Suburban Guerrilla

« Breaking News

Progress »

It’s All In Your Head

May 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 pm by Susie

Nope, no sexism here! Echidne agrees, too!

Posted in Full Frontal Feminism

14 Responses to “It’s All In Your Head”

on 22 May 2008 at 9:57 pm1Bob

Ok, no snark, no insults, no derogatory language. I mean this in all sincerity: Susie and a whole slew of commenter’s here, who do you perceive to be your audience?
Here is what I mean. I’ve been reading this blog for a long time. There’s a reason for that; I like it. I find it intelligent, lively and engaging. That being said, the Democratic primary has seen a substantial shift here. I don’t see much sexism in the comments. Occasionally yes – but mostly from names that pop in once or twice and are then never heard from again. There is obviously a lot or rancor between the Clinton and Obama supporters. I admit, apologize and ask your forgiveness for my part in that rancor.
That being said I just don’t see the day to day sexism. That’s not to say I don’t day to day sexism in the media, in society, in my life. I mean here, in the comments. I refuse to cite anyone by name because I am speaking only for myself, but if I were to characterize the readership here based upon the quality of the posts and comments I would say it’s left of center (from pragmatic slightly left of center types to far left). I see some who put AUMF first, some who put health care first, some who put economic issues first. What I simply don’t see are misogynists.
From the bottom of my heart – if you can cut-n-paste from any of the 100 or more comments I have left here and show me how I was being sexist – dismissing Sen. Clinton because she’s a woman – I want you to do so. I loathe such people and do not want to be one. That’s not to say show me a quote where I disagreed with a particular example – reasonable people can disagree on a specific case without disagreeing about the gestalt.
All this is to say when the comment wars here reach a point where those of us saying we can’t support Clinton in the primary because of a legitimate policy difference(s) and in turn get a long post the gist of which is I’ll substitute anti-Semitism for sexism so now maybe you can see the problem….It’s hard not to respond in weary, sarcastic tone. I know sexism is a problem. I don’t need it explained to me with stories and similes. And I swear this is not some backhanded attack at the individual who wrote that post – it’s just the most recent example of what I’m talking about.
So let me conclude by saying: is there great sexism being exhibited by myself or others in the comments here that I am missing? I think – and forget Obama v. Clinton – I’m speaking on a much broader scale – I think we are all basically allies looking for the same things in life.
In all sincerity; what am I missing?
Thanks for listening.
Bob
on 22 May 2008 at 11:19 pm2memyself

I also don’t understand why it is so vitally important to continue to search the media for examples of blatant sexism and say, “see, see - it’s there just like we said!”

The fact is that most of the folks posting here have agreed that the media has been reprehensible and unforgivably sexist.

Did you know that we are running against a 72 year old man who told such a nasty sexist joke about Chelsea Clinton when she was a teenager that many newspapers refused to print the joke, even when writing columns condemning it?

This same guy chuckled and said “good question” when a supporter asked him just a few weeks ago “How are we going to stop the bitch?” referring to Clinton.

A wonderful warm loving fellow who wants to stay the course in Iraq, bomb Iran, send women back into alleys to have abortions performed using coat hangers and supports states passing laws legislating second class citizenship for gays.

… or maybe it’s more important to wallow in the ugliness that the msm has perpetrated and keep rerunning and rerunning scenarios where saying the word “periodically” and scratching your face with two fingers is too horrible to deal with. It’s all a matter of priorities.
on 22 May 2008 at 11:26 pm3Frank

I note that this cartoon is from an English newspaper. What the heck does it have to do with anything other than the perceptions of an English cartoonist?
on 23 May 2008 at 12:04 am4ClareA

You do not have to believe that sexism has cost Clinton the nomination, nor that being strongly opposed to her is sexist. I don’t believe those things.

I am just astounded by those people who either ignore or minimize the amount of misogyny that has surfaced in this campaign. It’s almost as if acknowledging it would amount to an endorsement of Clinton.
Is it because people admire Obama so much that they can conceive of him being associated with this kind of ugliness? that it must just be misunderstanding or over-reaction?
Is is because people dislike Clinton so much that they feel she has earned all the angry and negative reaction - and so don’t really notice that some if it is sexist?
I do NOT believe the misogyny is a strategy of the Obama campaign, but I sure will not pretend it is not there.

(re read first paragraph before you respond to this…)
on 23 May 2008 at 8:45 am5Zon

1. Susie can write about whatever the hell she wants to write about on her blog.

2. Bob, no one has said you are a sexist. It’s not about you.
on 23 May 2008 at 9:15 am6sam

I believe I’ve seen posts here recently calling Bob sexist that have, at best, a VERY dubious basis for the claim.
on 23 May 2008 at 9:36 am7Bob

Zon: Here’s a selection from an earlier comment you posted here: “What am I looking for? Less dismissiveness on the part of some (not all) guys who don’t seem to be listening to what some of us are saying.”
I was honestly moved by that. It was one of the come backs to me that moved me to write what I wrote above.
Sorry to have wasted your time.
One last note: I included Susie in the post out of respect for her. She takes what she does seriously – as do I.
on 23 May 2008 at 9:36 am8sam

As to Zon’s #1 - no one is saying anything to the contrary - defensive much?

Susie has generally claimed to want to promote progressive candidates over the right wing types and the comments I see here say to me that readers are urging her to get on with that if it is indeed still a goal. Yes, Clinton has endured ugly and undeserved attacks and many of them have been sexist in nature. She has also been fairly and justly called to task for some things, and some of her supporters have cried sexism against these non sexist issues as well. Of course there is no reason not to discuss these issues and try to do something about them.

There is a clear difference of opinion as to whether anyone officially connected to the Obama campaign has been a contributer to the sexism in any significant manner, but I don’t see disagreement on the fact that the media is guilty as charged. A similar disagreement exists about whether anyone officially connected with the Clinton campaign has promoted or deliberately used racism to further her chances, while there appears to be fairly uniform agreement that completely outside anything having to do with Clinton, right wing media and an underground email smear campaign exist that are blatantly racist. We are not likely to change each others’ opinions on either campaign’s guilt or innocence in any contributions to these problems.

However, there is an extremely important election coming up in November. It might just be worthwhile to begin focusing at least some of the attention on that as well. What has occurred during this campaign is only likely to be made worse if a McCain administration becomes reality. I think that just may be worth uniting against.
on 23 May 2008 at 9:36 am9Zon

My sense (speaking for myself only) is that Susie has been critiquing sexism in the media, not sexism by Bob. Although I don’t know Bob in person, I get the idea that he is really not a sexist (is that the absolution you are looking for?). However, I also get the feeling that despite his best intentions, he also doesn’t fully understand why women continue to be upset by the sexism revealed by this campaign. (That’s what I tried to address, apparently unsuccessfully, in my anti-semitism analogy post.) Bob wants us to all agree “sexism is wrong” and then move on to other topics that he thinks are more important. Thing is, sexism keeps rearing its ugly head (in the media, which reflects and shapes dominant cultural values) and we continue to get righteously pissed off about it.

Personally, I’m glad that Susie (and Echidne & Shakespeare’s Sister) keep calling out examples of sexism when they see it. If they don’t, who will? Not the big blogger guys, for the most part. And if no one calls it out, sexism becomes even more embedded in our cultural discourse. So yes, the posts might get repetitive, but that reflects the fact that sexism is a daily fact of life.
on 23 May 2008 at 9:41 am10eunice henwood brown

I think this particular characterization serves as example of the undercurrent of sexism that runs deep within our society. I think Susie may be making the point, that in the backlash against feminism nowadays, the message is that sexism no longer exists. Of course it does! But so does tremendous socio-economic disparity, racism and a whole host of issues that need to be addressed. The timing of this election is such that things that have been simmering below the surface in America are starting to be discussed again. And by the way, men, both white and black don’t have it so great these days either.
And BRAVO Bob! Good job in shifting the tone of your discourse. Your heartfelt insights are much easier to read.
on 23 May 2008 at 10:11 am11votermom

What is the point? The point is to bear witness. Sometimes, when evil is being done, that is all one can do. Bear witness. It is important. Think of all the deniers who have denied historically factual accounts of evil. Sexism is an evil. Women’s rights are human rights.
on 23 May 2008 at 11:16 am12steveeboy

yep,

that is the issue,

hypocrisy.

it is okay to say hillary has balls, but not okay to make a cartoon that in all likelihood is referencing that comment and twisting it to include some kentucky fried balls.

Were these balls the result of emasculation at teh hands of the bitch, the harpie, or some other gendered/sexist stereotype?

Or were these fried balls merely the result of obama literally getting his balls cut off in kentucky due to the ass whipping he received? certainly one could see a similar cartoon replacing mccain or some other retired military guy in the picture if obama got his balls cut off in kentucky right?

but, the original comment about hillary having balls implied that obama did not, and I heard nary a peep here. so, if he has no balls he’s a woman right, and that itself is pretty sexist, but no comments were made bemoaning that gendered/sexist discourse at all…

I suppose I could put on my historian cap and say this cartoon is actually racist due to the long history of lynching in this country, the fear of black masculinity, the genital mutilations to which lynched black men were often subjected, etc.

In this reading of the cartoon’s subtext, hillary would be reinforcing white racism and power since she is now the colonel that cut off obama’s balls in kentucky by virtue of her racist support–20% said race was important and 80% of those voted for hrc.

And then we had the whole “Rocky” thang, in which obama supporters who pointed out that the rocky analogy was lame cause it was such an obvious pander were accused of being elitists who hated rocky because they hated the working class only to then see a comment made by a HRC backer to the effect that “Rocky was a pansy” and see no comment made at all about this homophobic slur/attack on rocky the working class hero’s masculinity.

In all cases, the point has been that some people are going off the deep end because their preferred candidate is losing and they seem to have no problem whatsoever in smearing their friends, colleagues, and political allies as sexists, elitists, etc. even though those same people have been the ones that help them when they need a favor, contribute to their blog when they need car repair, drink with them, party with them, etc.

Again, it is disheartening to see people lose their critical perspective, their objectivity, and their ability to have a genuine policy or political disagreement with their allies when in the past the same people could argue til the cows came home about politics and actually relish the argument.
on 23 May 2008 at 5:54 pm13Izquierdo

The Democratic primaries, and the discussions thereof, have devolved into a chaos of misdirected energies.
I can’t wait until a nominee is selected (either one, it doesn’t matter to me, both have virtues and both are flawed), and we can get on with the critical task of keeping Bush III out of the White House.
on 25 May 2008 at 12:31 pm14lutton

Wow, this cartoonist has some issues:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,2237568,00.html

Comments RSS

It’s All In Your Head

14 Responses to “It’s All In Your Head”

Leave a Reply

My Liberal Identity:

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Tags

Pages