Vibrations in the Woods

by Molly Ivors.

Read. Discuss.

And tuck in yer shirt!

(h/t res ipsa loquitur)

Comments

[Pat Johnson]

It is the same attitudes we feminists from the 60s were shouting about. And the popular press, some of whom we have raised since birth, are locked into the same mindset. Unbelievable! Sexism will long outlive racism in this country. "You've come a long way baby" was just a slogan.

[Bitter Scribe]

Meh. As the author notes on the last page, Obama, as a mixed-race man with Muslim family members, has plenty of prejudice to overcome himself. At least as much as Clinton, I'd say.

Clinton has the advantage in one regard: Her "minority" is in fact half the population. In any case, I'd like people to look at the candidates on their merits and dismiss those with sexist and/or racist outlooks as the assholes they are.

[Interrobang]

As the author notes on the last page, Obama, as a mixed-race man with Muslim family members, has plenty of prejudice to overcome himself.

Yeah, but it's not about whether sexism is worse than racism, or just what. Shrugging off the existence of sexism -- and I'd say more vicious, nastier sexism than any of the racist attacks we've seen on Obama,frankly -- as "both sides have it equally badly" is just dismissing the problem. In some ways, it's harder to be racist than sexist, because if you make a racist remark, chances are you're going to get called on it. If you even point out the existence of an egregiously sexist remark, on the other hand, everyone and their brother tells you you're "reading too much into things," "don't have a sense of humour," "being paranoid," or whatever.

I had a real "holy cow!" moment myself when I hit the part about Margaret Thatcher dropping her voice. I did the exact same thing when I was a teenager, because it somehow filtered into my prefeminist consciousness that people just don't listen to teenaged fat girls with big tits and high-pitched voices. I grew out of being a teenager, lost a lot of weight (but I still look like I'm overweight -- curse you, bone structure!), and kept my low-pitched voice. The boobs are bigger than ever; I wear knit tops a lot...

[Molly Ivors]

interrobang,
Yep. I liked the line "it takes a life to make a feminist. I've blogged about some of my experiences here, but honestly, I was one of those young woman who likes to think of themselves as the exceptional ones. I was a scenic carpenter at 20, and will never forget the day when my boss said "you're an awful little girl to be moving a big thing like that," or when I worked in fast food, and had a badge on my chest that said "Thing Big Classic," and my manager--again, an older man, said "that's what I always think when I look there." IIRC, in both cases I was shocked at the moment--it took me a long time to contextualize those moments.

But the "get over it" people just piss me off.

[Righteous Bubba]

Yes, Hillary's badly treated. When can she start being a good candidate?

[flory]

Too much to digest at once. Small things:

Professional women, too, experience a version of this and tend to be acutely aware of the assumptions that can arise from their choices. Do you wear the glasses to the interview, or take them off? Button up the jacket, or leave it open? Pull the hair up, or leave it down?

I've been hearing this stuff since back in the dark ages when I started in consulting and I've never known ANY woman that ever conciously considered any of this.
Maybe it's because I work in healthcare, which has a lot more professional women that most industries, but I've never encountered this.
Or maybe it's just because the women that write these articles are super focused on the trivialities. Could that be possible?

But some intrinsically female characteristics are more complicated to manipulate. One’s voice, for instance

This, OTOH, I've always considered just intrinsically un-fucking-fair.
Generally speaking, men's deeper voices are just easier on the ear and there isn't much women can do about it.

[Molly Ivors]

When can she start being a good candidate?

Define "good."

[nell]

I've been hearing this stuff since back in the dark ages when I started in consulting and I've never known ANY woman that ever conciously considered any of this.
Maybe it's because I work in healthcare, which has a lot more professional women that most industries, but I've never encountered this.

Anectdote isn't data - but most of the professional women I know (inc. me, btw) in academia and law and big corporations all consider and talk about these choices. For themselves and in their role as mentors to younger women.

Also - Molly - this is my first comment here, but I really enjoy your posts. I'm glad to have found you on the internet.

[the Rev Jerry Gloryhole]

Good article, Molly. I was a scene carpenter too, for a time. Smell of the crowd, and the roar of the greasepaint...

It'll take generations to curb sexism, if at all, I'd guess...it's maybe not even so much about 'women', as simply the perceived or assumed 'weaker' person. By that, I mean the simian nature to lord it over another, just to maintain status. We are after all weak vessels.

Like the rest of life, it takes vigilance, awareness, consideration, thought, to live fairly. If one cares to.
With so many living lives of mildly bitter desperation, I wouldn't be surprised if it took a thousand years for full equality. That doesn't mean it isn't worth continuing, or supporting.

You might consider kicking religion in the teeth, given it's traditional role in promoting inequality.
It works for me.

[Righteous Bubba]

Define "good."

Not bad.

[Pat Johnson]

This was an exchange between myself and a blogger named Jeff Gordon who was writing in defense of Randi Rhodes. In case you were wondering, sexism is alive and well judging by this guy.

Me
So if the circumstances were the same and she was hurling the "N" work at Obama you would be comfortable with this and chalk it up to Free Speech? Just trying to nail down the rationale.
Jeff
I don"t buy your analogy, because I don"t see how the circumstances could possibly be the same. Your hypothetical Obama insult seems to be inherently racist, whereas what Randi said is an opinion about Clinton"s values and loyalties. However you want to interpret any of this, I don"t think any legal speech should be censored. -- Jeff Norman
Me
So I guess what you are responding to is that racism (of which you accuse me) is blatantly wrong (and I believe we would all agree to that) but that sexism is okay because it is delivered as "opinion". Well now that you have made that perfectly clear let's all go back to calling women fucking whores because that is not insulting, just opinion. I asked for your rationale and I got it.

[Righteous Bubba]

Good riddance to Randi Rhodes.

[Tehanu]

I had a real "holy cow!" moment myself when I hit the part about Margaret Thatcher dropping her voice. I did the exact same thing when I was a teenager, ...

Me too. I didn't even have that much consciousness of what I was doing. It just seemed like I couldn't possibly expect anyone to take me seriously if I used that little-girl voice.

Professional women, too, experience a version of this and tend to be acutely aware of the assumptions that can arise from their choices. Do you wear the glasses to the interview, or take them off? Button up the jacket, or leave it open? Pull the hair up, or leave it down?

then flory said:
I've been hearing this stuff since back in the dark ages when I started in consulting and I've never known ANY woman that ever conciously considered any of this.

Not trying to be snarky, but I think that's just the point. It's NOT conscious, it's just ingrained in how you present yourself. I don't think most working women spend every single day obsessing about things like this; but that first interview or the big presentation? You betcha. And generally men just don't, not like that -- usually they have enough sense to put on a tie or something, but that's as much worry about it as they ever have. Generally!

[Molly Ivors]

Define "good."

Not bad.

Well, that clears that right up.

FWIW, I'm thinking of this moment in the article: “There’s no way you could put his words, his message, in her mouth and get away with it,” said one of the women I spoke with. “If you took his campaign message, his speeches, his everything and you put it on her, she’d be fucked.”

And it goes the other direction, too: if his campaign had done some of the stupid things hers has done, he'd be off the hook and cheered for being tough. EG "Hillary feels she has to attack me periodically" or "you're likeable enough."

[Molly Ivors]

Hiya nell! Thanks! (and don't be shy, silly!)

flory & Tehanu: I found this to be pretty striking when I first read it: Deborah Tannen's essay "Marked Women, Unmarked Men." It gets to just that issue.

[Mudge]

And Michael Moore is still fat.

This is the response of the bitter people or those who want to mobilize them to their ends.

[Kathy G.]

Molly, thanks for pointing out this article. My take is here:

http://thegspot.typepad.com/blog/2008/04/post-feminist-m.html

[Righteous Bubba]

Well, that clears that right up.

It's the straight-talk blog isn't it?

Here's the take I'm thinking of:

And seeing Hillary go on about how Obama has contempt for folks in small town America, how he's elitist, well ... no, it's not because I think she's either. I never have. But after seeing her hit unfairly with just the same stuff for years, it just encapsulates the last three-plus months of her campaign which I can only describe as a furious descent into nonsense and self-parody. Part of it makes me want to cry. But at this point all I can really do is laugh.

That's a bad candidate right there.

[Susie from Philly]

Molly, I thought you'd like this:

http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/15/10/56/ah-yes/

[rea]

We are such damn fools. Here we are, debating,"Which is worse, racism or sexism?" while the racists and the sexists run the coutnry.

[Molly Ivors]

At Atrios this morning:

"I've had a hard time trying not to wish that Monica Lewinsy would kneecap Hillary at some point and shout out, "He's mine! Do you hear me? He's all mine!""

and

"The menopause caucus is in its last throes.

Or hot flashes. We're not sure.

Actually, we don't care. Too annoying to get close enough to find out. "

Classy.

It's the straight-talk blog isn't it?

You want John McCain's site, sorry.

[res ipsa loquitur]

A couple of things:

1. Criticism of HRC has been, at times and from some quarters (public and private) especially sexist and ugly. This applies not only to her presidential campaign, but also to her campaign for U.S. Senate, and her stretch as first lady of the U.S.. I suspect she took a lot of the same crap before she was on my radar, i.e., as first lady of Arkansas and during her legal career. Bottom line: sexism is alive and well in America. HRC is its lightning rod.

2. HRC hasn't exactly been held back by sexism as evidenced by her successes at Wellesley, Yale Law, a corporate law career, election to the U.S. Senate, and now, a formidable candidacy for U.S. president. If she doesn't win the nomination, she will still be one of the most privileged and successful people in America. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best and insulting at worst.

3. It is entirely possible to separate criticism of HRC's campaign from sexist criticism of HRC, e.g., Saying, "I am digusted by HRC attacking BHO from the right." "HRC has jumped the shark" or even "I hate HRC" is not the same as saying, "I'm disgusted by HRC's shrillness," "HRC rides a broom to the Senate," or "I hate that fucking bitch."

4. Win-Win: If HRC wins the presidendy (or even merely the nomination), barriers are smashed and history is made. If HRC does not win the nomination, we've had a big and overdue national conversation about sexism. Bonus: Tweety is off MSNBC in great part because of that conversation in a year's time.

[Righteous Bubba]

I agree with res.

[four legs good]

When can she start being a good candidate?

Define "good."

A candidate who does not coordinate their message with the republican nominee.

Look, yes, there is sexism, and plenty of women have suffered terrible discrimination.

But Hillary isn't one of them. She IS the candidate of the old boy network democratic party. She's the one they are backing with their endorsements and their donations.

She was a partner at a major law firm. The democratic poo-bahs recruited her for a senate seat.

I have a very hard time feeling any sympathy for her whatsoever. And I cannot relate her "troubles" to my own struggles as the only professional woman on the trading floor at my firm on Wall Street in the 80's.

Sorry, can't go there.

[Molly Ivors]

I don't think anyone asked for sympathy. Just acknowledgment that, even if (when) she drops out of the race, the conversation will have changed.

I like res's framing, and the idea that this may eventually costs Matthews his job. But I wish KO would ease off too--I don't think we need to start every broadcast with the news that she forgot to floss or whatever.

[res ipsa loquitur]

But I wish KO would ease off too--I don't think we need to start every broadcast with the news that she forgot to floss or whatever.

I would like to think better than KO, but his attitude toward HRC shifted discernably after the Schuster imbroglio. I'm disappointed in him.

That said, he and Schuster and Tweety and the rest of the boys club are going to think twice (and maybe more) before the let loose with this crap in the future. Witness the (lame, IMO) NYT piece about Tweety. The author can see the wheels spinning in his head. He's thinking about what he says now before he says it. This is progress. He's probably going to fuck up many more times before this is over, but the fact that it's on his radar is progress. We can't stop people from thinking that way, but we sure as hell can shame them when they verbalize it, and especially when they legitimize it by verbalizing it on the freaking airwaves.

(And anyone who wants to whine about "censorship" and "political correctness" in that vein can kiss my ass.)

[four legs good]

I don't think anyone asked for sympathy. Just acknowledgment that, even if (when) she drops out of the race, the conversation will have changed.

I'm sorry, but IMHO, the conversation has been too much about whether Hillary is getting a sexist rap and not enough about what's good for the country.

Why should KO ease off? Some of us are genuinely outraged at how she's run her campaign. That doesn't mean we approve of sexism. But it also doesn't mean that all criticism of her is sexist.

For heaven's sake, I hardly qualify as a sexist. But I have certainly been accused of being one the past few months. .

My problems with her are real, substantial, and have zero to do with her sex.

[Molly Ivors]

4legs,
I suggest you read the New York piece linked here. It's pretty thoughtful, and mostly references Obama supporters like yourself, but who are uncomfortable with the increasingly vicious and often subtly--or not so subtly--gendered attacks on HRC. There are plenty of reasons not to support her, and I respect those, but "cunt" "whore," and "bitch" territory are off-limits.

[Righteous Bubba]

Look, yes, there is sexism, and plenty of women have suffered terrible discrimination.

But Hillary isn't one of them.

She's obviously suffered discrimination, and will continue to, which I think was the point of the article up at the top.

Materially she's doing swell of course.

[res ipsa loquitur]

4LG, I think KO has circled the wagons with the MSNBC boys. He doesn't indulge in the overtly sexist attacks, but he piles on her nightly. I feel hit over the head with it, and as you know, I'm firmly in BHO's camp.

[four legs good]

Molly, I've read the piece, thanks.

[four legs good]

4LG, I think KO has circled the wagons with the MSNBC boys. He doesn't indulge in the overtly sexist attacks, but he piles on her nightly. I feel hit over the head with it, and as you know, I'm firmly in BHO's camp.

I don't think he indulges in sexist attacks at all. He was also first out of the gate to apologize for Schuster. Yeah, he beats on her, but would you be as bothered if she were a man?

Maybe I'm just a crappy feminist, but I'm not particularly bothered by any of this.

[Tom]

If Hillary has done some less than respectable things during this campaign, that doesn't take away from or negate the fact that she has also been the victim of some fairly egregious anti-woman epithets, both from the public and the media. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

[flory]

Not trying to be snarky, but I think that's just the point. It's NOT conscious, it's just ingrained in how you present yourself. I don't think most working women spend every single day obsessing about things like this; but that first interview or the big presentation? You betcha.

No.

That's my point. Does a man consider whether he should wear the suit and tie to the big interview versus the polo shirt and khakis? Only if he's an idiot. He knows the shirt, tie and jacket are appropriate.

Do I consider whether to wear the deep decollatoge dress or the blouse and jacket to the interview? I'm not an idiot. I wear the blouse and jacket.
The fact that there are appropriate clothes for appropriate occasions is not de facto evidence of sexisim.
It's called 'common sense'. Or at least used to be.

[zuzu]

Look, yes, there is sexism, and plenty of women have suffered terrible discrimination.

But Hillary isn't one of them. She IS the candidate of the old boy network democratic party. She's the one they are backing with their endorsements and their donations.

She was a partner at a major law firm. The democratic poo-bahs recruited her for a senate seat.

The measure of whether she's faced sexism is not how well she's done relative to other women, but how well she's done relative to similarly-situated men.

Let's just take the law partner thing. I'm not familiar with the circumstances of her particular legal career, but I'm a female lawyer. Women don't make partner very often, and the ones who do have to put in a hell of a lot more work than the men do. In prior generations, women who graduated from top law schools with fucking sterling credentials couldn't even get jobs as attorneys while their less-qualified male classmates got plum positions.

Sandra Day O'Connor was one of those women. Just because she wound up on the Supreme Court does not mean she never faced sexism. In fact, if you want to compare her to William Rehnquist, her colleague on the Court, you can see the difference: he left law school and got a job as a lawyer. She applied to the same firm after law school (and she was editor-in-chief of the Stanford Law Review) but was offered a job as a secretary.

Clinton may have gone to Yale Law, but she couldn't go to Yale University as an undergrad because they didn't admit women back then.

Let's not pretend she hasn't been discriminated against.