In comments, there’s been discussion of Clinton’s recent citing of Bobby Kennedy’s death.
“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.”
(Huffpost has the video).
I don’t think Clinton was implying that she should stay in the race in case Obama gets assassinated. I think she was saying that there’s nothing especially unusual about a democratic primary lasting until June, and it doesn’t prevent Democrats from winning the general election.
So it was a gaffe — an unusually tactless gaffe, one which Clinton has made more than once. (I’m sure Clinton supporters who said, after “bittergate,” that a bad gaffe shows a candidate is unready to be President will stick by that position this week.) But it wasn’t Clinton hoping that Obama will be shot.
Ta-Nehsi agrees that it was a gaffe, but adds:
This is why it’s foolish to compare racism and sexism. Hillary and some [of] her blind-ass feminist supporters have asserted that there has been no racism in this campaign, or none when compared to racism. But Barack Obama had to get Secret Service protection before any candidate in history. I wonder if that has to do with racism. Part of this is our fault as we’ve allowed the definition of racism to devolve into the spectacular–the Rodney King tape or a Don Imus rant.
But the ugliest aspects are the things you don’t see, or don’t care to see. There is no American tradition of assassination in the feminist community. The sort of violence that consistently hung over Civil Rights workers, and ultimately got Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King, never hung over Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. Again I think Hillary simply made a mistake. But I also think were she from my side of the tracks, a place where the assassination of black public figures has altered whole lives, she wouldn’t have said something that stupid. Ditto for Steinem, who if she’d ever spent any significant time around black folks, would know that there are forces which are just as restricting as gender. I still don’t think Clinton realizes what she said–she apologized to the Kennedy’s, but not to Obama. The blindness is strong in that one.
If you’re like me, your back may have reflexively gone up at the comment about “some blind-ass feminist supporters,” but frankly he’s right, as long as you remember that he said “some,” not “all.”
On Shakesville, one of my favorite blogs,1 a few of the writers have been arguing that Clinton has faced much more bigotry than Obama, but now things are evening out. For instance, in comments Kate (who, I want to emphasize, I’m a total fanboy of) wrote:
…Now that everyone in the media has agreed Clinton has zero shot at the nomination, it’s safe to start running the anti-Obama crap they’ve been sitting on. They didn’t want to risk accidentally tanking him and letting the nom tip to her, but now that they’re sure he’s got it, they can let loose. (Never mind that he doesn’t actually have it yet.)
As I said at Shakesville, they haven’t been sitting on anti-Obama crap. The hundreds of times Farrakhan has been mentioned in the media is racist anti-Obama crap. The Wright story was racist anti-Obama crap. The “but how would he do among WHITE voters” concern trolling — with its implication both that Appalachian voters are all White voters, and the implication that black voters somehow don’t count (hence no need to worry about Clinton’s complete tanking among Black voters) is racist anti-Obama crap. The constant positioning of Obama as a scary, non-American “other,” from the flag pin “issue” to last week’s Washington Post editorial claiming that Obama lacks the “blood” and “heritage” to be President, is racist anti-Obama crap.
(And I didn’t even mention bowling.)
With all due respect, Kate, racism against Obama hasn’t just suddenly popped up in the last week or two. Like misogyny against Clinton, it’s been going on all along.
* * *
To be fair, I’ve occasionally seen Obama supporters claim that anti-Obama racism has been a bigger problem than anti-Clinton sexism — most famously when Reverend Wright said that Clinton has never been called “nigger,” to imply she hasn’t faced bigotry. (How often has Obama been called “cunt“?) But, at least in what I’ve read, Clinton supporters have made this claim much more often — and unfortunately, Clinton herself has made the same claim.
(See also — on the general topic, not at all directed at Kate — No More Mister Nice Blog’s “The fact that you don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.”)
- And a blog that has consistently posted anti-racist commentary about the election. [↩]
I think this statement is as ignorant of what feminists have endured in this society as this blogger is claiming the feminists are being. No, there haven’t been any assassinations of the more famous feminists. However, the death threats are there and extraordinarily common. Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan have both received numerous death threats. Nikki Craft has, for over a decade, had to take extraordinary safety precautions and live in near isolation because of the sheer number and intensity of the death threats against her. Just look at the Kathy Sierra incident (and she’s not even a “feminist” as much as “just” a woman in a male-dominated arena — but also look at all that came out of that, the almost recognition of the sort of violence that many women, esp. feminist experience just by being vocal in the blogosphere). You don’t even have to be a “famous” feminist to experience life altering death threats. And there have been feminists targeted and attacked simply for being feminist (although they haven’t been the “more famous” ones). So, does a nationally or internationally famous feminist “leader” have to actually be killed before the violence targeted at them be considered “real” or “restricting?”
Amp, you underestimate their capacity for crap. Though I will say I don’t know what Edward Luttwak smoked before writing his nonsense op-ed.
Feminism exists in the first place, in large part, because of the “tradition of assassination” (and rape, battering, and all sorts of brutality) of women at the hands of men.
Right now there’s a guy in prison in Louisiana who is being held on one million dollars bond — a 19-year-old LSU student. He was charged May 4 with plotting an “act of terrorism” against Clinton while she was campaigning in Baton Rouge. At least one other guy was in on it. The plan was to take her out. I’d guess, therefore, that Clinton has been thinking quite a lot about assassinations and that she feels the threat of that particular violence “hanging over her head” very keenly.
Link
Pingback: Women's Space
I don’t see how someone wanting to assassinate Clinton makes her comments any more appropriate.
Let’s get started; Hillary is not a racist. But how else can she be forced out of the primaries but to use the end game card of racism. That will scare the shit out of enough folks and she will end her campaign
Sen Obama has over 40 million dollars and if he wanted to compete in West Vir or Kentucky he had the cash!!!! He chose not to; Hillary has been in every contest even when she was behind by double digits.
The media and cable news buttholes (MSNBC mostly) have been on her ass since super tuesday to drop out. Hillary has been dedrided in some of the most hateful terms. Just last week the FOX noise a-hole Alex C said it was okay to call Hillary a “white bitch”.
But that has not stopped 18 million people from voting for her. And when the DNC desides to count Florida, (they may seat the Michigan delegates, but not count the votes) adding to her series of primary wins including the upcoming Puerto Rico win and Hillary will be the popular vote champ.
Just a few months ago the discussion centered around the popular vote because it was thought that Sen Obama would be the winner with Hillary just ahead in delegates. Suddenly now the talk is all about delegates. Hmmm…
And for the record the states Hillary has won total 308 electoral votes. End game part 2
Wow, david stewart. I’m fully convinced. Especially that part where you discussed Hillary Clinton’s comment:
Oh right, you didn’t. My bad. But still, the fact that Obama didn’t spend as much money as he could have to take Kentucky totally justifies Clinton discussing assassination and then offering a non-apology.
Oh wait, but you did have a stellar defense of Clinton:
Check and mate.
There is no American tradition of assassination in the feminist community.
Excuse me, there is, on abortion clinics, which is a feminist issue. This is “oppression olympics” stuff and I hate it. Plenty of feminists support Obama and Hillary is not synonomous with feminism.
I have mixed feelings. As someone who’s gotten death threats, rape threats and rumors of threats, harassment, slander and said I should be the first on a list of libersals to get shot, has been called on the internet, bitch, cunt, whore and other endearments almost on a weekly basis and have been in the position of being scared to go out and still always, always, always looking over my shoulder, it leaves me with mixed feelings about safety and danger. I never feel safe. Maybe I should but I don’t. The day I was at a family reunion in another place and feeling calm was the day I opened up my email, received a harassing email that was very creepy in my own name and it traced back to my city’s City Hall.
Last week, I received some truly disturbing comments on another online site from someone who described me what I was wearing in the elevator at City Hall. It’s a constant thing, and it’s part and parcel of what happens when you write, or speak out in public. But it’s still a psychological and even physical thing.
Being a woman, even a White woman makes me vulnerable and it provides maybe more gendered ways of harassment and threats than a man, but I get a lot of racist crap and harassment going back even before I began working for a Black-owned business, which itself including this week is subjected to racist retaliation and harassment, by everyone from lone sociopaths perhaps, to city governments and police officers (and I was on the receiving end of some of this). It was and has been an eye opener to me, so when people say racism is something we’ll deal with when it happens, and it’s not overt, just subtle in this era, I have a hard time knowing if they know what they’re talking about. Because it’s a lot of different businesses. Something pisses off the Whites and you come to work and there’s glue in your lock, or property has been vandalized. Because you’re a symbol to use by these Whites to take out their racism, hatred and violence on when they go off, because they named a school after a famous Black person, or a police officer got shot by a Black man, or a business owned by a person of color is actually getting redevelopment loans, instead of the White businesses which “deserve” them. It can be anything.
And I know I’m not alone. I believe Rachel has talked about racist comments that are very disturbing, I think Amp has too and they’re White. It’s more so for people of color who speak out and write and blog.
I’ve been harassed for being a woman, but it changed into something else when I started writing about racial issues and being involved in different issues. And I can’t ignore that and pretend it’s just my gender and just about gender and not about being involved in my work.
Kathy Sierra, I can relate to. Reading about her (and her blog was an IT blog) did enormous things to help me feel less alone, but so did listening to women of color who almost universally have been treated the same way or even worse than Sierra (and I didn’t think it could get worse than that because how she was treated was so bad). Cyberstalking is definitely not an easy thing to deal with, but I’ve tried for about three years now.
I’m not surprised if Obama got a secret service detail first though I believe after Robert Kennedy’s assassination, all candidates of at least the two major parties are provided with agents at some point if they choose.
It’s interesting how a post that was intended as an argument about how Clinton’s whiteness makes her not see things black people experience, has turned into a demonstration of how Amp’s maleness makes him not see things women experience.
Because for some people it’s a choice?
What mystifies me as that people view the deaths of civil rights leaders and other individuals as apparently not impacting women enough or even girls enough that the “but…” has been applied to feminism and only its White leaders. Including, but not limited to these girls. As if a discussion about race, is countered by what about gender, which leaves a lot of women in the middle.
Not that feminists don’t get death threats, don’t feel scared because they do but so do women involved in different civil rights and political movements as well. Women and girls get death threats no matter whose rights they are advocating for on a global scale even if they’re not feminists. You should see the types of threats that women receive for working on immigration rights particularly at least in my region if they’re Latinas. Union activists who are female. Female religious leaders in religions in Christianity where there are mostly or almost all male leaders.
If you’re going to talk about threats to women in political movements, it should include feminist movements but others as well.
Threats like these don’t make the news anywhere b/c they usually are not reported and if they are, not taken seriously.
There’s a difference though between political violence and threats of violence and political assassination. As I said in the other post, there have been threats against Obama as soon as he announced his candidacy, hence his high secret service protection. That is why the original comment is so heinous and why Clinton’s refusal to mention Obama in her apology so disgusting.
I do not mean nor wish to demean the threat of violence against women as pointed out by Bean, but as Radfem points out this is not absent from the black community. Consider that the three police officers who murdered Sean Bell got off scot free, and let’s not forget the terrifying history of lynchings and sundown towns whose legacy still affects us today.
Yes. Violent death is NEVER used to keep women in line, and so it would be ridiculous for women to think they understand violence leveraged against uppity sociopolitical minorities.
Sorry, Barry, STRONG disagreement on tihs one. Not that HRC has faced more oppression than Obama — I agree with you, she hasn’t. But the argument made in the post you quote? Really, really transparently bad.
I’m kind of disappointed in this post. It’s one of the first times I’ve felt like you’ve analyzed a news story in a way to support your bias toward Obama.
Raznor – your argument makes no sense. Because the feminists here have NOT claimed that the black community hasn’t experienced this. The threats against feminists were brought up ONLY because they were explicitly DENIED as a tactic used against them.
So, now we have this:
A: Blacks have experienced this fear and oppression
B: So have feminists
C: (<–Raznor) Yeah, feminists have experienced that, but so have blacks, so STFU.
Oh, and shit — I can’t even believe I forgot this — but the Montreal Massacre was an outright assassination of 14 feminists.
Bean, where did the post I quote explicitly deny that threats are ever used against feminists?
Here’s what he wrote:
It’s clear from context that he’s talking about the assassination of major political leaders, not violence in general.
You’re absolutely right in everything you’ve said; feminists have been threatened with violence, suffered violence, and in some cases (such as the Montreal Massacre) been murdered.
But he never said feminists have never been victims of violence. He said that Blacks have a history of having their major political leaders assassinated, and white feminists do not have a history of having their major political leaders assassinated. And that’s true.
I think what he was saying is that the history of assassinations of civil rights leaders creates a different context for blacks than for whites. In that context, Clinton is apparently unaware of how it sounds to many Blacks when she compares the current primary to a primary being ended by a major political leader was assassinated. Hence she apologized to the Kennedy family for the implications of her statement, but not to Obama. And it’s easier for her to overlook that implication because she’s white, than it would be if she were Black.
Mandolin:
I don’t think that’s at all a fair paraphrase of what he said.
Of course violence, including murder, is often used to keep women in line. That doesn’t mean that white feminists have a history of seeing their major political leaders assassinated, or share the “Hillary will be assassinated just like past feminist leaders were” fear. (1 2 3).
To be clear, I’m not saying that sexism is any less harmful than racism; I’m saying that they have sometimes manifested in different ways, historically, and there are some specific, narrow contexts — such as a casual reference to a major political leader being assassinated — which resonate more directly with civil rights history than feminist history.
Why do you disagree with that? And if you don’t disagree with that, why do you disagree with my post?
All these quotes are from articles published well before the current controversy about Clinton’s RFK comments.
And from another article:
I don’t think it’s “oppression olympics” to acknowlege that the history of racism and the history of sexism are not always identical, and in some cases have produced different results. One such result is that references to political leaders being assassinated resonate differently with many black people than with many white people.
I agree. I’ve participated in quite a few discussions where this has been raised since Obama first started running. In fact some older people said that they didn’t even want him to run at all for that reason. Men and women who lived during the civil rights movement and the violence. Not just Black men and women because White men and women were active as well and saw or were themselves targets of the violence. These concerns were raised regardless of whether they were voting for Obama or not, so it had nothing to do with any perceptions of candidate loyalty.
I thought the writer was a bit male-centric and I thought if anything women here would say, well what about the women who experienced violence and threats in the civil rights movement but no one mentioned that when they brought up “women”.
I didn’t read that he or you said that feminists weren’t experiencing violence. But like you said, the frameworks of that violence might be different. And believe it or not, he did include women in his frame work. Women in the civil rights movement experienced violence to keep them in line including girls. When they sprayed fire hoses and turned dogs loose on civil rights activists, did they shuffle women and girls off to one side and just focus on men and male children with violence? And to those who say, oh they just happen to be there with the men. They were there because for one thing unlike some of us, they can’t separate race and gender into nice neat compartments.
It’s amazing how you can discuss violence in the civil rights movement and it’s what about the women as if they weren’t there or it had nothing to do with them? What about them? They got beaten, terrorized, imprisoned, arrested and yes, even killed like the men did. The three men who were kidnapped and killed for registering voters did this to enfranchise men and women. The women lived in houses and went to churches which were firebombed.
It’s interesting how the very real terrorism of bombing medical clinics because they do abortions can be seen as impacting women and against women (which it does and is) yet somehow the violence of the civil rights movement is only impacting men. Because after all, race and the fight for racial equality is all about men. So much so that any counter argument for civil rights violence in terms of women’s violence has to be made outside of it at all.
I didn’t like his use of the word “blindness”. I found that to be the offensive. statement.
Incredible.
There was an actual plot against Hillary Clinton (whose candidacy I have never supported, neither Obama’s) . There was a guy arrested, held on $1 million bail, released ultimately on $50K bond, in the past year. Yet here in this thread people go on and on about the way assassination attempts aren’t an issue for women candidates or about their own death threats as bloggers or whatever (something I know about, as you all know). The lines get drawn more and more narrowly, so narrowly they exclude as relevant the actual assassination plot against Hillary Clinton.
Radfem:
Or, alternatively, we could say that the violence that women underwent during the civil rights demonstrations et al of the 60s was not as a consequence of being women but as a consequence of being anti-racist civil rights protestors. IOW, not separating it based on sex/gender but on the political territory being talked about; the protests at issue weren’t about women’s rights specifically.
Amp:
Typo in the opening post; you have “tackless” instead of “tactless”.
womensspace:
Wow… What an incredible misrepresentation.
With all due respect, Kate, racism against Obama hasn’t just suddenly popped up in the last week or two. Like misogyny against Clinton, It’s been going on all along.
With all due respect, Barry, you’re mischaracterizing what I said pretty fucking egregiously. My posts and comments show that I’ve been well aware of the racism in this campaign and appalled by it all along, and since I know you’ve read many of those, I can’t believe you’d call me out for not noticing it here. Hell, I even wrote one post excoriating Clinton for racist fear-mongering, before finding out that I, along with several other bloggers, had fallen for a flat-out lie from Drudge. I won’t deny that I’ve posted about sexism a lot more than racism, but off the top of my head, Pam Spaulding has been covering the campaign racism quite thoroughly, while very rarely mentioning the sexism. That doesn’t make me think she doesn’t care about/hasn’t noticed the sexism, you know? Blogging ain’t about perfect balance, it’s about the bug up your ass on any given day. (Unless you’re Liss, who’s done an amazing job of covering both on the site I write for, which is one more reason why I’ve done more commenting than posting on racist crap. She’s quicker on the draw than I am about pretty much everything, including sexism.)
I also wrote this, back in January:
That post was the first time I talked publicly about my fear that as soon as Obama got the nomination, the press would turn on him. (In the context, I’ll remind you, of saying that fear of bigots is no reason NOT to vote for him.) And that’s what I was talking about again in the comment you quote.
If you don’t believe that even with all the examples of racist attacks on Obama you mention–which, yes, I’ve bloody well noticed–the media coverage has been largely pro-Obama and anti-Clinton over the last several months, I don’t know what else to say. I’m not even talking about sexism v. racism here, though obviously, they’re both inescapable factors in any discussion of the coverage. I’m talking about mainstream journalists making it absolutely clear that they want Obama to get the nomination and want to see Clinton gone, period. For months and months now.
And for months and months, I’ve been saying that as soon as Clinton is gone, we’ll see them turn a hell of a lot more of their vitriol on Obama. I certainly never said racism wasn’t there all along, in both overt and covert manifestations. That’s absurd, and I’m pretty offended that you’d characterize my statement that way. I’m saying the ratio of positive to negative Obama coverage has skewed toward the positive, but it’s likely to flip. When I say they’ve been “sitting on” crap to use against Obama, I don’t mean they haven’t made any attacks on him; I’m saying I think they could have attacked more and harder, but so far, they’ve chosen not to. The first goal was getting Clinton out of the way. When the goal changes to getting McCain elected–and it will, for a whole lot of them–I think a lot of people will be surprised by just how much shit they will start heaping on Obama. I’m not saying it hasn’t happened at all yet; I’m saying you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
I hope I’m wrong about that, mind you. I want a Democrat in the White House. But it’s what I see happening, based on how Kerry and Gore were treated against fucking Bush, let alone against a candidate the media inexplicably loves–with that basic framework also being informed by racism this time. Double whammy.
If you think they’ve been just as hard on Obama as they have on Clinton so far–in general, not even just in terms of racist or sexist attacks–then we just disagree about my fundamental point here. But I really resent being held up as some sort of naif who only just caught on to the fact that we live in a racist country. That is not remotely what I was saying, and you’ve been paying enough attention to know that.
Hey all. Thanks for linking this–we’ve got a pretty lively discussion here. I just wanted to issue a quick clarification. Because Hillary Clinton’s reference point was Bobby Kennedy, I speaking specifically of political assassinations. I most certainly was not trying to imply that violent terrorism is something strictly visited on black people, or black men.
I also wasn’t attempting to make a “racism>sexism” argument–I’ve explicitly rejected that argument on my own blog. In raising the point about assassination, I was actually trying to undermine that argument, by saying there is no ready equivalent, that there are some thing’s that are just specific to one group. There’s also no tradition of having to worry about having control over the most intimate aspect of your body, among black men. There is no proper “oppression ratio.”
To the extent that I highlight the point by some (“emphasis on some”) Hillary supporters to say that racism is less accepted than sexism, I was responding to a meme that’s been floating among the commentariat (Joan Walsh, Marie Coco, Hillary Clinton herself, and ,less significantly, a couple articles in the Washington Post and the New York Times)
Lastly, I should have made it clear that a legacy of violence isn’t particular to any one community. To the extent that I downplayed/slighted/disregarded an an experience that I frankly have no first-hand knowledge, I apologize. I hate this whole debate, mostly because I don’t see the point. I can’t think of single feminist cause (from reproductive rights, to expanded childcare, fair wages, equal opportunities in education etc.) that wouldn’t be good for black folks–women and men. In tangible terms, I don’t know what this fight is about.
Okay, then feminists get targetted for violence not because they are women, but only because they are anti-sexist civil rights protesters. I don’t buy that and I don’t think anyone should buy that. But the reality is that it’s both, including how society feels about when any group that it marginalizes is actively fighting against institutional inequalities.
Do civil rights movements have to be about “women’s rights” specifically to count on the roster of violence against women? I don’t think so at all. Because then it goes back to who gets to define what’s “women’s rights”? Is not the right to vote, a “women’s right”? Is not the right to not be forced to use segregated and inferior services and facilities, “women’s rights”?
I think it’s a better argument for women who can separate out componants of their identies and place gender separate. Many women can’t and many women don’t want to and I think that includes the civil rights movements. It also includes feminism and other women’s rights movements that address issues that mainstream feminism doesn’t seem to have much time for.
Did he get arrested? That’s great news that he was. As he should and he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and he probably will, given her stature. As someone who’s faced threats myself, it’s good to see justice done when it’s done, but take a look at when it’s actually done.
That’s a better turn out than either them not getting arrested or even rewarded. Some of us get threats that we have belief might be carried out and our assailants (and I do put people who make threats in that category) get civic awards including one who I was told was determined by the FBI to have harassed at a level that was possibly criminal. But after all, law enforcement protects their own first, their image second. But there’s nothing that can be done to change the fact that many threats aren’t taken seriously at all and just accept that. That’s what most people have to do.
And I think I’ve learned how trying to figure out why people engage in this behavior against you, is not so simple to dissect. Because you ask yourself when it happens to you. Why am I being threatened. Is it because I’m a woman? A woman stepping outside the lines of how women are supposed to believe and behave? Because I’m working against racism and writing about it? Because I’m writing about it and sexism too in law enforcement? There’s no easy answer to that. If I were a feminist, then it would be assumed that it was because I was a woman whether that was true or not and I was one, when I received the first threats. But I guess since I’m not, it’s assumed that my gender has nothing to do with it, when whether or not you’re a feminist, the truth is there is a myriad of factors going into threats, some real and some not. And that’s what each person who’s the target of them has to consider.
The majority of the time people men or women get threats, you either are stuck in terms of not knowing who sent it b/c most people threaten anonymously and with the computer technology, that’s increased more than decreased. So everyone looks like a threat, because you don’t know. A lot of the times it’s people you’ve never met and that is definitely strange when you find that out. I doubt Clinton or Obama ever met the individuals who’ve made threats against them. And I think other people who have understand what I’m saying. I know that after creepy comments about seeing me on a particular elevator did lead me to taking the stairs up a lot of flights, before I chided myself for being silly.
But then there’s the other side of the coin. Say, you do know the identity and with anonymous threats, you’re bucking tremendous odds to find out. And what happens to them, isn’t arrest, discipline, prosecution or anything like that. It’s not even just ignoring them although that happens a lot of the time. But in more than a few cases, the person winds up having their behavior validated directly or indirectly by rewards. Though that’s not been the case with presidents and presidential candidates, because in these cases, even threats (or cases where comments are perceived to be threats) are taken seriously as they absolutely should be.
The truth is, that arresting and prosecuting people for making threats against men of color or women of all races isn’t the typical outcome at all. And that’s true of violence as well. My ex-councilman’s brother was murdered in Louisiana in the mid-1960s and even though it’s known who did it, no arrests, no prosecution although the U.S. Attorney’s office did reopen its civil rights investigation in 2001.
Kate, I was one of the folks who took you to task for the statement you made on Shakesville and I will ask what I meant in more detail when you say things like this
How did you come about with this ratio? What was the measurement that you used? Because it seems to me that when we try to compare the racism that men of color face (in this case a black man with other privileges like Obama) and the sexism that white women (in this case a woman with other privileges like Clinton) we ignore the fact that they aren’t easily comparable given their different historical trajectories and subsequent manifestations. This is why statements such like yours without clarification, end up playing into the Oppression Olympics realm. I mean honestly we are reminded that Clinton is a woman EVERY GODAMN TIME her name is mentioned as we are reminded that Obama is black man EVERYTIME his name is mentioned and in both cases the qualifiers are as physical AND characteristic descriptors and I’m not even talking about when they are compared with McCain whose gender and race are hardly ever negatively attached to an issue.
(And I hate the fact that I have to make this a sidenote: What I find most annoying about all this is that we are forgetting that women of color in politics have it harder than both men of color and white women because of the double whammy of racism and sexism).
Lastly, this statement says a lot about where you’re coming from (Note: emphasis mine)
What is your fundamental point? As a person of color who as read some of your posts, considers you an ally but still finds this troubling, I ask honestly because it seems you’re suggesting that Obama is getting some sort of love from the press. Which is why I said before, if your lens are better tuned to sexism than they are to racism, that is perfectly fine, because what you appear to be suggesting seems to belittle those of us who also have to stare racism in the face.
Well excuse the crap out me to all and especially Raznor, whom has appointed themselves the blog police.
And for the record Robert Kennedy Jr has come out in defense of Hillary saying that her comment was taken out of context and the reference to RFK was only about his winning the CA primary in June
Are we happy now?
That still does change the fact Hillary Clinton has been in public life for over 30 years and suddenly she is a racist. Bullshit!!!
I have nothing against Sen Obama and will as of now vote for him in Nov. He will still loose. Sen Clinton will also get my vote, she might loose, but will you vote for her? I pose that to all the Hilary bashers-haters-demonizers etc.
Aaargh. “Blindness.”
Apologies to everyone for using that word in the post title… I’ll rename it.
I’ve got to run to work now, so no time to respond, but I will be responding later.
Bean,
What I meant to say in my post is really what Amp said in a later post, simply that political assassination affects the black community more than the white community. Really I shouldn’t have said anything about other sorts of violence used to intimidate and silence, since that’s besides the point.
womensspace:
I read that article you linked. Let’s assume it can be interpreted as you say, and it was a potentially deadly attack on Clinton that made her have assassination attempts on her mind. But the words matter, and the fear of an assassination against Obama is very real, so Clinton’s comment and her refusal to mention Obama in her apology remain just as disgusting. And I still don’t see how interpreting that as an example of white privelege makes any less sense.
dave stewart:
Theoretically, I would vote for Clinton if, say, Obama turns out to be a robot created by Cobra Commander designed to bring down GI Joe once and for all, and thus becomes ineligible. I guess if Obama were a robot, he might also have been sent back in time by SkyNet, so there’s two possibilities.
And I’m glad that the Kennedys forgive Clinton, since they were the only ones she saw fit to apologize to.
Actually Amp, it was used in the excerpt too. You clearly understood by your response because I didn’t explain why It bothered me. Thanks.
No, I won’t vote for either because they’re too conservative on a lot of issues, as is the Democratic Party. I think people should vote for who they choose to vote for.
Being a critic even a harsh critic of Clinton doesn’t make you a basher or a hater, or even yes, a demonizer. Though I’m familiar with that language because anyone who criticizes law enforcement for example, is assumed by that profession to be a basher, hater and perhaps demonizer. It’s part of the belief system, “you’re either for us or you’re against us”.
So that one slides off. Fortunately, I’ve learned in law enforcement that there’s more nuances than the us against them dynamic and the same appears to be true about politics.
No, I’m not really happy because if Clinton hadn’t made her comment, there’d be no need for Robert Kennedy’s son to come out in her defense during aweek where no doubt his mind is plenty places elsewhere. Just because someone comes out and defends you, doesn’t erase what you did or invalidate it as an insensitive remark.
As for Obama losing for sure and Clinton “maybe” losing, that’s interesting. Because the argument’s been that Obama will lose because he’s not getting enough of the White vote, that people are too racist to vote for a Black candidate (even by some Clinton supporters) and related reasons plus factoring if Clinton’s supporters either don’t vote at all, vote for McCain or vote third-party or independent. So if he’s a sure loser and Clinton’s only a maybe one than maybe that gives some indication that even among some of Clinton’s supporters it’s clear who faces the greatest hurdle based on criteria that has nothing to do with where they stand on the issues. And to know that’s the case and then use it in your own campaign just adds another dimension to that situation.
And Sewere brought up what happens to women of color in politics (which often is far worse than anything Obama or Clinton’s faced) and she’s right about how that can be looked at. Just ask Cynthia McKinney, who’s also running for president and is pretty much invisible to most everyone. The media only mentions her when it’s trying to stir up controversy against her.
The official reason being that she’s not a “major party” candidate but I’m not sure that’s the only reason. And it would be great to see the remaining candidates in both major parties participate in a debate where she was invited too (along with other candidates) but that’s never going to happen.
And it wouldn’t surprise me if she got threats and harassment as many Black female politicians do, but I have yet to hear the name of one of them mentioned in context with violence against women and presidental candidates and feminist leaders on this thread.
I also remember how much harassment that Loretta Sanchez who’s a congresswoman in Orange County had to face when she ran. Remember too how the incumbent, Dornan and his party went after anyone they suspected (i.e. Latinos in particular) who would vote for her.
Did he get arrested?
http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/hillary-rodham-clinton-and-the-real-assassination-talk/
womensspace:
Frankly, I don’t see the threat against Clinton as being a non-issue. I see it as being an issue at best tangentially related to the one being discussed here.
And as a followup to my response to bean, issues of violence against blacks have been on my mind recently when a 20-year-old black coworker casually talked about nearly being tased in the face, and how he still had burns from being tased in the ass a while back. This made me think of Sean Bell and the numerous ways that blacks in this country live under police oppression, and how when the media sees it fit to cover, they cover how weird it is that blacks say stuff like “don’t snitch” as if they trust criminals among them more than the police.
I can see how my post may be construed as a big STFU to those talking about violence against women in general. I was afraid my post sounded too much like oppression olympics, but I went ahead and posted anyway. Sorry.
Radfem:
I’m reminded of something I read a long time ago (it was so long ago that it wasn’t even on the internet!) about how there’s so few women comedians because their hecklers are so much more cruel and threatening and even violent than hecklers facing male comedians, the difference between “you suck” and “you’re an ugly fucking bitch”.
It’s not just women in politics or women activists who receive the brunt of misogynist threats and violence, but women in public in general.
Every woman learns that walking down the street and gets street harassed for the first time. How many women were actually not even teenagers when that first happened? And even with street harassment, it’s not easy or even possible for all women to separate out why they’re being treated that way to one reason like gender. After all, are “fucking b—h” and “fucking n—–r b—h” the same thing? And for many women of color, the gender slur words might be left out of the slur altogether and vice versa with racial slurs (but removing the words doesn’t necessarily take away their meaning). I think that’s true of slurs associated with women who are lesbians, transgendered women and/or disabled women. I’ve been receiving accounts of derisive comments targeting women which aren’t just gender-centered.
I know of one recent case where a Black woman was called a “b—ch” during quid pro quo sexual harassment in the workplace but when she rejected the men and told them to stop with it, she became a “n—-r b—h”. And women in law enforcement are subjected to homophobic slurs whether they are lesbians or not, when they spurn quid pro quo sexual harassment. Often slurs that are used against disabled individuals are also tied in with slurs against men and women of color even those who aren’t disabled in the workplace. When I was working in food service, I heard several in that vein from law enforcement officers. So I think that there’s a lot of things in play when harassment and derogatory comments are used against women.
So even street harassment is tied into many things besides gender by itself even though most of the time it’s discussed it’s exclusively by gender.
It’s like that when women speak in public in general, but for many women, it’s not cut and dry about whether it’s due to the fact that they are women and whether it’s being a woman and/or being a woman of color, an immigrant, disabled, ageism and other reasons. And does pointing this out make it less likely that being female does play a role in it, even if it’s not the entire role and is being female always the main or major reason?
That can depend on a lot of things. If you ask your anonymous harassers why they do it and assuming they can be believed, in my case, the excuses ranged from boredom to outrage about my alleged involvement in providing information (which I did not) in an administrative investigation. Maybe in some of these cases, if I’d been male, I’d still face harassment but even in those cases, the harassment would probably itself be different.
“I don’t think that’s at all a fair paraphrase of what he said.
Of course violence, including murder, is often used to keep women in line. That doesn’t mean that white feminists have a history of seeing their major political leaders assassinated, or share the “Hillary will be assassinated just like past feminist leaders were” fear. (1 2 3).”
Because there’s no crowbar separation between the use of murder to silence women as politicians and the use of murder to silence women as activists.
No previous viable black candidates for president have been assassinated, that I know of, and yet we are able to generalize and say that since black political leaders have been assassinated, we can see politically motivated violence as a fear.
Violence has been leveraged for political reasons against women. I don’t give a fuck whether they’re in political office or not — although, really, there are plenty of assassinations that come to mind once you’re willing to look outside the United States. Why is it that you or anyone else get to define the conversation in terms of saying “onlythis kind of violence is relavent to these metaphors” and just rule out other political and gender motivated violence, and everything outside an American context, and so on?
But no one — including the author of the original quote — is talking about the affects on the “white community.” That’s your own baggage. What’s being discussed here is the “feminist community.” And the feminist community is constantly being inundated with death threats (including and esp. against it’s leaders) and actual violence which is committed routinely against members of that community.
It was feminism that caused a man in Montreal to go to the Ecole Polytechnique, separate the men from the women and then shoot and kill 14 female engineering students and injure a dozen others, all the while screaming “I hate feminists.” It was a terrorist attack perpetrated on women as a statement against feminism. And it is this very terror that still impacts women in a very real way when entering “male-dominated fields” (including political leadership roles), even 18 1/2 years later.
And, while gender-based violence is a huge part of it, it’s not just about this, it is about the movement — because men in the feminist movement are also the recipients of these targeted acts and threats of violence. The exact form that the violence takes differs, but it’s still there.
Most the presidents that have been killed or injured or the target of assassination attempts, according to the official explanations(which in several notable cases have been challenged) were killed for a variety of reasons, ranging from political to proxy stalking (in Reagan’s case, Hinkley was stalking Jodie Foster and the assassination attempt was based on that and I’m not sure that was the only case). It’s almost similar to what happens with actors, who have been killed, injured or stalked. Another case, was threats against the vice president from a man who was stalking a man named Jason Hawkes who of all things is a paranormal investigator on a cable television show.
Anytime, you’re in the public spotlight, you’re at risk and it’s not just politics or even anything that you do. It’s just that you’re there. And that’s a very scary of behavior too. So there’s always that element thrown in.
And not that being a president isn’t dangerous b/c on some lists, it’s the most dangerous profession due to small membership and a series of assassinations and attempts that have a larger impact even in small numbers on populations that are relatively exclusive. And then there’s threats that aren’t publicized.
Like Stetnor I think there is an interesting echo here. I don’t think Ta-Nehisi Coates (or Amp in his comments) intended to disregard the history of political violence against women and feminists. But because of the history of denying the political nature and seriousness of violence against women his statement resonated in a particular way amongst those steeped in that history.
I do agree with point Ta-Nehisi Coates is making, and think its a really important one. But I don’t think the mention of the feminist was relevent. As bean says, the difference in perception isn’t between ‘blacks’ and (white) ‘feminists’, but blacks vs. whites. If some white feminists aren’t hearing what’s so fucked up about Clinton’s remarks then that’s because they’re white, not because they’re feminist. Kevin makes the same point (here) without situating the problem within the feminist movement. Let alone doing it in a way that can be read as denying political violence against women.
There are differences, similarities and intersections, between the violence that the civil rights and black power movement faced and the violence the women’s liberation movement faced. These are contexts where a discussion of this would be useful. But this godforsaken campaign of yours is not it.It seems to me that there’s this weird kind of escalation of the oppression olympics that goes on. One person says “Clinton (or Obama) didn’t face X” and even if the underlying statement “and that shows racism is worse than sexism” isn’t mentioned unfortuantely at this stage it’s implied. So someone else replies “But Obama (or Clinton) did face X, and also Y” and it just snowballs.
For people who think there’s more to fight for than who is in the whitehouse the only way to build is to to stop the comparisons. Implicit, or explicit, it’ll just do damage.
I hate this whole debate, mostly because I don’t see the point. I can’t think of single feminist cause (from reproductive rights, to expanded childcare, fair wages, equal opportunities in education etc.) that wouldn’t be good for black folks–women and men. In tangible terms, I don’t know what this fight is about.
*Nods violently in agreement*
Well, I would hope not, given that that’s something of a strawman. I was talking with regard to context; women in the civil rights movement were, for the purposes of violence, incidentally women: they weren’t in most cases subject to violence which was not also visited on men in the movement. The reason any of them were targeted was for their membership in the CRM.
No strawman Mike, I just disagree with you. I don’t women are targeted for violence in the civil rights movement because they were incidently women, but because for many women, identity means many different things that can’t be separated from one another and it’s everything together. But even if in some movements, men were killed as well, it doesn’t make the violence against women any less a fabric of their history or the history of the violence against women.
We just disagree, that’s all. In an equal world, maybe…But in an unequal world, only a relatively few women can separate gender out and thus lay claim to being targeted solely on their gender. But violence against women who are targeted for other reasons as well is still violence against women.
But it’s not just the issues that may cause disagreement, it’s how they are framed within a movement and who gets to frame them. Even though reproductive rights is a common issue or common ground for women, often it’s all based or the focus is on how White feminists or “mainstream feminism” frames it, is a lot different how Black women phrase it, Latinas, Chicanas, American Indian women frame it and there are often multiple frameworks created. The role of eugenics in communties including those of women of color and/or disabled communities likely impacts the development of frameworks on reproductive rights.
It’s almost like it’s framed from mainly one perspective and then other women are invited into the discussion with little or no awareness that these women have been having their own discussions, are developing their own frameworks and then they are expected to often sign on to a framework that may share some componants, may be irrevelent or may be harmful to them and their communities. This happens a lot in progressive activism, not just feminism.
The same is true of other issues and one of the biggest areas this is seen is actually violence against women or impacting women. And there’s a lot of really great blogging and writing by women of color on all these issues and how they frame them and how they disagree with the framework of White feminists.
I run into these problems offline all the time, with some issues more than others only because I’m exposed to those issues moreso and talking with people who work on them. There’s this feeling of a one-size-fits-all model for women and it’s not their model and not only is it not their model but many women feel that they’re left out of that process and that their own process isn’t respected.
I don’t see it as a fight at all or at least not the same fight you mean. I see it as conflicts that reflect those of society at large, you know the same system that feminists are fighting is often the same one whose rules they emulate, because they’re not free of it, not nearly as much as they believe they are. There’s racism in feminism and there’s sexism in civil rights movements that fight racism and progressives even those outside of feminism often behave and organize in ways that are racist, sexist, classist and so forth. It’s not always cool and it’s not particularly fun (and learning is hard as well, the type that moves past the lips to your marrow and is in my opinion a never ending process) to bring up these issues of how progressive movements often mirror the society they’re tryin to change but until they’re addressed, it’s going to hard to address these issues.
Well, I’d have to disagree – women in the civil rights movement were targeted as women, using gender-based violence. The difference here is that most of that violence came from the men within the movement. One only need to read Eldridge Carver to see that tactic being promoted from the male side. To hear even more from the female side, you can see Aishah Shahidah Simmon’s groundbreaking documentary NO!
Raznor
Nothing personal but you are a twit. Beyond the world of 24-7 blogging is a thing called reality. Yes she apoligized to the Kennedy family, whom she have, the Gore’s or McCain’s?
Sen Obama as stated before is a nice person, hyped by the media until…………well their still drooling on him. About July-early August before the conventions the hype will take a sharp turn to the “nasty” and as smoochie as Keith and Chris can be, becareful because these two are fickle bitches. By Labor Day Sen Obama will be the too-young-too liberal-teleprompter-speech reading not ready for prime time candidate.
Behind in national polls and in over 20 key-swing states.
But you might miss it if you don’t turn off the laptop and pay better attention.
You bend down to tie your shoes and you see confetti and smell peanuts….then you will discover the parade has passed you by
David Stewart, I don’t think your most recent comment meets the standards of this blog. Please try to make your comments better.
* * *
I pretty much agree with what Maia said in her comment; it was a mistake to bring up feminism at all, in the original post, and I didn’t see that at the time. And, of course, it was a mistake for me to quote it without criticising that aspect of it. So I’m sorry about that.
I think I am correct to say that sexism and racism, despite being equally destructive, “have sometimes manifested in different ways, historically, and there are some specific, narrow contexts — such as a casual reference to a major political leader being assassinated — which resonate more directly with civil rights history than feminist history.” (Although I should have made it clear that I was talking about American history, as Mandolin rightly pointed out.)
But I also don’t think there’s anything further I can add to that argument, beyond what I’ve already said.
And in any case, what I’m suggesting is that there is, in general, a difference of degree, not a bright-line division.
Kate wrote:
Kate, I never thought you were saying that racism hasn’t been present. I did, however, think you were saying that racism has been significantly less present in the presidental campaign so far than sexism. I don’t think that was an unreasonable interpretation of what you wrote. You said that your own view was a combination of Liss’s “first and second reasons.” Here’s Liss’ second reason, again:
I read Liss as saying that the MSM, seeking to restore balance after an orgy of anti-Clinton sexism, are just now attempting to “restore balance” by being “equally shitty” (by which I assume she meant, racist) toward Obama. And you said that your own view was at least in part in agreement with Liss’ view.
In that context, I think it was perfectly reasonable for me to read you as saying that sexism against Hillary has been a much more important factor in this campaign than racism against Obama. (Just to be clear, I didn’t read you as saying racism against Obama doesn’t exist at all; it would be ridiculous for anyone to think you’d say that, for all the reasons you describe in your comment here. I’m well aware that you’re committed to anti-racism, which is one reason you’re one of my favorite bloggers.)
Over the last several months? No, I don’t agree with that. I think the media coverage has been notably anti-Obama for quite a while now (pretty much ever since the media realized that he was the frontrunner). If you really watched the debate six weeks ago and concluded that the media was “largely pro-Obama and anti-Clinton,” then — to cop a phrase — “I don’t know what else to say.”
The media coverage started out simultaniously pro-Clinton and anti-Clinton. It was pro-Clinton in that the media considered her victory inevitable, and so gave her twice as much coverage as Obama, three times more than Edwards, and a thousand times more than the Dodd/Kucinich/Richardson et al. This was a huge advantage for Clinton.
But the media was also anti-Clinton, because there’s a huge amount of misogyny among the MSM, and because the MSM is always against the Democratic front-runner (that’s where we agree). And no question, when Obama began surging — giving the media what they most love, an exciting story — the media bias in his favor was very noticible.
Once Obama became the front-runner — which was quite a long time ago — the media switched to being anti-Obama, but without ever becoming pro-Clinton. But where they went after Clinton with open disdain and hysterical attacks (such as the rantings of Chris Matthews and Keith Obermann), the attacks on Obama would be more accurately described as “concern trolling” (hence the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of times the news media ran clips of Obama’s Scary Black Minister ™, usually accompanied by a pundit saying that he (the pundit) understands Wright’s views aren’t Obama’s, but will “middle America” undertand that?).
That’s not at all what I intended to say, and I sincerely apologize that it came across that way.
So’s working on a ballot initiative during any election season. That’s lots of work too and it’s exhausting before it’s even on the ballot, during especially if you’re greatly outspent by your opposition, say about 30:1 and it’s exhausting afterward if it gets challenged. Did that once, not sure I’d do it again even though it won.
So it’s presumptious to assume that because people are on their computers like you, that they aren’t politically involved at all.
The mainstream media tends to focus only on the two major political candidates, rendering every other candidate invisible though you can bet if there’s a scandal involving one of them, that would change.
Sorry to everyone, especially Radfem, that Radfem’s comment seems a bit confusing.
Radfem and I did the equivilent of cross-posting — except instead of posting a response to David Stewart’s latest post, I just deleted it and banned him. (David’s comment began “BITE ME,” and kinda went on from there).
If I had realized that Radfem was typing a perfectly sensible response to David’s post, I wouldn’t have deleted David’s post. But I didn’t realize it until after the deleting was done.
No worries.
The “get off your computer” thing does bother me, especially considered how much the internet has actually played a role in the campaigning process! Election campaigns and strategies have been changed by computers and the internet. I’m not saying if that’s positive or negative, probably both but it’s true. And it seems like quite a few people here are active in campaigns.
David Stewart, you are giving the Republicans far too much credit. What exactly is it you’re afraid of? Republican leaders such as Gingrich and Cole (chair of NRCC) have warned the party against pursuing a typical smear campaign against Obama. Do you presume to know the Republican Party’s inner workings and pollings better than they do? Republicans have already lost three special elections in heavily Republican districts. Like the Clintons, are you trapped in a 1990’s fear of Republican ascendancy?
How appropriate, also, your disparaging view toward blogs and online activism. That same view cost Clinton the nomination. Where do you think Obama got the money to compete? Old money and establishment hands all maxed out for Clinton very early in the campaign.
EDIT: as I write this, I realize David has been martyred. Nevertheless, I’m going to leave this up, at the behest of the moderators.
Fair do’s; my mistake.
I’m struggling somewhat here, because I can see that what I’m trying to say isn’t being understood, which, I think, is most likely as much about my inability to express it correctly as anything else.
Therefore, I shall go away and think it over some more before I get re-involved in this thread, and I appreciate the patience of all involved.
The Wright story was racist anti-Obama crap.
Well, it was certainly anti-Obama. But it wasn’t racist, and it wasn’t crap. Sen. Obama has used his association with Rev. Wright and Rev. Wright’s parish to further his career. He used it to establish his “brand”, his image in his constituency (which was a black-majority State Senate district until two years ago). He has cited him both in speeches and his book as a major influence in his thinking and beliefs. He has been a spiritual guide for not just the Senator himself but also his wife and his children for a number of years. That makes Rev. Wright’s commentary on America and current events fair game.
Who candidates choose to associate with, whose philosophies have been influential and formative on their beliefs and actions are certainly important issues to consider when you decide who you want in the Oval Office choosing Cabinet members, Supreme Court and lower Federal justices, heads of the major regulatory commissions (e.g., the FCC), ambassadors, flag officers of the military, etc., etc. What kinds of people Sen. Obama (or any other candidate) selects to be close to him and inform him prior to election would seem to me to be a good indicator of who he is going to choose after the election.
Ron F,
Given the fact you are often unable to see racism in much that is being discussed on this blog without twisting it into some inane logic, you will have to forgive me, if I don’t take this view with anything but a grain of salt.