In the comment section of my last post on the Ecology of the Nocturnus Clintonius, Steph while not directly accusing me of being sexist, implied that the posting of the unflattering picture of Clinton might be an act of sexism. I am very aware that writing a blog post on the topic means I “doth protest too much”; but, I also don’t want to dismiss it out of hand.
The fact that I am a father of a daughter that also happens to be a super-toddler possessing unparalleled levels of intelligence, beauty, wisdom, courage, grace, strength, generosity and leadership, makes me particularly interested in the presence of sexism in the world. Almost without fail, if someone begins a statement with “I am not a sexist, but…” or “I am not a racist, but…”, you can comfortably assume that whatever characteristic they are denying, they most certainly possess. Whatever –ist you are denying is probably present, but deep seeded and you have deluded yourself that you don’t have it. Which in many ways, is worse than if you wore it proudly on your sleeve.
The picture in question I saw on the dailykos a few days earlier and when I was writing the stat sheet for the undead Clinton, it popped into my mind. My conscious mind simply thought it was the best picture to represent Clinton as some form of undead creature. I didn’t (again in my conscious mind) post it simply because it showed her in an unflattering light but because it fit the post I was writing.
Now the bigger question is, “why did I think it best demonstrated her as an undead creature?” Is it because I subconsciously equate un-beauty with evil in women? Maybe. But, I have forwarded many a picture of George Bush’s facial expressions as compared to a monkey.
The thing is, I also believe that being overly cautious not to offend is a form of sexism. By constantly monitoring your comments, you are keeping in mind issues that should in theory not be present. By not posting an unflattering picture of a woman, that you would not hesitate to post if it was a man, you are being sexist.
I don’t know. I haven’t done any good in explaining myself; however, I really don’t think I had malicious intentions (other than the normal malicious intentions towards Clinton that have nothing to do with her being a woman). So I don’t think I am going to remove the picture. Yeah, it could just be me rationalizing; but, I have always said that rationalization is humanity’s greatest skill.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
The importance of rationalization can't be understated. Rationalizations may well be more important than sex.
Really!?!?
Oh yes indeed! I challenge anyone to go a week without a nice, juicy rationalization.
I’m happy you took this on in a post. I would hope it goes without saying that sexist intent is the last thing I’d accuse you of—but I shouldn’t assume it goes without saying. Certainly, I don’t suspect you for a second of being some sort of closet misogynist. I don’t think intent is what is at issue here. If everything just came down to our intentions, these discussions would be a lot shorter.
The issue of whether being overly cautious not to offend is sexist (or racist, or heterosexist)—it’s a tough one. I’ve used such rationalizations in the past for behavior that I’ve since come to regret. On the flip side, I know well the danger of being so terrified of giving offense that you live in a bubble of what you believe to be political correctness and never interact authentically outside your comfort zone. And then there’s the case you describe: trying to avoid various double standards in the way you discuss/mock public figures. Way tricky.
Speaking as someone who has commented that every male member of the Bush Administration looks like the offspring of a sack of potatoes and a pile of pudding (I think I’m quoting my own blog there, but I haven’t gone back to look), I can hardly pretend to be above criticizing public figures for their personal appearances. One thing I’ve noticed I don’t do, though, is mock Condoleezza Rice on such grounds. I don’t like her at all, and I think she sucks at her job, and I don’t think she’s very attractive, so why spare her while ripping merrily on the pasty visages of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney? Well, I don’t hate her quite as much as I hate Rove and Cheney. But beyond that, she’s a woman, and furthermore, an African-American woman, which puts her in two categories of human against which our society has been using cruel, physical caricature as a weapon for decades, even centuries. No matter how much I would want to believe it otherwise, mocking her personal appearance or posting unflattering photos of her would not go down in the same way as similar actions directed against her male colleagues. If it’s a reverse double standard I’m employing there, it’s not one I’m eager to challenge.
I’m even reluctant to go on too much about the comeliness of Barack Obama, seeing as the sexual objectification of black men by white women has become a veritable phenomenon itself these days. Again, some might argue that the caution is in and of itself racism and/or sexism. And perhaps there’s some truth to that, but it’s equally valid, I think, to argue that it’s social awareness. If we never “keep in mind issues that should in theory not be present,” we’re just passing the buck of social change to those who are more directly affected by those selfsame issues.
It can be difficult for men to understand how utterly eviscerating criticism of personal appearance usually is for women. I suppose this is why we—women—are so adept at wielding that weapon against one another—we know how badly it stings. Hillary Clinton, has been an object of intense physical scrutiny—much of it quite blatantly misogynistic—for the duration of her public life, from men and women alike.
It doesn’t matter how mad I am at her on a given day; I never enjoy any sort commentary on her personal appearance, direct or implied. I think much of it reflects a deep anxiety about female power, an impulse to chip away at it by the bluntest means available. I believe there’s some merit to exercising extra caution in the use of her image. Which doesn’t mean I think you’re a monster or a pig for the way you used it, or that I think you possess any of that anxiety I just described. But I hope this helps you understand the context of my response a bit better.
Sorry for the length—I didn’t mean to hijack your blog.
Well said, Steph.
I did have an initial knee-jerk reaction to the photo in the original post. But after reading the post, having my husband define a few of the terms that my non-D&D-self couldn't figure out, the picture made sense.
But once again, it is the frustrating political correctness of this political race that is grinding on me. I've said all along, I won't be bullied into voting for "The Woman" just because we share the same reproductive parts. At the same time, I take personal offense to the many delibrate words, descriptions, etc. I hear about Hillary -- and I know they only come from one place. Her gender.
The truth is, I believe that the country is more ready for a black president than a woman president. And I am ashamed that most of the country will only look at these two candidates as 1) black, or 2) woman. I'm not proud of it, but I know its there. And the whole thing makes me sick.
Quite frankly, I'm just so tired of the whole thing, and so ready for it to be over, that ALL of the comments/criticism/analysis I hear these days turns me off.
Why do politics have to be so damn political.
Ohhh. Wait.... that's right. I get it.
Politics suck.
Thanks, Rae. Do I ever share your fatigue.
This article points to a lot of things about the current wave of Hillary-hate that trouble me:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/25/keith-olbermanns-idea-for_n_98557.html
And this one too:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/
I couldn't disagree more with the women commenting here. I didn't read the whole other post because I didnt get it. I did figure out that it was somekind of monster theing. The point is that it was a bad picture in a blog being mean to hillary.
I am a hillary supporter and plan on voting for her here in Indiana but I don't think the picture was out of line. If he was trying to say she was somekind of vampire than it was a pretty good picture.
I also read that link and I can't believe peopel are making a big deal about that. I saw that kieth and didn't think twice about that comment.
People need to calm down and get real. nobody talked about a woman's looks in a bad way and so what if they did. We women use our looks to our advantage so can you blame people for using them against us if we lose them.
Grow some skin.
Man, Roy, I am just trashing your blog. Sorry. Just wanting to make those links easier to get too:
the Huffington article on Hillary-hate!
Salon article on Obama supporters!
Don't worry about hijacking my blog, Google is paying for the bandwidth and storage (I still haven't figured out how they make money off of Blogger, but that is off topic).
Maybe it is my liberal naivete, but the double standard you addressed about Condoleezza Rice compared to her male colleagues, just doesn't carry water with me. Women, African-Americans, etc. have had a more difficult "row to hoe" but is it "right" to give them a pass because of this? There is just something about this that doesn't settle well with me. So says the male white middle-class American who has never been discriminated against.
I return to the rationalization that since the original post and picture was not directed towards Clinton because she was a woman, that it wasn't really unfair. However, with that being said, it is obvious that there are larger issues at play when one is talking about women and their physical image. Because of this discussion I will be more conscious of the issue and that is a good thing.
BTW, I have discussed this with one of the most important women in my life, Sophie, and thought I would share your her thoughts on the subject since she can't type.
"Go-ga-tk-laa-laa. Mo-mee. Shee todalakawaa. Da-dee. Ha-na-roo-ja. Dawg. Dawg. Kittee. Shoo-to-mee-ba-ba-ba-ba. Kar. Kar. Loo-shee-tk-laa-laa. O-range. O-range."
Then she made a raspberry and giggled.
Oh, yeah, one other point I wanted to make. The original post was designed to be humorous to those individuals that play or used to play D&D, as it was a parady of a lich.
Obviously that humor was lost, in no small part due to the picture, so in reality, the picture took away from the post instead of adding to it, as was originally intended.
That and it wasn't really funny.
Just for the record -- I thought the D&D comment was pretty damn funny. Having never played it, I had to use a little bit of my own imagination, or ask Brad for clarification -- and I thought it was a humorous social commentary, on something that, quite frankly, could use a little homor.
So -- "here, here!"
And I also totally agree with Sophie. Damn. She's smart.
I didn't see it as being a sexist thing at all. Maybe it's because I know you and I know that you are not sexist at all. I read it more as her being a sucubus type creature to end us all!!! :)
Post a Comment