As a known, strong and continued Obama supporter, I would just like to say:
Not cool. Not fucking cool at all.
[The video on the linked page is no longer available. This one should work fine.]
First of all, good for the reporter for calling out Obama’s totally inappropriate and disrespectful word choice.
Secondly: WTF Barry?
I can’t count the number of times that I’ve been called some sort of “cute” feminine pet name by a man. As someone who spent a long time in customer service, including 10 months at a hardware store, it happened a lot. Customers, coworkers, bosses and totally random guys have all done it. Sweetie, Honey, Darling, Dear. Over and over again. Often, in the same tone that Obama used — totally absentminded, as though they didn’t even realize they were doing it.
But I noticed. The reporter here noticed. The fact that he (maybe) didn’t notice doesn’t make it okay, nor does it make it any less sexist or condescending.
I’d like to prevent this from going where I think it’s going to go: someone calls Obama a sexist pig and says that this is proof of why Clinton should be the nominee, someone else then calls Clinton a racist and says that her racist campaigning is proof of why Obama should be our nominee, and then we all end up yelling, getting our feelings hurt, hating each other and looking like assholes. I’m not posting this so that we can do that — I’m posting it because I think that we can and should criticize candidates who we otherwise support, and that this criticism is what forces them to be better.
And personally, I think there’s more than enough to discuss here without going down that road. I also know that I’m also being incredibly optimistic in suggesting that. But here’s something else to talk about:
When in this situation, what do you do?
I always cringe. Not knowing what else to do, I used to smile tensely. Then, I started refusing to make eye contact with them. Once, a guy — who was about my age, btw — called me “doll.” Since it was an overtly feminine word and one that he couldn’t mistake for actually being affectionate towards him, I decided to see how he liked it and called him “doll” right back (he didn’t like it). I don’t work in customer service anymore (or at least not currently), but towards the end of my last stint, I would just stare them blankly in the face. I figured that if they were going to make me uncomfortable, I could do it right back. Staring and waiting for them to break eye contact first is a great trick . . . I don’t know if they necessarily always got why I was displeased, but I do know that they rarely fucked with me again. I think that once or twice I pointed to my name tag and said “My name is Cara, you can call me that.” If I’m on equal footing with the person — in a social situation, not a boss or customer, and so on — I will simply tell them flat out that they are to call me by my name and nothing else.
I can’t say that I’m incredibly certain about the effectiveness of any of these tactics. So, what do you do? Do you have a trick (or know someone else who does)? And have you ever had a man in your life who referred to women in this way, and found a way to effectively get him to stop?
As for Senator Obama, I obviously really, really hope that it doesn’t happen again. But I won’t hesitate to call him out if it does. I did already use his website to write a very polite note of concern. I’m sure that it can’t hurt for you to do the same.
UPDATE: Obama has apologized to the reporter. My apologies for missing this, and a big thank you to Jenny Dreadful for pointing it out.
thanks for that, Cara.
I called out both candidates yesterday for their responses to the California decision.
just because we support someone doesn’t mean we blindly agree w/ anything they say. i expect more out of Clinton as my choice for a candidate, but i am not afraid to call her on the bullshit i see, either.
Ew, both of those responses are totally gross. “Leave it up to the states?” Thanks McCain . . .
Personally, it rarely got to me when I worked customer service. I know it’s sexist as hell, but it’s a battle I personally haven’t fought — unless the tone of the guy “sweetie”ing me was especially creepy and I got the sense that he was actively attempting to belittle me. I don’t know. I guess I was used to being treated like shit whenever I put on a nametag, and at least “honey” and “darlin’” are condescending rather than outright hostile, you know? I also suspect that I didn’t have a lot of pride in myself professionally when I was working those jobs, so I was less likely to be treated professionally and respectfully. But that’s a whole other hot mess of issues. :)
I’m an Obama supporter, too, and I’m going to call him out via the website right now. You just got NARAL’s endorsement, Senator — let’s actually treat women like equals, hmm?
Whatever, everyone says something asshole-ish once in a while. People have slips because…uh…they’re people.
I can’t get worked up about this while ICE is imprisoning immigrant and refugee women (including those who are victims of brutal sexual violence) and forcing them to take the same powerful drugs Soviet dissidents were forced to take in mental institutions.
So, yeah. Obama rudely called a woman “sweetie.” That’s a nothing issue –and certainly not something to actually take the time to write and send an email about. Sheesh.
Let’s focus on shit that actually matters. It’s not like there’s a shortage.
Miss Sarajevo, I in no way dispute that there are more important issues — there are tons. Whether or not that makes this one ineligible for conversation, though, is up for debate. In any case, thank you for those links. I only read WaPo semi-regularly, and I missed the series.
I have to say, Cara, I’m dismayed by the link you chose for this article. The headline “Obama “appears” to call female reporter sweetie” makes it seem as though the footage doing so is doctored in some way. Obama DID call that female reporter sweetie. What’s more, he never answered her question. He called and apologized, but he never answered her question in the apology, but referred her to the other interview he’d already granted her station.
There are plenty of other links–for example, the one on the website for the station of the actual reporter, Peggy Agar: Obama apologizes to WXYZ Reporter .
The outstanding coverage at Shakesville: “Tell me he did not really say this.”
Or, the original blog posting at the NYT: Obama: “Hold on, Sweetie”.
The rest of the article was amazing, don’t get me wrong, but the headline chosen by The Atlantic apologizes for his behavior by casting doubt on the reporter. And that? Is not cool at ALL.
MsFeasance, duly noted. I would like to clarify that I didn’t use the link because I agreed with it or because I thought it was great, but because it was where I first stumbled upon the story, and I believe in providing credit to my original source. But you’re absolutely right that using other links would not have hurt. As I missed the apology as well, I was clearly as lot more lazy with this one than I realized or intended while writing it. So my apologies for that.
[...] cross-posted from Feministe [...]
“As for Senator Obama, I obviously really, really hope that it doesn’t happen again.”
Considering it’s happened (at least) twice before, including once in reference to Sen. Barbara Boxer as a “cutie,” I’d say it’s not long before we get another “dollface” or some such remark from the good Senator from IL.
I like Obama’s apology to the reporter here – it could serve as a how-to guide for ways in which to apologize when you mess up. Direct, to the point, acknowledges that it’s a bad habit.
I cringed at the “sweetie” and he needs to knock that shit off, but … I don’t think he has any obligation to answer a particular reporter’s question even if he does use a condescending nickname that he later has to apologize for. “How are you going to help the American autoworker?” isn’t exactly a brand-new question that requires an immediate and personal answer. If he already answered it in the other interview, he’ll just be repeating himself, so what’s the point?
And yet, it doesn’t seem to be one that he’s actively trying to correct. And the “I am duly chastened” language paints the reporter as a scolding mother-figure.
Responding with a stare seems a bit over-the-top here. I don’t doubt for a second that “sweetie” feels belittling, but, as you noted, it was done unconsciously and habitually here, and admittedly not in a concerted effort to denigrate the reporter or anything else nefarious.
A possible analogy is when someone older refers to me as “son” (or as “kid”). I doubt very many people talk like this anymore, but when they do, it certainly feels belittling in much the same way. Still, I’ve never, and I don’t think would ever, respond in such a way. WIth something like this, it seems much better to shrug it off than to go semi-nuclear and convert the conversation into a confrontation.
I agree. But, the first part of his apology was an apology for not answering her question. Which he then continued to not answer. As a former reporter, I have to say, that’s more infuriating than the fact that he didn’t answer the question at all. If he was going to apologize, he should’ve just done it for the “sweetie” thing.
And, how do you tour an automobile factory–in Detroit–and not have an answer to that question on the tip of your tongue? That’s like going to a science fair and not having a ready-made answer to, “So, tell me about your project.”
NVS, I could have started a confrontation if I wanted to. I purposely didn’t. I’m not sure how staring back at a person who has just said something insulting is going “semi-nuclear,” but whatever.
I also think that “son” is not the same as “sweetie.” Both are belittling, but while “son” says “I know better than you,” “sweetie” says “of course I know better than you . . . just look at you cute you are!” I’ve been put down both because of age and gender. Gender sucks a lot more — at least with age, there’s the indication that you might someday be worthy.
This is different because it’s in a professional context. Let’s put it this way: you’re trying to close a business deal. You’re at a table surrounded by suits, both male and female. You wouldn’t call anyone at that table “dude”, “bro”, “sweetie”, or “darlin’”, would you?
Same context. It’s inappropriate because of the setting.
Not to be overly sarcastic, but … a politician dodged a question from a reporter? Really? I am shocked that such a thing would ever happen, because politicians are well-known for freely and fully answering all questions reporters put to them, especially when they’re campaigning.
I can see why you would be annoyed on a professional level, but it’s not something you can point to as A Problem With Obama when Clinton and McCain (and every other politician in the US and across the world) do the same thing all the time. Given the vapidity of most of our mainstream media, I can’t even blame them when they do it.
These remarks always irritate the hell out of me but I’d like to point that the last few times it’s happened to me, the offender has been female. A couple of weeks ago, I was called “sweetie” by the college-aged female cashier at Trader Joe’s. WTF? She was otherwise exceptionally friendly and outgoing so I let it go. If she had been a he, though, I might not have.
For the record, I’m 45 year old woman and only my mom gets to call me “sweetie”.
Really? I’d love to see him call Chris Matthews “sweetie.”
His apology leaves me cold. He doesn’t acknowledge that it was dismissive and sexist. But of course he won’t — he’s probably been advised not to.
@Cara: perhaps I’m going too far into meta analysis here, but you’re using “a person who has just said something insulting” in a different way than I am. You’re looking at it from the person being insulted. I’m looking at it from the person saying it. In Obama’s case, and I think maybe the person in your case as well, the person did not mean it to be insulting or belittling. Perhaps that’s a distinction without a difference. For me, it’s the difference between escalating a conversation into a confrontation. Someone casting a personal affront at me, intentionally, is simply more offensive and thereby more worthy of a retort than someone using an idiom, or habitually using such terms, or whatever.
I always try — and sometimes fail, but always try — to look at it from the perspective of the one who is being insulted, whether it is me or not. I don’t think that Obama was intentionally insulting anyone either. I didn’t make that argument because I didn’t find the “did he mean it though?” question to be largely relevant. As I said in the post and I’ll say again, I’m not convinced that any of my responses were good/right ones, but I do think that this kind of thing deserves a response. How are people supposed to learn that they’re being insulting if everyone they insult just acts like it didn’t happen?
@nvs: just because you do something habitually doesn’t make it any better. Because you always lay your hand on women’s bottoms it’s not offensive or what?
In the apology he calls the reporter by her first name. Unless he is a close personal friend this seems rather inappropriately familiar. Especially given that the context was an apology for unwarranted familiarity of address…
Obama’s getting my vote in November, unless Clinton does manage to somehow pull out the nomination in which case she’s getting my vote in November. But dammit, I thought that just once I was going to be able to vote without feeling like I was voting for the barely lesser of two evils. Oh, well, probably just as well. I’ll be less disappointed when the inevitable betrayal occurs.
They read this blog/post, watch the news, or hear of other people talking about their experiences and how demeaning such lines are. Isn’t that how we learn most of the do’s and dont’s of how not to inadvertently insult people?
“I doubt very many people talk like this anymore, but when they do, it certainly feels belittling in much the same way.”
Not many people throw around “son” or “kid,” no. That doesn’t seem to have affected the number of people who feel completely free to throw around “sweetie,” “honey,” “sugar,” etc. when addressing female strangers one iota, though.
The fact that it appears to be a a recurring thing is what gets me about this. You slip up once, it seems massively out of character, you understand why you don’t do that, you apologize–great, sure, people have mental misfires, things get taken out of context, you have a closer relationship with the person you’re addressing than it appeared at first blush, whatever. It happens. If you’re making a habit of doing things like calling your senior colleagues “cutie” and random professional women who are, at that moment, doing their jobs “sweetie,” it’s a problem.
If it’s obvious that a white politician calling a black politician “boy” or using “shuck and jive” to describe his actions are problematic, why should we bend over backwards to pretend that the sort of belittling language which carries so much meaning there is meaningless when it’s leveled along gender lines instead of racial lines?
In Obama’s case, and I think maybe the person in your case as well, the person did not mean it to be insulting or belittling.
I tend to think the intention is largely irrelevant in these cases. If I step on someone’s foot accidentally, it doesn’t hurt any less, and I still apologize for it.
Um . . . not really? First of all, I highly doubt that the majority of the men going around using condescending pet names for women spend their time reading feminist blogs. Secondly, a vast majority of the times in my life when I have said something offensive or insulting, I found out that what I said was insulting because someone told me.
My reactions of course were not the same as saying something. As I said, this is what I do when I feel comfortable engaging in a confrontation, and standing behind a counter with an apron on, working in a mostly male environment that certainly isn’t going to back you up if the customer wants to complain isn’t where I feel most comfortable speaking my mind. And this is part of the reason why I opened up discussion on that particular subject.
So, ummmm, where’s the front-paging of videos and WaPo coverage of detainee stuff now that you have seen the article? :-(
I need a little more work like BFP would do in my feminist readings! Please????
(I come here every once in a while hoping for that…. (It’s the only A-list feminst site I still do so with.))
How did I do that?
And, if Clinton or McCain dodged a question using racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, ageist, sizeist, classist, region-biased*, xenophobic, or otherwise discriminatory language (I leave anybody out?), and then nonpologized, while continuing to dodge the same, very simple question that could’ve been answered with an easy referral to a website, then, yes, I’d point to it as a Problem With Clinton or a Problem With McCain. That problem being that they don’t know how to conduct themselves on an organized campaign stop, where the press is disposed to be charitable to them. If they can’t conduct themselves there, how will they act when the press is hostile? How will they conduct themselves before the foreign press? These are things I take seriously.
I direct you to the comment thread from the post at Shakesville.
Okay, suppose it had been a media reporter from outside the MSM. Or even a question at a townhall meeting from a civilian. Even consider it within the context of Agar-as-civilian. Dismissive and persistent refusal to answer questions alienates voters.
*Epithets such as “hick” or “redneck”, or statements such as “people talk that way in the South,” because that red patent high heel doesn’t fit everyone on the Gulf Coast.
Bouncer to friend 1 (female): Could I see your ID, sweetie?
Friend 1: (hands it over silently)
Bouncer to friend 2 (male): Could I see your ID?
Friend 2: Here you go sweetie.
Bouncer: Who the hell are you calling sweetie, faggot?
Not sure where it went from there, but the friend is no longer welcome at the bar.
Another lifetime ago, I was unfortunate enough to work behind a counter in a retail store. Employees were identified not only by the inevitable plastic name tag, but by truly ugly bright blue smocks. Although “sweetie” was not a common form of address directed toward retail clerks in my state, “hun” was. I hated it. Then again, these are the same people who would ask, “Do you work here?” (No, I am wearing this butt-ugly blue smock as a fashion statement! But I digress…)
What did I do? Toward the end of that particular bit of hell, when I was already accepted to law school, I pointed to my ugly name tag and answered, “My name is not Attila,” and smiled. Some people got it and laughed; the less bright just looked confused, but at least they stopped calling me “hun.”
I got a little payoff when our Ethics professor asked us why we were in law school. Lots of the pretentious asshats I went to law school with answered with the usual phony “To help my people,” or “to make a difference” bullshit answers (“to make money, and lots of it” would have been more honest!). I answered, “Because nobody ever calls their attorney ‘hun’.” The prof – a strong woman herself – credited mine as the only honest answer given.
To answer some of the posters: terms of endearment are for those who are “dear,” not those who are strangers. Unfortunately, many people have become accustomed to usage of such terms by waitstaff and other people in “service” professions (who seem to employ such familiarity in the hope of appearing friendly and thus getting a bigger tip – no fault there!). As a result, some seem to feel entitled to address anyone of any station as though she is a servant (I say “she” deliberately, since in my experience the people so addressed are inevitably female). It may be unconscious, it may be a habit – but Cara is right – not fucking cool at all.
Such usage IS belittling. The implication is that “sweetie” is “less than” the rest of us, and need not be taken seriously. “Sweetie” can be brushed off or ignored, as this reporter was. “Sweetie” should just go fetch the coffee, and never mind all those cute lil’ ideas about career advancement – don’t bother your pretty lil’ head with all that! And when “sweetie” reaches age 40 or so, she becomes “the old bag,” someone else to be brushed off, ignored, and made fun of, only not as nice to look at.
How to stop it? I have used a fair amount of humor. At times, I have played the”boys’ game,” like Senator Clinton. In particularly egregious cases, I have gotten outright confrontational, again like Senator Clinton. My law school predictions were true, though – I haven’t been called “sweetie” at work since my retail sales hell days. Maybe that’s why I saw Obama’s casual, unthinking use of it as almost worse than if it had been calculated; it shows me that he is used to addressing women in this thoughtless, belittling fashion.
For the record, I’m a Clinton supporter. I don’t like Obama’s arrogance toward others, of which the whole “sweetie” business is just one facet. I don’t like the way he avoids questions, his attitude of entitlement to the presidency, or the way he portrays himself as better than everyone else. I haven’t decided how I’ll vote come November – so far, Obama hasn’t said or done anything to make me want to support him, but neither has McCain (shudder).
I got called sweetie twice this week and an older female co-worker was called it once which I heard b/c it was speaker phone. If it’s someone I have to talk to for a minute or two or redirect if I’m the wrong person, I usually let it go. If it’s someone I’m talking to, it depends. I have as many older women call me sweetie or honey. If they’re upset or fearful b/c of what they are telling me, I let it go too. It just depends on different things and the situation.
It’s a hell of a privilege in my opinion if you have the option of correcting the use of an offensive term. A lot of women are in jobs or positions when they have to just smile and take it.
He should apologize sincerely because it’s not appropriate. Not call someone by their first name unless they really are familiar with each other and that context has been set. It’s been a while since a male politician’s called me anything like that. Some women politicians have done it too, but not to me.
Politicians don’t have to answer your questions. It’s nice when they do and not try to talk around it or pretend they heard you wrong.
I work customer service right now, and I pretty much shrug it off. Possibly I’m less effusively kind to that person (unless they’re elderly, I admit to giving an age-based pass) but I don’t really have the option of saying anything.
Oddly, the main “sweetie”-ing going on at my store is one of the employees, my age (around 30), who calls customers “sweetie” all the time — male and female. I think it’s her solution to regulars whose names she hasn’t learned!
Basic respect for women is a nothing issue? I disagree. The drugging of detainees is a huge human rights abuse but that doesn’t mean everything else is off-limits for criticism. That’s just another variety of “Hey, if you lived in Iraq you couldn’t get away with… (insert exercise of basic right here).”
Katie,
There’s a lot of stuff in that package. I’ve been trying to catch up on a lot of other things today and honestly haven’t had the time to get through it. When I have a lot of things to do, I have trouble giving anything a large amount of attention, so I save the big/important stuff until I’m not feeling overwhelmed, because I want to be able to read through it carefully. Hopefully I will get the chance tomorrow.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure if I’ll have anything intelligent to say. I’m no BFP, nor will I ever be. If the series is as good as it appears to be, I will at the very least put up a post with the links and a recommendation once I get through it. And of course, it’s not my story — if any of the other Feministe bloggers would like to write about it in addition or in the meantime, they’re obviously welcome to do that.
Scenario:
Obama to Administrative Person; Hey I have a question about this…
Administrative Person: Hold on, boy, I’ll get back to that in a moment.
QED.
I’ve supported Obama ever since Edward’s withdrawl from the race (and still do). Doesn’t mean I won’t call him out on his crap, though.
All I have to say is that if someone were to call Obama ‘boy’ they would be deemed racist. Sweetie is very sexist. He could have called her Miss or even Maam (which I hate). It is condescending and his body language and facial expression adds to the negative tone.
On a note similar to Katie’s, I’m really disappointed that I haven’t seen anything about the recent honor killing in Iraq. I think this deserves to get some play – if there’s time to talk about smaller things like this (which are important, and contribute to the overall culture that allows sexism to thrive), then we should please make time to talk about bigger things like this, which are literally life-and-death for women across the globe.
Sorry to take this off-topic, but I’ve been really disappointed that none of the big (or small) feminist blogs that I read have talked about this story. Especially after all that talk about focusing on issues that affected WOC, which resulted in lots of posts about Sean Bell, but there’s still silence on this.
When Hillary Clinton made her “hard working white people” remarks, I kept checking this blog for any kind of reaction. When Bill Clinton toured rural West Virginia stating that Obama is “not one of us”, I looked for some kind of reaction again. Did I miss it?
For the record, I thought what Obama said was offensive, and I am glad he apologized. Bad habit or not, he needs to cut it out.
But let’s have some equal opportunity calling out on the candidates crap, shall we?
The fact that he (maybe) didn’t notice doesn’t make it okay, nor does it make it any less sexist or condescending.
He probably didn’t notice it. That’s what privilege is all about. You don’t even realize you’re saying these things until someone points it out. And in some ways, I think being sexist (or racist or heterosexist or ableist, for that matter) without realizing it is worse than doing it on purpose. It seems like the purposeful sexist statements are more overt, while the slips-of-the-tongue are subtle and can be written off as mistakes. The only people who recognize these “mistakes” are those who are already oppressed and don’t have a voice that is taken seriously in our society.
I don’t get “sweetie” or anything like that as much as I get “mami.” I’m half Hispanic, and I guess some people notice this while others don’t. It’s usually other Hispanics that notice and call me mami. I know it’s a cultural thing, and some Hispanics call men “papi” in casual conversation, but it’s still irritating.
Radfem:
I’m actually kind of surprised people are upset he called her by her first name when he apologized. I don’t think I’ve ever worked someplace where I had to call people “Mr.” or “Ms.,” and I’m 38. Is it because my corporate jobs have been in healthcare and entertainment and not in, I don’t know, banking or law? If I met the CEO of my company tomorrow — and he’s the CEO of a multinational conglomerate that employs 100,000+ people — I would be expected to call him Bob.
MsFeasance:
In other words, you think that reporters deserve deference if they deign to ask a candidate a question. I guess you have a lot more respect for the media than I do (and, yes, I was in journalism, too. Briefly).
Again, reporters are not entitled to have their questions answered. It’s their job to find out answers, not have the answers handed to them on a silver platter. Sorry, but I just can’t get indignant that OMG she had to watch the footage from the other reporters at her station to get the answer instead of having her question personally answered.
If it had been a member of the public, I would be a lot more pissed at evading the question, because there’s a difference between a reporter asking a question and a citizen asking a question. I know reporters love to talk about how they’re getting the answers that are on people’s minds but, sorry, no one but political reporters was dying to know if Hillary was in the White House the day Bill and Monica were romping in the Oval Office. And yet that was the FIRST goddamned thing they published when the Clinton White House logs were released.
I work in customer service over the phone, and honestly if people (male and female, both equally) aren’t calling me ‘sweetie’ they’re calling me ‘bitch.’
So you take what you can get, really.
This seems different that what Obama’s absent minded remark did, in that most people view customer service people as sub-human robots they’re to whom free to do whatever they want to.
Also, what Kat said.
I haven’t decided how I’ll vote come November – so far, Obama hasn’t said or done anything to make me want to support him, but neither has McCain (shudder).
Just one thing? Obama voted for Senate Amendment 4882, a ban on the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. Clinton voted against the ban.
That, and Obama favours talking to President Ahmadinejad, whereas McCain sings little songs about bombing Iran. I respect supporting Clinton over Obama, but McCain over Obama? Give me strength.
When women get upset over being called honey and sweetie and other belittling misogynistic names people make apologies for the sexists dicks who use that sort of language and then describe the women who are disturbed by the patronizing bullshit as uptight bitches.
There has definitely been a serious double standard during this primary season that makes it very difficult for me to support any male candidates for anything and that includes Obama.
Oh I’ll Yellow Dog because McCain, the war criminal is unthinkable but Obama will never rise above “the lesser of two evils” in my eyes and I am already looking forward to putting an “Impeach Obama” bumper sticker on my car.
I’m a male who worked a customer service phone line for a couple of years. Almost every day I was called sweetie, sugar, or hun by women. The vast majority of those women had southern accents. Just sayin’.
My sister once had a regular customer (in a tire shop) who did that all the time, and it was clearly not an innocent habit but an active attempt to patronize and belittle. I advised her to loudly refer to him as “sugar tits” in front of everyone the next time he was being a shit. She did, and he apparently knocked that off.
I don’t know if all of these comments are directed at me specifically, or if I’m just feeling like I’m being compelled to answer them because it’s my post. In any case, I have no desire to defend my reasons for not writing about every story that I have not written about, nor do I think that you want me to. What I will say is this:
1. I’ve been dealing with personal stuff lately, took a short break from blogging recently, and my writing has been more sporadic than usual. A lot of these stories came up during or around that time. I fully acknowledge that I’ve missed important some stories lately, and have sometimes gone for the ones that are easier to write about in order to keep up regular posting.
2. Since I have not yet written about inappropriate and prejudiced things coming out of the Clinton campaign on this blog, I suppose that it’s somewhat fair for this to come up. But I have to admit that I’m shaking my head in a bit of exasperation over how this is absolutely the first time I’ve been accused of being too harsh on Obama and giving Clinton leniency. I assure you that over at The Curvature, during this campaign season I’ve pissed off a lot more Clinton voters than Obama voters.
3. When trying to decide which story to write about out of several choices, I tend to go with the one that I’ve personally seen get the least coverage elsewhere up to that point. None of the other stories mentioned here were up against this one, but against other important and significant ones. Of course, different people read different blogs, so some may have seen the stories I write about more than the ones I don’t and vice versa. I’ve seen the honor-killing story and the outrageous Clinton remarks stories in a whole lot of other places — apparently, some of you have not. It’s an ongoing process, not a formula, so it’s something that I’m regularly evaluating, as is which stories I choose to post on each blog.
4. I in no way deny that I can do better. I don’t usually check the Feministe email, but you are more than welcome to personally send me stories. Of course, I can’t promise to write about everything that is sent to me, but things that people specifically ask me to write about tend to end up higher on the list of possibilities.
If any of you would like to talk about this further, I’m happy to have you email me. But unless I’ve missed an important point that has already been raised, if it’s okay with everyone, I’d prefer to go back to the original topic.
Yes.
same thing here raging, I’ve lived in the deep south for about 8 years now and the only time i hear things like sweetie, hun, or even precious is when they are directed at me by women, of all ages. women use those terms all the time with other women as well, not quite sure why but it was a bit of a shock to my wife to be called sweetie or something like it by women 10 years her junior.
May I say that I don’t regard Obama’s gaffe to be all that enormous of a sin? (A minor lapse in taste, maybe, as opposed to a major infraction.) It’s a sign that he speaks the overfamiliar American vernacular, just like all the rest of us do, and in the overfamiliar American vernacular, people address each other as “buddy” or “pal” all the time, when they’re anything but buddies or pals.* Yes, it’s annoying, but that doesn’t push it over the edge into the immoral/illegal/fattening category.
Plus, Obama apologized to the reporter afterward. Didn’t he? Since there’s no sign that she rejected his apology, can’t we just say it’s all good? If not, why not?
*A female-to-male equivalent might be a discussion in which a woman addresses a man as “my man” when he ain’t her man. I’ve done that.
Heh. Why do women take it so personally when they’re spoken to as if they’re not people?
Why would you call a reporter sweetie if there are cameras around and you are running for president? Did he think that the woman would be entralled by his flirtation?
He is not a person at line at Arby’s or calling into customer service. He is not a Southern goober who uses that language everyday. He is auditioning for job of leader of the country, which includes women.
We would not hear the end of it if Clinton called a male black reporter “son.” You would not hear the end of it if Bill Clinton called a woman reporter asking about the plight of workers “sweetie.”
He did answer the question. So not only was it a put-off insult, he confirmed it was a minimizing by running out the door. She wasn’t important enough, and should have been satisfied with his magnificent appearance and a tossed “sweetie.”
Wow. Chain handwaving. It was perfectly acceptable; even if it wasn’t acceptable it’s not *that* bad; and if it is that bad he was sorry so let’s forget it ever happened.
Is it worth electing McCain out of spite over this? Duh, no. That doesn’t mean you have to make excuses for it.
[...] at Feministe, writing about Sen. Obama’s “sweetie” remark: I’d like to prevent this from going where I think it’s going to go: someone calls Obama a [...]
Cara — nice, balanced post.
I don’t understand the various complaints of:
1) why don’t you call out racism in the Clinton campaign?
2) why don’t you blog about x,y, z issues which are more important?
Re (1), you’ve done so on your blog and as Feministe is feminist-centric, why is it wrong for feminism to be item number one? Not that it isn’t important to call out racism, of course. And those of us who read you know that you do that.
Re (2), this seems disingenuous. Both the big tragedies and the small slights are part of the problem and both should be addressed. In fact, the latter are usually more subtle and controversial (hence the discord in these comments), and are therefore important to cover in addition to the former.
Remind me to go apeshit on the next waitress, female friend, or condescending older woman who calls me ‘sweetie’. Just for fun. I’m not offended by it, but I’m going to pretend to be if we’re going to pretend that this only ever goes one way and women never refer to men as ‘sweetie’ in a condescending or assholish tone. Or hell, just as a term of endearment.
I just want to say that I’ve always found the references to Barack as Barry being offensive myself.
. . . any reason, Terra? Or are you just being facetious? I didn’t invent the nickname, and he used it for years. Sorry, not getting it.
Would he like it if someone called him boy?
Probably not.
Aren’t Kat and Kit playing oppression Olympics? Ampersand said the WaPo article played oppression Olympics the other way around:
It goes both ways.
I couldn’t say really. Probably because mostly I’ve noticed Republicans using Barry and dems using Barack.
The fact that he used the nickname 20 years ago isn’t really a good reason in my opinion. If Hillary had been frequently called sweetie as a child I’d still find it offensive if someone used it today to describe her.
Point being both can be considered offensive because they are overly informal in a formal setting.
Really? I haven’t seen Republicans call him Barry. (I hear Barack Hussein Obama.) Maybe I’m not paying enough attention.
Sweetie is different because it’s a sexist term. As far as my knowledge goes, Barry is neither racist nor sexist. I’ll agree that it’s overly informal, but I wouldn’t call a blog post a formal setting. If actually meeting them, I probably wouldn’t call George Bush “Dubya” (or worse names I use for him) or call Clinton “Hillary” as I often do when speaking about them. I don’t actually usually call Obama “Barry” at all — I call him Obama. It just felt appropriate to the situation at hand. He called a woman “sweetie” and clearly made her cringe, so it seemed right to call him by an old nickname that probably makes him cringe. Also, it’s hard to use formal titles in the context of asking “what the fuck?”
RM, Southern women call men and women both “sweetie,” but Obama is not a Southern woman. Further, the practice of Southern women referring to people of any gender as “sweetie” is open to feminist analysis.
I don’t get called sweetie much, but one time at work when someone called me that, I said “sure thing, sugar.” He did a little double take and acknowledged what he had done, but I doubt that he stopped calling women “sweetie.”
In response to the many that don’t understand why this is upsetting to a good lot of us, I think it is less this particular incident (i.e. Obama making a mistake in choosing a condescending part of the vernacular), and more about how the subtleties of daily interaction very frequently can erode one’s sense of his or her perceived worth. It’s a flag post of the deeply rooted and often unconscious biases we are all sometimes guilty of. Though it might seem a trivial topic, I think examining these issues can lead to deeper discussion of the prejudices lying beneath the surface, and perhaps lead us to a place where we work on those prejudices within us that may slip under our own radar if someone does not point them out.
Being both female and young looking and working in an academic environment, I find slip-ups or monikers such as this to be humiliating in the work place and and make me feel as though my credibility is being eroded.
You can make the same argument for either sweetie being sexist or Barry being racist I think.
That being said if you offended someone do you think it would be ok for them to call you sweetie in their response to your statement?
“You can make the same argument for either sweetie being sexist or Barry being racist I think.
Oh, come on. It’s a nickname. I’ve heard “Hill” from both supporters and non-supporters, the same way. A standard nickname is not racist or sexist. The context was an informal, rueful one.
Also, as to “if you offended someone do you think it would be ok for them to call you sweetie in their response to your statement?” if someone called me sweetie or something else offensive, I’d have no problem telling them “Sweetie, my name’s ____.”
Depends on the situation. If I was, to give an example off of the top of my head, behaving in a condescending and patronizing way towards a person with a disability, talking to them like they were a child, and they wanted to point out the offensive nature of what I was doing by calling me “Sweetie” in a sarcastic manner, that would seem more than fair and pretty effective to me.
I also know that if I call someone by an inappropriate and condescending name, and they want to call me my embarrassing childhood nickname of CareBear in return, they can go right ahead.
It’s up to Obama to be a better candidate.
To the crabs that say we should not elect McCain over Obama’s dismissive nature over women, it is up to Obama to not be sexist. I doubt anyone would call him “honey” because, of course, he deserves respect and is a man running for president. What if the reporter had yelled, “honey, what about the workers?”
What kind of ape-shit would she take for that disrespect? Of course, women, professional women reporters don’t deserve that sort of respect in Obama’s caste structure.
Ricke, it seems to me that it’s not the best tactic to elect a man who calls his wife a cunt, opposes virtually all aspects of women’s reproductive health and votes against equal pay — as a start — in order to make a statement about how we shouldn’t tolerate sexism. I have a pretty good feeling that the message gets lost, and the only one’s we’re punishing are ourselves.
“Is it worth electing McCain out of spite over this? Duh, no. That doesn’t mean you have to make excuses for it.”
I’m not making excuses for it. I’m just saying that if Obama should from this point forward fail to transgress in any sense more radical than that of falling from time to time into a little unwarranted informality, I for my own part will not feel that I have any cause to quarrel with his conduct, and will have no complaint to make of him.
Besides, isn’t it the job of the woman who was supposedly insulted to decide if she was insulted or not? And if she doesn’t choose to make an issue out of this incident, why should we? Or to rephrase slightly: if she doesn’t choose to make an issue out of this incident, why should I?
It’s quite possible to realize that it’s just as well to let a passing irritation pass without having to “forget it ever happened”. It’s also possible to pick one’s battles—not only is it possible, it’s advisable. And as it happens, at present we have a very pertinent illustration of this principle at our fingers’ tips: on the one hand, we have Obama, a man who refuses to make a leaping dive at every bit of bait that may be tossed his way, and on the other hand, we have GWB, a guy who takes personal disses so seriously that, should the disses proceed out of the mouths of foreigners, he’s ready with the tanks and planes, and should the disses proceed out of the mouths of his countrymen, he’s ready with accusations of treason. Which man is the more admirable and the more worthy of imitation?
I rest my case.
Uh huh. And that’s relevant to this issue . . . how? No one is saying that Obama’s a bad candidate who’s going to act like Bush. The only suggesting that is you. Again: how does the fact that he and his candidacy hold many admirable aspects completely negate any criticism of him?
And if the woman in question didn’t take issue with it, I somehow doubt that she would have felt the need to bring it our attention. She didn’t say “this Sweetie never got an answer” because she thought that it was so fucking cute. She said it not only because he didn’t give an answer, but because he blew her off in a condescending manner.
“And that’s relevant to this issue . . . how?”
It’s relevant insofar as it shows that it’s not only admissible but advisable not to respond with the old lock-and-load to every consecutive aggravation life has to offer. I agree that some of these aggravations may be pretty severe. All I’m saying is that it’s not a requirement to meet each and every one of them will all guns ablaze.
“She didn’t say “this Sweetie never got an answer” because she thought that it was so fucking cute. She said it not only because he didn’t give an answer, but because he blew her off in a condescending manner.”
In other words, she responded to an aggravation as an aggravation, not an outrage. And she responded to aggravation with aggravation, not outrage. IMO that shows a pretty decent sense of proportion. Since I wasn’t granted that much of a sense of proportion by nature, I’ve done everything in my power to cultivate a sense of proportion through art; for the same reason, I admire people who demonstrate self-possession and the capacity to take such happenstances as may befall them for whatever they’re worth, whether they come by these characteristics naturally or artificially.
Cara, it wouldn’t be offensive to call Barack Obama “Barry” if that were the name he still went by. However, it’s not. Calling anyone out of their name – whether you are calling them “sweetie” or by a nickname they specifically do not use anymore – is disrespectful. It seems to me that a lot of people refer to Obama as “Barry” under the guise of being snarky (and I’m not saying that I assume that’s why you used it – I don’t know you, so I don’t know why you did), but it has always read to me as, if nothing else, disregard for the name someone chooses to use.
This really makes me laugh. That people are stating as a matter of fact that Obama is neither racist or sexist. He may not be the poster child for either of those, but we all have to admit that we have some ounce of it in ourselves. I will say that I would take him as being less racist than sexist. But this issue over ‘sweetie’ is another typical way men act like they don’t know any better. I wonder if we were too catch any of the candidates off guard what statements would come out of their mouths.
As for voting for McCain, I would love to see women really get active and start running for office in higher numbers than the 16% we have in most levels of government. Sometimes I think it will take a massive hit over the head or loss of rights to wake women up. To stop resting on the laurels of men in power to make change happen for us.
You know, I can’t stand this shit.
Yes, I’ve noticed (and hated) when Obama calls female reporters “sweetie” like some pompous jock. When you have people working in a professional capacity trying to ask you questions, such a graceless sexist dismissal is uncalled for and disrespectful. It’s also a bit classist because similar dismissals are used for male reporters — something akin to “buddy” or “pal” or something to shrug them off. Both have the air of the politician making the reporter aware of his stature in the world — no matter how accurate that personal assessment may be. It’s also akin to Bill Clinton’s damned finger wagging.
And yes, Barry’s on that same damned level because it’s like telling Obama to know HIS place when he uses a sexist comment towards a female journalist. And it is demeaning to him because it’s an attempt to knock him down a peg. It’s standard fare when used against white men because it often results in embarrassment; but it goes beyond that when it’s a black man because of the racial connotations. You can’t deny that. It’s stupid to pretend to deny that.
Sorry, I’m not seeing outrage here. I’m in fact rereading my post and seeing aggravation. Trust me, this isn’t even in the same zip code as my outrage.
Well yes, I was being a bit snarky. It was a bit of snark, a bit of irony, and a bit of offhandedness. I can assure everyone that this certainly wasn’t the part of this post that I thought about most carefully.
Sylvia, I respect your opinion a lot. But I’m also not pretending to deny anything. I can see where you’re coming from, and yes I was in some way suggesting that he know is place — as in, to know that he is not better or deserving of more respect than women, and as in he’s a politician, and that means he works for us not the other way around, and it pisses me off that politicians seem to permanently forget that. Just like when back when I supported John Edwards, and he said something sexist and obnoxious, I referred to him as “Johnny Boy.” It wasn’t about my thinking that Obama should “know his place” as a black man. At all.
I absolutely understand how insults (even extremely mild ones like this) can mean different things depending on whom they’re directed at (and therefore would have never used “boy” to refer to Obama as I did with Edwards). I also understand that it can be difficult to believe that any sort of not directly policy-based shot at Obama doesn’t have anything to do with race, and maybe I’m being naive in suggesting that it was the case here. But though perhaps I’m being dense, defensive or just overwhelmed with white privilege (I actually think I’m feeling somewhat befuddled), I still don’t see that this was the case here in the context in which it was used.
Now that I know it has offended people, I won’t do it again. It’s absolutely not worth pissing people off and hurting their feelings. I apologize to those who have been offended . . . though intentions may not matter for a whole lot, it was certainly not my intent here. It was an attempt at sarcasm that clearly failed and backfired.
Cara, I think there are two things going on here.
One is the general principle that it’s a bad idea to use patronizing, infantilizing language to criticize someone for being patronizing and infantilizing.
The second is that there’s a long history in America of whites calling blacks by their first names to humiliate them. This history is part of why there’s a tradition in the black community of naming boys things like “Major” (as in Congressman Major Owens) or simply giving them initials instead of first names. Given that context, and given the fact that Obama’s first name is both an African one and the name of his father, to refer to him as “Barry” in hopes that it would “make him cringe” is an act that definitely carries some racial baggage.
“I am already looking forward to putting an “Impeach Obama” bumper sticker on my car.”
wtf?
Your apology is good enough for me. Is Obama’s good enough for you?
He actually sounded kinda effete to me. It didn’t sound like a typical “man talks down to woman” scenario, but more like a “gay dude acting overly familiar with some lady” scenario. As much as Hillary has “testicular fortitude,” I really think Obama has some feminine, or, more to the point, gayish, qualities. Which I kinda like.
God, did you see him on The View in March? Those white women were gross the way they were objectifying him as a sexual object. (first video) Barbara friggin Walters was like “We thought you were very sexy looking.” Really? You’re gonna say that to a guy running for President, Barb? I love how Whoopi looked totally uncomfortable and kind of freaked out. I also thought it was hilarious the way that Obama responded, with this limp wristy hand fanning. OMG, major gaywad.
If Clinton can be the first black president, I don’t see why Obama can’t be the first gay president. In a manner of speaking, of course.
Using a nickname that someone used as a much younger person and is no longer using is, in fact demeaning and dismissive. People usually drop those nicknames for a reason. I admit, however, that my view on that might be colored by my own circumstance. My grandmother, now deceased, was the last person allowed to call me by my childhood nickname, largely because she clearly meant no disrespect and because I share a name with my grandfather, her husband.
As for “sweetie” and similar terms, yes, they can be used to refer to both men and women, and they set my teeth on edge when directed my way, but let’s be honest here. There’s a history and context that makes a male Senator from Illinois calling a female reporter “sweetie” a pretty big deal. Political leaders should be held to a higher standard, especially when it comes to treating the people around them with respect. It was a dismissive and sexist comment, and I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. It was sufficiently out of line that he called to apologize for it. Does anybody really think he would call to apologize for not answering a question? He must not answer scores of questions every day, and it’s not insulting.
This isn’t even close to changing my vote, however.
Under the condition that it doesn’t happen again, certainly. Which I think is a fair condition to hold to any apology, including any that I have made and may give in the future.
Oh good grief everything is such a friggin big deal these days, some people are too sensitive to live
Wait until he calls a hispanic reporter “chola”…
The fact he voted against equal pay is good enough for me to know that he doesn’t think women are important. His votes, his actions, and reactions tell me that. The fact that is it off the table in all the political talk shows that he’d pick a woman running mate tells me women are not a group important to him.
Where are they going to go? Well, not to the voting booth for him. If he gets the nomination and loses to McCain, it’s his own damn fault.
Here’s a good blog for you sweeties.
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/05/18/sunday-sweeties/
I wrote about this earlier this week, and I think some are missing that there’s a difference between a waitress calling you “sweetie” and a presidential candidate calling a member of the press with whom he was supposed to have an interview (! see his apology). I cross-post at The Reaction, and I responded to a comment that brought up the ‘southerner’ issue by saying,
But I also think context is important. For example, I have worked in food service and bars. When I am waiting on a table, I get really irritated when a table of guys calls me sweetie, honey, or flirts. I feel it is a power thing. I am 100% obligated to serve them and to nicely put up with what they say if I don’t want complaints and if I want a decent tip. If I am being waited on or served and as a customer, those things are being said to me, it’s less of an issue, because it is not a situation of power (I’m the customer with the money) and if I don’t like it, I can just walk away or request other service. I use this example to show that the same language used in the same industry is in/appropriate depending on the context of who’s speaking it.
But these 2 incidents involve reporters. For a politician, I think they could be considered peers. They are professional women and members of the press, and yes, in that case, I think it’s highly inappropriate.
On my post I discussed why his apology is both good enough and not good enough-I’ll summarize here by saying it was good enough b/c it was direct and admitted wrong) rather than apologizing that she “took it the wrong way”). It’s not good enough because this isn’t the first time he’s done this, so he’s clearly not watching himself and checking his sexism all that much. Further, by saying he says this to “all sorts of people” is just wrong–he does it to women.
I haven’t read all the comments, so sorry if I’m being repetitive.
I identify myself as a feminist, but I don’t find it offensive to be called “love,” “sweetie,” or most other effeminate nicknames. By deeming this inoffensive to me and not doing anything about it – while still totally supporting the right of other women to challenge such behaviour – am I failing as a feminist?
Actually, we probably would, assuming she was addressing someone younger than herself and not, say, (the late) Ed Bradley or another contemporary. If she addressed a black male reporter as “boy,” then it would be game over. Similarly, I cringe when Obama says, “sweetie,” but it doesn’t hit the same buttons for me as if he called her, say, “babe” or “honey.” For some reason, those strike me as more threatening/aggressive than sweetie.
The way I’m looking at it is, he loses 5 points for calling an adult woman “sweetie” but gets 1 point back for personally calling and apologizing rather than doing the weasely “If anyone was offended” press release you usually get from a public figure.
When you’re trying to self-abort with a coat hanger in 2010 after McCain’s Supreme Court appointees reverse Roe v Wade, I’m sure it will be an enormous relief for you to be able to say, “See, it’s all Barack Obama’s fault!”
I called out both candidates on my blog on the day after the Pennsylvania primary (April 23) to tell them (and their supporters) to quit playing the race and gender cards and talk about the issues that matter to the people of this nation.
I call my coworkers “Dollface” as well as the students I teach. Do I have a problem? (I am female). I believe it’s a term of endearment, not one of placation!
“Similarly, I cringe when Obama says, “sweetie,” but it doesn’t hit the same buttons for me as if he called her, say, “babe” or “honey.” For some reason, those strike me as more threatening/aggressive than sweetie.”
Sweetie and honey are interchangeable to me, babe always had a more sexual overtone in my view. But threatening and agressive is not the issue for me, it’s about being demeaning in a way that is specifically sexist. I’ve had this happen to me on the professional level and it just makes you feel like shit. In my situation it was while I was dealing with a guest in a hotel where I worked the front desk, and he did it repeatedly. And I was totally stuck because you have to please the damn guest, that was the job. Plus, being in a traditionally male profession makes it even worse when you’re shooed away with a sexist “not now sweetie” so I applaud this woman for calling his ass out. And I’m not giving him props for calling her directly because he did the same damn thing everyone has been doing repeatedly; apologize than follow the apology with an excuse, which cancels out the damn apology anyway.
I wrote and submitted this already, but I guess it didn’t go through…
When I saw the video, the calling of the reporter, “sweetie” seemed less “man talking down to woman” and more “gay dude being overly familiar with some lady.” He sounds effete. He is effete. Dude, Obama is so gay.
Did you see him on The View? All these white women inappropriately herding up to Obama and sexually objectifying him. Barbara friggin Walters said “You’re very sexy.” Really, Barb? You’re gonna tell a running presidential candidate that he’s sexy?? (I love how Whoopi looks totally uncomfortable and kinda freaked out.) But the thing I really noticed was how Obama responded – limp wrist handfanning. Seriously, could the man be any more of a lady?
If Bill Clinton was the first Black president, I don’t see why Obama can’t be the first gay president. Well…second after Lincoln.
So…a couple of lessons. Gender identity and sexual objectification is complicated by race. It’s not that the formula of “man talks down to woman” doesn’t exist, it’s that it’s not static. Sexual violence is not just a phenomenon of patriarchy, but of white supremacy. White women participate in sexual objectification and violence of Black people as a manifestation of white supremacy. I think we saw that most clearly with Lynndie England. I’m not saying that the Barbara Walters thing is a HUGE deal, it’s not, but it’s important to flag the presumptuousness and entitlement that white women had over his Black male body at that moment.
Also, it gets a little complicated interpreting what this means in terms of patriarchy when the dude is so lady-like. I don’t want to argue that gay men or effeminate men can’t be sexist to women, but I do want to suggest that what looks like sexism may have a different meaning to it than it appears if you’re not looking at the situation through an intersectional lens.
I’m glad he apologized. It wasn’t cool. But, I do want to complicate the critique a bit more here…
This is speaking just as me, and hypothetically since I’ve never been one of your students or run into this issue. But if a teacher or coworker called me “dollface,” they would certainly go to the bottom of the list of my favorite coworkers/teachers. I mean, that can be overcome through getting to know the person. But first impression would definitely not be impressed. And even if I did get to know the person and like them, that would still grate constantly on my nerves. Again, as me personally. Since you asked.
Wendy, what are you talking about? Obama voted in favor of the Ledbetter bill. Is there a vote that I missed? I’m not ruling it out, but I honestly have no idea what you’re referring to.
And for the 10,000th time, it absolutely amazes me that anyone thinks Obama is the one being punished if McCain wins. I assure you that in that situation, he would be just fine. The rest of us might not be. And a whole lot of people in more vulnerable situations than I will be even less fine. Personally, I think that Obama’s relatively minor flaws are not worth people’s lives. But hey, let’s keep the Global Gag rule, keep invading countries for no reason and not even try for any sort of universal health care! That’ll show Obama, alright.
I can’t remember the last time I was called “sweetie” or similar by someone other than my mother or my BGBF (big gay best friend). Of course, the facts that (a) I don’t work in customer service or somewhere where I have to be nice to people and, relatedly, (b) I’m somewhat of a double-barreled loudmouth bitch might have something to do with that. I’m bothered by Obama’s slip, but honestly? In the list of “things that elected officials can do to fuck up women’s lives,” this is pretty low.
Slightly unrelated, but I really like the word “dollface.” I like to picture people with an actual plastic doll face glued to their person. But that’s just me.
Oh for god sakes, enough already! Threatening women with coathangers and the global gag rule is the same bullshit scare tactics the GOP uses. This guy and his supporters have pissed off women, ALOT of women, and telling said women that they should shut the fuck up and stick with Obama or they’ll get theirs is not helping the situation AT ALL.
Yes, disrespectful language is horrible. Great point pumpkin.
—
I’m not normally one to make the complaint that bloggers should be blogging about more important stuff, but isn’t the blogosphere already completely saturated with people flipping their lids over Obama using “periodically” in a sentence and Clinton badly stating demographic information?
You know what’s also a feminist issue? The fact that there are 4 million refugees in Iraq, many of them women and many of those under constant threat of violence and engaging in prostitution to support themselves.
Can we get a lot more of this demonstration of actual perspective?
It’s odd to me that calling someone “sweetie” is a big negative but supporting a war that killes tens of thousands of (brown) women is not. Scratching your face is anti-feminist but gag rules aren’t. Using “periodically” in a sentence is awful but voting for McCain or not voting at all is “principled.”
What people say off the cuff does lend some insight into their personalities but I’d suggest that what people do and have done matters a hell of a lot more, and in the feminist blogosphere that kind of analysis is almost absent entirely.
—
I get called sweetie a fair amount by female baristas (I’m male) here in Boston. Must be because I’m an obviously sweet person.
Wendy,
I was under the impression that Obama was in support for equal pay.
Can you provide some source that talks about him opposing it? I would like to know for sure.
wendy and katlyn: here is obama on equal pay, in indiana.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MGdMazrInw
cnn money called him out for being the only presidential hopeful to sign on to a “comparable worth” (pay equity) bill. called him out, because it’s against the free market to be against sexist pay.
on the “sweetie” thing: i am a big obama supporter, and i cringed myself when i read about this incident, and it made me feel even worse when i found out it was not the first time.
however, i give obama big points for calling himself and apologizing. it is precisely his style that he acknowledges what he does wrong and takes responsibility. i think that obama calling it a bad habit signified that he honestly did not mean to make that remark. it was a mistake, and he does not intend to make that same mistake in the future. it was not premeditated, as some disgusting behavior on the campaign has been, by his competitors. his remark about being “duly chastened” recognized that he was in the wrong. his chastening was due, and now he can repent, as it were.
i am getting honestly frightened that feminists are finding as much material as possible to not vote for a good (not perfect) democratic candidate this fall. i am feeling terrified that we are gonna elect mccain. obama is not perfect, but he is far better than the “lesser of two evils.” i can’t believe that we will choose to elect a man who called his wife a “cunt” over a man who accidentally called a reporter “sweetie.” i can’t believe we will allow the media and the GOP to snooker us into voting against our best instincts. hell no.
please do not let this happen.
S.H., I don’t get it. Besides this stupid comment, what exactly has Obama done wrong to “women” as a group? I mean, yes, his winning is preventing Hillary Clinton from becoming the next president of the U.S., but I don’t understand how that’s an offense to women as such.
I’d like to see someone respond to soullite’s comment.
I’m an adult male and I get called “sweetie” all the time by women who don’t know me personally (and women who do). I just can’t agree that a term is misogynist when it runs from women to men so commonly in modern day usage.
That’s not to say that Obama was right to use the term; he was not. It’s condescending and rude, but that falls on everyone equally.
southpaw, the term isn’t sexist. The use – being condescending and rude but in a way and with a word that is common for men to remind a woman of her place as a woman – is. People have said in these comments already and I will repeat, it’s possible for a woman to be condescending and rude to a man with “sweetie” but it doesn’t have the same context or sting, and isn’t sexist.
Sorry, but as someone who lived in Cambridge for many years I think that this behavior is one of the unfortunate downsides of Obama’s time at Harvard. Harvard men are notorious for this type of thing. Maybe since he’s a graduate of the law school he was waiting for “Ladies day” to call on her.
I’m glad he apologised quickly.
I also really like the idea of calling the person the word. I’m going to try that next time!
I don’t see the “scare tactics” here — Obama has said that he will overturn the Global Gag Rule, McCain has said that he won’t. Obama supports Roe, McCain does not. It’s simple truth.
Everyone can be as pissed off as they like. I’m more than happy to let people be angry and take the time they need. I get angry when people start saying that they will not vote for Obama no matter what or that they will vote for McCain because that’s somehow sticking it to Obama. And that’s precisely what “Well, if Obama loses to McCain its his own fault” means. The mistakes that he commits are absolutely his fault. But a lot of people currently seem to be out for revenge without thinking about who that revenge is actually going to effect.
Of course, this whole conversation has gone precisely where I didn’t want it to go. I am happy that so far people have not responded with attacks against Clinton. Can we please keep it that way?
Two possible ways to address this when it happens;
1. Repeat the diminunative back in an incredulous, slightly disgusted tone.
2. Neutrally (almost absent-mindedly) say “Don’t call me sweetie.”
Foxy, this says it better than I can regarding the anger still felt by many. Now I know alot of the misogynistic bullshit came from Obama’s supporters and not the man himself, but for him to have repeatedly benefited from it, throw in a few digs himself, and never felt the need to say a word bugs me alot, especially in light of his constant mantra calling for a new politics.
Plus this was not an isolated comment, he’s done this at least twice before, once with a factory worker in Allentown and he also called sitting senator Barabara Boxer “cutie”. Yes I have a problem with this pattern, and this is not a case of sour grapes for me, its about feminists who are still in a position of power with their votes to demand better behavior from the nominee who claims to represent their platform.
Look, I will agree that Obama has claimed to be on the right side of many feminist issues up until now but that’s only half the battle. Given that there is both a pattern of condescending treatment of women coupled with no particular need to court the women vote (because they’re cowering in the face of coat hangers), and add on his continuous calls for bipartisanship and reconciliation between the two parties which will include courting the right, you can pretty much guarantee that most feminist policies will be pushed to the backburner both in the general election and if he takes office, unless women demand to be heard on policy and ya know treated like human beings by our nominee. I don’t really see that as unreasonable.
Yes, a blog post that has “Obamabots” as the *second* word is clearly something worth referencing…
So your solution is to help McCain win. Brilliant.
If this is all a ploy to get Obama to avoid sexist language it may work. If y’all are actually serious about not voting in the general election then um…yeah…
There is a major disconnect here between privileged American feminists who are primarily concerned with “cutie”, “sweetie” and “periodically” and say Iranian feminists who are primarily concerned with not being incinerated.
It’s not Clinton’s fault that a vocal minority of her supporters don’t understand zero-sum games.
Hillary supporters don’t have to vote for McCain. They can simply stay home. Or I can vote for my local politicians and abstain from voting for a presidential candidate.
Obama has not done enough to gain the women voters. I resent the use of abortion rights in the form of a carrot stick. It is demeaning. And more insulting are Obama supporters putting the blame on Hillary’s women supporters for not voting and possibly allowing McCain a win. Women can do nothing right in this election in the eyes of some.
I think Obama’s apology was fine and I commend him for actually calling her himself, although if he wasn’t going to answer the question, it would have been better not to mention it.
I don’t know how I would have reacted. I think the surprise at his casual, but absent minded dismissal of me, along with the word “sweetie”, would have shown on my face with a surprised look and raised eyebrows. He’s from Illinois, not Tennessee, so I have a hard time believing that he grew up in an area where everyone does that. Also, he didn’t know this reporter and I don’t know if he was even aware of her name. It didn’t look like he even looked her in the eye when he spoke to her, I think that’s what made it seem so dismissive.
I can tell you one thing though, I definetely would have called him back after hearing his voicemail! But to be fair, I doubt most male politicians would have actually made a phone call to apologize. So I do have to give him credit for that.
In my experience, very few men or women have ever called me “sweetie” or it’s equivalent without coming off as dismissive or condescending. The majority of the time it’s happened to me, the offenders have been men, usually quite a few years older than I am. I have encountered very few men who do this without coming off as dismissive or condenscending, and these men came from the south, where everyone really does use terms like that. The majority of them say it when they are trying to dismiss something I’ve just said, so…in my experience, a man using a term like this to me is dismissing me. I think in her position, the best thing to do would have been to smile and say “I’d appreciate it if you’d call me Peggy. Thanks.” That way you are expressing your preference without being confrontational or angry, so people can’t say “Oh, she’s a femenazi going nuclear because he called her sweetie”.
Ya know I’m not a big fan of the name calling either, I find it infantile. So point taken, but I think the rest of the post has some merit.
It seems to me that some feminists have somehow managed to master the ability to fight for human rights and an end to everyday sexist bullshit. It’s called multitasking. You don’t think how a man treats women in his immediate vicinity provides a clue to how he views women in general? I do and that’s what gives me pause, bigtime.
And again, there is some middle ground between boycotting and rolling over. Calling Obama out on his sexist language is not handing the election to McCain. Demanding Obama do better by women and for women is not handing the election to McCain. But I think that the anger and resentment is palpable here and its not because a bunch of uptight women are pissed that the nominee doesn’t have a vagina. And continuously threatening women with impending doom and questioning their feminist credentials is just not productive.
Personally, there are a host of problems I have with Obama as the nominee, many of which are not even related to this topic. But overall I am just so tired of settling and being told I should take what I can get. I just think there’s time to push him to do better.
I agree largely with S.H.’s post above, but his side has pulled so much misogynist garbage that I myself have no hope of him changing. I don’t know how or if I’m going to vote in November, but it won’t be for him if he’s the nominee.
Here’s the thing: is it too much to ask of people that they separate the candidate frin the candidate’s “side”? Some Obama supporters are acting unjustly. That’s a problem. It’s one I’d definitely do the most I can to counteract. At the same time, refusing to vote for him solely on that basis just doesn’t add up.
Another illustration concerns some of the unjust Clinton supporters; if any one of those particular people were running for office, I’d be very much aghast; but, I know that Clinton herself is not like that.
It’s telling that those who won’t vote for Obama, because of the pattern of sexism coming from him and his camp, will vote for Clinton, considering the pattern of racism coming from her and her camp.
I say this as someone who supports neither candidate, but plans to hold my nose and vote for whoever gets the party’s nomination.
They want my vote, they earn my vote. I gave up holding my nose when I became an adult. It is not for me to give them a free pass on issues that matter to me, it is for them to prove that they are worthy- I’m still waiting.
@Hawise, Dame of the Deep-fried
Ok, so I guess I must be channeling my inner-child in not wanting a McCain presidency.
Are you voting for a third party candidate, or has Clinton earned your vote?
at the end of the day, HRC’s racist and deliberate campaign tactics completely outnumber Obama’s sexist comments, though both are centrists and not terribly exciting. I am especially suspicious of die-hard HRC fans. Also, HRC supporter Erica Jong did call BO “boy”. I don’t see how a war-hawk is seen as a feminist icon. What complete crap.
I’m excited about Obama, but I dig the call for him to do better. I want him to do better. I want him to earn feminist Clinton supporters. I’m not totally sure what that would look like. A summit? A speech? I’d support a concrete action that folks like S.H. want to see him do. But I haven’t seen organizing like this. I’ve only seen organizing to boycott (girlcott?) him. That doesn’t seem like transformative movement building to me. It just sort of seems stuck.
I do have a concern that many of these women are deeply invested in hating Obama b/c Clinton lost and b/c of the misogyny of the media. I’m sad that there seems to be little acknowledgment that Clinton lost mainly b/c her campaign was poorly run and also partly b/c the racism from Hillary and Bill helped alienate a lot of Black voters.
So, if there’s an investment in the narrative that Clinton lost b/c Obama is a misogynist (which I’ve seen little to no evidence of), I can’t envision folks taking more of a proactive stance. Just stuckness. We know that if he loses, we’ll lose, but I’ll take S.H.’s point that he’s not entitled to one’s vote. But what changes for the better, exactly? If he wins after these women have not voted, then where does that leave us? Obama will have won, but the point that these women want to make will no longer be potent in a pragmatic sense.
So, I guess the question is, if you want Obama to do better, and I want Obama to do better, then what’s the plan?
I’m not sure, but I’ve always admired the ability of the extreme right to make even moderate republicans move farther to the right. The method that is, not the goal. If we can copy their tactics with the goal being pushing a candidate farther to the left we may get somewhere. I never really understood how exactly they do it so much better than the left though, maybe it’s better organization? I do understand what your saying about boycotting being self-defeating to some extent, that’s always been an issue in regards to any social action. But, the key is to get women and allies of women to act in a way that tells Obama, “hey we matter! You need us as bad as we need you”. The right has perfected that tactic and we need to use the same skills. And I hope I’m not repeating myself ad nauseam, but I really think this is a critical time to push Obama to the left, because this is always the time the dem candidate moves more to the right.
I also hope I’m not clogging up the thread too much, but it’s an interesting topic to me and it’s also become a perfect excuse to take the occasional break from the endless task of moving that I’m knee deep in right now!
A woman in the BK drive-through called me a sweetie. Sexism?
S.H., oh my goodness I think we are in total agreement! Yes, since it looks like he’ll be the nominee, let’s think through what grassroots pressure looks like to move him to the left. This probably won’t happen overnight. He’ll have to be perceived to be in the “center” in order to win. (I’m specifically thinking about things like Palestine, Iran, and poverty.) But I’d really like to figure out how to make him accountable to a grassroots lefty movement that includes a call for him to be more articulate about a progressive feminist politic.
As talented as he is with speech-writing and so on, I’ve not been super impressed with his language about women. This whole thing about “I’m surrounded by women who keep me accountable,” is played out. All the guy politicians use it and it’s boring and I have higher expectations of him. His policies that are supposed to specifically be about women don’t seem to be that different from Clinton’s. I guess what I’d like is kind of a visionary politic, a leadership, about gender that I think he is capable of producing.
I’m thinking this through in terms of grassroots pressure, but one last thought. Reading through some of the ways in which some Hillary Clinton’s supporters talk about him, I can’t help but wonder if anything will be enough, if there isn’t an entrenched hatred for him. So, I feel uncertain about this.
In any case, no matter, I still would like to figure out a way to organize some pressure for him to do this. I’ve got some thinking to do…
foxy and S.H, I sort of get what you’re saying, but what I’m really not understanding is what these posters mean when they say that Obama needs to “earn” their vote.
As you’ve said, if you look at their policy proposals and voting records, Obama and Clinton are very similar. It seems as though over the course of the campaign, the roles have somewhat reversed- with Clinton starting out as the more centrist, establishment candidate. I think that image has very little to do with the candidate’s actual positions, and is driven more by the narratives the media has created surrounding both candidates, the strong emotions associated with identity politics, and a long campaign that has really supporters from both the Clinton and Obama camps.
Anyone can go to ontheissues or Obama’s website and find what his positions are. I just don’t think thats the issue. There is a lot of anger and resentment and I’m not sure how we resolve it. If we aren’t talking about policy positions, then what public gestures would be talking about? More outreach to women on a grassroots level? Women in prominent positions in the campaign (on a side, I don’t care what anyone says, Samantha Power=my hero)? Besides that, if Obama were to give a speech on gender, similar to the one he gave on race, I worry that it would just get attacked as being patronizing and “not a solution.”
Also, one thing that is really irking me about the Obama and women thing in general is that no one seems to acknowledge that black women are strongly supporting Obama. I don’t mean to start a fight here, but do we not count as women voters?
juju- there is six frigging months left and I don’t respond to’ lollipops and unicorns’ speeches. His track record is hopeful but has some elements that disturb me to the core. He is more prone to going right on issues than left and he has a streak of paternalism that is what brought this whole issue up in the first place. I don’t want a President to protect me, I want one that respects me because that protects me on the level that I want.
J.- “what these posters mean when they say that Obama needs to “earn” their vote. ”
What it means is that from the moment that he has the nomination secured he is going to be fighting for the votes that he doesn’t have yet and those tend to be in the center. This is an election where the Democratic candidate has a real shot at winning even with a center-left platform and so it is up to those who want a center-left platform to hold his feet to the fire. Make him stay left. Make him say what he is going to do. Make him be concrete in his statements so that he can be held accountable for his words and actions after the election.
” I don’t mean to start a fight here, but do we not count as women voters?”
You count more than most because you have an inside edge at this point.
The primaries are almost over and now comes the second stage- now you have to look at what you want him to do for black women as a President and not just as a nominee. Is he articulating your issues? Is he supportive of your causes? Where is he strong and where does he fall short? What sort of pressure can you put on the campaign to get him to move closer to where you want him to be now that you have helped him get to where he wanted to be?
You actually have alot of power in this situation to influence the candidate to be the best candidate for YOU. Use it.
Very true, that has been overlooked. But I’m not saying the majority of white women are opposed to Obama either. I’m just saying the women who are seemed to get pushed into a corner and labeled as vengeful Hillary Clinton supporters. But it goes way deeper than that. Shakesville currently has a running tally of the sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton that should be pretty damn offensive to any women. The list is at 94 and ya know what, I’m tired of all the shit. What happened to that reporter happened also to me and to countless other women. He embarassed her and disrespected her when she was just trying to do her job. It’s not right. And it matters.
Hawise, I’m mostly just going to repeat what I said before. Anyone can go to ontheissues or Obama’s website and find his voting record and policy proposals. I went to an Obama rally and he gave a 45 min policy speech where he talked about the war in Iraq, the larger war on terror, the courts, higher education, healthcare, and the environment. Unless I stepped out for a minute and missed it, there were no lollipops, unicorns (I imagine he is pro unicorn?), or even puppies. I support Obama based on the same criteria I would support any candidate: I agree with his positions and I like his proposals for how to accomplish these things.
Again, I really don’t think that this “earn my support” line is about his positions. We know what his positions are, and they are pretty much the same as Clinton’s. I think the real problem is that there is a lot of anger and resentment and I’m not sure how we resolve it. If we aren’t talking about policy positions, then what public gestures would be talking about? More outreach to women on a grassroots level? Women in prominent positions in the campaign (on a side, I don’t care what anyone says, Samantha Power=my hero)? Besides that, if Obama were to give a speech on gender, similar to the one he gave on race, I worry that it would just get attacked as being patronizing and “not a solution.”
Of course the sexism that Clinton has experienced matters. I’ve never said that it doesn’t. What I am asking is what you think Obama should do to rectify it. How much of the sexism should he have to answer for? He absolutely should have had to apologize for the Sweetie comment, which he did. What else does he need to do?
@S.H.
I wholeheartedly agree with you: “It’s not right. And it matters”. But what I don’t get is why Obama’s sexism makes him unsupportable, but Clinton’s racism doesn’t have the same impact.
S.H., the reporter never said Obama’s comments embarrassed her. In an NPR interview, she actually said that she didn’t mind the “sweetie” thing that much, but she was mostly annoyed that he didn’t answer her question. Something that he fixed later.
I think we need to be careful here about how we’re characterizing this and that we don’t put our own meaning on it and represent it as other’s meanings, that’s not cool.
juju – here, here
Hawise – Something about your post is rubbing me the wrong way.
In response to J writing:
You write:
I understand that you are explaining what you mean by “earning your vote,” but there’s something about the way you are thinking about Black women as “on the inside” and (presumably) non-Black women “on the outside” that I don’t think holds water at all. Just because one votes for him in the primary doesn’t mean that one is “on the inside,” I’m not even sure what “on the inside” means here.
And on top of “being on the inside” you write about how to get Obama to support “your causes.” There’s a real distancing here in your post, I think, between Black women and white women or Black women and non-Black women (I’m not sure what you mean). As if Black women have the inside track and we can pressure Obama to tend to “our” causes while white women are left outside in the cold and there’s no pressure to tend to “your” causes, as if white women’s “causes” are marginalized and Black women’s “causes” can’t be generalized to “women’s causes.”
Something about the way you’ve written this that makes me really uncomfortable…
Actually I meant ‘you’ as an Obama supporter and hopefully active in his campaign. Someone who is undecided, independant or is an acknowledged supporter of another candidate has different power in the political milieu. So what I am trying to get to is not a generalized ‘you’ as a group but ‘you’ as an individual voter. Voters, ultimately, only have the power of their individual vote and voice. Each of us comes from different experiences and needs and will respond based on experience and expectations. If enough people in enough places respond to his message then he wins, if his message isn’t resonating with enough people then he loses. At this point there are parts of his message and the way he conveys it that leave me troubled. Am I ever likely to vote McCain, no. Do I want what troubles me clarified, yes.
I have six months to finish making up my mind for the general, and I need never tell anyone what that final decision is but I have to live with it after all is said and done. I will keep reading, listening and responding but at this point I am unconvinced and I have been to his site, gone over his federal and state voting records and coverage of his State tenure. I haven’t seen him in person but I have followed his speeches in more than just soundbites.
So to repeat where you see “a real distancing here in your post, I think, between Black women and white women”, it is because I was referring to myself as an individual undecided voter and J as an individual voter and affirmed Obama supporter.
i just want to repeat JuJu’s question again, as i think its an important one that has not been answered here and one that has been nagging me like crazy.
why is it that becos obama has at times expressed sexism, he must make amends to earn your vote, but clinton is not being asked the same for her repeated racist whistleblowing.
when obama got the naral endorsement their were some incredibly racist remarks from supposed feminists in their comment thread. i dont want to be part of that sort of feminism. i want to hear clinton supporters justifications on why racism is excusable but sexism is not.
in light of the recent fallout within the feminist blogosphere regarding racism, i think its an absolute requirment that people try and look at the big picture and try to see where their privilege plays into all this.
i have no interest in being a feminist if its only for white women.
jessilikewhoa, for me (not a Clinton supporter, but someone disappointed in Obama), I expect Obama to win the nomination. If he does then Clinton will be in no position to earn votes towards being president from people she’s offended.
(And if Clinton wins, I hope there’s the same talk about her needing to prove that she’s firmly behind all of our interests before she deserves any of our votes.)
Actually, it was by getting conservatives elected to office at the local level and slowly working them up through the party structure until they reached a critical mass that allowed them to start dictating policy.
If we really want to beat the conservatives at their own game, liberals and progressives need to start running for school boards, city councils, hell, dog catcher, in massive numbers and get elected. You change the party from the inside by running for office, not by standing on the sidelines and voting.
This is one of the reasons why I voted for Obama: I think that Obama and Howard Dean understand that the way to transform a party is by getting more of your party members into office on a local level.
If feminists really want the Democratic Party to be responsive to our concerns, we need to get up off our asses and become politicians ourselves instead of trying to argue from the sidelines. Get in the game and play.
Nobody is going to answer this question.
I suggest you raise it in every primary thread though, so I can continue to laugh as people pretend not to see it. Seriously it’s an important question that people will ignore because the answer is embarrassing.
Also now that Zuzu is gone can I stop being stuck in moderation? If I want to annoy her I’ll do it at Shakes, not here.
I don’t address people by anything. If I’m talking to them, they generally know I’m addressing them — it’s not as if I speak to the luminiferous ether (…er…all that often…) How is this hard for people.
I’m somewhat shy, and have this problem about asking people’s names — I’ve gone YEARS not knowing my friend’s names unless it comes up in conversation. Still, I never need to use ‘sweetie’, ‘darling’ (unless I’m imitating Edina Monsoon for some reason).
(People use ‘doll’, or ‘sweetie’ to their BOSS? That’s cheek.)
jessilikewhoa- I don’t know about making amends. That isn’t a word that I use concerning politicians, he has to find a different way of expressing his points because they aren’t resonating with me and for me he may need to clarify some of his stances on issues pertinent to women because when he talks he sounds like my dad (who may be liberal but is definitely not feminist). I may love my dad but I would never vote for him to be president or trust him to protect women’s issues over other concerns. I get that Obama wants to be seen as progressive but I just don’t feel in my gut that he really gets it. He’s just too academic when it comes to things like negotiating across the aisle and judging judges and I simply can’t make up my mind whether that is something that will cause problems in the long term. So I have doubts about both candidates on different issues, I have no doubts about McCain but I want some of those doubts laid to rest before I would vocally commit my voice to a candidate. Once they know they have you, they don’t try so hard anymore.
Margalis– Media wise, sexism might be easier to get away with than racism, but among a historically mostly-white, sexism-focused group of people, maybe it’s the other way around?
I remember people in 2004 talking about how John Kerry needed to win their vote and convince them that he was the right candidate or they wouldn’t vote for him. That worked out really fucking well now that we have a conservative Supreme Court poised to invalidate Roe v Wade, didn’t it?
This is why I’m getting so frustrated with all of the “s/he has to WIN our votes” talk. I heard it in 2000. I heard it in 2004. And both times, it led to the Republicans winning. And yet people still seem to have some illusion that they’re really sticking it to the Democrats by not voting for the Democrat because they have small issues with some of his/her stances.
This isn’t a primary thread as far as I can tell, and I thought Cara asked awhile back that the subject not go there, so I didn’t engage. It has been raised in nearly every primary thread and it becomes a good way of saying “hey look it’s a pink elephant!” and distract people from the subject of the post. The fact is some of the tactics used by Hillary’s campaign and Hillary quotes themselves have indeed come under intense critism by feminists and her own supporters, here’s an example.
Unfortunately, if Obama does get the nomination, “but Hillary’s a racist!” won’t excuse any future sexist behavior. I know few if any feminists who would excuse any race-baiting just because Hillary’s been the victim of sexism, but I’ve seen all too many unwilling to admit the rampant sexism that has gone on because “ZOMG she’s a racist!”. It really mirrors the 5 year old argument of “She started it!” or better yet “the bitch was askin for it”.
@S.H.
You are so right that some Obama supporters deny the sexism of his campaign. So very true.
But here I have to disagree with you; I have seen feminist Clinton supporters who deny her racism.
I certainly don’t think that you, or anyone else, should sit down and shut up about Obama’s sexism. I think you should raise your voice about each and every issue that is important to you, in every venue appropriate.
My concern is with the sense that Obama’s sexism makes him irredeemable, but Clinton’s racism can be forgiven, or even overlooked. I am getting the sense that racism is a lesser concern.
I agree with you that some Obama supporters do at times use “but Hillary’s a racist!” to shut down discussion of his sexism. But that doesn’t mean that this isn’t a serious issue that is also worthy of condemnation. My point was not to address Clinton’s racism in a thread about Obama’s sexism, I think that would be out of line, as Obama’s “sweetie” comment warrants full discussion. Again, my concern is that Obama’s sexism makes him persona non grata, while Clinton’s racism doesn’t have this effect. I am asking why his sexism isn’t seen as one part of a candidate with multiple platform issues. Clinton isn’t only her racism as Obama isn’t only his sexism. Why is Obama beyond redemption?
I don’t think the problem is that the question is a distraction, it’s that too many people seem unwilling or unable to deal with both issues at the same time.
But I think the main problem is people think they have to choose somehow, choose one and ignore the other like J said, and if they call out their own candidate it somehow hurts his/her chances in the long run. I think that’s how you end up with a shitty candidate. I can only speak for me but if Clinton had made the “white, hard working comment” before I voted it probrably would’ve changed my vote or I would’ve just stayed the hell home. But maybe it’s just a matter of perception because I think the sexism has been much more allowable, for lack of a better word at least as it’s made its way to the media. For instance cnn yesterday had a round table panel talking about whether its appropriate to call hillary a white bitch. That was the debate! There was a guy there saying hey man some women are called that because it’s true. On CfuckingNN! Could you freaking imagine the outcry if the topic were can we call Obama a black D**k??? Never would happen. And I hate to play the two off eachother because none of this shit should’ve happened and I’m not sure who is chief to blame. I think both candidates themselves set the bar way too low and everyone else ran with it. And it sucks cuz we’re supposed to be the good guys fighting for an end to both sexism and racism.
well the media is a whole ‘nother issue. its true they attack clinton with sexism, yet mostly keep their racism in check re: obama as its less publicly acceptable. but its not like theyre giving him a free pass, no, instead they use sexism and homophobia to attack him. hes a bad bowler and he drinks juice, so hes less of a man. pam put up a great post at pandagon re: an op ed in the washington post about edwards endorsement of obama, where the writer feigns shock that the men didn’t kiss.
edwards was called a fag by ann coulter, was attacked for being too pretty and spending too much on a haircut. obama is attacked for being too feminine.
i think calling out the media on their sexism and homophobia toward all our candidates is really important, but it is a seperate issue from calling out obama and his supporters own sexism, same as it is a seperate issue from clinton and her supporters racism.
frankly, the media isnt going to give any democrat a free pass, cos we tend to do pesky shit like regulate them and support unions and fair pay and all sorts of obnoxious legislation that drives the corporate powers that be totally batshit.
my candidate was edwards, now i lean toward obama based purely on his stances re: foreign policy vs clintons, but overall they are incredibly alike and i dont have much of a stake in begging you to support either. all im asking is that people realize that racism isnt just some tiny flub as opposed to sexism being some huge indignity. both are unaceptable and need to be called out.
the only person im begging you to support is me and my uterus, by helping keep mccain out of office come the general election.
@S.H.
No, you do not have to choose, the two are integrally connected (along with a whole bunch of other ism’s). As a WOC, I have a hard time battling one without also confronting the other.
No, you probably won’t see a discussion of whether or not it’s appropriate to “call Obama a black D**k” on CNN, but you can sure expect to see a whole bunch of other inappropriate ugliness; we are quickly sliding into Oppression Olympics territory. I think some who have been following this campaign closely, and who are also conscious of sexism and racism, will say that Obama has faced a great deal of racism coming from the media, as Clinton has faced a great deal of sexism coming from the media.
Well said, Jess.
Perhaps ironically b/c racism is taken more seriously than sexism. So obmana can apologize for using the word “sweetie” and move on.
But what is clinton to do? Concede she really meant to imply Obama is muslim on 60 minutes? Admit saying “hard working american, white americans” was in fact part of her southern strategy and move on? admit her husbands “jesse jackson” and “obama played the race card on me” comments where in fact racist?
No, she has to maintain plausible denial. The alternative would be too risky in our society.
Okay folks, no oppression olympics. I think I lost control of this thread (and admittedly kind of gave it up) a while ago, but I’m not going to let it go there. If I keep seeing “but sexism is worse than racism, but racism is worse than sexism, but the media is allowed to get away with this prejudice more often . . .” kind of crap, I’m gonna shut down the damn thread, because that’s well past the point of being productive.
The thread did end up going off a bit on the topic I was hoping to avoid, but I’ve also been impressed that for the most part, it has been dealt with intelligently and most people seem to genuinely be listening to each other and asking questions with the intent of actually understanding and getting somewhere. How about we don’t fuck that up, k?
As jessi said, what’s fascinating is that sexist attacks are also being used against Obama, in part because open racism is not allowed on national TV, but homophobia and sexism still are. Prepare for several more months of being told how Obama is a girly-man who may as well have a vagina.
Which, ironically, makes it harder for him to defend women. After all, if he’s seen as too interested in women’s issues, he’s pussy-whipped and is knuckling under to the femi-Nazis.
This is the attack they’ve been using on Democrats for decades now. Ironically, Clinton got it extra-bad because she’s an actual woman, not just a woman manque like “French-looking” John Kerry or “earth tones” Al Gorre.
I wish we could figure out a way to combat it, because unfortunately it seems to resonate on both sides of the political divide.
Once you have Rush Limbaugh gleefully playing the Oppression Olympics, I think that meme needs to be put to bed.
dead lord Mnemosyne, i think you may have nailed the actual source of the “sweetie” comment and the whole “brush yo shoulders off” debacle without necessarily meaning to.
and how do you prove your masculinity in our culture? by showing that youre better than women. which isn’t to say obama should get a free pass, in fact, when i look at it in this context im actually angrier at him than i was before (i’m a midwestern long time waitress, i call everybody sweetie, hon, etc). becos now i have to wonder if this sort of thing isnt just habitual with the “sweetie” or just youthful pop culture with the whole jay-z thing. instead, what if this is being played out intentionally to prove to voters that hes a real man?
that would squick me the fuck out. still wouldnt make me risk my reproductive health tho.
an addendum too, after i posted earlier re: the sexist attacks against him for the bad bowling thing, i recalled i actually did see some pretty underhanded racism in the media about it too, some pundit yammering that he should have stuck with playing basketball.
also, i’m sorry for thread derailing cara. i adore and respect you, i just have trouble following directions.
gotta help the roomate make mock tuna. hearts.
Salon.com ran three articles on Obama that said the following:
1. He was too “uppity.”
2. He wasn’t authentically black.
3. He was too womanly.
There is plenty of racism and sexism to go around. What annoys me is people who see only one or the other, or who only care about one or the other, or people who conflate the candidate, the media and supporters.
I’m not going to apologize for derailing the thread because I really don’t think I’ve gone off topic. It was my first time posting on here, and I really appreciated the thoughtful responses. My saying that I felt ignored really was just an afterthought and me expressing my frustration in the midst of a long campaign where I’ve felt that black women have largely been ignored.
Just to reiterate what my question was: Quite a few people on this thread said that they were disgusted with the sexism that has been rampant throughout this campaign and as a result said they would not vote for Obama. I agree that there has been a lot of sexism in this campaign. Most of it has come from the media, but in this case, it is from Obama.
What I am trying to figure out is what exactly these posters want Obama to do about this? I think there is a lot of outrage here and not a whole lot of specifics about why or how to fix it. I’m really curious to know which of Obama’s policies are not sufficiently pro woman, because his plans were a major selling point for me. If the focus isn’t on his policies, then what?
In light of all that, I think Juju’s question is perfectly legitimate. Why would sexism be a justification for not supporting Obama, but racism not be a justification for not supporting Clinton? It’s not a matter of going off topic, it’s just that it really doesn’t make much sense to get into one issue, while pretending that the other doesn’t exist.
J, I just went through your comments, and it doesn’t look like you were one of those who I was referring to. As I said, I wasn’t originally looking for the conversation to go to the Clinton campaign’s racism, but I think that with so many saying they can’t vote for Obama due to his campaign’s sexism, the question did come up and was a legitimate one. I was referring to those who were claiming that racism is less acceptable than sexism (and vice versa). That’s a whole separate thing. The first topic of discussion is a valid and important one, and for the most part I think that it was being discussed here responsibly. The second topic has been done a million times, alienates people from both sides and is really just offensive in a multitude of ways.
Although Obama is just as ambitious and calculating as any other politician, I don’t think he’s quite that calculating. If anything, I think it’s that he doesn’t think it’s a big problem and so hasn’t put much effort into changing what he does. Because, yes, in public sexism is more acceptable than racism and you can get away with saying mildly sexist things much more easily than you can get away with saying mildly racist things, so there’s not the same pressure to change your ways in public.
Do I think Obama has a sexist streak? Yeah, probably, but it doesn’t seem to manifest itself as a desire to control the sex lives of strangers and he supports both reproductive rights and equal pay, so it’s hard for me to declare that he’s so bad that I’ll vote for McCain instead so I can have a president who’s dedicated to destroying women’s rights rather than one who’s somewhat indifferent to them.
J. I don’t like his stance on NCLB as I find that it is a weak solution to a problem that has seriously damaged the overall system. I don’t think that his healthcare plan goes far enough to address the problems of the uninsured. His history of present votes in the Illinois Senate bothers me because I simply do not condone the use of present votes. They are a cop-out designed to save political ass and he has made a lot of them on issues where I would have like to see him make a stand for or against. The fact that he would have voted for Judge Roberts if his political allies hadn’t convinced him that it was a bad move bothers me because as President he will be chosing judges. As an American living in Canada, I am bothered that he has not called his committee to sit once when it would have been able to help a valuable international ally and support his stance on Afghanistan thereby giving him some credit that he could have used. I find him very conservative in outlook and therefore his stressing bipartisanship may mean that he is willing to toss more progressive allies in the ditch to reach concensus. His discussions on faith as it pertains to body integrity don’t sit well with me especially when you add it to how paternalistic he sounds whenever he actually discusses women (sweetie just being the most recent) and I remain on the fence where he is concerned.
I keep hearing this said, but I really can’t relate to this reality. I hear seriously racist statements made in public all the time, in the media and in my every day life. It’s the same with sexism. I would propose that if you don’t hear/see this, perhaps you are simply more conscious of sexism than racism.
I hate this compare and contrast of ism’s. It invariably leads to some folks like myself, WOC (who have to deal with both) and other multiply marginalized women, feeling alienated.
Juju, I completely agree. This whole trend of people saying that racism is verboten but sexism is just fine in our society is really getting on my nerves. Just because people aren’t casually throwing around the n-word doesn’t mean that there’s not a whole lot of racist talk and imagery saturating our societal discourse and the media, often conflated with classism. Some people seem to have a really hard time discerning racist talk when it doesn’t sound like it’s coming out of the mouth of a KKK member, and I have to believe that the ability to ignore or be blind to pervasive racism comes from the privilege of not having to deal with racism.
This is probably OT at this point, but for heaven’s sakes, I wish people would read more Miss Manners. Every woman I speak to that I don’t know is “Ma’am” and every man I speak to that I don’t know is “Sir” even if they’re younger than me. And now that I’m 40 there’s more and more of those. You should see young people, especially those who are not privileged, straighten their shoulders up and hold themselves with pride when someone, especially a fat middle aged white woman with a kid and privilege, addresses them respectfully. It’s nice. Frankly, it’s subversive.
Cara, I see your point, and this thread has gone on for quite a bit.
Hawise, thanks for responding with those points. I’m not familiar with the NCLB issue so I’ll definitely have to look into it. As for the other issues, I’ll just save it for a later thread…
[...] week, Miss Sarajevo left a comment with a link to this series of articles in The Washington Post, and I’m just finally getting [...]
[...] week, Miss Sarajevo left a comment with a link to this series of articles in The Washington Post, and I’m just finally getting [...]
That’s pretty likely true, at least in my case. I can catch fairly blatant stuff, but the smaller, dog-whistle type stuff probably goes over my head. I see it once someone draws my attention to it, but I don’t always see it on my own.
Oh, and when I say “smaller,” I mean less obvious or blatant, not less important. Just to be clear.
Do not make a mountain out of a molehill.
I am an old lady. I call youngsters (anyone under 80) SWEETIE all the time.
It’s a bit different coming from an old lady than a pot bellied drunken construction worker but 98% of the time it is truly harmless and most people ARE trying to be nice.
Actually, I say “darlin” more than “sweetie” but either way….