So at a party fundraiser, President Obama made a sexist remark about California Attorney General Kamala Harris:
You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake. She also happens to be, by far, the best looking attorney general in the country. It’s true! C’mon.
There was much criticism, and so:
President Obama called Kamala Harris last night to apologize for calling her the "best looking attorney general" in the country.
— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) April 5, 2013
Which was of course followed by: POLITICO: Kamala Harris lets Obama off the hook
Amanda has a great post on the social science regarding why “benevolent” sexism really isn’t.
Tannenbaum quotes a seminal 1996 paper on the issue written by researchers Peter Glick and Susan Fiske, in which they discovered that benevolent sexism is highly correlated with hostile sexism in cross-cultural comparisons. When it comes to pressuring women into subservient societal roles, think of benevolent sexism as the carrot and hostile sexism as the stick. Glick and Fiske specifically singled out “compliments” in the workplace:
Benevolent sexism is not necessarily experienced as benevolent by the recipient. For example, a man’s comment to a female coworker on how ‘cute’ she looks, however well-intentioned, may undermine her feelings of being taken seriously as a professional (Glick & Fiske, 1996, p. 491-492).
Even when the researchers controlled for the expression of hostile sexism, the prevalence of benevolent sexism predicted women’s secondary status in a culture.
To that, I’ll add that President Obama, of all people, has a responsibility to model good behavior. He is a leader. Many people – especially Democratic men – look to Obama to model what is or isn’t acceptable behavior. If Obama acts like complimenting women on their looks in a public, professional context is correct behavior, there are thousands of men out there who will follow his lead. And thousands of women who will have to deal with that.
Some folks have, predictably, been complaining “so we can never compliment a woman on her appearance”? It’s not so simplistic. There are good contexts, and bad contexts. If a friend of yours is at a formal even in a stunning gown, it’s perfectly polite to say “you look great!” regardless of what sex your friend is. But in a professional context, it’s not appropriate.
See also: 3 Things Kamala Harris Should Be Known For That Don’t Involve Her Looks
“But in a professional context, it’s not appropriate.”
I think that’s, sorry, bollocks. This is exactly the kind of thing that makes institutions micro-institutionalist prisons. This is, exactly, what Max Weber reffered to as “iron cages of bueraucracy”. We should encourage people to not leave their personhood at home when they go to work if we want the world to be humane place, not one in which only organised interestets have a say. Read some Hannah Arendt to understand why all this policing of human nature in a “professional” background is a bad idea. Or anything on the Milgram experiment. This isn’t the same, of course, but those who cannot see the parallels need new glasses.
Now I’m curious: who’s the best-looking male attorney general in the United States?
I actually semi-agree with SomeOne here, in that I think that the tendency to attempt to strictly delimit what is appropriate to a “professional environment” is a highly problematic one. But I also don’t think, as far as this particular case goes, that that is even a particularly pertinent aspect of what happened.
Obama’s statement was inappropriate not because it was in a professional environment, but because it was a public comment. Regardless of whether complimenting your friend on their appearance in a professional context is appropriate, talking to other people about their appearance in front of the media is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Reducing a woman to her appearance doesn’t strike me as either necessary to her, or the commenting man’s, personhood, or the epitome of humane. And while there’s a valid concern about dehumanization in the pursuit of “professionalism,” I don’t think this is even remotely in that area.
I can see how in some contexts commenting in a person’s appearance at work can be ok. But really. only in a non formal setting; in a meeting, or publicly, would not lbe so nice. I think. Othere is also a place where women commenting on other women’s appearances is ok especially if they are already friendly. For example if I said to a coworker “that’s a really pretty shirt” or if a coworker said to me “I really like your necklace” but it does get more complicated if there is a power imbalance
How is this a professional context? He’s a federal employee, she’s a state employee, they were at a private fundraiser for a political party. Strikes me as exactly the social formal event you say a compliment would be okay at.
I actually semi-agree with SomeOne here, in that I think that the tendency to attempt to strictly delimit what is appropriate to a “professional environment” is a highly problematic one.
Eh. SomeOne’s rant is a pretty standard one that you see in discussions of sexual harassment and male privilege at work – recasting the ability to treat women as playthings as ‘freedom’ and ‘individuality’. Admittedly, the thinly-veiled references to the Third Reich are a new touch.
The political party is a professional organization to which they both belong, and President Obama is the head of that organization, so the context was clearly a professional one.
—Myca
Mythago – yeah, I know. But just because I think he’s right (about some things) for the wrong reasons doesn’t mean that I don’t think he’s right (about those things).
For what it’s worth, I don’t think we need to draw a distinction between a professional environment and a non-professional environment as far as the harassment of women is concerned, as it is never acceptable, in any environment. And similarly, I believe that the reasons Obama’s statement are inappropriate had little to do with how professional the setting was, but rather how he chose to introduce her when presenting her to a third party.
Debbie Schultz is the head of the democrats not Obama. Your comment just says its a professional body because its a professional body, that doesn’t convince me of anything. Neither of them are employed by it, and it isn’t a body like a cpa association. It strikes me as an amateur body.
Eytan has a good point; the “professional” issue, especially when it’s interpreted as a “professional vs amateur” distinctions as Alex does, is the wrong way to look at this issue. I could have phrased my original post better.
I don’t agree with Alex’s assessment, but I also think it’s besides the point.
Amateur or professional, introducing someone (but especially a woman) at a public gathering the way Obama did is wrong. (I can imagine some exceptions for the rule – at a gathering of models, it might be appropriate for someone introducing a model to praise her beauty – but none of those exceptions apply to Obama in this context).
Obama’s comment struck me as impolitic and dismissive, but not apocalyptically so.
I don’t expect much from the left (or from the right) in the way of policing their own on speech; it’s always the other fellow’s rhetoric that we notice being problematic.
I *would* have expected more criticism of his appalling record (from what I understand) on hiring women.
It’s worthwhile to note that Obama has, in the midst of speeches, referenced Ken Salazar, former Secretary of the Interior, and Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, as “That good looking guy, over there” (or very similar words which included “good looking guy”). I’m sure there are other examples, as well.
Frankly, I find it a touch “off” said to/about an individual of either gender, but he’s trying to be light-hearted, casual, and positive. The record bears out that he’s used this tactic fairly evenhandedly. Given the history of how women’s more substantive accomplishments have been diminished, I agree this was a mistake. Hopefully, he finds other ways to compliment the women and men he respects going forward.
[Robert, Obama’s record hiring women may not be good enough, but it’s not nearly as bad as recent media claims. At the SEC, the CIA, and elsewhere, he’s been the first to appoint women to various top positions, etc.]
Odd, I was reading this article and then immediately came across this mother jones about how *any* description of a female candidate hurts her public perception.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/04/heres-why-good-looking-wrong-and-damaging
So, complimenting a woman’s appearnce is actually damaging, even if it’s a nice comment.
“First to appoint” is symbolism. Symbolism is not without value, but there needs to be a community of people who will be inspired. Someone who believes, or says, that women should be about half the force, then hires a woman as the chief and 99% males as the rank and file, is full of shit.
“Commenting on her appearance” should really be part of the Finkbeiner Test.
That said, since I do believe in being fair even to Muslim socialist Kenyan interlopers, I went and read the press coverage. The NYT says Obama has appointed women to 43% of the appointed jobs. That isn’t really too bad, so I withdraw the ‘appalling’.