpretation is an individual act, depending on
the knowledge and experience of those involved in the act does not lead to that conclusion.
Again, I do not know the experiences of all women. But noting that interpretation occurs on the individual level, though multiple people can reach the same conclusion on an issue, means that some claims can be interpreted to hold different meaning. To note that all women (or all of any group) will interpret an act in the same way leads to just as many problems as a potentially demeaning comment in the first place.
You wrote: "I don't see where sexist claims bother you nearly as much as it bothers you when claims of sexism are made in ways you think are unfair."
While some of my critiques are about whether or not the claims were just or warranted, I have been concerned about the larger argumentative strategy of "sexism" throughout the campaign.
When I have discussed sexism, the point was that people (including the NOW list) seemed not to care about sexism for its own sake but to care about it as a means to some other end. "Sexism" during the campaign an argumentative strategy to achieve some political or ideological goal (See Michael McGee's article n the Ideograph.)
My first comment on this post, about how NOW's list doesn't clarify anything, developed because it did not include the sexist comments out of the Clinton camp, such as the attempts to emasculate Obama or the Boys' Club argument. Yet these examples served as a larger strategy to favor Clinton.
Throughout the campaign, Clinton supporters discussed that it was sexist for Senator Obama to run as it followed from the notion that the younger, inexperienced man got the job rather than the older, more experiences woman. This argument was an attempt to gain more support for Senator Clinton, i.e. using "sexism" for a political end.
Critiquing this argument by noting Senator Clinton's lack of experience; how if Clinton supporters were concerned about experience, they ought to vote for Biden; or judgment, not experience (how every defined), is a more important characteristic is in no way to lead to larger conclusions about the experiences that all women face. Yet, by some, this is the conclusion reached that rejecting this argument is to support sexism.
And I am not saying anyone here made these argument. Yet, these examples provide evidence of a larger strategy of "Sexism." It is not that I do not care about the topic (why would I mention the Supreme Court cases?) But my concerns have been with the political use of "sexism," which may not help sexism in general since, as I have tried to discuss, is selective at best.
Anastasia, one other point. You wrote:
“I hear your point about interpretative frameworks but at the same time, it sounds to me like you're saying that if women would stop interpreting certain comments as sexist, they wouldn't be sexist. I fundamentally disagree with that premise. I told you that before.”
Any communicative act develops between a sender and receiver. Arguments are never self-evident and need some level of interpretation and, in the act of interpretation, each person possesses a responsibility in and to the act. Groups can form interpretive communities (Republicans and Democrats; Feminists and Marxists; Rhetoricians and Philosophers; Sociologists and Historians; those that study English Literature, those that study rhetoric and composition). While groups develop norms and conclusions about interpretation, individuals within the group can still reach different conclusions on a topic (The Log Cabin Republicans.) Additionally, there are times when some groups desire to control interpretation for other individuals or groups as the recent second amendment case of Heller is a good example.
Sometimes things go wrong in the interpretation process, such as a misinterpretation; other times, receivers manipulate the meaning of an act to form a resistance to the message. The large point is that, in any given message, there are points of uncertainty and potential points of resistance to a message as claims never exist as is. Trying to examine the intent, the context, or the responsibility of the receiver helps to increase clarity or provide resistance to the message.
There are times when a receiver may not interpret an act as being sexist or racist because they do not understand the content of the message. There are times when a receiver may refuse to acknowledge the content of the racist or sexist message as a form of resistance and empowerment, “I will not let this bother me;” or “I will show you why you are wrong.” There are times when a person hears the comment but refuses to acknowledge the psychological harm of the comment (it is in a joke; it occurred in The Sopranos and the person like The Sopranos; it is from a source they admire; is does not possess a significant harm.) Yet, to some degree, and this degree will vary from person to person, the psychological harm is subjective as it is filtered through the person’s experiences. A person could, in fact, refuse to interpret a message as being sexist, and because of the intersubjectivity of a communicative act, it would diminish the power of the sexist claim.
Hate Speech occurs in the same way. There are differences between hate crimes and hate speech. Usually, the crimes manifest themselves as physical act. However, the speech needs to be decoded through neurological functions of the brain. Yet, the psychological and subjective harm that develops from a speech act are much different than the physical harm from a hate crime. Because of the ability of the individual to interpret the message, they have the agency to develop resistance to the message and alter the power of that message.
And one last past: As you note that the “personal is political,” you may need to reconsider this remark in light of discussions that we have had over the role in religion in the public sphere. Religion is quite personal to some and would be an appropriate area of invention though there is a difference of using it as a form of moral argument and as the basis of law. Further, the ability of religion to be a powerful and persuasive in an open society occurs only for certain audiences that accept it. Others have been able to resist religion’s charms as an orthodoxy for quite some time by forming different religions or sects, or becoming secularists, agnostics or atheists.
Okay, I just had to weigh in (briefly, especially as compared to the rest of the comments) and tell you why I think you're all wrong! :)
First, I think that lists like this one are so not helpful to feminism--or any well-formed argument, for that matter. They're media sound-byte snippets and nothing more. I'm not going to go so far as saying they're intellectually dishonest, but I will call them intellectually suspect. The best they can do is potentially shame those on the list into doing better, but most of them probably don't know they're on the list and don't care. That said, if we can agree that the cure for bad (in this case, sexist) speech is more speech, NOW is certainly adding their two cents, which is never a bad thing. I just wish it were in a more thoughtful format.
(Incidentally, I know that lists like these get more public attention than intellectual debate and so I get NOW's strategy in using the list to generate attention. I just don't know how successful the strategy can be in the long run.)
On the other hand, I think solon's early comments were too black and white. In focusing on sexism in the political campaign that ended--which, admittedly, does seem the overwhelming point of the NOW list--we don't really get to the heart of NOW's true issue, which is sexist language, and sexism, in general. We get that solon doesn't like the Clintons--and I feel it bears reminding that he hates Bill even more than Hillary and that neither opinion has anything to do with gender. As I've said to solon many times, "Get over it. She lost. Be the bigger person and move on!" :)
Finally, I have a friendly (but serious, nonetheless) bone to pick with my dear M. One of my pet peeves is using identity politics to stifle a point of view. The whole, "You're a white man, so you haven't had this experience" argument is just so tired to me. If we rely on that as our defense, we get nowhere and, further, we limit our own sense of argument, as we can only argue from a narrow specific position of our own experience. As a white, straight, etc, etc, etc, woman, can I not take up the issues of women of color or of gay men or of children or... I know that your intent wasn't to shut down the conversation and, in fact, it's gotten really interesting and heated since then. But I think that outcome so often happens with the "white man" argument.
Cheers y'all,
Pollyanna
So I want to return to the discussion and apologize for the heated comments I directed at Solon. I was angry, but unfortunately, I didn't explain my anger as well as I could (or should) have. I want to apologize for my tone and for some of my comments.
Here's what I wanted to say: I'm increasingly frustrated that every time someone initiates a discussion about sexism (and, unfortunately, such discussions most recently do revolve around examples of sexism that has been focused on Hillary Clinton) it feels as though the discussion morphs into a diatribe against Hillary Clinton. Granted the threads that develop from various posts on this blog often go in directions that the original poster may or may not have intended. But I posted the link to NOWs sight in an attempt to actually have a conversation about sexism in the media, not to actually continue our interminable debate over Clinton. I find it hard to differentiate your comments about Hillary Clinton (and your evident and vehement hatred for her) and sexism, Solon, from your views on sexism more generally.
And in response to the first sentence of your post, I do think that sexism, racism,ageism, and religious discrimination are all incredibly political.
Post a Comment