A Self-Respecting Feminist?
Yesterday’s comment section was, indeed, nuts, but when I went back and reread it several things jumped out at me.
First, the incorrect use and expectation of feminism. Let’s start with the definition of feminism:
-
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
-
2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests
That’s it. Basically it’s about women being treated and having the same opportunities as men. It’s about keeping the standards and expectations the same for women and men. It doesn’t mean you always side with women and are always against men. It means a woman has the right to her own thoughts and opinions and actions – even if we disagree with them. The most obvious example of this rears its head in the Mommy Wars (Destructive, divisive wastes of time) that says: In order to be a feminist a woman needs to work outside the home. (ugly flip side: women who work outside the home are bad mothers. Ugh.)
Both men and women are guilty of this behavior, but they are soooo wrong and prove they don’t understand feminism. To me, as a feminist, I support women doing what they want and what works for them. Their choice is simply that – their choice. It’s not good or bad. It’s simply their decision. Supporting women’s choices is feminism.
To say, “You’re too stupid to realize that the “none of your business” answer BUTTRESSES the idea that she has something to hide. Which she probably does, and what she probably wants to hide is that any self-respecting “feminist” would have struck out on her own, but she was unwilling to give up the access to power for both of them.”
I actually found this comment interesting. There’s so much there. First, her “none of your business” answer means she’s hiding something? Okay, let’s say she is. What could she be hiding? Open marriage, sham marriage, calculated political move? That’s a big leap for me. Most people I’ve known who’ve experienced cheating feel a variety of things – heartbreak, betrayal, embarrassment. By going with the open/sham marriage and calculated political move we make the person cheated on an accomplice to the cheater’s behavior. We blame her for his actions. It’s sorta like, “You made me hit you.”
Now, none of this means that the commenter couldn’t be correct. The point is that he has absolutely NO WAY of knowing one personal detail of their marriage, and yet it was put forth with such certainty; not about what actually happened, but about who Hillary is – something he couldn’t possibly know. Somehow we make Hillary complicit in Bill’s adultery. In order to believe that we’d have to believe that, not only is she cold and calculating, but that she’s stupid – that she signed onto his affairs ignoring the political fallout that discovery would bring. Not very calculating.
Sure, she’s a public figure and a lot of this is fair game, even if it is disappointing to read comments like this. This is one of the biggest right-wing talking points out there. It feeds into… Hillary is cold (frigid?), calculating, overly ambitious narrative. There’s so much of this out there. I have a friend who says she’s been told she has a “resting bitch face”, something said to no man ever. We could spend hours discussing that one, and all roads would eventually lead to men telling women to smile – and if she doesn’t smile… well, then she’s obviously cold and calculating. Vicious circle.
We’re on that road here, folks. Basically, what was being said (and this isn’t really about one commenter. This hit a chord with me because it’s so pervasive.) Hillary did it wrong.
Second, this sentence: “Which she probably does, and what she probably wants to hide is that any self-respecting “feminist” would have struck out on her own, but she was unwilling to give up the access to power for both of them.”
Before getting into this, let me say: There is no one rule as to how a “self-respecting feminist” acts in this situation. It’s like a funeral. People grieve differently, and no one gets to judge that. If you’re going down this path (which really amounts to, yet again, telling a woman what to do and how to act) you might need to take a step back and ask yourself why.
This line (she should have left him) has been around forever. It’s tossed out there without much thought, so let’s think about it. She should have struck out on her own? So, she should have moved out of the White House and taken an adorable little apartment in Georgetown? Or maybe people mean she should have waited until Bill left office (two years later) and then left him? I’m sure her staying for those two years wouldn’t have been held against her. I’m sure people wouldn’t have said that she left him after benefiting from being First Lady. How calculating. But maybe she should have just publicly chastised him (it would have to be public, right? We’d have to know, right?, because no one would have called her a nag, a fishwife, a woman who couldn’t sexually satisfy her man. Starting to see how this works? Right there. That’s the point of this post – the no win situation.
The double standard is alive and well. Pointing that out isn’t me telling you to support or vote for Hillary, because the language being used is bigger than her. Believe me, I have been in situations where I’ve had to defend attacks against women I don’t personally like because the attacks are sexist and, in the end, weaken valid points.
FYI: This really isn’t a post about Hillary. Hillary is the example used in this post. Everybody got that? Hope so!
Tags: feminism, sexism, Women's Issues
This hyper-vigilant policing of language has nothing to do with equal rights for women.
Generally, I would agree, because the language becomes a distraction by becoming its own cause resulting in changes to language but little else.
I guess… I’m doing it wrong?
This isn’t the policing of language, although I get how this can irritate to open misogyny wound, puck.
An self-respecting feminist acknowledges the freedom of a woman to make her choices — you don’t have to approve of them — but understanding that your standards or priorities just aren’t material to that choice.
The double standard is alive and well. And very much alive and well among men who think of themselves as feminist. Which is harder, because not only do you need to be able to remind these guys that they are not the boss of you, but you have to get through the initial defensiveness that comes from thinking of themselves as an ally.
What’s interesting (in the sincerest sense) is the people who complain about policing language are some of the very same people to become upset/get annoyed/don’t like it when language directed at their gender is used.
#notallmen. /sn
The language is so ingrained. You would not believe the shit men say when “womenfolk” aren’t around. (not making excuses, just making an observation) Especially this time of year… It’s as if they feel seasonal appropriate clothing (ya know the kind that is comfortable in late spring) was invented for their viewing pleasure.
I like to approach it from a societal conditioning issue. These aren’t “bad guys”, not most of em anyway. They use sexist language, but only because it is how they were taught to converse. Think if them as addicts who need help understanding there is a problem that isn’t entirely their fault. No one likes their intentions questioned and no one likes to be made to feel as if they have to explain or answer for the actions of their ______.
She climbed to power on her husband’s back. Yay feminism! Yay choices!
For the record, according to Carl Bernstein’s book, it was Bill who was going to leave.
But, again according to CB, her father was abusive, so she was conditioned to accept the abuse-by-humiliation of having a wayward spouse.
Fact vs opinion is obviously a difficult concept.
@Ben I don’t think I want to know those conversations, but I do understand how ingrained it is – just like racist and bigoted words/behaviors use to be ingrained and right out in the open. There have been several studies done (I’m looking for them!) that show that men have significant influence over other men’s behavior in this area. I don’t want to hand out homework… 😉
I dont doubt that for a second. I dont think it applies only to men though.
People have a natural drive to be accepted and liked. You do what you think is normal behavior. We should just be de-normalizing “harmless guy talk”… too often it turns into something much darker. Here’s the thing. I think, and I don’t pretend to be right, that it can only be don’t be fathers (or a male adult figure) educating their sons. Not to say that mothers dont play an important role in shaping young males… but daughters will always look to their mothers on how to be “an adult woman”.. same is true with Y chromes.
I think both parents have a role to play. When you discuss these “guy” conversations I think you’re right – it has to do with acceptance… and looking cool. (But I’m not a guy, so maybe I’m off base here.)
Where I see other guys coming into this is due to what you’ve said above, “You would not believe the shit men say when “womenfolk” aren’t around.” It’s tough for women to call out conversations taking place when they aren’t there. That’s where men can make a difference.
*That’s not saying women don’t have a responsibility in this. We need to point out this behavior to the men/boys in our life.
But how does that happen?
It’s tough to make the jump from not participating in the conversation to calling it out. Especially when the other men having such a conversation are older and there are a lot of them. Not necessarily a safety thing, but you KNOW you’ll be a topic of mockery when you’re not around. DO we give up on men over 30 and just stop them from doing anything violent…. then instead focus on minds that aren’t fully formed? Im not prodding for a “gotcha” answer. I dont think there is one answer, but I feel like we agree a lot that “something has to be done, here is the problem” then it stops short of specifics.
And in that vein of thought…. Im sure there are conversations that happen in female-only groups that make some women cringe. I have an anecdotal example…. a woman very close to me cant stand when her female co-workers sit around and (in her words) “bitch about how stupid their husbands are”.. apparently, having the “dumbest husband” is a mark of honor around that office. Dont get me wrong, “uhg my wife____________” is a common refrain I hear as well. Both can be considered “harmless” and both are mindless small talk. They both also allow the more harmful conversations to be excused. The point of those two examples is that the problem is more than “men need to”……
“Not necessarily a safety thing, but you KNOW you’ll be a topic of mockery when you’re not around.”
It could very well be a safety issue. If your friends don’t speak like this then there’s not much you can do. Do not confront strangers.
Spousal trash talk irks me. It’s really prevalent, and I never understood why. I had a friend who did this constantly – and not in a joking, annoying way. Those conversations made me uncomfortable. I finally said, “On some level this is working for you.” Yeah, that didn’t go over so well, but she stopped the behavior so I guess it worked… for me. 🙂
Look at any sit-com depiction of married people and it’s clear why people think that is how you act. The exception is elderly couples who have the guts to do it to each other’s face… it’s kinda cute.
Yeah, facts. Carl Bernstein’s book is a biography filled with, you know, facts. Pretending it’s not is just your opinion.
I thought we were done talking about Sex And The Clintons (SATC).
He’s not talking about sex, he’s talking about authenticity.
…………….. i dont know the eye-roll emoji.
Carl Bernstein’s book is a biography filled with, you know, facts.
Written by another high-profile philanderer.
One of the awful enduring legacies of the founding of America is Christian Puritanism and fundamentalism. I mean, seriously. Just because Bill was President and Hillary is running for President doesn’t entitle anyone to assess their sexual and martial behavior. Why should anyone give a damn if their marriage was open or not or the degree to which Bill’s dalliances affected Hillary’s assessment of her life with him? People can’t be constituted differently on those matters? What do people want? Moral totalitarianism? And what does any of that have to do with Hillary’s ability to understand and work for the needs of American women? For heaven’s sake, she’s obviously brilliant. She knows these issues in extraordinary detail. That’s all that matters in assessing her ability to look after the interests of women and others. People need to get over this Bronze Age hangover of assessing people as sinners and graduate to the level of looking on them as human beings with rights, one being personal privacy.
“You would not believe the shit men say when “womenfolk” aren’t around. ”
Ben, I only know about this kind of behavior from fictional TV shows and movies. IRL all the men I know become properly uncomfortable if a sexist or objectify-ing comment is made, whether a woman is listening or not. What kind of assholes do you hang out with?
A semi-random culling from the comments above:
This hyper-vigilant policing of language has nothing to do with equal rights for women. Translated: we have determined what language means, and if we can no longer use brute force to maintain that monopoly then ridicule will have to do.
I like to approach it from a societal conditioning issue. These aren’t “bad guys”, not most of em anyway. They use sexist language, but only because it is how they were taught to converse. Think if them as addicts who need help understanding there is a problem that isn’t entirely their fault. Males are not responsible for their language choices in the same way that women must be responsible for their clothing choices? Bless their souls, it’s just too hard to do otherwise (and, yes, I meant the despicable pun).
She climbed to power on her husband’s back. Yay feminism! Yay choices! Studies from throughout US and world history have shown over the past two centuries that usually the most effective route for competent women to positions of power is to succeed their husbands. It has happened to dozens of Congressmen, and national leaders around the world. It marks Secretary Clinton as a tough-minded realistic politician who did what was necessary to achieve her ambitions–which was, ironically, a characteristic much applauded in her husband.
All the men I know become properly uncomfortable if a sexist or objectify-ing comment is made, whether a woman is listening or not. I love the use of “properly” here, juxtaposed with “uncomfortable.” There’s no suggestion that they actually say or do anything to curb or challenge such talk, they just become uncomfortable because such wording isn’t proper.
I’ve made no bones that, in any other year, I think Clinton would be the weaker rather than the stronger candidate. I think she’s too much of a wonk to be a great campaigner, though I do not discount her energy and will. I don’t like many of her policies, and I see her as the ultimate insider politician. But I’m also honest enough to admit that the double standard she faces is, in most ways, tougher than the one that President Obama faced in 2008.
On the other hand, it’s reality, and if she cannot overcome it she will never become President.
@a “She climbed to power on her husband’s back.”
Are you sure it wasn’t the other way around? Maybe she was the prod that pushed Bill Clinton forward. This reminds me of the old gas station joke…
“I love the use of “properly” here, juxtaposed with “uncomfortable.” ”
Parsing instead of engagement; the sad state of modern feminism.
Yes, I’m sure. She was made a partner at Rose Law after he became attorney general. She went to Arkansas because she couldn’t pass the D.C. bar — something she hid from even her friends for 30 years — but did pass the Arkansas bar.
Have you read anything about her other than her autobiography?
“Studies from throughout US and world history have shown over the past two centuries that usually the most effective route for competent women to positions of power is to succeed their husbands.”
Guess what, Steve? It’s the most effective route for incompetent women, too. All women, in fact. And in each and every case like this, it’s a refutation of the notion that women can make it on their own, because in each and every case, they wouldn’t have.
“It marks Secretary Clinton as a tough-minded realistic politician who did what was necessary to achieve her ambitions–which was, ironically, a characteristic much applauded in her husband.”
Not by me. “Tough-minded realistic politician” is wonk-speak for “insufferable piece of shit” — just ask Ricky Ray Rector. Good luck.
I merely dislike Hillary Clinton. I despise her husband and always have, from the moment I first read about him, long before he destroyed the Democratic Party as a workers’ party.
And, lastly, I still think this is an end-run around the 22nd Amendment, and will be when the next power couple tries it, too.
@a “And, lastly, I still think this is an end-run around the 22nd Amendment”
So what??? The 22nd is actually a crappy undemocratic amendment.
We’d all be better off if Obama could run again. He’s still my first choice for the election. Too bad he’s ineligible, so we have to change when change really isn’t warranted.
I’m not even sure how to address some of these comments. Obviously, sexism is alive and well among some Progressive men.
@p “Obviously, sexism is alive and well among some Progressive men.”
Are we sure that they really are progressive?
Aren’t sexism and racism progressive disqualifiers?
@LE I’m not in charge of issuing or revoking Progressive cards. I think there’s a branch for that here, tho. 😉
@p ” I’m not in charge of issuing or revoking Progressive cards.”
I wan’t trying to revoke anyone’s card, but it’s a real question.
Is it possible for someone who openly mocks women (or a woman for basically being a woman) to be an effective advocate for women’s rights… a major part of the progressive agenda???
‘I’m not even sure how to address some of these comments. Obviously, sexism is alive and well among some Progressive men.”
Feminist hyper-vigilance weakens progressives, and contradicting that hyper-vigilance is not sexism. I would hope progressives can focus on real issues of women’s rights, on which there is real work to be done. But even so, new gains in women’s rights are being made at a breathtaking clip.
Most of the issues that make women’s lives difficult are the same issues that make men’s lives difficult. Economic power, by which I mean having actual discretionary income, would advance women’s power and equality in society more than anything else at this time. The single greatest, most immediate improvement in women’s rights would be an increase in the minimum wage. To $15/hr.
“Is it possible for someone who openly mocks women (or a woman for basically being a woman) to be an effective advocate for women’s rights… a major part of the progressive agenda???”
I would say no; that’s not progressive because it excludes people.
@puck what you keep calling hyper-vigilance many women and men simply call vigilance. You seem to see women fighting for issues that impact women as over the top (hyper). I think you see it this way because you’re not impacted by these issues, they don’t really touch your life so you downgrade their importance.
“I would hope progressives can focus on real issues of women’s rights, on which there is real work to be done. But even so, new gains in women’s rights are being made at a breathtaking clip.”
Could you give examples of “real issues of women’s rights” along with the rights advancing at a “breathtaking clip”?
@p “Could you give examples of “real issues of women’s rights” along with the rights advancing at a “breathtaking clip”?”
Yea. That one had me puzzled. I can name about a dozen things where women have backslided. But actual progress? Not so many.
Come on Pandora. In our lifetimes we have seen the glass ceiling nearly vanish. The next President will be a woman, and a female CEO of a Fortune 100 company was a serious contender for the Republican nomination. Anecdotally women are now appearing everywhere in all kinds of jobs that were once all-male.
The US has more women in the military than any other nation. and we are on the verge of requiring draft registration for women (a dubious win). Abortion and birth control is under assault but the tide is starting to turn, and Roe v. Wade still holds.
Yeah, I’m not buying the glass ceiling has nearly vanished by citing two women. By that definition racism has nearly vanished because of Barack Obama and Herman Cain.
Still not seeing a “breathtaking clip” in your answer. Also not seeing what you consider “real issues of women’s rights”. I’m sincerely curious in this list.
men can make jokes or just observations about women that a certain kind of feminist wouldn’t like and still vote for women’s rights because they know it’s the right thing to do. it’s not about “feeling” the right things or thinking only “correct” thoughts. it’s a matter of DOING the right things. guys can say what they like about women, at least among themselves, as long as they don’t try to hold them back. (after a certain point, i might not want to hang out with those guys.) some progressives won’t be satisfied until they have everybody “feeling” the right way too.
“Also not seeing what you consider “real issues of women’s rights”
I am not terribly concerned about the middle and upper-income professional women I know. They seem to have rights in spades.
I do have concerns for lower income Americans of either gender and those who are now falling into the lower incomes. Lower income women are particularly affected by lack of access to child care. It’s time the schools just keep the kids until 6pm and feed them dinner. In the 20th century women wanted the right to work, but somebody forgot to tell them that they would HAVE to work.
Lower income women at some point decided it was OK and sometimes even preferable to raise children by themselves on their own income. Partly this is cultural, but mostly it is driven by lack of economic opportunity for the fathers. Access to birth control and abortion is important but is not the whole story.
“Yeah, I’m not buying the glass ceiling has nearly vanished by citing two women.”
First of all, you know very well I didn’t stop at citing two women. What evidence would convince you? I’m looking for some gov’t statistics that show representation of women in professional occupations over time. I haven’t found it yet but if I do I would expect it to show dramatic increases in recent decades.
It’s so convenient to shrug off facts as “sexism.”
As Steve Newton pointed out, the observation that most women in politics get there by succeeding their husbands is a fact.
Deal with it. Or instead just call it “sexism.” Even better, fail to engage with the fact because you think the person who’s pointing to it (me, not Steve) is sexist.
My favorite response is, of course, from the site’s mascot, Liberal Elite, DL’s own response to the Philly Phanatic. If you’re allowed to treat the 22nd Amendment invalid, why should people respect the 19th?
OK, rather than bore you and myself with a search for tables of figures, let me start with this quote from Jenny Yang, Chair of EEOC:
“In 1966, women represented just 14 percent of Professionals – by 2013, that increased to 53 percent. However, women’s representation as partners in law and accounting firms or stock brokerages is far lower than their numbers in lower level jobs. Women have made more modest gains in the Officials and Managers occupations-increasing from 9 percent in 1966 to 39 percent in 2013.”
Got that? 53% of “Professionals” are women. 39% of “Officials and Managers” are women. That is a stunning increase from 1966, and pretty darn close to representation in the population. The glass ceiling is collapsing (or perhaps rising) and only remnants remain.
I’m sure there are some differences in representation for the highest-level jobs, but even that appears to be “incrementally” improving, based on my own impressions. And there appears to be no real resistance to women in the executive suite, especially among our newer firms.
“I’m looking for some gov’t statistics that show representation of women in professional occupations over time.”
Just because I am data driven and curious
Women in Professional and related occupations (numbers in thousands) (source=BLS)
YEAR Men Women
2015 33852 19351
2014 32879 18801
2013 31917 18,218
2012 31365 17,936
2011 30957 17,681
2010 30805 17,680
2009 30690 17,634
2008 30702 17,401
2002 21,921 11999
1995 17,536 9,593
Does not include: Management, business, and financial operations occupations
Here’s a link to my EEOC quote, which contains a link to the report it is based on. The figures square with Dave’s so I suspect they are looking at the same BLS data.
https://www1.eeoc.gov//eeoc/chair/womens_history_month_2016.cfm?renderforprint=1
““Obviously, sexism is alive and well among some Progressive men.””
Of course the definition of “it” is essential in set theory. How one defines sexism (or any ism) largely depends on the point one is attempting to make. Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, on the basis of sex. It’s a pretty broad ism and is commonly practiced by all demographics and all facets of our culture and society.
I will also assert that as long as there are men and women, sexism will be a characteristic of the human race, at least until we achieve full androgyny of humanity.
I would suggest that the definition is so broad as to be useless in any meaningful way. However, while the definition itself is useless, the consequences of sexism can and should addressed in meaningful ways. You cannot police thoughts only actions. Some actions are merely inappropriate, while others are obviously harmful. Culture determines inappropriateness. The law determines harm. The front lines of the battle are at the intersection of the two.
There are two kinds of gender pay gap: The kind where women are paid a lower wage or salary for the same job, and then the other kind, where women attain lower median or lifetime incomes for a myriad of reasons.
The first kind of gender pay gap barely exists. It was conceived at a time when factories employed armies of people in identical jobs (think auto industry). But that is Hillary’s biggest applause line: “Equal pay for the same job!” That, my brothers and sisters, is pandering, demagoguery, and playing the woman card. Hillary is the female face of the old boy’s club.
The second kind of gender pay gap is much more pronounced. Women make lower median and lifetime incomes for lots of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with sexism or gender discrimination. Cultural, educational, career preferences, caregiving norms, affordable quality day care, the diaper gap, etc. all contribute. It’s all part of the low-wage economy, which is where progressives need to direct their energies.
Women are also at a physical disadvantage as victims of sexual crimes. But we do have laws providing harsh penalties for first, second, third, and fourth degree sexual offenses. The problem is getting those laws enforced, starting with reporting the crime all the way to prosecution. The cops and prosecutors who are not enforcing those laws are the same cops who are shooting unarmed black kids and letting the cops off the hook in court. We can all try to raise our kids better, but we are fighting a permanant dark force in the human condition, so nothing will really change until we start throwing police and prosecutors in jail for shirking their jobs.
On the plus side, UD just hired its first female athletic director.
Here’s a link to the gender pay gap. There’s a lot of data here – I’m still reading through all the links.
As far as sexual assault… it’s far bigger than bad cops/prosecutors, which you reference by calling it a “permanent dark force” and I agree with that description – it’s what I write about. It’s us/society. We contribute to the “dark force” whenever we apply the double standard, when the only crime we consistently question the veracity of is rape/sexual assault, when we comment on what women wear, police their “tone”, etc..
If you’re interested in looking into the system in regards to sexual assault, may I suggest reading Jon Krakauer’s Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a College Town. The one thing you’ll walk away with is that there are people trying to do the right thing, but the system is designed to stop that from happening. Hey! We could have a book club! Whatdaya think?
@anonymous There is a difference between what you and Steve are saying. Marriage, up until very recently, was the way women secured their futures. It was the only path open to them – and, even then, they had to hope their fathers’ chose their husbands well. Given history I would expect women’s success to flow through their husbands – who have the access to power and could open doors historically closed to women.
@pandora – I was making a distinction between “equal wage/salary for the same job” and the other kinds of pay gap which involves lower median or lifetime earnings. For convenience let’s call them the “wage gap” and the “earnings gap.”
There are plenty of statistics about the earnings gap. but very few for the wage gap that control for “same job.” Invariably, people who want to prove the wage gap cite studies on the earnings gap instead as if they were the same.
The number being popularized is that “Women make 79 cents for every dollar a man makes.” And there are plenty of statistics to back that up. But I only found two studies that attempted to control for “same job,” and they found a wage gap in the low single digits (2.7% in one, and between 4.8 – 7.1 in the other).
At this link there is a gender pay gap infographic that lets you switch between “Controlled for same job” (97 cents for every dollar a man is paid) and “Not controlled” (74 cents for every dollar a man earns). Similar findings in this different report..
Hillary’s biggest applause line is variations of “Equal pay for the same job.” But different pay for the same job has been illegal since 1963 under the Equal Pay Act. Now Hillary is promoting the Paycheck Fairness Act, which really just provides marginal improvements to enforcing the Equal Pay Act. I’m at my 2-link quota so here is the relevant text from wikipedia:
Sure, let’s pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, but let’s be reality-based and recognize it will do little to address the earnings gap. Perhaps it will help build employer awareness to eliminate even unintended gender pay differences.
The earnings gap, however, has a hundred different causes, which mostly have nothing to do with sexism or misogyny and are really the outcome of the low-wage economy and choices people choose to or are forced to make.
While there are a ton of variables that contribute to the pay gap (and the different figures, which I don’t dispute because there seems to be a set for everything), my main point was that there is a double standard – and one that contributes to all aspects of a woman’s life (and other minorities), including, but not limited to, the pay gap. It’s a world where the same traits (like ambition, parenting, sex, etc.) are viewed, and labeled, differently when it comes to gender.
Addressing these issues – or at least acknowledging they exist – is the first step, and the one thing everyone can do to help make change.
No one (with a brain) argues that Trump is sexist and a misogynist, but he’s like the racist that throws around the N word – easy pickings. But we know that racism isn’t always so blatant. Neither is sexism. Both are systemic. Individual sexism and racism are easy to identify, and sometimes we think because we aren’t like Trump that that’s enough. It isn’t. That’s what I’m trying to point out. The stuff that’s built into the system and how soft sexism, racism and bigotry is, to me, far more insidious.
Vive la différence!
Differences are great, but not when they benefit one gender while penalizing the other – for the exact same behavior.