Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Reproductive Justice and Gender

When Are We Going to Talk About Sexism?

By Ellen Snortland, Pasadena Weekly. Posted April 11, 2008.


Girls can be anything as long as we don't promote ourselves or outperform boys.
Advertisement

While I applaud Sen. Barack Obama's speech about racism in America, I wonder if I will ever see someone tackle sexism publicly with the same seriousness. Please understand I do NOT minimize the human tragedy of racism by longing for a national dialogue about misogyny and gender-driven limits. I am well-aware that I am an educated and privileged white American woman and I am grateful for all of my advantages. (I'd be homicidal if I were a poor woman of color and had to deal with the triple whammy of classism, racism AND sexism.) As it is, as a privileged white woman I constantly have to temper my rage over the lethal "trifecta" of the "isms" by working to point out blatant examples of all of them, often packaged together.

The "isms" are also tricky because as South African anti-apartheid activist Steven Biko said, "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." Believe me; I'm well aware that some of the worst sexists of all are women themselves. Tricky business indeed, when the "oppressed" are in league with the "oppressors." To rebut the abolitionists, there were slave owners who showcased the slaves who "witnessed" for the preservation of slavery.

How do I boil down a lifetime of experiencing sexism into one little column? I can't and I won't. I will attempt, however, to present a few morsels -- from relatively banal "disses" to actual life-threatening violence -- and trust that you, as a reader, can discern that the accumulation of chunks can make quite a stew of "You go, girl!" mixed in with the gravy of "You'd better not!" Many of us females of all colors have had to negotiate a crazy-making, dangerous mess of "Yes, we can't!"

As a little girl, I was much smarter than a lot of the kids -- girls and boys -- but was told in no uncertain terms to "dumb" down because the boys wouldn't like me. Similarly, I was athletic but was told to "throw" races to let boys win since, again, boys would feel badly. These were subtle to blatant warnings: No one will ever want to marry you!

I witnessed that one of the most humiliating things that could happen to a boy who was acting up was to be placed in the girls' line as a punishment. No one wanted to be a GIRL, even some of us girls didn't want to be GIRLS, because it was obviously so second class to be one. We didn't get resources for our interests; no one even thought of providing them, like for sports, math or science clubs. The sex segregation was rampant, including what we wore. We HAD to wear dresses, even at 40 below zero, with little girls literally getting frostbite on their legs because nothing says "feminine" like flesh damage from sub-zero weather! Although we had elementary school "elections" in November, girls were told to run only for secretary. While we did run for office, girls bragged that they didn't vote for themselves as some kind of badge of honor. Girls can be ANYTHING as long as we don't promote ourselves or beat boys at doing it! Yes, we can't!

Fast forward to junior high and high school. Even though it was a definite social faux pas to be smart, we smart gals learned to be smart under the radar for fear of alienating boys AND girls. Shunning is an ancient form of social control. My high school counselor told me to forget my law school dream because, after all, "You'll just fritter that education away once you get married and have kids." Implicit in that statement was that I would be taking up a seat that should go to a white male. I saw boys who were a lot less intelligent and talented than I encouraged to apply for the best universities. Not one person told me to apply for an Ivy League school, which barely had any females anyway. While there was no question in my family that I should go to college, it was understood to be an education that would make me a better mother and wife, not someone who's training to be a leader or God forbid, independent. Yes, we can't!

So I go to an OK college and am celebrating a certain amount of hard-won independence since it's the beginning of the third wave of the feminist movement. A fellow student rapes me and I don't have a clue how to defend myself. I'm blamed for it because, after all, that's what I get for being out on my own. Yes, we can't!

And now I see Hillary being told to step aside so Obama can take his rightful place as the Democratic candidate. Excuse me? She shouldn't stay in because ... ?

We can run for office, but we can't fight like hell or even win?

For all the years that so many of us have put up with "the problem with no name" sexism, please don't tell me "Yes, we can't!" one more time.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: sexism, class, racism, gender, clinton, obama

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Damned if I know!
Posted by: hagwind on Apr 11, 2008 5:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ever since Barack Obama's speech about racism (a landmark step toward maturity for U.S. politics, IMO), I've been wondering why Hillary Clinton -- or any other prominent female politician who's at least feminist enough to acknowledge that sexism exists -- hasn't delivered a similar speech about sexism. And, maybe more important, why I can't even imagine such a thing happening any time soon.

My best guess is that all the women who possess the skills and media access to deliver such a speech and have it widely heard are so beholden to the patriarchal powers that they're the female equivalent of house slaves -- they know exactly how far they can go without risking their so-called privileges, and they aren't about to push it. Most of the women I can imagine giving such a speech are lesbians, or women or color, or both. Some of them, like Audre Lorde and Gloria AnzaldĂșa, are dead. None of them is, or was, anywhere close to the mainstream of U.S. politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Damned if I know! Posted by: Ellensnortland
» RE: Damned if I know! Posted by: hagwind
Great article until the end
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Apr 11, 2008 6:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary should get out of the race because numbers don't lie. She can't overtake Obama. The. End.

Apart from that, I wholeheartedly agree - a monumental speech to this nation on sexism needs to be delivered post haste. I went to school with way too many brilliant girls & young women who dumbed themselves down for no good reason.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Clinton is no fit to be president because she . . .
Posted by: Rune on Apr 11, 2008 6:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies and under performs just like the current, unfit president.

"And now I see Hillary being told to step aside so Obama can take his rightful place as the Democratic candidate. Excuse me? She shouldn't stay in because ... ?"

To suggest that the primary reason Hillary Clinton is being encouraged by Democratic party leaders and faithful is because she is a woman is itself a very sexist position. It is also unsupported by the facts. Facts such as the very slim to impossible odds that she can displace Obama as the front runner without having the delegates turn their backs on the will of the voters, which is contradictory to Clinton's primary egalitarian excuse for staying in the race. It is also a fact that Obama tends to poll better against John McCain, which those who are all in for a Democratic victory consider a very important factor in choosing a candidate. And she is the only remaining candidate with higher negative than positive impressions of voters who have been polled, which is going to making it tough for her to win, let alone lead a wounded and increasingly disgruntled country. Meanwhile, by praising John McCain while tearing apart Barack Obama, she has revealed herself to be dangerous and disloyal to her own party.

Those are all very good reasons for Democrats to turn against Clinton and none of them have a damn thing to do with sex or that of her leading contender for the nomination. If all of the facts remained the same and Obama happened to be a woman, too, it would still make sense for Democrats to ditch Hillary Clinton at this point.

For the record and for reference, I don't think Obama is fit to be president, either, although I will concede that he comes across as a more natural and likable leader than Clinton. If I could choose anyone who is already in a national elected office to be president, I would throw my support behind Barbara Lee, but the honesty, independence, and concern for common citizens I admire her for would almost certainly disqualify her for corporatocracy that both Obama and Clinton support and have sold themselves into.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem with Hillary
Posted by: pkricker on Apr 12, 2008 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with Hillary isn't that she is a woman. The problem is that she wants the office for the wrong reasons. She wants it as a trophy, she is driven, not by a desire to do good, but by a need to do well (for herself). Her need to be President is pure ambition and that's not a good motivation for the leader we need now. Stepping aside, in this case, wouldn't be the "womanly" thing - it would be the right thing. To not recognize this because she is a woman is, in itself, anti-feminist. When we elect a woman it should be because she is the best person available for the job and Ms. Clinton isn't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When Are We Going to Talk About Sexism?
Posted by: 23skidoo on Apr 13, 2008 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'When Are We Going to Talk About Sexism?'

Well, apparently every day here on Alternet..

I think her real question is, "When is someone going to insist that Hillary be president right now!?"

Hillary '08 - No Matter What.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's Be Real about Hill
Posted by: no1kstate on Apr 13, 2008 6:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Initially, I was thrilled that she was running. Twelve months ago or so, I thought the best pres/vp would be Clinton/Obama.

But the more I've watched and come to learn, the more I do not like her. I don't mind her fighting, but I detest the way she's been fighting.

One of my problems with Clinton is the ease with which she divides groups and puts us against one another. I don't think a "true" feminist could play race and gender politics the way she has.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the oppressed mentality
Posted by: e rice on Apr 13, 2008 10:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i lived on the west coast nearly 40 years. i never married. there were a few comments about my orientation, always assumed to be lesbian, but i always had friends, and hiring decisions were not made on my marital status.

then i moved to a land-locked eastern state, which in nearly all ways was like moving backwards at least 20 years. i became persona nearly not grata. noses were raised, skirts drawn aside---i wasn't married, i HAD to be a, you know, lezzy.

at one point, i nearly wore to a meeting a sign saying 'i'm not a virgin, i'm not a lesbian. i'm just not married.'

some things are actually worse today--in the past, an unmarried woman was gently pitied (and patronized), now she's suspected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]