I really loved the first 13 paragraphs of “The Misogyny I Won’t Miss,” an op-ed by Marie Cocco in today’s Washington Post, about what she won’t miss once the Clinton campaign ends:
I won’t miss reading another treatise by a man or woman, of the left or right, who says that sexism has had not even a teeny-weeny bit of influence on the course of the Democratic campaign. To hint that sexism might possibly have had a minimal role is to play that risible “gender card.”
Most of all, I will not miss the silence.
I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven’t publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York.
Reading this, I was so with Ms. Cocco, mentally jumping up and down and cheering for her. The first 13 (of 15) paragraphs really are excellent. Then — with the editorial all but over — she had to drop in this cluncker:
Would the silence prevail if Obama’s likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they’d compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama’s sex organs play?
Seeking a gold medal in oppression Olympics, Ms. Cocco?
Like Ms Cocco, I won’t miss the misogynistic comments directed at Clinton from the media, from right-wingers and from Obama supporters; nor the deafening silence about sexism from the party establishment. All of that is fucking loathsome.
Something else I won’t miss? Clinton supporters who either make race-based attacks on Obama’s candidacy, or who (like Ms. Cocco) imply that racism doesn’t exist or hasn’t affected the course of this campaign, and anyhow racism isn’t nearly as bad as sexism. And you know what? That’s fucking loathsome too.
* * *
Curtsy: Liza at Culture Kitchen. And see Ta-Nehisi Coates, as well.
Slightly related topic – next Tuesday UK MPs are voting on amendments which could see the term limit for abortion reduced from 24weeks to 22, 20, 18, 16, 14 or even 12 weeks. If you or anyone you know is a UK resident or citizen please ask them to contact their MP today or tomorrow and come along to the protest outside parliament on Tuesday evening.
More info on http://www.abortionrights.org.uk
And apologies for hijacking the comments column – please feel free to remove this comment and repost the info somewhere more appropriate. I just want to raise awareness, it’s going to be a very close vote, every bit of help counts. Thanks very much.
I would like to see more analysis of the of how the (currently?) unique dynamics of this primary race played into the silencing of discussions about racism and sexism, and how the candidates themselves participated in it because complaining about sexism and racism could be detrimental to their efforts to get elected, even if justified. It seems to me that not only the discussions of sexism and racism but the incidents of sexism and racism as well were pushed out of mainstream press untill the very moment when it became obvious to the elites (if not to the general public) that Obama would be the nominee. Then all of sudden, bam!, racism and discussions of racism in the campaign went mainstream, first with the Wright faux controversy and then I saw reports on racism faced by Obama volunteers, republican ads in special elections began connecting Obama to violent criminals, a story about some guy sellin a T-shirt that said “Obama ’08” with a picture of Curious George, and then the discussions of race with regard to West Virginia. If the dice roll had went the other way and Clinton had become the clear nominee (I am an Obama supporter, and believe the race is effectively over, but let’s face it, he won within the statistical margin of error) I wonder if the sexism and discussions of it would have went mainstream just as quickly. I mean, there is no point in the wingnuts pulling out all of their sexist attack guns now that the target is off of Clinton’s chest.
I don’t know, Amp – it’s been well and properly argued here on this blog that during this campaign racism has been treated with a lot more disdain and opposition than sexism. I think that this is the point of Ms. Cocco’s comment. I don’t take her comment as a race-based attack on Obama’s campaign, nor do I see it as advancing a view that racism doesn’t exist or hasn’t affected (note) the campaign at all, or that racism is or is not as bad as sexism. And on that basis I think she’s correct.
Thank you for posting this. I, too, am ready for the oppression Olympics to end. It’s a sad state of affairs when people who consider themselves progressive fall into a fight about who has it worse (as if anyone who wins that fight really ‘wins’).
Thanks for the spelling correction, Ron.
And I simply don’t agree that the mainstream media has treated racism in this campaign — such as the constant refrain that Obama has a white problem (yet somehow Clinton is never seen as having a black problem), or the problematic implications of linking “hard working voters” and “white voters” rhetorically — with disdain and opposition.
For what it’s worth, I read that editorial and came away thinking that indeed, Hillary has gotten raw treatment compared to Obama. As a good conservative, I don’t have to play “victim Olympics”, I can just say who I think is being more victimized, and I think if Obama had gotten the treatment Hillary has gotten, there would have been (justified) outrage on every editorial page.
Of course racism has played a part in the campaign, and of course that’s to be decried. What’s most interesting, I think, is how the perception of likeability plays into it. Hillary is a crass and unlikeable person, and Barack is polished and affable. I suspect that has made a big difference in how people are willing to express themselves, but I also suspect that it is more acceptable to bash a woman for being a woman than it is to bash a black person for being black.
The difference between the “white problem” and the “black problem” is simple. There are six white voters for every black voter. A black voter problem is less important than a white voter problem because black voters are less important as a group. A five point difference in the black vote and a five point difference in the white vote simply aren’t comparable in terms of how they’ll impact the election. That’s magnified by the fact that black voters don’t have anywhere else to go – it takes more to make a five point change in the black vote than it does to make a five point change in the white vote, if you’re talking about Democratic primary candidates.
I think the more salient analogy between Obama’s “white” problem would be a supposed Clinton “male” problem. If you break down the white vote, there is a significant gender disparity between white men and white women, particularly in contested states. (In very high pro-Obama white states, such as Maine, there has been less gender disparity than most; likewise very high pro-Clinton white states, such as the white vote in any given state in the South.) Why does no one talk about Clinton’s “male” problem?
Because you’d argue that the white male/female gap isn’t that big? That’s open to interpretation – I’d disagree, but I guess “that big”-ness is a measure highly susceptible to personal biases. But even if we grant that, that only begs the question as to why white people* identify more by race than by gender – since it’s already been well established that racial identification has been a huuuuge part of this race, particularly in certain states – and none of the possible answers look at all charitable to the idea that sexism has been worse than racism during this primary.
Because you think targeting voters by race just has more force of tradition to it than the same by gender, and that mainstream commentators aren’t being racist necessarily by following that? I’d agree to a point – but why does that tradition exist in the first place? What are the consequences of maintaining it?
I have already gone over why and how I think racism and sexism differ, and why the existence of Hillary nutcrackers (notwithstanding the Barack/Curious George t-shirts) does not mean sexism has been worse than racism. Short paraphrase, mainstream Democratic candidates are vetted for their positions on abortion and reproductive rights. How hardly are they vetted for their positions on affirmative action? Who is more widely viewed as the Democratic Party pariah – Gloria Steinem or Jesse Jackson Jr.? I do agree that people are more casual about sexism than about racism, but this doesn’t always work to Black people’s favour – silent resentment can be the worst, deepest sort there is.
I also happened to notice that one very glaring omission from that list. Back when Clinton was the presumptive nominee, some Republicans silently thought of the election in terms of “how do we take down that b*tch?!”. And by “silently”, I actually mean “loudly and openly, with McCain, upon hearing this, letting out a hearty laugh”. I’d say it’s significant because it’s the only such incident that directly implicates one of the three remaining candidates, yet Ms. Cucco doesn’t seem to agree. Did she forget, or is there another reason?
Amp,
I really, really don’t think that she was discounting race based remarks or trying to play “oppression olympics” as you call it. I think she was trying point out that many, many people, in mainstream media, have spoken out about the race issues that have come up in the course of this campaign, but few in the mainstream media have been willing to acknowledge that Clinton has faced an unwavering attack for being a woman.
I think she was drawing an analogy that would hit people- because her analogy is loathesome, but also true. The media would be all over these kinds of things if they were race oriented- but I see in every other store, the Hilary nutcracker, bumper stickers that beyond offensive; hell, a few weeks ago I saw a pick up truck with a Hilary doll hanging from the tow hitch- in a noose- and I live in a fairly progressive state. Who is speaking out about it? Where are the arguments that this type of behavior is wrong? I truly feel our society is getting a pass on blatant misogynist behavior.
It is not about which is worse- both are wrong. I also have to say that I am disappointed in your using the term ‘oppression olympics.’ It is belittling and derisive. It is not about which is worse- it is about the fact that both are wrong- and one is acknowledged as wrong and the other isn’t.
(Disclaimer: I opposed Clinton in the primary.)
Hillary was exposed to a ridiculous amount of sexist crap. Chris Matthews, and the other talking heads, disgusted me throughout the campaign.
I know of several female voters in New Hampshire who switched to Hillary as a protest vote, largely because watching Chris Matthews gloat over her Iowa defeat made them want to gag.
Cable news really is a boys club. They do know, more or less, that they shouldn’t be openly racist. But it was open season on Hillary throughout the campaign.
Now, none of this is intended to minimize what Obama faced. The attempts to marginalize him a “black candidate”, the remarks about “hard-working white voters”–that was all utterly disgusting, too. But none of that, no matter how ugly, makes the treatment of Hillary any less gag-a-rific. You can’t combat racism by being sexist, or vice-versa.
I don’t know. Has the Curious George t-shirt controversy gotten the play it deserves? (I would say no, although I do see the Boston Globe is talking about it today, so maybe that’s about to change). Is the “muslim question” discussed in terms of its thoroughly racist connotations?
Ms. Cocco’s mistake (or objectionable intention, if that be the case) is in implying that the analogies she draws are the only ones that are valid; that without “crude references to Obama’s sex organs” there simply can’t be racism going on at (or at least in the neighborhood of) the scale of the misogyny against Clinton. A few minutes of reading about the West Virginia primaries should make that claim pretty suspect.
i agree with auguste. people like to say that if this was racism and not sexism it would get more attention, but its not true. truth of the matter is there IS a curious george t-shirt, there are barack obama minstrel dolls, and i’m pretty sure mike huckabee just made a joke about obama getting assassinated. i think its just as easy to erase racism as it is to erase sexism, and the ‘victim olympics’ game really is getting no one anywhere.
i don’t see where she implied there has been *no* racism or that racism has not been a factor for Obama. i think she’s saying there has been more attention paid to race and racism as a factor – just the other day i heard a west virginian confess on the radio that she didn’t think obama had a chance to win because he’s black. disgusting, i know, but it still illustrates the point that a reporter was out interviewing west virginians specifically about how they felt about obama’s race. most of the political discourse i’ve heard about clinton from those same sources has had to do with how she should ‘do the decent thing’ and bow out when she still has a chance of winning, no matter how slight. funny how no one expects the male candidate in this race to do any favors for her.
*sigh* If I had a dollar for everytime I heard this
Alright beth, I will take you on your word, but I will ask this. How did you come come with a measure for how much racism has been attended to? By this I mean, what sort of metric system did you use to measure how much the media and whoever have paid attention to racism more so than sexism?
Like I said before it’s fine if your lens are trained to spot sexism, but please please don’t belittle those of us who also have to face racism by making false comparisons to the level of attention we receive.