Solon and I are watching a back episode of Real Time with Bill Mahr and one of the guests, ABC Analyst Matthew Dowd, just suggested that our country is more sexist than racist. (He didn't give any support for this claim and no one really challenged it.)
I have to admit, I'm curious. How does one prove or disprove this statement? This prompted me to check out the demographic makeup of Congress. Not that what I found supports or disproves the claim, but it is interesting.
Currently, in the Senate, there are 16 white women (five Republican, 11 Democrat) and one African American man (Democrat). There are 70 female (20 Republican and 50 Democratic) and 39 African American (all Democrats) members in the House. (There are nine Democratic African American women in the House, who count in both categories.)
The thing I know for sure is that the nine black women in Congress are superstars!
I have no idea what these statistics may or may not mean in terms of racism and sexism, but they speak pretty clearly to the issue of electability. I have to admit that I'm surprised, although I'm not exactly sure why. We can probably rationalize the numbers in terms of class. It's easier to have enough money to run for even low level political office if you're middle class or higher, which white women have the opportunity to be more often than black men or women. I'm not sure if that tells the whole story, though.
Thoughts?
6 comments:
Harrogate takes your post seriously because it deserves to be taken seriously. Therefore here comes a long and learned response.
It's a question that has inevitably come from this primary, and though we have danced around it, this is the first time someone has devoted an entire post to it. Thank ye for that.
Harrogate agrees with what he thinks you're saying, that one simply can NOT "prove or disprove" such a statement as, sexism is more prevalent than racism. And, the Congressional demographics you cite, on the face of it, suggest that white women have a "clearer Path" to economic and political power than do African Americans, particularly African American women.
But it's of course complicated: All depends, not so much on a red wheelbarrow amongst white chickens in the rain, as on The Rhetorical Situation.
Take the field of criminal justice, where it is irrefutably no contest which "ism" is more prevalent. African American men, particularly poorer ones, are entering an especially titled game when they go to court.
BUT. When it comes to discourse specifically--which is after all a primary concern of ours (and Harrogate standeth behind the following ever so vociferously): It is Far more Okay, in his view, to say sexist things in the public square than it is to say racist things.
In general, it is far more okay to denigrate based on gender--and, relatedly, based on sexuality-- than it is to do so in the area of race.
Witness the African American community's own issues with homophobia, it very much rivals Red State whites in that area. As Barack Obama, in the speech you linked many moons ago, eloquently pointed out.
Harrogate offers as sub-evidence, too, the Governator's VERY public slapshot at the Dem-Controlled Cali State Legislature in 2004, when he called them "girly men."
It is beyond passe, at this point in the public square, to use Hillary Clinton's gender in the generally-endorsed project of denigrating her, in many cases as if for sport.
Thus far, in Harrogate's view, Clinton's own battle with unfair prejudice has been nastier, more uphill, and far more acceptable among cultural elites on cable news and in the blogosphere, than Obama's.
I think that you're right in saying that it's far more acceptable to publicly say sexist things than racist things. I also think that racism seems institutionalized in a more socially acceptable way; the example you cite in the justice system is apt.
I agree that Hillary Clinton has had a tougher go of it in the media, partly because of sexism, partly because of Bill-ism (the knife that cuts both ways), and partly because of likability, which shouldn't matter but does in every election. (By the way, she had a great sound bite today about the president you'd like to have a beer with not working out the last time around!)
I can't really judge whether either candidate has had an easier or harder time getting votes, which is the ultimate point in this primary. I mean, they're still practically tied. I guess the loser will have had the tougher time.
And we still can't really say whether we, as a country, are more racist or sexist. Now that I've had a day to reflect, I'm actually pretty angry at the pundit who even made the claim. It simplifies two shame-worthy notions to a primary race.
But, insofar as it get us talking, I'm glad that he said it.
It may be easier to say sexist things because of the treatments of blacks in the history of the United States.
This is certainly not to say women were treated well throughout our history and may not be treated well today. However, the collective guilt of slavery, then segregation, then the denial of the right to vote for over one hundred years after the right was given.
Women have been "free" but voiceless. Blacks were not even free.
I am not sure when the guilt will end or if it should. I certainly do not think you can prove that it either does not exist, though I cringe when students try. There are too many institutional sayings embedded in our "conventional wisdom" that perpetuates both. Further, when Harrogate brings men into the conversation with the "girly-man" comment, this just adds another miserable layer to this.
While Clinton's struggle is tainted with some sexism, it is also personal. One discussion of Super Delegates stated that some (SDs) did not like the Clintons, but they feared the Clintons. Some on the language against Hillary, while sexist, may be to break the fear to free the Democratic party.
If Hillary would have run in 2004, she may not have faced the criticism this to this degree. If she has 35 years of experience, why couldn't she run after 31?
My comment is that brining men into the equation over sexist language adds another layer to this mess.
Having a conversation about sexism and Hillary Clinton exists on one level. Yet, when when use sexist language about other men, then we have to discuss the comments on a new level or a new context.
It is not a matter of criticism; it is just a new level. A sexist comment by a man against a man is not the same as a comment by a man or woman against a women.
For example, sexism against women may involve place (Your place is in the kitchen); sexism against men involves focuses on other candidates (strength). There are times when they may coexist (emotional comments); but it depends on the situation.
Genial post and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you on your information.
i surely love your posting taste, very remarkable.
don't give up and also keep posting considering it simply that is worth to look through it.
impatient to read much more of your articles, enjoy your day :)
Post a Comment