An observation about racism and sexism in politics

[EffieBlack]

After watching the Democratic primaries play out this year and how the issues of racism and sexism were addressed, I've come to a realization about these issues.

Sexism appears to be more blatant than racism in the sense that people are more comfortable expressing sexist views in open conversation. We saw many examples of this throughout the campaign. Yet, by the same token, it's clear that it is also more acceptable to call out instances of sexism than it is to question instances of racism.

One need only look at how Clinton and Obama addressed these issues and the reaction thereto. Hillary Clinton was praised for "embracing" her gender while Obama is praised for "transcending" his race. Clinton, her campaign and her surrogates were quick - and often justified - in calling out sexism when it appeared. Clinton frequently complained that she was being treated differently because of her gender and also often noted how historic her campaign was in the context of what it meant to women. On the other hand, Obama rarely, if any, complained about or even noted the existence of racism against him and did not note the historic nature of his campaign and what it means to African Americans. And when any of his surrogates did so, he had to quickly distance himself from any such allegations, insisting that "I don't think this is about race." And I have no doubt that had Obama addressed race in the way that Clinton addressed gender, he would have been trashed for "playing the race card" and, in fact, would NEVER have even come close to getting the nomination.

When any of his surrogates raised the issue, not only did Obama have to quickly distance himself from any such allegations, the media focused on analyzing the validity of and motivations behind the allegation rather than whether racism was a problem.

For example, when Clinton or the Clinton campaign alleged sexism in the race, the media usually took a look at whether Clinton was indeed the victim of sexism, presenting female pundits and journalists to discuss sexism and how it was affecting Clinton. Yet, when anyone suggested that racism was a problem in the race, the media more often than not trotted out Pat Buchanan and other white "experts" on the race issue to argue about whether the accusation was another example of black people playing the race card - and rarely took a direct look at the problem itself.

After months of watching this, it has become clear to me that while sexism is still a serious problem in our society, we are much more comfortable calling it out, discussing and addressing it head on without characterizing the women who complain about it as "gender pimps" while race and racism are still such uncomfortable topics for many of us to discuss that attempts to deal with it are often met with dismissal and disdain.

[ellacott]

1. Excellent summation

I've missed you. I am always looking forward to reading you posts.

You are so right. People are able to discuss issues of sexism but when it comes to racism it seems that it makes many people uncomfortable. It was amazing listening to Buchanan and Scarborough try to speak on this subject like they were experts. When Bob Johnson made his comments in South Carolina at a Clinton event Joe tried to justify Clinton's decision to have him campaign to black audiences. Joe said that Bob Johnson was adored by the Black community because he founded BET. This shows that he has no clue and is not qualified to speak on the subject.

[dsc]

2. what an utter crock

To site just one example, last Sunday's Meet the Press. Excellently discussed at www.dailyhowler.com

On a network where not one (Matthews), not two (Gregory), but three (olbermann) personalities got in trouble for sexist comments about Hillary or Chelsea they had a panel where no one found any sexism at all from the press about Clinton.

Yet that very same network devoted countless hours to the racism involved in Hillary giving Johnson credit for signing Civil Rights legislation.

[Political Heretic]

16. No actually, the only crock is what you're peddling.

Rev. Wright dominated media’s presidential primary coverage.»

The Project for Excellence in Journalism has officially crowned Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) relationship with his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, “the dominant media story of the entire” presidential campaign, “by far.” Wright’s comments “received four times more coverage than any other theme or event throughout the campaign.” Reports of the superdelegate role and Obama’s so-called “bitter” comments were the second and third most covered stories, respectively. However, “o other story line came close to attracting as much coverage as the Wright-Obama association, and most of it was negative.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/06/rev-wright-dominated-medias-presidential-primary-coverage/

[dsc]

19. and whose fault is that?

Wright went and spoke not once, not twice, but three different times to three different audiences saying even more imflamatory things (and incidently that has not one whit to do with either racism or sexism). The simple fact is you literally couldn't tune into MSNBC or NBC without hearing either a) Hillary is a lying bitch, b) Hillary is a racist lying bitch, or c) Her supporters are old women who are racist lying bitches.

[Eric Condon]

27. Link to anyone on NBC or MSNBC calling Hillary a "bitch?" We're waiting. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. Boy are you wrong. Rev. Wright was the #1 issue during the primaries and polls

showed that. 24/7 non-stop coverage, not only just on Faux News, but all of the cable networks. The press gave Hillary the benefit of the doubt on the "hard-working white voters" gaffe, the "assassination" issue (though she had repeated it several times), and the Bosnia fabrication (though she had recounted the story several times as well). But the press succeeded in turning Obama into the "Scary Black Male" who is anti-white and an elitist. Elitist is simply code word for "uppity negro" who doesn't know his place.

To this very day, the media has been obsessed with Obama's 41% point loss in WV and 35% lost in KY, even though Hillary Clinton lost many more states by wider margins. The subtle undertones was that he has problems attracting lower-class whites.

So yes, even though they dismissed claims that Hillary lost due to sexism but admits that sexist sentiment was only marginally responsible; they totally dismiss the racism apparent in these exit polls, afraid to discuss the fact that many of these voters had admitted that racism played a role. Still, the pundits continue to address Obama's weakness in this area and what he needs to do to win over these people. I argue that there's nothing he can do. He can't change his skin color. No matter what he does; if these people admit that they won't vote for a black man, then I don't care if Bill Clinton suddenly gets a change of heart and campaigns in KY until Nov. 7. It won't change a thing.

[Skinner]

3. I think you might be right.

I suspect that the difference in how sexism and racism were handled by the two campaigns has a lot to do with demographics. Some people might not appreciate this angle, but here it is:

Women are 50% of the population, and more than a majority of Democratic Primary voters. So "embracing" her gender could have been a successful strategy. If we assume that such a strategy would have a positive effect for women voters, and a roughly similar negative effect for male voters (admittedly a big assumption), it would still be a net plus for Senator Clinton.

But African Americans only make up about 10% of the population, and 20% of Democratic primary voters. If we assume that "embracing" his race would have had a positive effect on African Americans and a roughly similar negative effect on non-black voters (again, a big assumption), then it would be a losing strategy for Senator Obama. Because every up-tick in the African American primary vote would correspond with a down-tick in the non-black vote that is four times as large. So Senator Obama probably had to transcend race in order to be a viable candidate.

One can't help but wonder if Senator Clinton would have won if she embraced her gender earlier in the campaign.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Er... .wouldn't the cynic *appreciate* that angle? Not "not appreciate"?

Or am I misunderstanding?

[Skinner]

7. Rofl. Good catch.

I'll edit.

[EffieBlack]

13. Interesting

I think you're right.

Another factor. Women and men interact much more than whites and blacks. Most men, regardless of race, have women in their lives with whom they interact regularly and infinitely. They have mothers, wives, sisters and daughters whom they love and resect and through whom they can see how sexism continues to pervade our society. The women in their lives can immediately weigh in and share with them their experiences and points of view.

On the other hand, blacks and whites do not interact to the same degree. Sadly, it is still very possible - and all-too-common - for many whites to go for days, weeks, months, years, and even lifetimes without having any meanibgful interaction with black people. For many whites, perspectives on race and knowledge about racism and its impact on blacks are drawn from a distance, not from any direct exposure to or experience with those who are affected by it.

This, in my view, leads those who have only seen racism from a distance to have more skepticism and less empathy regarding racism than they do about sexism.

[TahitiNut]

15. It's also a matter of a campaign theme that aims to remove the wedge from "wedge issues."

Using the metaphor of a courtroom, Obama adopted a judicial tone and temperament, not an oppositional advocacy posture. He emphasizes the reconciliation option as the primary theme, not "tit for tat." Further, he's the personification of a white-black partnership - it's in his DNA, as he points out. Hillary could NEVER present herself as a hermaphrodite. In her emphasis on gender, she attempted to EXPLOIT division and Obama exploited alliance and amalgamation. He had the advantage by virtue of the THEME, not the flavor of bias.

[EFerrari]

17. I myself just figured out the math of it yesterday.

Aside from any other consideration, the strategy that Clinton pursued with the gender positioning and also with white working class voters makes sense by the numbers.

Until it didn't, that is: the Clinton campaign may have underestimated how bone tired most people are of division in this country. Not sure if that is true, but if it is, then Obama's unity & change ("transcending") message trumped identification by gender, race and even class.

[Writer]

18. Skinner, let me add a couple of more wrinkles to what you're proposing...

The female population is larger, but women tend to eat their own. I think this is part and parcel to our nature. We compete with one another, and we have no problem being sexist toward one another if it means that we push our competitors out of the way. Even if Clinton appealed to women early on, I don't think it would have made a difference. In fact Obama's appeal to AA's didn't occur until Bill Clinton's comments during South Carolina that the Obama camp and others immediately construed into a racist attack on Obama, awakening anger in the AA communities from that day forward. Clinton's feminist appeal didn't occur until many women became angry about her treatment in the media, elsewhere - a feminist counterpart to racism surrounding Obama.

Another larger wrinkle I'll add is that the feminist movement has grown more conservative over the last 20-25 years. I believe much of this has to do with the experience that many Gen X women had growing up witnessing their single working mothers struggle to raise them. Children were not as important and the family culture was weakening during the 70's and 80's when many Gen X women were children. Divorces grew to 50% of marriages. I think some (some!) women in this generation took on more conservative female styles in response to these trends. Some became very conservative Christians adopting traditional wife and mother roles, while others realized that they can't be both a supermom and a superbusinesswoman at the same time, reducing their work expectations to part-time or less demanding career choices. These women are NOT apt to identify with Hillary Clinton, in fact, I would argue that a few resent what Hillary Clinton stands for - that old brand of feminism that caused them pain. I have read, on a few occasions, a few posters ask, "Why does a woman have to act like a man to be respected?" referring to Sen. Clinton. I think that alone illustrates the great divide between the older form of feminism and the newer "difference/lipstick" feminists of today.

[Number23]

25. Losing strategy

If we assume that "embracing" his race would have had a positive effect on African Americans and a roughly similar negative effect on non-black voters (again, a big assumption), then it would be a losing strategy for Senator Obama.

That's a very logical statement, but why is this a natural assumption to make? We're not talking about the man wearing a dashiki and swearing like Samuel L. Jackson. Why does "embracing his race" for a black man automatically turn off white or other races of voters?

I hear what you're saying and you're absolutely right. But it sounds so damn dispiriting.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Why does "embracing his race" for a black man automatically turn off white or other races of voters?

That's the racist part of it. The fact that a Black man cannot be Black without being perceived as having done something wrong. He goes to a Black church...so that's wrong. He is said to have "problems" with certain voters by Hillary Clinton (that was her story to superdelegates), as though it is Obama's fault that some won't vote for him because he is Black. This is like faulting a gay person for being gay as though he/she could have chosen otherwise.

Hillary on the other hand had the advantage of being able to use her gender to her benefit, and so she did.

It was apples and oranges...and yes, a lot of it has to do with the fact that women are not a true minority, and many differ on what sexism truly is. Black people are a minority, and there is little disagreement in our ranks as to what racism looks like.

As a Black woman, I believe that Black folks have it much harder than women do. Women have always had a protected status, even if they were being exploited and used a lot of the time. Black people have never part of a protected sect....and in fact, have historically been subject to attacks from the majority.

It's apples and oranges, although both are sinful.

[Number23]

28. True that

He is said to have "problems" with certain voters by Hillary Clinton (that was her story to superdelegates), as though it is Obama's fault that some won't vote for him because he is Black.

That was the part about Hillary's "Must-Win Democrats" strategy that cracked me up. Her definition of "Must Win Dems" being the NASCAR watching folks in very rural areas that have never come across a person of color unless they were serving them something and still have a deep distrust and even fear of black people.

Not only was her strategy a big-time setup because 9 times out of 10 these folks don't vote Democratic anyway, but the chances of them voting for a non-Caucasion person were about as rare as a hot day in January. She knew it, Obama knew it, hell everyone knew it. But because of the racial discomfort that still blankets our country, he ALSO knew he couldn't call her on it without somebody accusing him of playing the infamous 'race card.' Considering that Obama had to campaign with one hand tied behind his back the whole time, he most certainly did pull off the election upset of the millennium.

[EffieBlack]

36. And why is it that a black politician who strong white support, has "transcended" his race

while a white politician who gains strong black support is just popular with black people?

Why do black people have to transcend our race in order to be considered acceptable while white people just get to be people?

[frickaline]

4. I agree in part

One thing I found, when an incident of racism occurs, it receives 24/7 coverage by the media. When an incident of sexism occurs, it is written off by the media fairly quickly. Perhaps it is easier to discuss Sexism, but by the same token, it seems it is easier to write it off. I think this left a lot of women feeling their issues just didn't matter in this campaign and led to the bitterness they are now expressing.

[mzteris]

5. amen to that!

It's as if the claims are insignificant.

[kwassa]

8. Hillary really only complained about sexism at the end of her campaign

when she had little left to lose. She'd tried everything else. Clinton supporters had certainly been very loud about complaining about it early on, and still are. Likewise, Obama supporters, not Obama, had been very loud about claiming allegedly racist comments from the Clintons.

I think both are valid issues, but they are not deciders in the case of either candidate. We've come a long way, but have a long way to go, too.

[Terran]

9. Well said. We see that reluctance all the time, even at DU

The simple fact is, 'white guilt' is real and it makes it virtually impossible for a large number of people, even many Liberals, to face the facts when it comes to any discussion of the racial realities of the USA. This is exactly why there are so many people out there who will do things like deny the historical facts of African slavery to your face even when those facts are well documented. The closest thing I can see to this phenomenon is Holocaust denial. As with the genocidal efforts of the Nazis, the longer racial history of the US is *so* bad and *so* violent and *so* immoral that, rather than allow those facts to contradict the myth of the goodness of the American people, many just exist in a state of permanent denial.

I believe time will eventually erase these wounds from the 'soul' of our country, but 100-odd years isn't nearly long enough for it to have happened. In the meantime, we live in a climate where African-Americans, despite the changes of the 1960's, have to walk on eggshells with white people in general around this issue or face the rage that goes hand in hand with guilt.

[Catherina]

10. Very nice addition to the OP. K&R for both posts n/t

[Terran]

12. Thank you

Complicated subject and it's hard to say much that's intelligent in a couple of paragraphs.

[BlooInBloo]

11. Yup. We (white folks) have made an entire linguistic industry of ignoring racism.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Race is still, unfortunately, a "hot button" issue and denial of it's existence is the easy way out.

The "respectable" racism of "white working class", "white women", etc is just as reprehensible as the blatant racism of the "southern strategy".

[Igel]

20. I seek to quibble.

"On the other hand, Obama rarely, if any, complained about or even noted the existence of racism against him.... And when any of his surrogates did so, he had to quickly distance himself from any such allegations, insisting that "I don't think this is about race." "

Now, this is mostly true--and it's unreasonable to expect him to react in this way to every instance in which his surrogates yelled "racism!". However, he usually waited a discrete amount of time, until his surrogates yelled "racism", until the papers reported that they yelled "racism", and until it was discussed in what ways what they were yelling "racism!" about was, in fact, racist, plausibly or not. Then Obama would say, "Tut-tut, not at all," and everybody would point out how healing and forgiving his words were.

With HRC, she'd scream "sexism!", and everybody would point out how she was being such a ... well ... woman over it all, and obviously couldn't play with the men.


"... and (Obama) did not note the historic nature of his campaign and what it means to African Americans."

That's just false, unless you (trivially) have a specific instance in mind. A single counterexample will suffice.

I got a couple of prerecorded messages from Obama before the Texas primary. "I'd like to ask for your vote, and ask you to help to make history." His voice, introducing himself as himself: He owned the message. I've asked before: "History," in what way? There have been other males, other tall men, other college graduates, other short-haired men, other lawyers, a younger president, and another after 2001. About the only thing historic is either ridiculously trivial and pompous, "Make history by helping make me the 2008 Democratic nominee"--in that respect, repubs made history in 2004 by electing *, and dems made history in 2000 by electing Gore as nominee--or "Help make history by electing me, a black man." Which is it--is he pompous about trivialities, or was he asking people to vote for him because he was black? I go with the latter--the former is a bad reason to give somebody to vote for you. Perhaps the first president from a broken home? But I don't know enough history to know if that would be true, and it still strikes me as fairly trivial.

Now, all politicians tend towards the pompous, but I think he was implying race-related history. The entire phone message, repeated over days, and repeated by phone bankers, was predicated on the racially historic nature of the consquence of his clinching the nomination.

That I live in an precinct that's well over 70% black has nothing to do with it, I'm sure (most phone bankers paused when I answered the phone).

[EffieBlack]

21. Kick

[jonestonesusa]

22. Good post - I agree.

I appreciate a good discussion of racism or sexism, and you started one here.

[Number23]

23. Thanks, Effie

I have come to love your posts. And this one's true to form.

I think lots of people are perfectly happy and comfortable to be sexist, and they have no problem displaying that tendency in public. Even some women happily admit to being harder and less fair to other women. OTOH, even many die-hard racists who would rather pull out their own eyes than work with, or worse FOR, a person of color are smart enough to know not to put that out in public. The funny thing is, they actually think that other people can't figure out their prejudices anyway...

And I have no doubt that had Obama addressed race in the way that Clinton addressed gender, he would have been trashed for "playing the race card" and, in fact, would NEVER have even come close to getting the nomination.

NO DAMN DOUBT. Obama isn't stupid and he knew the minute he started reminding Americans of this country's history towards blacks, lots of white people would be running for the hills, including some of the ones who consider themselves to be racially tolerant or "color-blind" as they like to call themselves. But I have no doubt that our country is moving towards the day when a black man or woman can talk openly about the racism and discrimination they may have faced and not be perceived as trying to inflict wounds of guilt on whites. I am so proud, busting actually at the number of whites who support him because they genuinely believe he is a good man and a great candidate and not because of how "F-IIINE" and "good-looking" he is or because it's simply time to have a black person in the WH.

Yet, when anyone suggested that racism was a problem in the race, the media more often than not trotted out Pat Buchanan and other white "experts" on the race issue to argue about whether the accusation was another example of black people playing the race card - and rarely took a direct look at the problem itself.

Or they trot out that old permed poodle, the good Rev. Sharpton. Because you know, he is the official spokesman for all things Negro in this country. He has often had a few really good, salient points to make. But the minute that grayed-out perm comes on the screen, I have to sit on my hands so I won't turn the channel.

[undeterred]

24. People can isolate themselves from other races

to a certain degree, but not from the opposite sex. I expect we all have engaged in discussions of sexism with people we work with or live with, but not everyone has engaged in frank discussions about racism. So, its much harder to talk about in public.

[madrchsod]

30. why did`t hillary address sexism as did barack did on racism?

where was hillary`s historical speech on sexism in the united states , how it divides us, and only serves those who wish to keep us from uniting? i`ll never understand why she failed to do so.

[EffieBlack]

32. I've wondered that myself

A real missed opportunity.

[NashVegas]

33. She'd Have Been Portrayed As Angry and Nuts

Because three women never got jumped or killed for simply walking around Howard Beach.

[bridgit]

31. By the time HRC noted having received what she felt were too many opening debate questions...

the ball had been rolling along for some time. Perhaps they, M$M, felt they were doing what gentlemen do, like holding open a woman's door. Perhaps they were waiting for her hem line to pass, who can say for sure. But it was ugly. And it permeated our consumer culture of perfume, Red Bull, Victoria's Secret, and Ding Dongs

This, from DUer cap: http://www.womensmediacenter.com/sexism_sells.html

'And when any of his surrogates did so, he had to quickly distance himself from any such allegations, insisting that "I don't think this is about race."' Indeed so. And a good call. As a purveyor of "blank screens" that was one he would not care for any lingering, or ghost-like images to be seen. Therefore distance from, while nurturing nearness to: hope, change, freedom, thirst, etc. The greater loft & poetries of America The Beautiful and why not?

Politics seems the essential distress industry, and candidates are able to benefit from the distress brought upon others by sundry voices, or surrogates expressing tawdry concepts they would themselves never.

Thank you for your post :)

[Evergreen Emerald]

34. I disagree

Obama USED his surrogates to shout "Racism!" from the rooftops. All criticizm was angled through the prisim of "Racism!" by the Obama campaign. They used race to win, dividing and conquering.
Conversly, the minute anything about gender was mentioned, Clinton was jumped on by the Obama campaign (followed by the media after they got their Obama e-mails) and she was not even allowed to mention the fact that she was a woman. It was taboo to mention gender, to talk about it, to use it in anyway by Clinton, yet she was bashed for her Gender and not allowed to respond or she was "playing the gender card."

Conversely: Obama got to use his race to divide, to attack, to be considered "different and change" and to even saluted for giving a speech about Race in America. Clinton would have been attacked for using her gender if she had attempted a speech.

Obama was allowed to embrace his race. Clinton was forced to ignore her gender.
Obama used race to divide. Obama used gender to attack.

America is not ready for a woman President. She was treated differently in the media because of her gender. She was given more scrutiny, her mistakes highlighted, while his ignored--because of gender. When people point out her negative campaign, they ignore Obama's equally negative campaign, because women are held to a higher standard.

[EffieBlack]

35. Really?

Wow.

[ContinentalOp]

37. I couldn't agree more.

It became clear to me during this primary that casual sexism is pretty pervasive but that racism is deeper, more subtle (to some) and systemic in our society. It's like which is worse, calling a woman a bitch or saying that a black man is very well spoken or articulate? The former is uglier and more inflammatory but the latter betrays the kind of deeply racist preconceptions that persist in our society.

Sure, there were plenty of examples of prominent men in the media saying boorish things about Clinton but it still boggles my mind that so many Clinton supporters were blind to the blatant race baiting that the Clinton campaign engaged in. It's like if some pig on TV makes an idiotic comment about Clinton's looks most people see the problem and just roll their eyes. But far more insidious racist preconceptions pass on by daily without much comment. The 50% vs. 10% aspect is obviously a factor.