Jackson Free Press

We've had a side conversation going on this topic over on our Super Tuesday thread, and I don't want it to get lost. Would love to pick up that thread here, and hear what people have to say about it. Also see Maureen Dowd's "A Flawed Feminist Test."

Previous Commentsshow

I read and liked the article by Dowd but didn't expect to before hand. Is the depcition of Hilary sexist? Despite all the reading, writing, asking and baiting I'm still unclear what is so distasteful or disliked about Hilary, especially by women. Can someone put it in a nutshell for me? Yes, she gets on my nerves but no more than the average man does. I like smart and brillant women so she's intriquing to me. I'm not surprised that men hate or dislike her. I doubt God can create a women all men would like. If men had to create the perfect women it wouldn't surprise me if she was astoundingly physically beautiful and without any brain or cognition at all. Not on purpose though, many of us would be un-focused or side-tracked from the complete picture, and accidentally forget to add a brain too, until too late. Is this an issue of who is the biggest victim of societal prejudices or preferences? If so, you can't convince me at this point that it is the white women, although I admit the woman is severely discriminated against, but the white woman isn't the most discriminated against woman or women. And she is the greatest benefactor of white male largess or largesse. Clearly race and gender are being played out big-styled before our very eyes, and I kind of liking watching it! Denial has damn near packed up and left the country.

Ray Carter

Feb 14 2008

Please substitute woman instead of women where it's supposed to be. I can't write or spell worth a crap. I need to stop trying!

Ray Carter

Feb 14 2008

Clearly race and gender are being played out big-styled before our very eyes, and I kind of liking watching it! Denial has damn near packed up and left the country. Right. Ultimately, I agree with you. I think it is fascinating to watch it, question it, discuss it. I can see it both ways: All politicians should be equal fodder for cartoonists, etc. At the same time, it is fascinating to watch what comes out—which is inevitably the result of societal teaching. To me, the most important thing is to talk about what we're observing. And it's very exciting, quite frankly, both from a female perspective and I suspect from a black perspective when we're both used to seeing all these subtle and not-so-subtle depictions and denigrations of ourselves without having a platform from which to challenge it in a significant way. The demographic and attitudinal disruptions in the country are fascinating, and you can really see why people most used to being the dominant force, and deciding what is OK and what is not OK, to discuss start wigging out when we start observing and discussing these depictions. The revealing part is that the conversation tends to, more than anything else, show their hypocrisy—I have to giggle every time a guy who has for years (a) not noticed racism or sexism then starts to (b) start screaming about the "reverse" of it (like when Lori called legilsators "old white guys" here) when they haven't opened their mouths to be concerned about it until it's turned on them. Truth is, I'm a First Amendment gal—ultimately, I think it's great that Ramsey drew that cartoon the way he did because it can promote discussion and thought. But the small-minded start whining just because we're trying to have the conversation. Too bad. Guess who's NOT controlling the conversation any more? Ain't America grand? ;-) BTW, if there is anything the previously dominant culture in the country needs to engage in, it's a bit of self-reflection. They just need to turn all that defensiveness inward, but many are lashing out in ridiculous ways, instead, trying to suddenly sound like the enlightened ones. Frankly to many of the rest of us, That just sounds like whining because they don't call all the shots anymore. It's obvious when someone's trying to have a serious conversation, and when they are just flailing and spewing.

DonnaLadd

Feb 14 2008

I wouldn't argue that women have been oppressed the most by society—although I might swing toward black women, at least in more recent history. Hard one. But ultimately, I don't think it's a competition, or needs to be. As far as this presidential race, though, I think it is showing that it might be easier at this moment in time to pull out stereotypical depictions of women than it is of African Americans, because there is more of a sensitivity (albeit probably superficial in many cases) toward racist depictions than sexist ones. You could also say that it is possible that men of all races are pretty willing to disparage women openly, whereas a lot of racism has become more coded and closet for both genders. I don't know. Just exploring.

DonnaLadd

Feb 14 2008

I actually agree totally. We got plenty of work to do in this area. Alice Walker, Oprah and some other brave and honest black women clearly and accurately started to pointing out black male shortcomings and imperfections with respect to women, especially the black woman, a couple of decades or so ago. Many younger black women are equally adept at recognizing and pointing out the same or similar shortcomings today in young brothers. Lots of brothers got mad and accused them of brother-hating and preferring the other man or a woman. Unfortunately, too many black males, to this date, beleive they have some innate superiority and perfection that women don't possess. I know this because I've had many discussions with so-called enlightened, educated, women-loving and Christ-following brothers. The crap that comes out of some of their mouths make me cry laughting. Too many have high expectations of everyone but self. As they say often, "Im the man so I make the rules." In my view the white man is hardly any better despite so many more advantages and material possessions to hide his shortcomings. Much of what we know and practiced for years as proper and appropriate conduct here in America was gotten from the white man. Black male arrogance and delusion about his rightful place, pales to that of the white male, in my view. The black male sees too much proof that he's not the king of the throne in this country. The white male is a different story. In his mine, he's knows he's the king of the throne by all the stuff he has amassed and possesses. Never mind how he got it. He doesn't like to talk about that except in amnesiac or situational terms. However, I'm hopeful that all men and women can overcome the lies and falsehoods we've been taught and accepted as the truth about gender and race and move to a place where race never matters and gender rarely matters. I say the later because I'm not sure either males nor females want gender to never matter.

Ray Carter

Feb 14 2008

Yep. Yep. And yep. Nicely put. Another way to say it would be: Sexism is bad, and racism is bad. And those who are both are the worst. When it comes down to it, it's kind of a math equation. It does pain and sadden me, though, to see people who come from a tradition of being oppressed turn around and oppress others, whether the other gender or the new displaced target of self-hatred: immigrants. One of the most remarkable things I have ever seen posted on this site was the leader of a state gay rights organization calling for "anchor babies" to be deported. Life should be about so much more than needing to feel superior to someone, anyone.

DonnaLadd

Feb 14 2008

I think part of Hillary's problem is similar to a dilemma female lawyers (particularly courtroom lawyers) are constantly in: if she seems cool, calculating, and competitive, then she's a b____; if she seems vulnerable, caring, or personable, she's faking or manipulative.

GenShermansGhost

Feb 14 2008

Unfortunately GenShermanGhost they call the later type weak too. This is why I advocate minorities learning to kick tail and just letting the majority and others call them whatever they wish. People are going to talk no matter what. If you kick ass they will at least have to add asskicking to the story or be a liar.

Ray Carter

Feb 15 2008

Ray Carter, you asked why so many women dislike Hillary Clinton. I have said this before and the more I hear the Hilary Haters, the more I think I'm on point. If Hillary had publicly slapped the hell out of Bill, packed her bags, took her daughter and dog away from the Whitehouse, she would be a HEROINE. So many women have been abused, misused, neglected, unprotected, scorn, physically beaten by the man/men in their lives and the list goes on. Many women, who as young girls, watched/listened to fathers and boyfriends abuse their moms. So, Bill is every woman's abuser and Hillary is every woman's protector who punked out and didn't fight back (in the minds of so many).

justjess

Feb 15 2008

I think there's something to that, justjess, especially when you consider the level (probably criminal) of the things the he-Clinton was doing to women all the years that the she-Clinton stood by her man. I feel fairly strongly that she enabled abuse, or worse, of other women—due to her own political desires, perhaps. Whatever it is, I don't want that man near the White House again. And I don't want her there, either, and not just because of the enabling. I haven't liked her since the heyday of the Democratic Leadership Council. And on from there.

DonnaLadd

Feb 15 2008

I feel fairly strongly that she enabled abuse, or worse, of other women—due to her own political desires, perhaps. That could be true. But it also may be true that she can't detach from him on a personal level, despite the multiple betrayals. It happens. Political types are human too. I don't think one can assume that everything she does is for political gain. The turth is, I like Obama and Clinton both. For all of his fantastic imagery, it's still true that his positions on big issues like health care and subprime mortgage reform are a lot more cautious than hers. The real comparison is between JFK and LBJ. Kennedy inspired change, but was slow to make actual moves. Johnson made change happen at a faster pace, but also was self-aggrandizing and made venal mistakes. Kennedy's inspiration changed political life permanently -- the roll call of people entering civic life (not just politics) as change agents, because of his leadership, continues to this day. Johnson's policies made life workable for many Americans -- Medicaid, the Voting Rights Act, etc. Can we have a Johnson (Clinton) without a Kennedy (Obama) first? Do we need the soaring rhetoric and new directions to influence a new generation of voters to support substantive, progressive change? Without that, would Clinton's more liberal reforms be shot down and never enacted? Just some random thoughts on these questions . . .

GenShermansGhost

Feb 15 2008