Oy. Yet another article about whether sexism is worse than racism.Although I really, really dislike the media’s sexist portrayal of Hillary Clinton, I dislike even MORE the notion that we can quantify which kind of oppression is worse. After all, although Barack has been treated more kindly by the media in general, the attacks against Obama have certainly been fueled by prejudice as well.I think the article does point out some important things at the end, though. Perhaps overt sexism is more acceptable to the public than overt racism in this particular race. But, when you look at how people think, act, and vote privately, both sexism and racism are certainly in play–I would argue equally so. And in some cases (such as funding for public schools for example), racism most definitely plays a larger role than sexism. It is extremely dangerous, then, when we assume that one type of -ism is worse than another. After all, if people assume that racism is no longer an issue, then I can guarantee that implicit forms of racism will worsen.I think Carol Anne Douglas said it better than I can:
A thorough, effective opposition to sexism, that strikes sexism at its roots, also will be antiracist, striking at the roots of racism, and a thorough, effective anti-racism ultimately will be anti-sexist. Possession of other people, defining other people as biologically inferior, must be opposed by opponents of both sexism and racism.





This infuriates me about as much as asking Black women whether they’re going to vote for Barack because he’s Black, or Hillary because she’s a woman; as if either of those criterion is acceptable and as if one holds more weight than the next.
I do like that this is drawing out discussions about sexism and race and other “isms,” because those are critical concerns. I guess I just wish they didn’t have to happen like this, in this context.
Advanced apology for commenting on so many posts this morning, but I’m working by myself as a DR at McCormick this morning and this awesome blog is my cure for boredom.
Ali, don’t ever apologize for commenting too much! We love it! OWN those comments
Hint to others, though–it’s funner (yes, fun-ner) when more people add in their two cents (…we encourage respectful disagreements, engaged discussion, and hopefully the vision to see from another’s perspective…this blog has the power to provide a forum to do just that…so jump on in!).
Here’s some cents! Perhaps three!
I think it was bell hooks who made a really important argument that all these -isms support one another. Can’t get rid of one without attacking the other. That’s why all the anti-ism-activist types should be buddies. Because if all the anti-ism people realized we’re working on the same damn thing and came together, there would be a ton more of us than there are old rich white dudes countering these movements.
Oppressed of the world, unite!
I keep asking my poor liberal white male roommates if they’ll be voting with their race or their gender for this election. I think we forget how these identity politics are negatively impacting them as well.
http://media.www.marquettetribune.org/media/storage/paper1130/news/2008/03/06/Viewpoints/Yanda.Which.Ism.Is.More.Destructive-3253730-page2.shtml
Apparently, Steve Yanda thinks “subtle racism” is more destructive.
Oh, the agony of the Tribune.
MUST.WRITE. VIEWPOINT.