A Little Late, But Topical Nonetheless.

Sexism exists and men are guilty of it often, yes. But … isn’t it possible for men to be well-meaning or even misguided as regards women without being sexist? It seems to be that we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t where women are concerned. Anything and everything we say or don’t say is distilled through the ‘It’s sexist’ filter.

As off-putting as sexism is, having to walk on egg shells is just as off-putting.

Well, I think the problem is that people interpret some messages based on their baggage, issues, hang ups and etcetera. Next, they tell the messenger what s/he meant and reject any explanation that doesn’t fit their interpretation. I know this happens in at least some cases. When it does it’s wrong. And arrogant. And most presumptuous.

I believe that when the intent is innocuous, we almost have to give more weight to that than we do to the effects. The effects have more to do with the audience than the messenger, again, in at least some cases.

To draw a somewhat fine point on it, to say that being well-meaning doesn’t obviate the sexism says that sexism always informs what men say. It doesn’t.

I’m not suggesting that sexism that isn’t rooted in personal animus is less real, but rather that not everything that’s considered sexist is, really. I believe also that even animus doesn’t suffice to prove sexism. Let’s take Hillary Clinton for example. Clinton and many of her supporters played the gender card throughout her campaign. To be sure, sexism did inform much of the coverage that she and even Barack Obama received. But I think what’s also true is that a lot of people had a problem with Clinton outisde of her gender. They didn’t like her, with good reason I’d say. Is any criticism of Clinton rooted in sexism?

As to your question about determining intent, we can just as easily ask that of the people who label practically anything that’s said in relation to women as sexist. Who are they to deem one’s statement sexist, even after he’s explained that it wasn’t?

Of course, context goes to intent. Michael Richards was responding to black men who were heckling him and chose to use an epithet in response. I’d say that’s clearly indicative of racism or at the least, prejudice.

You make a fair point about the relationship between thoughts, words and actions, but would you say that in all instances, one who is said to be sexist is, actually?

Of course all criticism of Hillary Clinton isn’t sexist. But obviously, there was a lot of criticism that was clearly sexist — see above — and even legit critiques that were unfortunately framed in sexist ways.

And who are ‘the people who label practically anything that’s said in relation to women as sexist’ you’re talking about? And can you give me an example of one of those instances that is ‘allegedly sexist’ but isn’t? Are you sure this isn’t a strawman? I’ve honestly never seen it in real life, Dworkin aside.

UE: Actually, I’m glad you asked me if I’d watched the montage. I had already but your question prompted me to do so again. Here are my observations:

It began with a clip of Neil Cavuto asking, “A ho is a ho, right?” How nakedly amateurish. Why not instead begin with a super that read, ‘We want you, the viewer, to come away thinking that everything you’re about to see is an example of sexism’? That’d have been more subtle. There was ZERO context or set up provided for the Cavuto clip, but at least the super indicated that he was referencing the Imus controversy. As to whether his question was sarcastic, satirical or mocking, well, who knows?

Anyone who didn’t anticipate what was to follow was then bludgeoned by a quote from Shirley Chisolm. So much for subtlety or even the pretense of objectivity. Did Gloria Steinem produce this clip? Oh, wait. Chisolm was black. There goes that.

Next we have a clip of feminist whipping boy Chris Matthews, who quite obviously has a bone to pick with Clinton, asking Erin Burnett to come closer to the camera. That’s necessarily sexist? It couldn’t have been an inside joke? It couldn’t have been Matthews being obnoxious? It couldn’t have been Matthews having some fun? The only explanation for what Matthews did is that he’s sexist? Really? And please don’t tell me that being humourous or obnoxious isn’t mutually exclusive to being sexist. It isn’t mutually inclusive, either.

Oh, but there’s more. Matthews is next shown telling another day side reporter that she’s one of God’s gifts to men in this country. What’s obvious to me is that Matthews is overly effusive regarding his female counterparts. What I don’t see is a slam dunk case that Matthews is sexist. Please tell me where you do.

In the next clip, Matthews is heard referring to Hillary Clinton as calm, cool, collected and looking great. If those were his only observations of Clinton, maybe. But anyone who’s watched Matthews knows that he’s had a lot more to say about her.

Next, in a hamhanded attempt to show that Matthews appreciates the darker nation, he is shown saying that Michelle Obama looks perfect.

From then on we’re bombarded with clip after clip of pundits, pollsters and other talking heads commenting on Clinton’s appearance. Keep in mind that we don’t see one complete segment of anyone discussing Clinton. The message is objectification, objectification, objectification. Well, if I get some clips and some editing equipment, I could just as easily make the case against objectification or sexism.

We agree that people who make sexist comments aren’t always aware that they do so. But here is where you and I part ways: I don’t agree that whenever someone claims that a statement (such as a compliment for goodness sakes) is sexist that it really is. Everything isn’t always about gender anymore than it’s necessarily about race or class. I think it’s presumptuous to hold people hostage by way of your perception of what they said–even when what they said is widely open to interpretation. Sure, there are times when you’re right. But there are definitely times when you’re wrong.

My apologies … here’s the second link.

LH: There was a poll done during Jim Crow that found that most white Americans felt that black people had the same opportunities as white people. Again: in an era of open, violently enforced and de jure racial disenfranchisement/discrimination, the people who benefited from that oppression were unlikely to see any injustice in America.

The large masses of these people probably didn’t participate in a lynching or bomb a church or pour ketchup on the head of a black man sitting at a lunch counter. But their ignorance to the way racism operated in and informed the quotidian reality of millions of Americans didn’t make racism less real. Their more ‘innocuous’ racism — probably just words, probably just the occasional ‘innocent’ comment bandied about here and there — wasn’t any less racist, either.

The same logic goes for sexism (and classism, since you brought it up). That its effects are invisible to you — and why would you be able so see them? —- doesn’t mean that the people who pointed it out are just ‘being hypersensitive.’

Your stance assumes that someone whose behavior actually marginalizes someone else is actually the best arbiter of when the marginalized has a right to take umbrage. That right there is exactly what privilege is all about: the idea that the point of view of the group with more resources should necessarily hold more weight, even when it comes to issues to which they necessarily are less attuned. Who gets to determine what a compliment is? The person who says ‘you speak well for a black person!’ or ‘you’re pretty for a dark-skinned girl!’ —- or the person to whom the ‘compliment’ is being ‘given’?

So my question is this: what, if anything, meets your standards for sexism? We know ‘bitch’ doesn’t. Neither does objectification. You’ve acknowledged that sexism exists, but have basically spent a lot of time saying that it’s all in those crazy women’s heads.

Anyone who is actually marginalised has the right to take umbrage, but what you seem to be saying is that whenever a woman believes she’s been marginalised by way of sexism, she’s right. The offender doesn’t get to tell the offended how to interpret what he’s said, but the offended gets to tell the offender what he meant? Huh?

I don’t think this is about resources, haves and have nots. I believe this is about the women who, when analysing their station in life and their, begin and end at sexism.

I’ll give you an example of sexism that I was buggin’ about. I’m out with two friends at a restaurant last week to meet some other friends. I’d told both groups about each other. It so happens that one of the people I was with is a nurse. When my friends who were coming to meet us showed up, my guy, in an attempt to make conversation with the woman I was with, made a comment about the nursing profession. The thing is, the guy I was also with is the nurse. We all kinda laughed it off, but he told on himself. My girl didn’t get offended, but she was right to lable him as sexist. So, yes, I get it, G.D. But I also get that there are times when it isn’t about sexism.