Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:36 PM CDT
COLUMN: Give me a ball cap and a sweatshirt and I can prove sexism any day
By PENNY WEAVER, Night news editor pweaver@jg-tc.com
You’re sick of reading about presidential politics, right? I know you are.
But may I weigh in just for one column? Please please please?
Oh. I guess if you’ve read this far, that’s a “yes.”
I promise to try to keep the political blather to a minimum. The length of my other usual blather, however, is something for which I cannot vouch.
As practically every American with eyes and/or ears knows, Sen. John McCain is assumed to be the Republican presidential nominee for 2008, and U.S. senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are still sparring — sort of — for the Democratic nod.
Now I know, you think this election is about things like the war in Iraq, the direction of the country overall, oil prices, illegal immigration, and ... blah blah blah. You know the drill.
Sure, those little tidbits (you sense my sarcasm, right? Just checkin’ on ya.) make a few headlines. But there’s one issue that is the basis of the Democratic race. It also will be a factor this November, but it originates with Clinton versus Obama.
The primary issue in this presidential contest is whether we Americans are the most biased against any race other than Caucasian, or if we proportionately look down our noses more at women.
Are we as a country more sexist or are we more racist?
I’ve suspected from the beginning of this contest — there was a beginning, wasn’t there? Sometime, long ago? — that sexism would rule the day. It’s so far doing just that.
If Obama prevails over Clinton, that simply proves to me that voters — both men and women — would disregard a candidate’s race sooner than they would ignore a politician’s gender when casting a ballot.
Neither should be a real factor. Skin color doesn’t affect brain power or any other trait necessary to lead a nation. Chromosomes don’t provide inherent strength or weaknesses when it comes to a level head.
Oh, if only we lived in that world already. Someday, perhaps, but that day is not today.
The media has been overly harsh on Clinton. Sure, one might argue it’s because of her name — a valid suggestion, perhaps — but it’s mostly because of her gender. I read or saw somewhere something about Clinton “turning in her pantsuit,” as in, she should get out of the race already. Huh. I wonder what that cartoonist or pundit would have said if the Clinton in question was male and not female. Maybe a Mr. Clinton would be chastised to “turn in his tie”? Nope. It doesn’t have the same derision, does it?
Perhaps I don’t see how strong racism is in this country because I’m white, while obviously I do see the power of sexism since I’m a woman. That could be. But I think there are many Caucasian men who might normally look down on Obama firmly filling in an oval for him over Mrs. Clinton.
I’ve experienced and witnessed sexism in many ways at various times over the years. From the workplace to recreation to retailers and on and on, women are treated as if they are less than men far too often for this day and age.
I don’t get all “angry feminist” over it. I promise. Actually, it often just makes me chuckle.
Having been a tomboy as long as I can remember, it’s not unusual for me to “bum around” running errands or doing chores wearing a baseball cap, a sweatshirt when it’s cool enough, work boots and similar duds.
First of all, I’m not fashionable to begin with: I’m a T-shirt-and-jeans kind of gal. And second of all, who mows the yard or hauls topsoil or plants trees wearing feminine attire?
So once in a while, I’ll head out and about and, strolling into Rural King, for example, I’ll notice some guy — a stranger to me — give me a brisk nod and maybe even a “Hey” or similar greeting in passing, and it strikes me as odd. It’s his tone, his attitude. Then I realize: He thought I was a guy! I smile to myself.
I’m sure other women, especially in this kind of an agriculture-powered community, who end up looking a bit masculine when doing dirty work around the farm or yard, experience the same thing at times. It used to bother me to get called “sir,” even though that’s rare, but now I just chuckle and go on.
It does, however, illustrate the power of sexism. Even women treat me differently if they mistake me for a man. And I see women do sexist things just like many men do too. Sure, many people don’t even realize they’re sexist. I’m not talking about a guy opening a door for a lady, either. That’s chivalry, not sexism.
Oh, but some would say I’m trying to have it both ways by saying that. All righty then: I can open the door myself, okay? The point remains.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is disliked for many reasons by many people, and so is Barack Obama, but I believe more people hold Clinton’s chromosomes against her than people hold Obama’s hue against him. It’s a big reason why Obama, at least by all appearances right now, is doing better with voters overall than Clinton.
I think both are qualified; there are things I like about both Clinton and Obama and also about McCain. I really don’t know yet who I’d vote for this fall.
But a big part of me wants Clinton to win just because she is a woman. One side of me kind of wants to vote for her just because she knows what it’s like to be a girl and be a second-class citizen many times.
But I won’t do it. Not even if she starts wearing ball caps and sweatshirts.
Far be it for me to be sexist, after all.
Add your comments
Not already registered? Then click Here.
Comment policy:
JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.
In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.
We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.
No comment may contain:
* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.
If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.
|
|
|
mulholland wrote on May 15, 2008 1:15 PM:
Ms. Weaver forgets that Clinton was massively favored to win the nomination in every poll before primary season began, and that these polls surveyed men and women, and African-Americans and Anglos alike. The race has been Clinton's to lose from the beginning, and she's done a top job throwing it away.
Clearly there are individuals that dislike one candidate over the other for their own bigoted reasons; however, reducing the democratic constituency to either African-American loving misogynists, or racist philogynists is laughable, and makes it hard for Ms. Weaver to be taken seriously.
Not to suggest that the pundits and mainstream media are infallible, but Ms. Weaver's argument really isn't being made by anyone with any serious credibility. There is a general understanding that the race, as it stands today, is due to the missteps of Clinton's advisors made early on in the primary season, and perhaps an underestimation of Obama's ability to resonate with voters?
All that said, I have to wonder if Ms. Weaver honestly believes the position she's putting forth or if she is being intentionally myopic to generate controversy and page hits. "