What is still missing, however, is a national discussion on sexism.
"This is the most underwritten story of this campaign ... by the press ... by the media. [...] Nobody understood the agony that women, particularly of my generation, were undergoing about this ... issue ... and to this day, it has been swept under the rug and been forgotten because she didn’t win. [...] We did not examine the fact that we didn’t get, we haven’t gotten nearly as far ahead as we thought we were about equality between the sexes. And that ought to be revisited as a result of what happened ... and it happened to Sarah Palin too." -- Howard DeanDean is right. We haven't yet address the issue of sexism, and until we do we will continue to see women abused by the media, corporate America, and certain religions.
A good start would be to never again have an all-male panel discussing issues of the day.
h/t to egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women
.
5 comments:
BAC,
You are such the second-wave feminist, and I such the third-generation incarnation.
Reconciling the strains, tensions, and overall contrasting attitudes within the movement itself is the first step towards having a discussion about sexism. And with all controversial subjects we must all come to the table with an open mind.
I don't see the bias against Hillary Clinton as somehow inherently anti-woman as I see it as anti-Hillary. And though that's certainly bigoted---it's driven by a media and a people who crave the next big thing and quickly grow bored with a known quantity. Hillary is not an especially warm, charming, gregarious figure and I assert yet again if it'd been ANY OTHER woman except for her, she'd have been elected.
Bias is one thing, but it's much more systematic than one candidate. I honestly wish more women were present in substantive debates like this but culture motifs and stereotypes are what need to be questioned, not navel-gazing tactics.
Kevin you don't see the bias against Hillary as anti-woman because you don't want to. As an entrenched Clinton-hater it is simply not possible for you to get past that and see the sexism for what it is ... pure.
And what you fail to understand, because you lack the ability to understand is that Hillary is only the most visibile example of a systemic problem that NO ONE IN POWER IS ADDRESSING.
When you wake up from your fog, and finally realize just how wrong you are, you might be able to see what is being addressed here ... but I hold no hope that will ever happen.
Until then ... shut the fuck up.
BAC
Hillary is not an especially warm, charming, gregarious figure ... if it'd been ANY OTHER woman except for her, she'd have been elected.
Wow. The fact that you don't hear the absurdity in what you're saying is almost unbelievable.
Folks like you don't like women who are not "feminine" enough (or in your words "warm, charming and gregarious"). But feminine women are too "soft" for positions of power.
The Catch-22 that keeps us in our place.
I agree with you and Dean that we ought to be talking about this, especially with regards to Hillary.
You kind of lose me when it comes to Palin. I know she faced some sexism but she was also unqualified to be VP.
When I was younger I had complete contempt for Dan Quayle when he was VP. He was obviously to stupid and intellectually incurious for the job. I feel the same way about Palin and it has absolutely nothing to do with her gender.
She is simply not a bright person. As a country we dodged a bullet in this election.
Dean - I think a discussion about what happened to Hillary should be a launching point, but the problem is much bigger than just her.
I agree with you that Palin wasn't qualified to be VP (I also lived through the Dan Quayle days). What I objected to was the talk about her ability to be a mother AND vice president. The talk about whether or not she actually gave birth to her baby. All the sexualized photoshopped photos of her that circulated the net.
I kept urging people to oppose her on her policies, which was reason enough in my opinion to not vote for her.
BAC
Post a Comment