Kim Gandy defends patriarchy, rejects efforts to combat violence against women
February 25, 2009
by Violet Socks, Editor
|Editor’s note: Violet Socks is in a bad mood and speaking only for herself. Her opinions should not be construed as an official statement by The New Agenda.
What does this picture have to do with the post? Guess you’d better read the post and see. — V.S.
I know I put a provocative title on this post, but I call ‘em like I see ‘em. In her Below The Belt column of February 20, Kim Gandy spends half a sentence mourning the fate of Aasiya Hassan, and then three paragraphs explaining that the husband’s crime had nothing whatsoever to do with his culture or religion. Now, it’s true that the Hassan murder no longer appears to be an honor killing; the more we learn about Muzzammil Hassan, the more he looks like a garden-variety chronic abuser who flamed out with one final atrocity. And it’s true that raving whackjobs who behead their wives are by no means confined to any particular demographic niche. If Kim had left it at that, I wouldn’t have a problem.
But she goes far beyond these observations into a full-scale shut-down of any possible cultural or religious differentials in terms of violence against women. All religions and nationalities are essentially the same, Kim tells us, and if there are any teeny tiny differences, they are unknowable. Pointless to even think in those terms. No reason to look at environmental factors like culture or religion when trying to understand why there’s a dead female body on the floor. Violence against women is the same everywhere, Kim implies, regardless of culture or religion. From Sweden to Somalia, from Wicca to Wahhabi, it’s all the same.
This attitude drives me nuts.
All cultures and religions are not the same. Violence against women occurs in virtually every society, but the rate and severity of the abuse vary enormously across cultures. Anthropologists and social scientists have been studying this stuff for decades. The percentage of battered women ranges from, say, 18% in Norway (to take one example from a 1999 global survey) to 80% in Pakistan (or even higher, depending on the study.) Violence against women is not a universal absolute that floats independent of culture: it is very much tied up with social norms and expectations, with religious beliefs, and with levels of male dominance. Many scholars have documented a particularly strong correlation between an ideology of male supremacy and actual rates of domestic violence (one example on my bookshelf: Peggy Reeves Sanday’s Female Power and Male Dominance, 1981.)
But the Kim Gandy approach, apparently, is to ignore this. We’re supposed to talk about “the repression of women” without ever getting too specific about where it’s happening or why or how. We’re not supposed to inquire into social codes or religious beliefs; we’re not supposed to notice that many Christian communities turn a blind eye to domestic violence, or that many Muslims believe husbands have a religiously-sanctioned right to beat their wives. Better to just issue vague platitudes and gloss over any possibility that there may be more or less misogyny in any given cultural tradition. That way you won’t offend anybody.
Why does this tick me off so much? Well, first of all, because it’s dishonest. Few things exasperate me more than propaganda, and I have no patience at all with polite fictions that conceal the ugliness of so many patriarchal religions and customs. But hiding the truth is also actively harmful. If you want to fix something, you have to understand what it is and how it works.
Dr. Violet Socks,
ticked-off Martian anthropologist.
You can tell this irritates me.
What is the purpose of all this anodyne smoothing over and blending away? What does Kim Gandy think she’s accomplishing? One theory (and I’ve asked around) is that she believes, like my hypothetical Jim Dandy, that if we drop our pretenses for even a second and acknowledge that some cultural traditions are more violently misogynistic than others, Americans will conclude from this that our own society is pristine and free of abuse. I think that’s a pretty unlikely result, myself. I have never met an adult American who actually believes that women don’t get beaten up in this country, and I’ve never seen the alleged chain of logic in action (”Oh, look, a man from Pakistan murdered his wife — that means men born in America never kill their wives!”). Yes, there are jingoistic Americans who interpret every data point on every subject as evidence that We’re Better Than Them (whoever Them is), but people like that are going to sing that song no matter what.
The other theory is that Kim is worried people might get the idea that Islam is a patriarchal religion with a number of misogynistic manifestations. This is tricky, because — ahem — Islam is a patriarchal religion with a number of misogynistic manifestations. Why wouldn’t Kim want people to figure that out? Christianity is also a patriarchal religion, and it is also used as an ideological weapon to oppress women. The solution with either religion is not to nervously change the subject, or launch into a litany of all-the-other-religions-that-are-also-sexist-so-it’s-unfair-to-mention-religion-at-all, or confuse the issue by pretending that criticism of a cultural tradition is synonymous with prejudicial hatred of the people who belong to that tradition (and notice how Kim accuses critics of attacking the Muslim community, which is exactly what Christian fundamentalists do when they accuse their critics of having some unreasoning prejudice against Christians). The solution, in all cases, is to confront the situation with unflinching honesty. Drag the truth into the light, name it, shame it, challenge it, harp on it, and demand that the mullahs or the imams or the preachers or the priests haul their sorry selves into the 21st century and change.
As for the Hassan tragedy, which breaks my heart every time I think about it, the only tiny shred of good news is that many American Muslims are much smarter (or more honest) about the situation than Kim Gandy. They recognize quite well that there are specific social and religious codes that help to perpetuate a culture of violence, and the case has moved many of them to speak out:
“This is a horrible tragedy, but it gives us a window,” said Abdul-Ghafur, editor of the anthology “Living Islam Out Loud: American Muslim Women Speak.” “The next time a woman comes to her imam and says, ‘He hit me,’ the reply might not be, ‘Be patient, sister, is there something you did, sister? Is there something you can do?’ The chances are greater the imam will say, ‘This is unacceptable.’”
And a Muslim woman writes in the Globe and Mail:
“Muslim denial over the abysmal status of women is deeper even than the one over the use of Islam to justify radical violence. Centuries of male-dominated and misogynistic interpretations of Islam are strangling us. We’re told on the one hand that God says men can beat us and yet, when we complain and demand our God-given right to a divorce, we’re told that’s a man’s prerogative.”
That is precisely the kind of understanding that is sacrificed when you sign up for Kim Gandy-style “no need to bring religion into it” anesthetic.
Good points –
your humor is an added bonus.
Interesting. I wonder if Kim is still vying for that cabinet office and thinks this is the PC stance that Obama people would go for?
I absolutely love your article! A beautiful, informative awesome-written rant. ^_^
I think Gandy is caught up in the cultual relativism idea that cultures do not have any rights or wrongs, merely differences.
This is excellent, Violet. Thank you for stating what should be obvious. It’s also good for women, because culture can be changed. Islamic culture, the United States of American culture, French culture, it must all change so that there is less violence against women.
I would love to know more about Norway…. What is it about Norway that makes them a country with much less “Domestic” Violence?
Kim Gandy, on the other hand, is totally speaking as if she is trying to impress someone other than women.
As always, the truth is somewhere along the middle path.
That is, apparently, not a path Ms. Gandy cares to walk down. Looking at both sides of an issue is, perhaps, too mind-boggling?
Violet—-you go girl!!! No need to apologize. The truth is the truth.
Violet– Exactly.
Even when you are angry, you keep control of the main point you are making. We all need to do that.
This is an interesting comment: “I would love to know more about Norway…. What is it about Norway that makes them a country with much less “Domestic” Violence? ” Perhaps we can explore more about why some countries have little to no violence against women.
Marjorie
Agree with all that you say here. To add, two points:
* It’s not just Muslims but also influences of Middle-Eastern/South Asian culture that allowed Aasiya Hassan’s husband to think he should/could kill her. That needs to be called out as well, because Muslims in different parts of the world think, behave differently.
* ANY immigrant and/or minority group, from ANY part of the world to ANY part of the world, tends to stick together. That’s a fact. I’m from an immigrant community that’s a hell of a lot better than Hassan’s, and my community still believes in keeping dirty linen (e.g. husbands beating wives, etc.) away from public consumption. In addition to encouraging Muslims to speak up, ALL minorities have more problems treating the women, the children, the disabled in their communities with equality, because they have additional (valid) insecurities about their place in their new land.
That their insecurities and fears are valid DOES NOT make it okay to pretend that the abuse and inequity does not exist. Kim Gandy’s misguided defence of Muslim misogyny makes it that much more difficult for the next Muslim, South Asian woman to speak up because she now feels guilty about implicating not just her abuser, but *her whole community*.
Kim Gandy sounds like a complete idiot and a horrible woman. Shame on her for supporting misogyny – in whichever form.
Just last night I listened to the President of the United States working hard to change our culture. I also listened to a lot of Progressives speak with admiration about his efforts.
For more than a year I have experienced a deluge of “news reports”, commentaries, TV specials, news paper and magazine specials about Race in America. All of these were intended to change our culture.
In general, I support these efforts. The problem that has developed, in my opinion, is that as a result our society as a whole has concluded that African Americans are the only legitimately disadvantaged group in the country. When a citizen speaks out on behalf of women, that citizen is deemed to be a Racist and the comments are dismissed.
Clarification: When I said I was “from an immigrant community that’s a hell of a lot better ” – I meant more open, more liberal, etc. My community is actually quite close to hers, geographically and culturally too, so I’ve grown up with people who could well be living Hassan’s life (god forbid), and with far less courage and less resources than Aasiya did.
While this comment is not directly on point, I was pleased to see Rep. Hilda Solis confirmed yesterday as Labor Secretary. From my review, she appears to have been pretty outspoken against domestic violence, gender wage parity and women’s rights throughout her political career.
The book, Honor Lost: Love and Death in Modern Day Jordan by Norma Khouri, is the personal experience of Norma’s best friend being murdered by her father because she was seeing a Jordanian man who was Christian. (They never even had sex!) Norma had to flee Jordan to avoid the same fate.
The book is frightening, heartbreaking, informative and also gives statistics.
My outrage over the subject of the book is great enough, but to add insult to injury, the book came out in 2003 and was out of print in — I believe — less than two years. I pushed it here in my bookstore as long as I could get my hands on it. It should be required reading for every woman, in my opinion. It would even be suitable for teens.
The book was printed by a publisher called Atria Books. I wonder what we, as a group, could do to get that back into print?
Your “bad” mood as put me in a good mood. Fine article, and I just love data.
Violet — We women need to be fed a steady diet of the kind of piece you did here. I agree with santafeK — Your ‘bad” mood fired me up again and I can use a daily dose. In fact, I would love it if we could get sponsors and do a Feminist version of Yahoo, complete with a search engine, news pop-ups, e-mail — everything. Okay — so now I’m dreaming out loud.
Thanks again and again.
I’d want to know how Norwegians violence stats. I don’t for a minute believe there’s some Valhalla (sic) in terms of women’s rights and safety. Lots of Norwegian immigrants to Canada. Recently one of them murdered his wife stabbing her repeatedly. Would it be statistically categorized differently if he’d done it before they left Norway?
This morning I intervened in an abusive situation in my building. The woman was afraid, the man was glowering with anger, directed to me for intervening. Not surprisingly, so was building management. Who are men. Or did I need to say that.
“compile” their violence stats.
When talking later to the director of this province’s women’s shelters, I mentioned how what I had done was viewed as butting in. She said this is the huge problem. People do not want to butt in. Still. Oh my god when will that change, so that women know that someone knows.
Oh and by the way, the women murdered I mentioned? She was in the process of leaving him. Had restraining orders, which he broken several times.
I could have written this song, Sis. My experience with my daughter’s situation is that the more you do to try to get away, the more violent they become. That’s why when somone says — “why doesn’t she just leave?” — I know they have never been through it. When my daughter got her restraining order she had to find a place to go — with her three children. They “couldn’t” force her husband to leave the residence.
“John Horning”
Right on! This is well said. It is also how Obama ultimately got elected and Clinton did not.
(”In general, I support these efforts. The problem that has developed, in my opinion, is that as a result our society as a whole has concluded that African Americans are the only legitimately disadvantaged group in the country. When a citizen speaks out on behalf of women, that citizen is deemed to be a Racist and the comments are dismissed.”)
In addition to brutal physical violence, insidious assaults against women occur everyday under the cover of “polite society.” Whether it’s going to the doctor, a lawyer, a mortgage broker, a car mechanic, women are too often exploited and taken advantage of, condescended to and preyed upon, because they are seen as easy targets. Women are taught from an early age to be good little girls who won’t be liked if they stand up for themselves and dare (gasp) to even express some anger if mistreated. It is fantastic for women to have role models, i.e. Hillary Clinton, who keep their ground against the attacks and march forward.
I think I hit the enter button instead of shift. Ah well. But my point: you mischaracterize Gandy’s article, which is mainly to do with the shallow treatment violence against women gets in the MSM, and doesn’t “explain away” anything.
There is strong feeling against Muslims in this country right now, sometimes resulting in violence. It seems to me that Gandy is trying to tamp down some of the prejudice; as you yourself note, this was not an “honor killing.” It was sheer brute rage. Ms. Gandy points out that a Virginia Tech student who knifed his girlfriend to death was not identified by religion.
She makes no claims regarding the relative incidence of violence among different religions at all. She simply asserts that violence against women should be addressed wherever it occurs. That seems uncontroversial enough to me. How do you get “defending the patriarchy” out of that?
I suspect that you are still grinding a large, Hillary Clinton-shaped ax.
I think if we speak up everytime, if people in Bridges tv office had spoken up, every time, en masse, maybe men wouldn’t get the idea they could do whatever they want to a woman, with impunity. Every time we decide NOT to intervene, or blame the woman, we give permission.
Carolyn I can’t imagine what you have been through; somehow, it’s worse when it’s your daughter than yourself. I’ve lived through my own, planned my exit, strategized it, saved for it. Kept my focus. But when it’s your daughter, it’s a thousand little deaths in your broken heart.
John and Well,
Please explain more fully “when a citizen speaks out on behalf of women, that citizen is deemed to be a Racist and the comments are dismissed.”
How are you both connecting advocating for women’s rights and being viewed as racist? Who is advocating for women’s rights, or has advocated for women’s rights, and then been called a racist for that advocacy for women?
Yay Sis! Kudos to you for taking your life back!
Mrs. Polly wrote:
“I suspect that you are still grinding a large, Hillary Clinton-shaped ax.”
What does any of this have to do with Hillary Clinton? I believe you’ve stated once before that people here have a problem with NOW only because they supported Obama instead of Clinton which is flat out wrong. First of all, Kim Gandy and NOW endorsed Clinton — not Obama — during the Democratic Primary. They and many other feminists (Steinem, Morgan, etc.) didn’t throw their support to Obama until after Clinton herself had done so. Whether NOW should have endorsed an all-male ticket (a first for them), especially when a feminist all-female ticket and a ticket with a female VP were available, is certainly debatable, but it has nothing to do with Clinton. What many of us do hold against NOW is their failure to speak up against the egregious misogyny — not just directed at Clinton but women candidates and voters in general — we all witnessed last year. I don’t see how anyone professing to be a feminist could not be upset by that.
The book was printed by a publisher called Atria Books. I wonder what we, as a group, could do to get that back into print?
Carolyn, I think one thing we can do is have every member of The New Agenda and possibly get the Pumas into this as well, contact the publishing company and insist they print out more copies. Demand creates supply, and once the company knows a lot of people want to read it, they’ll print more. Should we send out one mail as a group or send individual mails en masse?
I’d want to know how Norwegians violence stats. I don’t for a minute believe there’s some Valhalla (sic) in terms of women’s rights and safety.
Sis, as far as I know, the compliation of statistics is nearly the same for every country… the statistics might be compiled according to how many registered complaints are in the police directy, but if women don’t speak out, their silence lowers the statistics. Another way to do stats is through research; psychology does this a lot.
Mrs. Polly, I think Kim Gandy could have accomplished the same point by just referring to the killer as a sexist bastard rather than bringing religion into it.
Kevin, in response to your question, “How are you both connecting advocating for women’s rights and being viewed as racist?” they did not connect the two. Obama supporters connected them. During the election, a common response Clinton or McCain/Palin supporters received when they questioned Obama’s character – not color – was “you are racist.” If a Clinton or McCain/Palin supporter voiced their anger over the sexism, there would be an Obama supporter ready to accuse them of being racist.
Karen,
I understand the point that John, Well and you are making. I guess we respectfully agree to disagree.
Statements were said during the campaign that were clearly racist and sexist. I do not think it was the case that one campaign choose to play the “ism” card and the other didn’t, or that there was not an honestly discussion of Obama’s experience or character, or that all the candidates were not vilified in some manner (e.g., Obama as the Muslim terrorist, Palin as the unintelligent beauty, McCain as the grumpy old man and HRC as the emasculator, etc.)
Kevin,
If your answer is not in the article itself, then I misread it.
Hi John,
I don’t understand your last comment. My answer to what question?
Kevin,
One of the realities that our people do not like to address is the difference in the incidents of violent crime when broken down by socioeconomic categories. The reason it is taboo to speak about is that much larger percentages of racial minorities live in poverty and isolated situations. As a result, when violent crime is honestly measured by subgroups the violent crime rates are higher for most of the racial minority groups. And, in particular, extreme violence against women. There is 10,000 times too much in middle and upper-middle class communities, but still far less per capita than in the poor communities.
As I noted, this is a result of socioeconomic conditions not genetics. Meanwhile, in my experience, whenever someone speaks out about the stunning rate of violent beatings, rapes and murders of women living on American Indian Reservations or within certain predominantly African American inner city communities, they are accused of being racist.
It happens that only a small percentage of the world population is “White”. Further, the vast majority of these people are Christian. Whenever you talk about the various categories, you end up talking about “Persons of Color”. Right now, in the year 2009, if you are “White” and talk about “Persons of Color” you are branded a Racist. That is what I read as being at play in the description of what this woman Gandy had to say. You, of course, should read it your way.
Women in abusive relationships are at the greatest risk for being killed at the moment they are preparing to leave. This is an established fact/stat.
As for those who ask: Why doesn’t she just leave? It’s one of those situations in life where a person simply cannot stand in the shoes of another, hard as we may try. Part of battered women’s syndrome is that the woman lives as if with blinders on. The abusive relationship constructs a new reality, as relationships with family and friends are severed, employment and/or educational pursuits are severed, etc. The woman begins to slide down a slippery slope and starts to live a reality and can no longer “see” her situation. This is why abuse is such an intractable problem, why most women don’t leave, and why so many that do, return.
What actions is this organization involved in to address violence against women?
I visit and participate much less frequently as TNA appears to have some interested discourse but the activist piece seems much less developed. There’s a great Churchill quote on the first comment of Share News and Plans. We aught to be following it.
Even on a dead body, to remove a head would be difficult. The spine/neck is a lot of bone to cut through. Why would an ordinary murderer go to so much extra trouble if not for some symbolic or religious motive?
Even if he wanted to do extra mutilation for some emotional reason, there are much easier ways to do it.
In a detective novel, we’d look for someone framing the religious person. But still, carrying around an axe or a chain saw or whatever would be susipicious and the extra time required would be extra time in which to get caught in the act.
Kevin on February 25th, 2009 6:21 pm
————–
The racism/sexism situation in the campaign was not symmetrical — as I said in a comment earlier tonight (on the ‘taxation without representation’ thread iirc).
Violet,
For the last year or so I’ve read and so enjoyed your posts on Reclusive Leftist. Just want to say I’m delighted you’re here.
*****A
Part of the problem in the beheading case is that the off-base comparison to “honor killing” (what an oxymoron) was made in the first place. Beheading is used in contexts from legal execution of criminals (also employed by the non-Muslim French for a time, btw, and throughout Europe for centuries), to terrorist intimidation, not particularly for honor killings. In fact, I’d be surprised if beheading is even a typical method of honor killing, despite a few prominent cases — like the beheading of eight people in India reported by the AP as an honor killing the same day as Aasiya’s murder. Did the Indian report cause our sound bite media to mislabel a typical case of wife-beater-turned-murderer as something unrelated? Might it even have influenced Aasiya’s husband as he contemplated her death? He did after all run a TV network.
Anyway, the enduring crime is that even with circumstances so sensational, it took a week for this woman’s cruel and senseless death to reach major media notice, only after women’s groups complained, and after a brief sputter, it’s already faded into the wallpaper. What hope have we for a national conversation about violence against women, when the most aggravated case imaginable passes with barely a ripple?
*****A
Great post.
Fear of possibly offending another while suppressing the obvious injustice to yourself is a twisting way to think, isn’t it?
Maybe being direct and openly exploring avenues to a problem is best. Self-censorship of thought and words out of fear doesn’t seem to be an avenue to solving a problem.
“What actions is this organization involved in to address violence against women?
I visit and participate much less frequently as TNA appears to have some interested discourse but the activist piece seems much less developed. There’s a great Churchill quote on the first comment of Share News and Plans. We aught to be following it.”
Anna, I have noticed as well, and I agree with your comment. I think TNA is still figuring out exactly how to proceed enacting positive change. Lobbying for better laws, suing sexist portayals in the media, sue the state if laws are not enforced, lobby for more female politicians, etc. TNA wrote letters and sent emails to Governor Petersen to replace Clinton with Gillibrand; that worked out well.
Adrienne Grey “What hope have we for a national conversation about violence against women, when the most aggravated case imaginable passes with barely a ripple?”
I worry this question reflects many on TNA… Look at how far women have come in the past century… Women have achieved quite a lot in that amount of time. We have more rights and more powers, but we’re not to where we need to be yet. We need to look at prior feminist movements, figure out what they did to achieve their goals and attain a new level of empowerment. They started with no voice; how did they get their voice? I think we have all the tools available to us, but we don’t know how to use them.
I still think it’s ironic that we’re hearing more news of Gandy now that she wants the Woman’s Bureau job than we did throughout all of 2008.
John,
I agree with many of the points in your last comments, particularly:
“Meanwhile, in my experience, whenever someone speaks out about the stunning rate of violent beatings, rapes and murders of women living on American Indian Reservations or within certain predominantly African American inner city communities, they are accused of being racist.”
But for me I would change the “whenever” to “often” (whenever sounds like an absolute).
What I don’t understand is how you, Well and Carolyn use the article to partly explain why Obama won the Democratic primary and election. Are you implying when voters advocated for HRC or Palin, or women’s rights, they were accused of being racist? I do acknowledge that Racism is more generally viewed as taboo and that some “isms,” particularly against religion and mexican immigrants, are more accepted and fostered than others but I think it very difficult to rank the “isms.”
Flora,
I think we agree to disagree on the level and cause of sexism and racism within the primary and election. I would agree that there was more sexism within the primary but I do not believe Obama was the principal creator of this sexism. And the racial and religious hatred fostered in the Presidential election, in my opinion, matched the sexism fostered by the media. Having made these statements, however, I totally understand, acknowledge and respect that the impact of “isms” must be seen through the eyes of the recipient. I regret any “ism” when it happens.
Kevin,
I was vocally anti-Obama throughout the primary and election and was called a racist more times than I can count, often when I was objecting to the sexism and misogyny coming from Camp Obama and its supporters.
I was also scrubbed from a board I had posted on for years. The reason you didn’t “see” any of this is because it was never directed at you. For those of us who suffered the insults (which continue to this day) it was all too real.
GXM17,
I agree with the truth of your statement “the reason you didn’t “see” any of this is because it was never directed at you.” What I am suggesting others consider is that they might not have seen the level of racism for the very same reason.
“Ism” is significant for the person impacted but it becomes extremely difficult to determine which “ism” is more prevalent because we cannot be each other. All, I think, we can do is acknowledge that each of our experiences are real and painful and work to eliminate “isms.”
Kevin,
Offense is subjective. The “isms” are not.
Someone may take offense at my opinion but to call me a racist is simply untrue and defamatory.
IMO, anyone who can claim (or imply) with a straight face that there was as much racism as sexism during the campaign was either not paying attention or chose to look the other way.
GXM17,
One thing about “ism,” most people acknowledge one when it is directed at them but are also less likely to acknowledge when a different “ism” is leveled against someone else.
I acknowledge two things:
1. You believe sexism was more prevalent than racism. I respect your opinion and
2. You could be right and I could be totally wrong that sexism, racism, ageism and other “isms” were all at high levels during the primaries and election
I just wish others could be open to the possible that their interpretation may not be wholly accurate.
Kevin,
For my part, my posts had to do with current events not the election. Regarding this thread, as I understand these things are called, I really do not care who has the largest “ism”.
As a citizen, I have concluded that Mr. Al Sharpton intentionally misinterpreted a cartoon and created racism out of whole cloth. His propaganda activities are capturing public attention. Meanwhile a man with a history of bullying, intimidating, and beating women killed his wife and then beheaded her. In my opinion, that was actual sexism. It also was, in my opinion, more offensive than any cartoon is even capable of being.
How about we agree to disagree and drop the subject.
Sexism in the recent campaign (which may have resulted in the destruction of two excellent female politicians) is very much on topic for a feminist organization. Racism, not so much.
The sort of sexism that damaged Hillary and Palin (and is now being used against Gillibrand) is something we need to examine and keep in the spotlight for the sake of all women politicians in future.
If discussion of that sexism is gong to be snuffed out by bringing up racism, then there needs to be a way to quantify just what did happen with both ‘ism’s. Alternatively, we could stay on topic by discussing the sexism alone.
I have some ideas about how such quantification might be approached, but no time to post about it now.
Flora,
Thank you. I think we should stay on the topic of sexism. And to stay on that topic may be we should not discuss whether racism or sexism is greater now, or more prevalent during the primary and election.
I am comfortable sticking to fighting sexism and advocating for women’s rights but I feel compelled to offer an opinion when we say one is more prevalent than the other.
John,
You and I may not differ regarding Rev. Sharpton but we would drastically differ regarding the cartoon. Given that I have had friends and relatives called monkeys and baboons (because of their race) and given documented classes of police inadvertently shooting African Americans, I believe the cartoon was blatantly racist. If the cartoonist wanted to depict Nancy Pelosi or Congress, he could have:
1.Placed a sign on the monkey saying Congress
2. Placed Pelosi’ name on the monkey
3. Shown several monkeys
4. All of the above
He chose none of these options but purposefully left open the possibility that a reader could view Obama as the monkey.
I agree with you, Kevin, that the cartoon appeared racist. I can’t read the cartoonist’s mind, but I’m surprised it got past the edtitors.
Sharpton made hay. Many jumped on board. It got a lot of attention. I think the issue is more the disproportionate nature of the attention (cartoon v. murder), and the efforts by some on the left to downplay the cultural underpinnings of that murder.
I also think that playing the oppression olympics is a bad idea. Sexism is bad, and astonishingly prevalent. Racism is bad, and astonishingly prevalent. There are social and financial costs for victims of both racism and sexism. We don’t need to find out which one is worse. It’s a moot point, and unanswerable question, and this is not a competition.
Sheryl ,
With this understanding, I think it is disappointing that the media doesn’t discuss that there are only two majority women within the cabinet and it might also be appropriate to complete specials on “Gender in America”
Sorry, Karen, but I don’t accept the “look how far we’ve come” argument anymore — not after I saw Hillary and everyone who dared to support her attacked in the most vile and dehumanizing manner from every media outlet in the country. After the tears and shock, my eyes were opened, and I saw other things, too. I learned that battles like women’s choice that we thought was still barely hanging in have already been lost. While we’ve been focused on how nine Supreme Court justices may vote, 87% of counties in the US have no access to abortion services at all, and the Democrats are tripping over each other in distancing themselves from support for choice. We’ve read here about scary increases in violence against women. Was it? 42% in two years? Women’s representation in the halls of power, from business to Congress is flat to declining. Where is the ERA? Do you realize that women still lack equal Constitutional standing in this country? Every man has it, but women do not.
I’ll say one thing about the successful women’s movements of the past — they didn’t settle for less when people said they were asking for too much, too soon. They organized and agitated, facing humiliation and beatings and prison, and they did not stop. Yes, let’s study what worked and be honest with ourselves that never — NEVER — is power given away. We have to demand it. That starts with believing that anything less than 50% of positions of power in every sphere being held by women is an insult. We will not have ‘come so far’ until we’re there.
*****A
Kevin,
I have friends who have been who have been called whores, or crack whores, or whatever. On a regular basis, women in this country are beaten, raped and murdered with these acts justified by labeling the victims as whores or crack whores or whatever. This society dismisses these crimes and does not feel offended at all. To the extent that they are recognized, they are the subject of cartoons, stand-up comedy or popular songs that express admiration of the perpetrators.
I have opposed racism and its effects throughout my life, and still do. At the same time, I place the same value on a woman’s life, any woman’s life, as I do an African American man’s life. That includes the life of a woman who actually is a “crack whore” on one side and President Barack Obama on the other side.
I have no problem accepting that you find the cartoon offensive. I do not believe that Al Sharpton did. I have followed Al’s activates for a long time and I admire his accomplishments. At this time, and in this case, I believe that Al’s actions serve to sell and reinforce the idea race is a valid issue and the gender is not a valid issue. I object to that and will continue to object.
See how the opposition diverts attention from the sexist POTUS by trotting out that stupid cartoon.
I’m to the point that if people are so ignorant as to not know that congress writes legislation then I don’t give a damn if they’re mistakenly insulted. (The cartoon didn’t need a sign on the monkey because it included dialog that identified the writer(s) of the bill.) The true offensiveness of the cartoon is that the real chimp attack victim was viciously mauled. Her tragedy and pain is not something to make light of.
As usual the real pain of real women is of no concern to the professional race-baiters.
GXM17,
I do not know if you are accusing me of being an ignorant race-baiter; I’ll assume you are not. I think the cartoon is all of the below:
1. Racist
2. Insensitive (to the plight of the women who was hurt) and
3. Sexist (as it may also imply the shooting of a women (Pelosi)
I was commenting on the racist aspect of the cartoon but I also agree that it can be viewed as sexist. The point Sheryl makes, that I agree, with is:
“playing the oppression Olympics is a bad idea. Sexism is bad, and astonishingly prevalent. Racism is bad, and astonishingly prevalent. There are social and financial costs for victims of both racism and sexism. We don’t need to find out which one is worse. It’s a moot point, and unanswerable question, and this is not a competition.”
John, I was not and do not plan to defend Al Sharpton, just asking for respect for those of us that view the cartoon as racist.
Imo the cartoon was neither sexist nor racist, just stupidly muddled. A cartoon chimp suggests Bush, who was often portrayed that way. However Bush had nothing to do with writing the Stimulus sfaik, and the Stimulus apparently was a mixed bag of pork from a lot of people, not written by any one person.
Kevin,
It doesn’t surprise me that you’ve got “Racist” at the top of your list. Considering that this is a blog dedicated to women’s issues and the fight against sexism it’s very telling.
If you are paid to post comments here, then yes, feel free to take offense at my previous comment.
GXM17,
Not sure what is telling, that I am an African American male so that I might see racism before sexism. Could be, I accept that possibility – this is a comment I will reflect on and grow from. I did not, however, originally bring up the comparison between racism and sexism.
I am not paid to post here and did not know such jobs existed. I will take this as a honest inquiry that I have answered.
So if I am paid to post here, I am an ignorant race-baiter but if I am not paid to post here, I am not. Okay, I will take that as your way of telling me I am not an ignorant race-baiter. Thank you for the clarification.
Adriane,
You are on the money sister! And yes, Violet is right religion and culture have EVERYTHING to do with misogyny! If Gandy thinks otherwise, she is sticking her head in the sand to appease the Muslims. It’s gutless, and the only way to change the misogyny is to face the truth. Yes sexism is everywhere, but in some places and within some cultures it’s worse. To deny that fact is just plain stupid and a lie.
What makes me sick is that more attention and rebuke is afforded this stupid cartoon, than a women having her head cut off.
The jobs exist — they’re just not paid!
You made me laugh, Kevin.
Violent Socks
“You made me laugh, Kevin”
I hope that is a good thing
Leave your Response
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...