The President is a man, the First Lady is talking fashion, and all is right with the world
March 22, 2009
by Violet Socks, Editor
|There were a few scary moments last year when it seemed a woman might actually be the next President of the United States, but then the patriarchy got things back under control with Barack Obama. Just as Obama’s inauguration was an aggressive and carefully calculated display of male dominance, the media coverage of his White House is like a nightmare rerun of Ozzie and Harriet. Yesterday’s puff piece in the New York Times on Michelle Obama is positively gleeful:
On the president and her wardrobe:
“He’s always asking: ‘Is that new? I haven’t seen that before.’ It’s like, Why don’t you mind your own business? Solve world hunger. Get out of my closet.”
Yeah! That’s how it’s supposed to be. The menfolk run the world while the ladies worry about shoes.
The name of this masterpiece of journalism is “Mrs. Obama Speaks Out About Her Household.” I think the reporter must have simply dredged up some old Mamie Eisenhower or Jackie Kennedy pieces from the Times archives and plugged in Michelle’s name. Topics covered include:
- How she keeps her figure
- French fries
- Hips, and the value of pleats
- Silver belts
- Shoes, and how she keeps buying them
Most important of all is the President’s dismissive attitude towards his wife’s fashion foibles. It’s a standard trope of patriarchy, going back to the ancient Greeks: serious man, frivolous wife, indulgent teasing.
This is Act II of last year’s media assault on Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Just as those women were brutally attacked for daring to reach for power, Michelle Obama is now being primped and puffed as a good Stepford Wife who knows to stay in her place. She can worry about her silver belts and matchy-matchy shoes, while the men do the important stuff. And all is right with the world.
Violet—I love your writing and you always manage to frame things in a way that makes total sense. Please answer this question for me (I’m not much of a framer)—-why so I hear SO MANY women say that with a “strong wife like Michelle, Barack couldn’t possibly be sexist ?”
Where does that fit in with your narrative? I’ve been groping with finding a better answer…..
I totally disagree with the premise of this article; it is simply manufactured to project a dislike for Barak Obama.
Michelle Obama has been the President’s emissary to various government agencies; has been the point person in demonstrating passion and concern for the families of the Iraq war; complemented the President’s focus on education by reaching out to the various high schools in the D.C. area; made the White House part of the D.C. community and brought a warmth and genuineness to the White House by inviting children, artists and musicians which have made it seem like a home. She has also been a model of frugality – stressing fashion for purpose and style – not for cost and designer label. Finally, she has been an excellent model of a mother.
Yes, the “Mrs. Obama Speaks Out About Her Household” is a flush piece but blame the writer not Barak.
Cynthia,
I’d simply ask such people what they meant by “strong wife.” Ask them to name her accomplishments. Also, ask them how they feel about Hillary and ask them what the difference is.
That said ,good piece, Violet. It is disgusting to watch the media, and really sad to see Michelle Obama completely miss the boat with regard to sexism and what is happening to her. I can’t tell if her obliviousness is intentional or not.
Um, Kevin, I believe she did blame the writer. “This is act II of the media assault.” Clear as day there. Did you finish the article before commenting?
Anna Belle,
When I said “writer,” I meant Violet. While she is right that the piece is flush, Violet is making a mountain out of a mole hill. There have been countless articles and news stories on Michelle Obama’s tangible role with the White House. Violet choose this poor article to backhand Michelle and then blame it on Barak.
Cynthia,
Michelle’s life is full of accomplishments. She is a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, been a lawyer at Sidley Austin and worked as part of the staff of Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley, and for the University of Chicago Medical Center. She then been working on Barak’s campaigns and now has the passions I mentioned above in my prior post. At 17 years – yes 17 years – Hilary’s junior, she is as accomplished a person as Hilary at their respective ages.
Violet is certainly not making a mountain out of a mole hill! Those who believe that have never had their accomplishments reduced 24/7 to the way they look, how they dress, and how appealing they are to the status quo.
At any point during this stupid paper doll reality show they are trying to foist upon us, Michelle can take some leadership and show herself to be so much more then the clothes she wears. We’re still waiting.
yes Kevin, I am well aware of Michelle’s accomplishments. I appreciate your response, but it doesn’t really answer my question.
And I would disagree with Kevin’s assertion that Michelle is at this point in her life as accomplished as Hillary was at said same time-point.
Michelle and Barak Obama made the choice for Michelle to interrupt her career to be the homemaker while Barak pursued his part time educator and full time Politian career. I assume that each is satisfied with that decision and would not criticize it in any way.
That said, the choice that the Obama family made serves to validate the Larry Summers theory, now supported by a Labor Department report, and does not support gender equality. This ancient but reinvigorated theory purports that it is morally correct for a woman to be professionally penalized for choosing to have children but not morally correct for a man to be professionally penalized for choosing to have children.
uh…it’s spelled “Barack,” for those defending this empty suit.
[...] Socks at The New Agenda: The name of this masterpiece of journalism is “Mrs. Obama Speaks Out About Her Household.” I [...]
yttik,
Violet is making a mountain out of molehill because I have seen and read numerous news stories and articles about Michelle’s various tangible activities. The article chosen by Violet is not reflective of the coverage Michelle has received, nor the prominent policy and strategy she has within the administration.
bluelyon,
Reviewing HRC’s background a second time, I agree with you, HRC was more accomplished at the same age as Michelle. HRC is a remarkable person, not just women.
Cynthia,
I am not sure what your question is.
I interpret a “strong wife” in a similar fashion that I interpret the phrase a “strong husband.” Strong spouses support one another, at different times make personal and professional sacrifices for one another and find ways to achieve their personal ambitions while maintaining a healthy marriage, loving family and self-assured children. I believe Michelle Obama is a strong wife, hard-working professional and an excellent role model not just for women but for men as well.
Also, I, and probably Michelle, would disagree with your premise that she missed “the boat with regard to sexism and what is happening to her.” As a strong wife and intelligent professional women, she would would probably say she is “working her plan” in a similar fashion that HRC leveraged her tenure as First Lady.
Thanks for this Ms.Socks. I feel like I went to sleep and, when I woke, it was 1955.
Sort of a sad, Rip Van Winkle in reverse.
I thought the NY Times article – while it noted it started out reporting on the garden – was very shallow. To me, it was full of “girl talk” and should have been written more for a tabloid type magazine and not the NY Times. Was it sexist? I don’t think so. Whould this article seem sexist and show her as the “good wife” if she also was either working or chairing various charitable organizations? Or would we just consider it for what it was – a girl/Mom talk article – with a note that even though she is doing all this work – she can sit down and chat about french fries, pleated shirts, and feeding her children dessert.
Kevin—my question above was aimed at finding an answer to my question WITHIN the premises that Violet laid out.
I have had one of those incredibly beautiful marriages that you describe above for the past 36 years, but it still doesn’t answer the question for me as to how to respond to those women who say that because of Michelle, Barack (thanks SomeHopeyChangey—–I try not to write it too much) isn’t sexist. She may be as you say “a great role model” but that doesn’t mean her husband isn’t sexist. And I don’t believe that it gives an adequate enough reason for people to hide behind HER as the reason HE isn’t sexist.
I agree with Violet in her framing. Our president has had a tin ear when it came to women’s rights. I support him now in anything he does to advance women’s rights. But he is the product of a sexist society, and his sexism radar isn’t working very well. I know many men, my wonderful husband and two fabulous sons included, who see the women’s rights dilemma much more clearly than President Obama. It probably helped having a wife/mother like me, but they are their own people, and as such I admire them for their ability to see how much more ground women still have to cover.
For our President to get elected, he needed to jettison any compassion he may have had for women’s rights. And I don’t see that Michelle was much help in that department. There—-I might have answered my own question!!!!
Kevin – by the time Hillary Clinton was 45 (Michelle Obama’s age):
• She founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families
• She was the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation (appointed by Carter), and during her time as chair, funding expanded from $90M to $300M.
• She was the first female partner at Rose law firm (and for the record, being a law firm partner and being a law firm associate are worlds apart)
• She took on cases of child abuse at the Yale New Haven Hospital
• She volunteered at New Haven Legal services to provide free legal advice for the poor
• She was one of only two female faculty members at the University of Arkansas Law School
• She was twice listed as one of the most influential lawyers in America
• She was active in a number of organizations concerned with child welfare
• She was an architect of legal policy governing children and competence and was viewed by many as one of the more important scholar activists in this field in a number of decades.
• As chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee the same year, she successfully secured federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas’s poorest areas without affecting doctors’ fees.
• She fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association, to establish mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size.
• From 1987 to 1991, she chaired the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession, which addressed gender bias in the law profession and induced the association to adopt measures to combat it.
• Clinton served on the boards of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital Legal Services (1988–1992)[ and the Children’s Defense Fund (as chair, 1986–1992).
Michelle is certainly very accomplished, but I don’t think her accomplishments come close to the above list.
Additionally, Kevin, with regard to the following:
“Michelle Obama has been the President’s emissary to various government agencies; has been the point person in demonstrating passion and concern for the families of the Iraq war; complemented the President’s focus on education by reaching out to the various high schools in the D.C. area; made the White House part of the D.C. community and brought a warmth and genuineness to the White House by inviting children, artists and musicians which have made it seem like a home.”
This is all valid and impressive, but to be fair, Laura Bush, a woman without Michelle Obama’s academic and professional creds, did all this as well. Because of the unpopularity of her husband and possibly because of ageism, she wasn’t recognized for it. But let’s tell it like it is — this is a continuation of things First Ladies typically do, not a bold new agenda.
And finally: “Strong spouses support one another, at different times make personal and professional sacrifices for one another”
Maybe I missed something…. at what point did Barack Obama, originally junior to his wife at Sidley Austin, make professional sacrifices for her?
I’m glad I am not the only one who noticed it. You could tell early on that the BOites wanted to put the world back into what they see as the natural patriarchy order but what really surprised me is they actually acted like they were communicating with women with these fashion bulletins and Vogue photo spreads. Earth to men! Earth to men! real women don’t read Vogue. You are talking to yourselves again.
Another thing that stunned me about the BOites. They tried early on to substitute Michelle as the “victim of sexism du jour” to replace Hillary as the focus of sexist outrage for liberal women. Personally there is no need in me for a artificial focus of sexist outrage. I am too appalled with and aware of their sexist reality. But then I could not be considered liberal and now am not even a Democrat any longer.
Does a “strong wife” need to take her husband (or then fiance) along on a job interview?
Can I just say that having what appears to be a strong wife or a demure wife is not necessarily a reflection on the husband. This promotes a really damaging myth, especially when it comes to domestic violence. Strong, intelligent, outspoken women are abused all the time. When people try to say that Obama couldn’t be sexist because his wife is so accomplished, they’re really promoting a stereotype that harms women.
Kevin, our job here is to promote women’s rights.
Your job here is to promote Barack Obama, no matter what.
The two things are not necessarily compatible.
To the commenters who are noting that Michelle Obama is an accomplished woman: yes, she is. She’s also the one who’s been earning the money in the Obama household (and, as anna pointed out at my blog, buying all those clothes with her own money).
But the point of my post isn’t about Michelle’s accomplishments; it’s about how she’s being presented in the media.
The extent to which Michelle herself is complicit in this neo-Ozzie-and-Harriet fantasy is unclear, though she obviously is complicit (see her many comments, interview responses, and so forth framing herself as a Mom-in-chief, etc.) But she’s just going along with what the patriarchy wants. We know from recent history that if she tried to be a First Lady in the mold of Hillary Clinton, she would be excoriated.
The issue here is cultural: the patriarchy is pushing back against the threat to male hegemony. Hillary Clinton was turned into a monster and Sarah Palin into a sex doll. Now Michelle Obama is being heavily promoted as the “correct” model of womanly behavior. It’s a return to the 50s.
Cynthia, I first encountered this meme last year during the campaign, and I was bewildered by it. Variations include:
Obama can’t be a misogynist, he has two daughters
Obama can’t be a sexist, he’s married and has two daughters
I think the problem must be that the word “sexism” has no clear meaning for people. And the reason for that is because of the massive backlash against feminism, which has prevented people from learning or remembering women’s history, and has made all the terminology of the women’s movement seem jokey or foolish.
Obviously, being a married man with daughters is no bar to sexism; if it were, sexism would never have gotten off the ground. Most men on this planet are married, and many have daughters. Even having a “strong” wife is no bar to sexism; most of the feminists and “strong” women of the past had sexist husbands (ask Abigail Adams). In fact, women have often come to feminism because of their own intimate knowledge of oppression at the hands of husbands or fathers.
So the question for me is, what do these ignorant people think “sexism” means? I’m really not sure.
Thanks Violet…..that helps!!
It is almost inconceivable that many women do not know what sexism is, but it is true. It is woven into the fabric of our lives to such a great extent that it is hard for many to see it. And when it is called out, the attacks begin so swiftly that many women are intimidated from even considering that it is happening. Honestly, many women in my world do not get it when I talk about it. Others simply don’t want to acknowledge it. Many participated in the Palin character assassination and Hillary hatred, and they don’t even know why they are doing it. No understanding of why it is offensive and harmful to women’s interests, regardless of political affiliation. I believe this is a much bigger problem that we think. I think some women in this country don’t want acknowledge sexism or misogyny because to do so invites ridicule, alienation and rejection. I cannot believe that in 2009 we are even having to talk about this. I agree with the comment above that this feels like the 1950′s.
Violet,
I am not here to “promote Barack Obama, no matter what.” I simply do not engage in the groupthink that Obama is evil, a sexist or promotes misogyny. That position is a tremendous overstatement. Misogyny is promoting the “hatred of women;” I do not see HRC supporting a leader that has this as a motivation.
As I have stated on numerous occasions, I have these concerns about Obama:
* He is playing it safe with regards to women’s rights;
* He did not appoint more majority women to cabinet posts. If he had just appointed two-to-three more, particularly to the posts of National Economic Advisory or Treasury Secretary (having both Geithner and Summers was a mistake) or Commerce Secretary (where a former female CEO head would have been perfect), he would have appointed more women that any first term President and
* He has not supported Ms. Jarrett with a staff or budget
These are serious flaws.
Earlier this week I watched a PBS program on Betty Ford. While she was our First Lady she wore ERA buttons in public and spoke out directly in favor of gender equality. Michelle Obama has a ways to go to catch up to Betty Ford in regard to supporting women.
Kevin, you have completely missed the point of Violet’s post. What part of the post is “groupthink that Obama is evil.” Grow up. The article is demeaning to the First Lady as is Obama’s dismissive attitude towards her and her fashion choices. That is the point. The First Lady deserves better from the NYT and her husband. That is not to say that Obama is evil. It merely points to the evidence of his attitude towards women that is reflected not only at home but in the choices he has made with regard to his faux support for women’s rights. He merely pretends to support women’s rights. If it was not just an act, he would actually do something meaningful instead of being “safe” as you say.
Your attempt to use the fact that Hillary Clinton is SOS as a way to dismiss the premise of the post is preposterous. One has nothing to do with the other. She is so far above the pettiness that your comment suggests. Fortunately for women, she is using her position to promote women’s rights world wide notwithstanding the tone deafness of Obama and the NYT on the subject.
I believe it was Michelle trying to convince women not to work in corporations last year. Yes, that’s right it would be a shame for women to have power in corporations that run the world.
Well, keV, if those are your concerns then obviously they’re the concerns. I wish violet would stop being so silly and listen to you! Anyone care to join Me on the antidisestablismentarianism message boards? I’m not sure what that is, but I’m sure those who do will appreciate my essential insights into the matter.
Actually, I think you are. Your next sentence — about indulging in “the groupthink that Obama is evil, sexist…etc” is part of your technique. I’ve been observing your comments for several weeks, and it’s clear that you have appointed yourself as the resident Male Overseer of The New Agenda. Your job is to ensure that substantive criticism of Obama and the patriarchy is deflected. One way you do that is by focusing on single concrete points that are reducible to numbers, such as the Cabinet appointments. By acknowledging Obama’s failure there, you give the impression of engaging in “reasonable” criticism, as opposed to us “groupthink” women who keep pointing out the fundamental sexism at work.
Your agenda becomes clear whenever criticism veers into areas like Obama’s sexism during the campaign, his dismissive attitude to women’s rights, the grotesque misogyny displayed against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. That’s when you begin spinning your wheels to change the subject: what about racism! Obama didn’t really mean that! What about this thing that Hillary said! Or you fall back on patriotism — don’t we all want Obama to succeed? Etc., etc., etc. As I say, it’s clearly your self-appointed job to make sure Obama doesn’t come in for any serious criticism here.
And by the way, misogyny is not “promoting the hatred of women.” It simply IS hatred of women, and is fully compatible with marrying women, having sex with women, even falling in love with individual women. Happens all the time.
All,
I have spent my life advocating for diversity, inclusion and women’s advancement within corporations. But I believe in balanced analysis – if you write an article about one of the many articles written about Michelle Obama (and a poor article at that) to validate Obama’s position regarding women and women’s right, I think that approach is not fair and objective.
Moreover, at the same time that this article is used to validate a criticism about Michelle and the President, the EEOC just reversed its position versus Wal-Mart in a sex discrimination case that could have a class of 2 million women – yes 2 million women! This is evidence that a new sheriff is in town and that he will put resources behind the agencies and departments that enforce women’s rights. But this act – just last week – catches no one’s attention and got no comments when I mentioned it.
In my mind, Obama is doing two things. One I applaud and one that worries me:
1. He has signaled that the government agencies will be on watch for corporate wrong doing in the areas of equal rights and pay equity. I expect that HHS will get a lot of resources to push child and dependent care that are vital for working women
2. He appears not to want to get on a soapbox regarding women’s rights and make it a stand-alone advocacy which is why he did not staff the Women’s Council. I do not like this strategy. I say do both.
Finally, I do not downplay the sexism evident with the campaign but it should be viewed by also reflecting on the racism, ageism and xenophobia that existed. No candidate came through squeaky clean.
This post is specifically about the media coverage of Michelle Obama, and is only indirectly about Obama’s role in the patriarchal backlash against women’s rights. The Times article cited is in fact representative of the tone of coverage of Michelle Obama: People magazine, Vogue, countless supermarket checkout cover stories on her style, her dieting, how she is a “helpmate” to the President (positively Biblical, that one), a “mom in chief” and on and on. My post is about this Stepford Wife framing, which is so pervasive that everyone who isn’t Kevin can see it.
Actually, you do downplay the sexism in the campaign, and you overstate continuously the other “isms” in the interest of creating the impression that it was all equal.
But more to the point, it is absolutely absurd to say that sexism cannot be viewed without also simultaneously reflecting on all the other isms. Really? No civil liberty movement in history has ever succeeded by trying to do everything at once. As I’m sure you’re aware, the black civil rights movement in this country was not only sexist and homophobic, but notoriously unfriendly to any attempts to examine those ills, much less actually bring feminism and other justice movements into the picture. Arguably, this monolithic approach is one reason the black civil rights movement was as successful as it was.
Be that as it may, a liberation movement must have a focus for its own thinking and activism (though ideally while remaining friendly and open to all other justice movements). A movement that is about everything is a movement about…nothing.
People who go around saying that women can’t talk about sexism unless they also talk at the same time about racism, homophobia, ageism, Free Tibet, global warming, and the dolphins are people who don’t want women to talk about sexism. It’s a shut-up strategy, plain and simple.
No Kev, the sexism evident with the campaign should not be viewed by reflecting on racism, etc. Enough already. That is part of the problem. Sexism and misogyny get lost and overshadowed by reflections on racism, etc. Sexism impacts over half the population of this country Kevin. Wake up. There is no balance in the dialogue you want to have here. You are minimizing the problem by equating it with other forms of discrimination. It is time to have this conversation without equating it with all other forms of discrimination.
Thanks Violet for telling and explaining so perfectly to Kevin what he does. Also thanks to Octagalore for this wonderful list of Hillary’s accomplishments at age 40.
I also have a little story myself. My 8 year old came home with a Scholastic News paper about Hillary. The story was short and quite superficial. The main theme she was portrayed was that her “first ” was being a cabinet member who was also a first lady.
I thought it was rather remarkable that nobody before her got 18 million votes in a primary. If they would have gotten into talking about the difficulty to propel your career after stepping out for motherhood and being the first lady.
on top of that, the whole class besides my daughter were Obama fans and could not allow a little girl to be excited about the possibility of a female president. and even now there was peer pressure to put buggers on Hillary’s face. They could not give her the day for this even reduced role. spend a lot of time talking about the difficulty to have a minority opinion and stay your course.
Well, none of this is okay by me.
In case anyone was wondering.
http://nobloodforhubris.blogsp.....ureen.html
Oh, and violet and jere above are right, Kev, and you’re wrong.
Violet,
Interpret my statements as you will. Let the Obama hate party begin.
And there you go again. Any criticism of Obama or patriarchy is simply a “hate party.”
Kevin,
Kevin,
I’ve been following your comments for a while now, too. And I do believe you come from an honest place in some regards in wanting equity for women. I don’t think you hang out here just to defend Obama.
However, you should really listen to some of the feedback you are receiving on this thread. I have seen you deflect Obama and Obama campaign sexism by countering with “well there was racism, too.” It’s true – it’s your strategy to deflect valid criticism because you don’t want to look very deeply into the sexism that exists in our culture and the 2008 campaign. You just don’t seem to want to go there – but you really should if you care about women’s rights and representation.
Great article Violet. Totally on point.
Kevin, I used to buy your argument that we should not make too much of the sexism employed by the Obama campaign because all the campaigns used some sort of ism to try to win, although I never bought it completely, because I thought the sexism was much more accepted and prevalent and destructive, which is why I am here. To make sure it doesn’t happen again.
I wonder, what brings you here if you weren’t upset by the sexism in the campaign?
When I saw the the title of the NY Times article “Mrs. Obama Speaks Out About Her Household.” I could not believe it. I couldn’t put into words what I felt, except, to think, “here we go”. I wanted to barf. I didn’t read it. Violet was able to exactly express what I felt when I read just the title. “all is right with the world”. Thank you, Violet.
I don’t hate Obama. My feeling about him is “whatever”. I give him the respect I give anyone else who is a human being, but I don’t have respect for him as a leader. His campaign unleashed or exposed nasty feelings towards women, and when I see him taking steps towards fixing that, I’ll start respecting him.
Please Kevin if you want to be taken seriously by people here, take back your pronouncement about Obama hating. Implying that we’re hating Obama is very close to another familiar accusation, that of calling people racist if they supported Hillary or Palin instead of him during the campaign.
“…have spent my life advocating for diversity, inclusion and women’s advancement within corporations.”
I’m sure you have…..lol.
Violet wrote: People who go around saying that women can’t talk about sexism unless they also talk at the same time about racism, homophobia, ageism, Free Tibet, global warming, and the dolphins are people who don’t want women to talk about sexism. It’s a shut-up strategy, plain and simple.
Huzzah! 2 very clear, concise and beautiful sentences – love them!
It is just so hard to really make a man understand sexism.
My father was sweet, kind, gentle, worshipped the ground I walked on, never thought of raising a hand to me, would have killed any man who did, would have laid down his life for me — but was absolutely one of the most sexist men alive. My entire life and career dreams were completely derailed because of his sexism. Sexism doesn’t necessarily mean woman hater or abuser. My father totally respected me as a “woman” but not an equal individual with her own hopes, dreams and capabilities.
I, too, am disappointed at the way Michelle has been portrayed. But, as has been mentioned here, I think much of the problem is in defining sexism. Michelle has only been First Lady for three months, and the first young First Lady since Jackie. Her life is under a magnifying glass and I imagine she is constantly cognizant of the fact she’s a role model. It’s hard to please all the people all the time. Let’s at least give her a little time to find her groove.
Violet wrote: People who go around saying that women can’t talk about sexism unless they also talk at the same time about racism, homophobia, ageism, Free Tibet, global warming, and the dolphins are people who don’t want women to talk about sexism. It’s a shut-up strategy, plain and simple.
As a black women i think that is very offensive. I can t talk about the discrimination i face without mentioning rasicm.
Must be nice being a white women.
“It is just so hard to really make a man understand sexism.”
I disagree.
Just tell a man you will give them a million dollars if they can write a 2 page essay that defines, show examples of sexism in today’s world and how it negatively affects women and see how ‘fast’ or all of a sudden they understand sexism.
Lisa, no one’s telling you NOT to talk about racism. Women of color face both sexism and racism and should have room to talk about both, in feminism and elsewhere. But people are CONSTANTLY telling all women not to talk about sexism and one way they do that is to accuse feminists of not doing enough for every other cause under the sun (when those same causes don’t give a flying fart about sexism and misogyny); which is to say that the only way feminists are allowed to care about all those silly, frivolous, over-exaggerated, imagined, hysterical, unimportant, distractions called women’s issues, is if we take care of everyone else’s stuff first, because we are the women, and that’s our job.
Why do so many women of color feel that when feminists talk about “women” they are not including them and yet, when men of all colors talk about racism, these same women will assume they are included when quite often, they are not?
Be that as it may, a liberation movement must have a focus for its own thinking and activism (though ideally while remaining friendly and open to all other justice movements). A movement that is about everything is a movement about…nothing.
People who go around saying that women can’t talk about sexism unless they also talk at the same time about racism, homophobia, ageism, Free Tibet, global warming, and the dolphins are people who don’t want women to talk about sexism. It’s a shut-up strategy, plain and simple.”
Well Violet, Thank you for articulating why women of color do not feel welcome in this “movement” of yours. Some of us do not have the luxury of compartmentalizing like that.
You want to talk about the way that Michelle Obama is covered in the media, you cannot do that accurately without addressing the issue of RACE. Michelle Obama was viciously attacked as being some sort of millitant anrgy black woman for daring to have an opinion. How many women on sites like this one repeated the mememe that she was “angry?” That’s as much an issue of race as it is of sex/gender.
On this very site, Obama was criticized for not have enough “majority women” (i.e. white women) in his cabinent. That very logic goes to the double standard that success for a white woman is a victory for ALL women, but the same is not true if that woman in a person of color.
Most men can define a lot of it, but I don’t think many can define all of it. I don’t even think women can. The big things are easy to spot, but alot of the small things I don’t even think women agree on.
For instance, if I have a flat tire on my car I’m going to find a man to fix it. Period. I make no apology. I could probably do it if I had to, but I have no desire to try. There are probably those who would block me from this site for such a statement. I may even BE blocked for the statement, who knows.
LIsa on March 23rd, 2009 2:01 pm
Violet wrote: People who go around saying that women can’t talk about sexism unless they also talk at the same time about racism, homophobia, ageism, Free Tibet, global warming, and the dolphins are people who don’t want women to talk about sexism. It’s a shut-up strategy, plain and simple.
As a black women i think that is very offensive. I can t talk about the discrimination i face without mentioning rasicm.
Must be nice being a white women.”
Hear Hear!!! You know, the reason the term “womanist” exists is precisely because many black women felt that the “feminist” movement was oblivious to the struggles that we face as being women of color. We do not have the luxury of fighting ONLY for women’s equality.
Women who are not fighting racism, classism, homophobia in addition to sexism are missing the big picture and it highlights why this movement is so fragmented. Women fit into all of those categories so if you are not fighting for them you are not fighting for all women.
I, speaking for myself and myself only, would appreciate a little less “help” in the corporate world from men like Kevin. An outspoken misogynist who makes no bones about how he feels is easier to deal with than someone who pretends to want to help but sabotages anywhere he can without getting called on it.
Keisha and Lisa,
You are both misunderstanding Violet’s quote.
She is not telling black women to be silent about racism. She is saying that when people mention other “isms” as a COUNTERING response to talk of sexism, they are trying to end the conversation in regard to sexism right then and there. The mention of these other “isms” in this context is a silencing technique.
I am sure no one on this blog would suggest that African American women should not talk about race as well as gender. This was not the point of Violet’s statement.
…..
Here’s an image. Imagine any time you were to mention something racist or racial you had a million people jumping down your throat saying…. “Well, there is also ageism, classism, sexism and homophobia!” And that this countering was so incessant, it was impossible to have a conversation simply about race.
Does that make sense?
Keisha,
How are your struggles different from the general female population? I’m kind of embarrassed that this is the first I have heard about this. I guess I just assumed progress made for women was progress for all women.
Ali — I think you clarified this very well.
Keisha,
My question to you was not sarcasm — I hope it did not come across that way. It is truly something I had not considered and would just like to be enlightened.
“Most men can define a lot of it, but I don’t think many can define all of it. ”
Understanding sexism doesn’t mean you have to define every single aspect of it.
Carolyn, I don’t mean to presume to speak for Keisha here, but she mentions that Michelle Obama faced accusations of being “angry” despite the fact that most people would agree Michelle is a pretty cool cucumber, and honestly, fairly passive and that is one example of a unique stereotype that black women face. (Black men face it too, but there are different, sexist, aspects when people are trying to characterize black women as angry). Michelle probably overplays her passivity as a way to deflect from this.
This is just one example of many, many others, and women of color do face not only different forms of sexism from white women (another example is Hispanic women being characterized as somehow more or differently sexual than “normal” or white women; Asian women obviously get a lot of this as well) but then on top of that there is regular old racism heaped upon them daily, so there is a different struggle there.
It’s kind of like how it works with classism. My concerns as a lower-middle class white woman are often very different from upper-middle to upper class (wealthy) white women. I often feel like I can’t relate to their issues so I can understand the criticism of feminism ignoring the issues of women of color. I don’t understand the criticism that if you are mentioning sexism you MUST ALWAYS ALSO mention other isms or you are somehow condoning those other isms.
There is no doubt that there is a lot of overlap of issues for women and populations within feminism and we should talk about that but I do think a lot of people (mostly men) twist this legitimate criticism to get people to shut up about sexism. I am an anti-racism, anti-homophobia, anti-ableism, save the whales, have-my-eye-on-all-kinds-of-causes lefty liberal, and I still feel that women should be able to point out and talk about sexism and the harm it does to all women of all backgrounds without this tool used against us by supposed humanitarians trying to shut us down/up.
Quote:
“You are both misunderstanding Violet’s quote.
She is not telling black women to be silent about racism. She is saying that when people mention other “isms” as a COUNTERING response to talk of sexism, they are trying to end the conversation in regard to sexism right then and there. The mention of these other “isms” in this context is a silencing technique.”
As a professional linguist commenting here, I have to say that this deluging technique (bringing in all the “isms”) is a way to deflect from the issue, as well as a silencing technique.
Now, to what Keisha has brought up, and Lisa too: I don’t see why we can’t try to separate out the feminist issues and then see how far we go before we must confront the intersection with race issues, and age issues (for example).
From a single,personal level, it is difficult to do.
However, from a statistical, sociological, historical, anthropological,and psychological perspective we have to try and ferret out the boundaries and see what we can understand–push the boundaries, so to speak. We need knowledge.
Again, everyone’s personal experience is important, but we need a large picture too. That is what the feminist movement is about (or should be).
Keisha, would you please write up where you think gender and race intersect? Tell us more about you. We are all trying to have a dialogue here.
“Well Violet, Thank you for articulating why women of color do not feel welcome in this “movement” of yours. Some of us do not have the luxury of compartmentalizing like that.”
So….Keisha, basically you are saying that gay men are not allowed to talk about homophobia only; that they must also talk about ageism, sexism and racism at the same time.
Oh, and P.S. to all the posts pro and con Obama administration. I don’t care if every man in every government administration across the nation is pro-feminist. I won’t have fair representation until there is equal FEMALE representation.
LIsa said on March 23rd, 2009 2:01 pm
“Violet wrote: People who go around saying that women can’t talk about sexism unless they also talk at the same time about racism, homophobia, ageism, Free Tibet, global warming, and the dolphins are people who don’t want women to talk about sexism. It’s a shut-up strategy, plain and simple.
As a black women i think that is very offensive. I can t talk about the discrimination i face without mentioning rasicm.
Must be nice being a white women.”
Lisa, you are engaging in the same false argument that Kevin is. You have turned Violet’s statement on its head so you can justify calling white women racists. Wonderful. Thanks for sharing. Your comment is racist and highly offensive toxic nonsense. Guess what Lisa, white women also deal with many forms of discrimination (e.g. ageism, classism, homophobia) other than sexism. But I guess white women should just STFU because how can we really know what discrimination is because, after all, we are not black. We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t according to you and Keisha. One of the specific goals of TNA is to focus on sexism and misygony, which affects all women; young, old, black, latino, native american, gay, democrat, republcan, you name it, not just white women. I think most people in this country understand what racism is. The problem is that most people in this country DO NOT have a clue what sexism is and they don’t want to know. That is the issue that Violet is talking about.
Violet did not remotely suggest that you cannot talk about the discrimination that you face as a black woman without mentioning racism. She said that the false argument Kevin is making that the only way to have a BALANCED discussion about sexism is to include all other forms of discrimination in the discussion, all of the time, without ever discussing sexism in isolation from other forms of discrimination, is a TACTIC that is used to drown out and minimize the voices of all women (white, black, latino, gay, etc.) who want to focus on the sexism that impacts ALL women.
Keisha, It is nice to know that you speak for all women of color. And thank you so much for driving the racism wedge into the discussion even further. You think it is welcoming and inclusive to to white women have racism shoved in their face every time they try to have a discussion about sexism that does not include the “big picture” of all forms of discrimination, and especially racism? Violet was commenting on a ridiculously stupid article in the NYT about Michelle Obama. If the article she was discussing was racist, I missed it. But it was blatantly sexist. And if you don’t feel welcome in the “movement” here, as you sarcastically characterize it, that is your problem. The goal of the “movement” is to benefit all women, including you, not just white women. Perhaps you need to stop projecting your own issues onto others who are sincerely attempting to raise the level of discussion about sexism, an issue that most people seem ignorant of and do not want to acknowledge exists. If TNA is successful in that, all women, including black women and you, will benefit.
Perhaps the thing we are all missing here is that, all else aside, the election of an African American president was a victory against racism — just like if Hillary or Sarah had ended up in the White House it would have been some victory against sexism.
Some of our sisters in this movement might view this criticism of Michelle as diminishing that victory. I think I would feel the same way. We tend to compare the First Lady with Hillary — but Michelle didn’t run for office, and while her credentials are most impressive there is no “legal criteria” for being First Lady.
I remember when Michelle said at her husband’s nomination, “It’s the first time I have ever been proud to be an American.” Some of the media jumped on that comment but when Laura Bush was asked to comment she said, “Oh, don’t you think what she really meant was, that is the most proud she has ever been.” Kudos to Laura for reaching across party and racial lines for her “sister.” Michelle sent Laura a thank you note for diffusing something that could have been inflammatory. And, of course, Michelle meant most proud.
I think she is trying to strike a balance, to be a First Lady to all the people and I think she is doing a fine job.
[...] Quote of the Week 2009 March 23 by bluelyon “People who go around saying that women can’t talk about sexism unless they also talk at the same time about racism, homophobia, ageism, Free Tibet, global warming, and the dolphins are people who don’t want women to talk about sexism. It’s a shut-up strategy, plain and simple.” – Violet Socks [...]
Violet’s piece is bold and unapologetic. As a mother I veer my daughter away from this traditionalsexist portrayals of women. It does girls no good to coninually see women discuss things like fashion and make self deprecating jokes pointing to more gender stereotyping.
I have placed articles on the breakfast table about SOS Rice and Chancellor Merkle for my daughter’s political education.
I would never place this article in the NYTimes about Mrs. Obama on my table.
If the administration allowed Michelle to be herself ( maybe discussing her years at Princeton and her work in law and maybe her thoughts on women and political power) and the NYTimes wrote about her I would choose that article for my daughter.
This NYTimes sexist tripe is worth about as much as NYTimes stock- i believe they were relegated to junk status. Thanks for a good blog post.
Lisa and Keisha:
You are making a fundamentally false argument. Most human beings have multiple identities; black women are hardly unique. But social justice movements are based on eliminating particular types of oppression; they are not lifestyle clubs designed to reflect the personal situations of people. If so, there could never be a “feminism” at all, just as there could never be a civil rights movement, a gay rights movement, a fat acceptance movement, or any other movement. No one fits into a box.
The gay rights movement, for example, is about the rights of gay people as gays and about eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation. About half of all gay people are women, and lots of gay people are black, latino, or other people “of color.” But the gay rights movement isn’t about racism or about sexism. It’s about gay rights.
Same with the civil rights movement. It’s not about sexism, not about gay rights, not about anything but eliminating racial discrimination. This, even though half of all people of color are women, lots of them are gay, many of them are disabled, and so on.
This is elementary logic, of course. The question, really, is why this elementary logic evaporates when people start talking about feminism. Why is women’s liberation not allowed to have its own movement, a movement specifically about the oppression women face as women? It’s because sexism is so deeply ingrained in our culture that there is enormous pushback against it.
We do have our own movement now Violet.
They call it The New Agenda. We stand for all women.
Also, I note the remarkable transformation that happened there from my comment to Lisa and Keisha’s interpretation. I said it was absurd to say that women musn’t be allowed to talk about sexism without also discussing every other from of discrimination; they flipped that to mean that women shouldn’t be allowed to talk about any form of discrimination but sexism. Very strange.
By the way, I wonder how it would work if someone told the NAACP that from now on, any discussion of racism must be accompanied by full discussion of sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, ageism, ablism, and every other form of discrimination on earth. New rule! Anytime anyone mentions racism, they must at the same time discuss every other form of oppression. Every. Single. Time. No individual analysis or discussion of racism is to be allowed. Wonder how that would go over?
Ya know Michelle is an Ivy League educated woman. I’m surprised that she allows the press to do this to her. She is extremely bright. Why would she let them focus on this garbage?
Now that’s an interesting question: why?
My personal belief is that the Obama team made a calculated decision that the American public could only handle one revolutionary change at a time, and that was electing the first African-American president. They decided that in all other respects, the Obama candidacy and presidency would be soothing and completely in line with traditional Americana, hence the Ozzie-and-Harriet stuff. Michelle is supposed to be a Jackie Kennedy type in terms of fashion, a Mamie Eisenhower type in terms of being domestic, they have the happy family thing going (two kids and a dog, even), Obama talks about religion and praying and all that stuff. I think his whole deal is to be as close as possible to a Norman Rockwell painting — except that the family is black. I believe his team decided that this would be the best way to make the racial change acceptable to the broadest number of people.
I’m just guessing, though.
Say what you will about President W. Bush, but Laura Bush managed IMO to come across as an outspoken advocate for children around the world.
Violet, Ali — good distinctions. Nobody’s talking about avoiding the intersections, just maintaining gender as either the focus or part of the intersection which is the focus. That can mean dealing with the issues of WOC, disabled women, women of different classes, etc. It doesn’t mean veering into discussions of other isms without the gender lens — the latter, as others point out above, is basically just liberalism generally. And for that, there are plenty of places to go, and feminists go to those places as well. There needs to be a place that centers gender, and we know no other movement is going to do that.
Well, I would put it quite a bit more strongly than that. Feminism is about fighting sexism. That’s what it’s about, and no apology is needed.
Can you imagine if the Jewish Anti-Defamation League re-vamped its program to say that it was going to focus on anti-Semitism merely as part of an intersection of oppressions, while still of course tackling poverty, homophobia, racism, agesim, etc., etc., etc….
“Can you imagine if the Jewish Anti-Defamation League re-vamped its program to say that it was going to focus on anti-Semitism merely as part of an intersection of oppressions, while still of course tackling poverty, homophobia, racism, agesim, etc., etc., etc….”
LOL! No, I cannot see that happening. Additionally, I don’t think they would be very successful.
Carolyn on March 23rd, 2009 12:35 pm, said:
“It is just so hard to really make a man understand sexism.”
Such men don’t perceive understanding sexism to be in their self interest.
I notice the comments from Kevin suddenly stopped. Has he been tossed off the board like many others who dared defend Obama? I
have seen that happen here repeatedly. If as Amy says, this is an organization for ALL women, and non-partisan, it must be open to those who like Obama and want to further women’s rights.
Just when it seems TNA is moving in that direction, the piling onto Kevin (and the chilling note that the editor has been “watching” his comments for weeks) shows a disappointing streak of neo-fascist group-think that will continue to marginalize TNA.
Violet, I find your comments toward him very disappointing, narrow-minded, and hostile to open debate. If he has indeed been banned, it’s a sad commentary.
Kevin has not been banned. He just stopped commenting.
Please name the “many others who dared defend Obama” who have been banned. There aren’t any. The only people we’ve banned are abusive trolls.
Ah yes, much better for the editor to leap in and make snap judgements without taking time to see how a commenter behaves on the board, the kind of arguments he/she makes, etc.
This will make you happy: in your case I think I’ll skip the weeks of getting-to-know-you and simply ban you now. “Neo-fascist group think”????? Are you kidding?
In fact Kevin has dominated the blog so consistently in his “Male Overseer” mode that I have received a number of complaints about him. So have the other founders. Several people have let me know that they will no longer participate in the blog as long as Kevin is allowed to Lecture The Women in thread after thread about what we are and are not allowed to find sexist. Kevin is perfectly welcome to comment here as long as he remembers that, unlike that infamous article in The Onion, women are not simply waiting around for a man to take charge of this feminism thing and tell us what to do and how to think.
It has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with our freedom to analyze and critique sexism wherever we find it.
While I rarely comment here, Violet, please add my voice to those who no longer wish to hear Kevin’s constant patronizing condescension. I have begun to question TNA’s commitment to being a strong voice for women when its leaders allow us to be bullied and dominated by this self-appointed Male Overseer (as you so aptly put it). Tolerating men like Kevin is what will marginalize TNA.
I had thought of attending this weekend’s meeting in Boston, but I’m not interested in a women’s rights organization whose leaders are content to take a backseat to the menfolk.
Nell, I could not agree more!
“Well, I would put it quite a bit more strongly than that. Feminism is about fighting sexism. That’s what it’s about, and no apology is needed.”
Agree. The sexism needs to be the core of a feminist discussion. Where I was going is that if sexism takes a different form with different populations, that’s part of the analysis too. But you’re right, if the gender aspect isn’t the basis of the analysis, it’s one more apology.
First let me appologise for not responding sooner. I was in meetings all afternoon and did not really feel like talking much once they were over.
Secondly there is something odd about this page in that half of the messages are being cut off.
All that said, here is my response. For those comparing this movement to the LGBT or other movements, you are wrong in your assesment and obviously have not been paying very close attention to what goes on within them. Take the LGBT movememnt for ibnstance, there has LONG been criticism that it is too myopic. Both women and people of color (to say nothing of those not in the upper economic classes) have long complained that theey were being ignored by the so called leaders. Talk to a few women deeply involved in the movement and you will find that it has been a challenge to get the voices of women heard right from the begining. Check some of the commentary on the Prop 8 debate and you will see that one of the complaints levied against the No on 8 leadership was that it did not cover all of its bases and left huge gaps with underserved communities that other institutions were able to exploit. Conversely, the civil rights movement has been comming under increasing pressure to address LGBT issues and stop pretending like they don’t exist. The point being that when all those movements focus exclusively on one issue they miss the big picture and in turn don’t have the complete support that they could have had they been addressing all of the issues that impact the lives of the people they claim to represent.
Raceism in INTEGRAL to understanding the depictions of Michelle Obama. You cannot understand the coverage of her and the Obama’s responses unless you understand the role that both sexism AND racism have on both of them. As I pointed out before, when Michelle spoke about it being the first time that she was “really” pround of her country, that was twisted against her. Nor was there any attempt to understand her perspective as a black woman and what she was really saying. It took a white woman like Laura Bush to legitimize what she said. WHY? Why did it suddenly become so easy for people to describe her as angry or some sort of militant? People that actually met and interacted with her found her to be the exact opposite of that depiction. There were even discussion about whether or not Michelle was a liability to her husband for you know, having an opinion and being willing to express it no matter how mild. Remember at the begining of the campaing she was told to just be herself. The resulting attacks forced the change. Thus the campaign was forced “tone her down” and keep her away from anything controversial. They had her talking about being a mother and wife, and that suddenly made her safe and less scary to middle America. That was not just sexism, it was out right racism built on the idea that the Obamas were some how foreign and “the other.”
Equally important to many black women like myself is the recognition that sexism and racism intersect in different ways and manifest themselves in peculiar ways in American society. We as women know the struggles that all women endure. However, black women (and mothers) in particular also know that the sexism line is not totally clear once race is involved. For instance, the assertion that black men some how have it easier in our society is a joke. ANY black mother will tell you that though they have strong feelings about how their girls will be treated, its the fate of their boys/men that they fear for the most. I may get mistrated in this society, but my brother is far more likely to be aressted or killed for simply being a black man in the wrong place at the wrong time. Black men endure a different kind of sexism in our society. They are also seen as angry and in turn dangerous. Black women are more likely to get an education (which is starting to happen for women in all demographics), black men are far more likely to go to jail. This is why it enraged me so much during the election when some white women attempted to convey the idea that some how being a black man in America is easier than being being a woman of race. That is not necessarily true for black and hispanic men.
This is why when discussing sexism you cannot simply state that it will be your only focus. The moment race and class enter into the mic, things get far murkier…which is why they all must be addressed.
End of sermon
Agree with Nell an Jere. to call TNA moderator “neofascist ” for calling out patronizing behavior, which took an awful lot of space int these threads, that is where we have to wake up and draw the line.
Keisha, you certainly have a right to your opinion. But you do not speak for all women of color, and you are mistaken that “ANY” black mother would say the same.
I’ve been a feminist since the early 70s, and have worked and lived side by side with black feminists. Many, many black women are of the opinion that they are doubly burdened, that they have it much worse than black men because they suffer from both racism and sexism. They reject (bitterly sometimes) the valorization of The Black Man’s Struggle, as it is presented by the black patriarchal civil rights movement.
But as I say, you have every right to your own opinion. I just feel compelled to note that you do not speak for all women of color, not by a long shot.
Am I the only one who thinks this gentle roll out of Michelle Obama could be intended to be the beginning of the shaping of the 2016 democratic presidential candidate? Politics is as much marketing as it is legislating. If Michelle can be presented as having the likability of Laura Bush and the acumen of Hillary Clinton, the Obamas could realize the Clinton’s dream of a 16 year control of the White House.
The Camelot throw back does not resonate with me. It is for that reason that I look to identify other motivation.
Nor would I pretend to speak for EVERY member of any group of people. But somehow, I suspect that I have a better idea of what black women and women of color experience on a daily basis and go through in their own lives and with their families than you ever could. You neither know nor understand what it means to be a woman of color raising boys and girls in this society. For you to sit there and pretend that you have some sort of greated insight than someone who lives this life every day is a bit arrogant. It is equally arrogant for you to dismiss the REAL LIFE experience of me and my black sisters somehow validating some kind of black patriarchy.
It is this dismissive attitude that led to the birth of the womanist movement in the first place. You are free to angrily dismiss the perspective that I and others like me bring to the table. But the next time you find yourself wondering “why aren’t they standing with us” you’ll already have your answer.
Before anyone else gets twisted out of shape — what I should have said is that it is hard for a lot of men to understand the NUANCES of sexism. It is frustrating to have my comment “lifted out of” the entire explanation that came after.
We had this discussion at the link Octogalore provided.
The claims that Michelle Obama is “angry” is mostly racism. There was recently an article in Huffington Post about how the sexually targeting and assault of Asian women should be called hate crimes. I agree they should be called racial hate crimes.
BUT MOST OF THE SEXISM FACING WOMEN OF COLOR IS INTRA-RACIAL that is most sexism faced by women of color is in their own communities. This is true in my case and it is sexism that has nothing to do with racism. It is what Violet and Octogalore are talking about here. Sexism is universal.
I think the focus on racist sexism is a version of what Kevin is doing which is to prevent discussions about sexism including sexism in communities of color. I’ve been online for five years and women of color will talk til the cows come home about inter- and intra-racial racism and interracial sexism but they will very rarely address intra-racial sexism.
We also discussed at the link Octogalore provided how communities of color are not intersectional/receptive to gender intersections so that women of color (such as myself, Octogalore’s Asian sisters and another Asian commenter) are forced to bring both their issues of sexism and racism into feminism. Including issues mostly about racism.
Communities of color are so hostile to discussions of sexism which is why some women of color (such as yours truly) become feminists in the first place.
Black women are targeted and face violence by police all the time. They’re more likely to go to jail, too. They also face the highest rates of domestic violence and sexual assault. Do black women feel responsible for the well-being and care-taking of black men? Do black men feel responsible for the well-being and care-taking black women?
http://www.wavawnet.org/commun.....-community
OK.
Domestic violence rates are not higher for WOC. DV impacts all women across racial, socio-economical and religious lines in our country equally
The thing we all have in common here is that we are female. I cannot speak with passion or experience from any other point of view. If we want to slice it all upside down and sideways, I have seen, just posting on this site that some of the issues I face as a SOUTHERN woman is different. But I still say (forgive me for being so redundant) that the best answer for all of us is equal representation in government.
The suffrage movement did one thing and it did it for all women and I don’t think any woman was harmed by having won that right.
I have to wonder if there is at least one Woman of Color, somewhere in our society whose viewpoint would be:
‘When I was sexually used and abused as a prepubescent girl by Men of Color those were purely sexist acts. Further, those sexist acts did me more harm than the accumulation of racist acts that I have encountered over the course of my life.’
Maybe it depends what study or what statistics you’re using, but a quick search finds that it is commonly stated that black women face the highest rates of domestic violence:
http://www.whataboutourdaughte.....en-harder/
http://www.ocadsv.com/OCADSV_W.....fColor.asp
http://womenofcolornetwork.org.....tSheet.pdf
And my comment above about black women facing the same things from police, etc. was directed at Keisha. I feel so sorry for women who can’t allow themselves to be “selfish” enough to look out for and protect themselves when they are more likely than the men they are trying to protect to be victimized.
Actually Asian American women have the highest domestic violence rate which I just wrote about at Violets:
I just noticed from my link on the other thread that 41-60% of Asian American women experience domestic violence (Asian Pacific Islander American Health Forum, 2005) which is much higher than the national average, 31% (Commonwealth Fund, 1999), and higher than African-American women who experience domestic violence at rates 35% higher than white women (U.S. Department of Justice, 2000).
http://www.apiahf.org/apidvins.....tsheet.htm
And the U.S. Department of Justice says it’s mostly INTRA-RACIAL and culturally based.
http://endabuse.org/userfiles/.....Voices.pdf
From the link:
The majority of the participants believed that domestic violence
against women stems from a legacy of patriarchy and sexism that is widespread in many Asian American communities. As a result, women are socialized to believe and accept that violence in a relationship is acceptable, that male power expressed abusively is part of the cultural milieu, and therefore batterers are not held accountable for their behavior in their own communities. Also, women continue to believe that they are worthless, and that revealing the situation to anyone can be a cause of great shame to their families and communities.
Who Are the Victims?
Women 22
Children 7
Family 5
Community 5
Men 1
Batterers 1
Pets 2
Who Are the Perpetrators?
Male partners 20
What Can the Community do?
Educate community
Interesting info Donna – and the % on Asian and Pan Islander women is shocking.
The one counterpoint I have to you on the patriarchy notion is this: in lesbian couples 30% of women experience dv. This to me disspells the notion that this is strictly patriarchy at play. VAW seems to be a blend of sociological AND psychological factors. If we ignore the latter, we will fall short.
41-60%??? Roughly half of Asian American women??? One out of two??? That is so upsetting.
Rant coming on….please bear with me….
“ANY Black mother will tell you that though they have strong feelings about how their girls will be treated, its the fate of their boys/men that they fear for the most”
I’m sorry, but as a WOC that statement makes me want to beat my head against the wall and lay down in the street. That’s why I became a feminist in the first place. That’s why there IS feminism in the first place. I don’t feel like I’m any less likely to be killed or arrested (or harassed, sexually and otherwise) by cops than my male cousins. I’m way the hell more likely to be beaten or raped than my male cousins. The only difference, to me, is that if it happens to me, nobody will talk about i, nobody will march about it, nobody will care. At best, I’ll get a little blurb nobody will read on What About Our Daughters? while the mainstream, big feminist blogs will pick out a well known, already wildely decried story about a MOC and say that that’s a feminst issue because that man had a mother who loved him. To me, that statement is the problem, not something that needs to be enshrined in feminism. I’m TIREDof not mattering.
“Black women are more likely to get an education (which is starting to happen for women in all demographics”
This statement makes me want to scream, too. I don’t wnat to discuss it in detail because it is way too complicated (too intersectional if you wnat to put it that way), but I’m sick of MOC using stats like that as some kind of proof that WOC live on easy street and sit around eating bon bons all day and saying the idea that we’re somehow more oppressed than they in many ways is laughable.
“This is why it enraged me so much during the election when some white women attempted to convey the idea that some how being a black man in America is easier than being being a woman of race.”
The point of intersectionality is not to make some kind of ranking of who’s actually oppressed and who should just shut up. That is enraging and wrong, but on the flip side you had plenty of MOC telling white women that they live on easy street and eat bon bons all day. That didn’t sit right with me because it sounded very familiar to white I’ve been told by white men, MOC, white women, and yes, WOC too.
About Michelle Obama, you make some good points, but, it’s also true that she go away with making a lot of statements that any one else in her position would have been roasted for (such as not committing to voting for her husband’s primary opponent). She didn’t get a complete free pass, but she was let off very easy. If these was an ordinary year, with only men running on both sides, she would have been shredded to teh bone with racist and sexist attacks for being a black woman with an opinion. But I feel like because the danger of having an outspoken First Lady was not as threatening to the Establishment was not as severe as having a female President or Vice President, they laid off her as long as she went along with the sexist attacks against other women, “She can’t run her own house, how can she run the White House,” “Don’t vote for cute,” “I buy my own clothes,” etc. When Bill Clinon was running, Hillary was attacked harder for a lot less. But as long as she;s against other women, she’s okay. (And, frankly, while I agree that angry is a racial buzzword Hillary also got a lot of the deranged unAmerican stuff as prospective First Lady, and she knows about scaring middle america, too). So I understand about foreign and the other, but since Michelle seemed to get off a lot easier than not only HRC and SP ’08, but even HRC when Bll was running, and combined with the fact that she was actively using sexism to her advantage against other women, I can also see why people would alternately regard it as positioning herself as the anti-HRC the 1950′s housewife who’s just appalled at someone who thinks she could be co=President.
As for “majority women,” are we gonna go there, really? Obama has fewer women in his cabinet than Bush. How about let’s do this, let’s get obama to nominate WOC to all positions in teh Cabinet and see if femnists complain about the underrepresentation of white women, because I bet they won’t–but something tells me he won’t, either. So we’re supposed to be happy with all male, mostly all-white spaces with one or two MOC to stick it to “majority women” and hey we never expected anything anyway so it’s okay we get shut out too? Why is it always our duty to align oursleves with men against women?
Sorry if this sounded disrespectful, but I have just gotten FED UP over the course of this campaign. If this is womanism, it doesn’t sound too great to me. And it shouldn’t be what feminism is all abut, it sounds like why I wnated to be one in teh first place. I f certain WOC have other priorities and want to put women way down on the priority list of social justice issues, that’s fine. But asking feminists to do that is not fine. I understand that when feminists say “women,” they’re too often thinking of just white women. But asking them to play the role of alyways putting their sons first is not the answer.
“Black women are targeted and face violence by police all the time. They’re more likely to go to jail, too. They also face the highest rates of domestic violence and sexual assault.”
Than you. This so rarely gets pointed out.. I would think that if there is to be a separate form of feminism for WOC, it would focus on issues like this, that disproportinally affect black and latina and asian and native american and middle eastern WOMEN WOMEN WOMEN not trying to make feminism more male-centric, but what the hell do I know
Apologies for rant
Lesbian DV is also based on patriarchal notions of masculine and feminine/dominant and submissive.
Please stay, Pleasegos!
I don’t feel like I’m any less likely to be killed or arrested (or harassed, sexually and otherwise) by cops than my male cousins. I’m way the hell more likely to be beaten or raped than my male cousins. The only difference, to me, is that if it happens to me, nobody will talk about i, nobody will march about it, nobody will care. At best, I’ll get a little blurb nobody will read on What About Our Daughters? while the mainstream, big feminist blogs will pick out a well known, already wildely decried story about a MOC and say that that’s a feminst issue because that man had a mother who loved him. To me, that statement is the problem, not something that needs to be enshrined in feminism. I’m TIREDof not mattering.
It’s what I call sexist sexism as opposed to racist sexism which was nonexistent in my life. I experienced a great deal of pure sexism/sexist sexism that had nothing to do with racism/domestic violence from my family because of the reasons in the link and sexist sexism is NEVER DISCUSSED ONLINE except in forums like this:
The majority of the participants believed that domestic violence
against women stems from a legacy of patriarchy and sexism that is widespread in many Asian American communities. As a result, women are socialized to believe and accept that violence in a relationship is acceptable, that male power expressed abusively is part of the cultural milieu, and therefore batterers are not held accountable for their behavior in their own communities.
Pleasegos, thank you for the rant. THAT was meaningful.
Obama’s cabinet should be majority women meaning it should be over 50% female.
52% of the population is female.
Exactly donna darko. THAT is what we are here to focus on. Why Obama made a total of 24 cabinet picks, yet only 6 were women. 25% is hardly acceptable when 52% of the population is women.
I saw a nice try at race-baiting there.
Black women are more likely to get an education (which is starting to happen for women in all demographics
Like white feminsts say, it does not translate into earnings. Black men earn more than black women. White men earn much more than white women. In fact, the gap is greatest between white men and women.
This is why it enraged me so much during the election when some white women attempted to convey the idea that some how being a black man in America is easier than being being a woman of race.
Men of color experience racism. Women of color experience both racism and sexism. Women overall are much more likely to be poor.
Donna — cannot agree more, while people focus on the gap between black women and men (as well as white women and men) re education, it doesn’t translate into earnings.
I worked in Japan for awhile, and saw a similar phenomenon — women and men having similar educational opps, not similar career ops.
Pleasegos: Loved everything you said above, especially: “At best, I’ll get a little blurb nobody will read on What About Our Daughters? while the mainstream, big feminist blogs will pick out a well known, already wildely decried story about a MOC and say that that’s a feminst issue because that man had a mother who loved him. To me, that statement is the problem, not something that needs to be enshrined in feminism. I’m TIREDof not mattering.”
I am tired of people “misunderstanding” that concentration on feminism within feminism (totally fair, right?) means ignoring intersectionality. Issues pertaining to how sexism affect different populations of women are core feminist issues. Issues pertaining to men who are related to women (as most/all men are) are not. The fact that this has to be explained so often gets back to Violet’s cogently worded hypothesis: it’s a shut-up strategy.
donna darko, thanks for all this information. Your blog is one of the few things keeping me sane all year.
Of course I understand why WOC are reluctant to talk about intra-racial sexism. Yes, it’s very uncomfortable, it feels wrong, it can be taken wrong and used to perpetuate racial stereotypes of MOC. but what’s the alternative–keep on telling our daughters that they have to accept second class status because it’s part of our cultural tradition/our men are being emasculated by dominant culture/if they just learned to be more understanding, they’d see that their brothers really have it harder, despite their experiences telling them the opposite? It’s insidious–you have the same messages that every girl gets telling her she should be a good girl and take second with this “moral” and “cultural” mythology heaped on top to justify it–don’t speak up because you’ll be part of making every mother’s worst nightmare come true. Enough.
“Issues pertaining to how sexism affect different populations of women are core feminist issues. Issues pertaining to men who are related to women (as most/all men are) are not.”
Exactly. Exactly! Someone said above that GLBT communities are being pushed to address the exclusion of POC. But that’s POC GLBT people, not STRAIGHT POC! They’re not being asked to drop the focus on GLBT issues and instead focus on some kind of general advocacy that’s unrelated to GLBT core concerns.
I just have zero tolerance of sexism. That’s all. And sexism in my community is never discussed nor is it discussed in any community of color. There’s no need to bring up the race of sexists/patriarchy. People just need to talk. I got in a lot of trouble as the only East Asian women talking about it once in my twenties and once in my thirties.
We already have zero tolerance of racism. My hope is it can be the same for sexism.
[...] 6, 2009 · No Comments Pleasegos: I’m sorry, but as a WOC that statement makes me want to beat my head against the wall and lay [...]
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...