Seriously, has Ferraro even had time to extract her foot from her mouth after her last mortifying attempt to explain the racial politics of this election? Where to even begin with what is wrong with this latest missive?
The truth is that tens of thousands of women have watched how Clinton has been treated and are not happy. We feel that if society can allow sexism to impact a woman's candidacy to deny her the presidency, it sends a direct signal that sexism is OK in all of society.
Okay, first of all: Is sexism a problem in our society? Absolutely. Has HRC been the target of sexism? Most definitely. Is Clinton going to lose the nomination to Obama because of sexism? I'm sorry, but I am having difficulty making that leap. Where is the evidence that a vote for Obama is an endorsement of patriarchy? Or that sexism is what has motivated a majority of Obama supporters? This is actually a serious question: Is there evidence to back this assertion? Does polling data confirm that a significant percentage of Obama supporters based their decision on gender? I know that poll after poll has shown that many HRC supporters voted based on race, but I don't recall seeing the gender question. (Of course, this may well be a Media Conspiracy. We'll get back to that in a minute...)
Then there's this little gem about "reverse discrimination":
Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist. They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.
Let's see...to start with, Geraldine, your statement in March was racist. Sorry if that's hard to hear. But in your world somehow it's Obama who is "playing the race card"? Um, call a kettle black much? White folks are upset because they "can't open their mouth without being called a racist," because they "don't expect to be treated fairly," and because Obama signifies to them that "their time has passed"? Seriously??? Please, help me understand this: I am supposed to buy into the idea of white men being oppressed by the emergence of a black leader and, out of empathy and "fairness" for these poor "Reagan Democrats" (who aren't "lucky" enough to be black), I should be mourning any minor undermining of white supremacy? Riiiiight.
However, as a media scholar I think what I find almost as annoying as Ferraro's lack of comprehension of the actual definition of racism is her plan to uncover the Vast Media Conspiracy that helped contribute to the (sexist, "reverse-racist" [sic]) plot to "get" HRC:
In response, a group of women - from corporate executives to academics to members of the media - have requested that the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University and others conduct a study, which we will pay for if necessary, to determine three things.
First, whether either the Clinton or Obama campaign engaged in sexism and racism; second, whether the media treated Clinton fairly or unfairly; and third whether certain members of the media crossed an ethical line when they changed the definition of journalist from reporter and commentator to strategist and promoter of a candidate. And if they did to suggest ethical guidelines which the industry might adopt.
Good lord. This is the kind of thing that drives people in my field up a tree. Just for fun, let's try to operationalize this in the comments, shall we? Please, let's all offer suggestions for how we will (a) define in such a way that we can (b) quantify and measure the Clinton and Obama campaigns' use of sexism and racism as campaign tactics. Don't forget, though: the Shorenstein Center studies journalism, so we won't be analyzing the campaigns themselves, but media coverage of the campaigns. Yeah, this is going to be a great study!
We can just cross number two off the list, since the Shorenstein Center has already done a study about whether the media have treated Clinton fairly or unfairly, which concluded that between January 1 and March 9, the "dominant personal narratives in the media about Clinton and Obama were almost identical in tone." In light of this, might I suggest a new number two? Let's commission a study of the Shorenstein Center to see why their media analysis is so biased in favor of Obama.
Oh, but it's number three that I love best of all: finding out (through "objective" empirical research -- which would be funded by Ferraro and the "angry women") whether "certain members of the media crossed an ethical line when they changed the definition of journalist from reporter and commentator to strategist and promoter of a candidate." Yeeeees. No agenda behind that research question. Really, how soon can this research be completed? Because I am on the edge of my chair just waiting to see the results -- not to mention the methodology section. What will be the unit of analysis here? Can we determine this by analyzing the coverage itself? Or should be looking at editorial policies and job descriptions? It's a good thing we're commissioning the great minds at Harvard to take this on, because my UO media analysis training is so not up to this challenge. Good luck, Shorenstein Center!
Really, seriously Geraldine: Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
This may be obvious, but it's dead week and I've got nothing better to do.
ReplyDeleteThe Clinton partisans are operating form two premises that are driving the argument that Clinton is the victim of sexism and Obama has unfairly used his race to his advantage.
Premise number one is that Clinton is clearly the most qualified candidate in the race. At the very least, she's way more qualified than Obama. Given that she's the most qualified, there must be some reason that the voters prefer Obama. The only explanation is NOT that Obama is more charming, charismatic, has less baggage, is a better public speaker, hasn't been involved in umpteen scandals, opposed the war from the beginning, isn't Hillary. It HAS to be that he has a penis. The only explanation is that people support Obama because he is a man, thus Hillary is being defeated by sexism.
Premise two is that the Clintons are the least racist white people on the planet. Thus, all gaffes and talk of "hard working whites" is just political reality that we all need to consider when deciding which candidate to support, not racism. And the accusation of racism in the absence of racism is reverse racism. So Obama is using his race as a way to silence legitimate criticism. (And using race a weapon against us is not why we liberated these people. You'd think they'd be more grateful!)
Obviously, there are a lot of angry women who were very much looking forward to Hillary being the first woman president. Now that it is not going to happen, they need an explanation. It certainly cannot be that people genuinely prefer Obama to Hillary (she's so real and he's so phony) that the media must be to blame.
And if the media was really against Hillary, they would have made it much clearer much longer ago that she had no chance of winning the nomination, short of a June 1968 scenario that is ;).
You know, this really does put me in an awkward position...because OF COURSE I am looking forward to a woman president. I just want it to be the right woman. And OF COURSE I know that sexism is a barrier to women in politics (as it is/can be in other realms). But I believe that it is ONE factor, not THE factor that Clinton is facing in this race.
ReplyDeleteIt's obnoxious to be a committed feminist and find myself arguing so frequently with the Feminist Establishment. But so often their analysis just seems so damn one-dimensional and simplistic. It's really frustrating.
And the (apparent) inability to understand how race and gender (for example) intersect in really fucking important ways is maddening! Why do we (feminists) have to keep having this conversation? I find it almost worse that Establishment Feminists make token nods to being aware of race (or other intersecting identities) without really changing anything about the way they think or act than if they were just ignorant and/or didn't care at all.
And one last thing: How is it that Obama is "playing the race card" just by being black, but Clinton is not "playing the gender card" simply by nature of the fact that she is a woman? IMHO, neither argument holds up very well. Again, total oversimplification.
I think they believe Obama is "playing the race" card by accusing the Clintons and their surrogates of making racist comments/arguments when that can obviously not be the case.
ReplyDeleteTake Ferraro. Please! (Pause for laughter.) She's not going to admit that anything she may have said might be racist. She's not going to admit that anything Bill has said is racism. That would be impossible because they are staunch non-racists. And Obama knows this and is just hurling the racist charge to score political points, or playing the race card, as they say.