I respectfully disagree Hilde. I don't think they are odious, unless they are meant to imply that sexism is "worse" than racism, or that Americans (or whoever) are more enlightened concerning race than they are about gender. Comparisons do not necessarily imply a hierarchy of oppressions. Personally I find the comparisons useful in understanding the distinct workings of various forms of oppression, and I believe it's important and beneficial to track the ways that racisms, gender oppressions, and other forms of xenophobia are distinct and not necessarily parallel or even similar. How can feminists of any race or ethnicity and anti-racists of any gender not be fascinated by the different treatments of (masculine) race and (white-privileged) gender by the U.S. media monster, in relation to the Obama/Clinton showdown? If analyses of such differences are oversimplified or they become a way of downplaying the significance of one form of harm rather than another, that's a problem (perhaps this is the criticism of Warner?). But it seems to me that  to refuse to compare would be to miss a very rich philosophical/political opportunity. And I don't know many thoughtful people who are not comparing, and drawing important lessons for future progressive politics, if there is such a future in this country. 

Chris


On Jun 8, 2008, at 8:19 PM, Hilde Lindemann wrote:

Thanks, Gaile Jr., for saying what I wanted to say myself. These comparisons are odious and they hurt people.
Best,
Hilde

At 02:47 PM 6/8/2008, you wrote:
Yes, indeed.
 
I wonder what people think about the chances of Obama’s success, given the hard and deep reality of racism in the US.  Is this country really ready to elect a black president? 
 
Joan
 
From: Feminist ethics and social theory [ mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Janine Jones JCJONES2
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 2:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FW: NYTimes.com: Judith Warner: Woman in Charge, Women Who Charge
 
And piggy-backing on what you say here, Gail (thanks for your comments), a lot of racist comments directed at Obama and his voters/supporters were not conceivable as such, for the reasons you give.  Front certain viewpoints it was absolutely clear that Obama dealt with a great deal of unnamed, dare I say unnameable racism.  In postings a couple of weeks ago Sarah Hoagland made reference to the construction of ignorance. (She was referencing Charles Mills, who is concerned with certain forms of cognitive dissonance.)  I think that leaving things unnamed, making them unnameable -- e.g. certain forms of racism -- is one of the key ways in which ignorance is constructed.   As you say, racism and sexism operate in different ways.  Going hand-in-hand with Mills project one might ask both why certain forms of racism are unnamed, they have become unnameable, and what are the effects of the kind of ignorance thereby constructed.
-----Feminist ethics and social theory <[log in to unmask]> wrote: -----
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Gaile Pohlhaus <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: Feminist ethics and social theory <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 06/08/2008 01:46PM
Subject: Re: FW: NYTimes.com: Judith Warner: Woman in Charge, Women Who Charge

I think it is very important that we recognize the amount of misogyny that has transpired over H. Clinton's bid for the nomination and I also think juxtaposing that misogyny to the popularity of Sex in the City is brilliant (a show that my students continue to tell me is "really diverse"­because each of the 4 women have really different attitudes about sex...  there are so many different ways white women can relate themselves to men!  Imagine that?).  Still, I am not sure how helpful it is to say "if similarly hateful racial remarks had been made about Obama, our nation would have turned itself inside out in a paroxysm of soul-searching and shame.   Had mainstream commentators in 2000 speculated, say, that Joe Lieberman had a nose for dough, or made funny Shylock references, heads would have rolled."  Racism and anti-Semitism don't operate in the exact same ways that sexism and misogyny do, so why would we expect such easy comparisons?  While I imagine
 the statement is intended to emphasize how far we have *not* come with regard to sexism and misogyny, it can (and I think does) have the effect of making it seem like we *have* come a long way with regard to racism and anti-semitism/Christo-normativity. And the ironic thing (to my mind) is that one of the reasons (I believe) that we don't hear blatant racist jokes out in the open in the media is precisely because white America wants so much to pretend that race & racism do not exist anymore (one of the ways racism operates: problem? what problem?) ­so it would seem that many would be very quick to read the statement in the "wow racism just doesn’t exist anymore, does it?" way. Consequently, the _effect_ of the statement is to make a (purportedly) feminist point off the backs of people of color and nonChristians, isn't it? 

There's been plenty of racism abounding in this primary and the Obamas lives have been plenty disrupted by it--they can't even join a new religious community until the campaign is over for fear that reporters will continually disrupt that community hoping to get sound bites that will scare white America.  The fact that that racism comes in ways that are different from the ways in which sexism comes should be no surprise to this list.  Easy comparisons at the expense of nonChristian women and women of color only undermine feminist work.

In Solidarity,

GP, jr.


     
 

Hilde Lindemann
Professor of Philosophy
503 South Kedzie Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
517-353-3981
[log in to unmask]