Friday, September 19, 2008

Sexism Reconsidered

Here I see that Hillary is saying the media is sexist because it doesn't cover the male candidates' hairstyles "or any other personal characteristic like that." Now I don't doubt for a minute that there are some pretty sexist pundits out there (cough cough Chris Matthews cough), but this HRC assertion is just manifestly untrue. In fact it is embarrassing just how false it is. The media DOES cover Joe Biden's hair (or lack thereof), Obama's dorky outfit while bicycling, McCain's loafers, Bill Clinton's boxers, and on and on. If you really think sexism is rampant in the centralized cabal known as "the media," you're going to have to do better than that, feminists!

For what it's worth, I thought that the widely circulated piece by Tim Wise on "white privilege" was mostly bullshit, though I do think "white privilege" is a more accurate formulation than "racism" for understanding contemporary racial dynamics in America and hopefully Wise's article will help it gain a foothold in public discourse.

A slight tangent: I remember being told in elementary school that racism ("white privilege" hadn't gained currency yet, but would have been a more appropriate label) meant not having band-aids that matched your skin color. They told us this because they thought it was something tangible we could relate to better than, say, lynching (while it's true that Marin County hasn't seen a lot of lynchings, race riots, civil rights marches or other obvious manifestations of racial strife, there are these things called "history books" which magically enable people to understand things they didn't personally experience). But wait, I'm white and band-aids don't match my skin color either! And who gives a shit about band-aid color anyway? Citing examples of bigotry that collapse under scrutiny doesn't help the cause of equality; on the contrary it does a disservice to the cause.
Link