For those of you who can’t watch or listen to the video, the summary goes like this:
A McCain supporter asks the Senator “How do we beat the bitch?” The room breaks into uproarious laughter. McCain laughs, too, and while he’s doing so, someone else in the audience shouts out, “I thought she was talking about my ex-wife!” McCain laughs again! And then he says: “That’s an excellent question.”
I would also like to add that McCain never said that the remark was inappropriate, nor did he need clarification on who “the bitch” was — he just started talking about Hillary Clinton. I’ll admit that it was a highly valid assumption to make, but the fact that McCain didn’t even feign ignorance (which would be the politic thing to do) shows pretty clearly what he thinks. Oh, and so did his hysterical laughter. But! He also added that he “respects” Senator Clinton.
Oh yeah, that’s some respect. I mean, saying that Hillary is a “bitch” isn’t disrespectful, right? You can still respect women but think that misogyny is hilarious, can’t you?
Look, I’m not saying that calling political candidates by not-so-nice names should never be tolerated. For example, just about every time Mitt Romney’s name comes up, I call him a douche. In the off chance that he wins the nomination, I intend to make “Mitt Romney is a douche” buttons (I’d buy one!).
However, “bitch” is a highly sexist term, and Hillary Clinton is participating in presidential race that is highly sexist. When used in the context that it was used here, it was high derogatory, and yes, a direct comment on her gender. Also, I’m not running for president. If I was, I would probably refrain from name-calling out of maturity, personal appearances and general respect for my opponents. And in any case, I wouldn’t run around now making comments about which male candidate I think might have a small dick (in fact, I don’t want to think about it — ew), or calling them “fags,” which are the closest gendered derogatory statements used against males that I can think of at the moment.
Which leaves us with one question: How do we beat the asshole?
Oh, wait. Nevermind, I think we’re good.
{ 27 comments }
I suppose you don’t consider it relevant that the supporter in question was a woman?
Nope. Should I? Women can be misogynist. It’s depressing, but I see it every day.
Women can certainly be misogynistic, but a man isn’t going to treat a woman’s arguably-misogynistic comment as misogynistic. And when a politician has a supporter that makes any sort of comment that makes everyone in the room laugh, (s)he’s not going to play dumb; that would be its own kind of dumb.
but a man isn’t going to treat a woman’s arguably-misogynistic comment as misogynistic.
. . . But he should. And I see men do so regularly.
Just like I’m white but think that this black man is racist.
If you’re in a room and someone makes a racist joke and everyone else laughs, does that make it okay for you to laugh? Do you laugh? Or do you say “that’s not funny, that’s racist.” I imagine that most people do the former, but it’s wrong. I always push myself to do the latter, even though it always sucks. It’s the same damn thing. Now imagine that you’re a presidential candidate in the same situation.
So yeah, he probably won some points with the idiots in the room. Well that’s just great. A sexist ass sucking up to other sexist asses, who would have thought? But I’m sure as hell not going to defend it.
Fair enough. Personally I only call foul (or racism, sexism, misogyny, whathaveyou) when I’m pretty darn sure of it, but obviously you have a lower threshold (either a lower threshold of certainty before calling foul, or a lower threshold of evidence before being certain). To me “bitch” is just the feminine of “bastard,” “prick,” or “dick,” and not necessarily sexist. (I’ve also heard people call Ms. Clinton a “slut,” and to me that’s more obviously sexist because she’s neither done nor worn anything that could genuinely be considered slutty; but “bitch” is much more subjective and she certainly isn’t all sweet-talk and feather-tails.)
But the thing that gets me isn’t so much that you assume the original comment was misogynistic, but that you’re offended at McCain’s refusal to assume the original comment was misogynistic. I think people are entitled in general to the benefit of the doubt, but I especially think people are entitled to the benefit of the doubt over giving others the benefit of the doubt.
I’m glad you pointed out that despite McCain’s “proxy misogyny” (I like that phrase), worrying about his presidential viability is ridiculous.
Still, I don’t think race related humor in all situations is racist. You say that if you’re in a room and you hear a potentially racist joke, it is always wrong. I remember my circle of friends back in the midwest looked a lot like the U.N., and we’d rip each other once in awhile along racial lines, but the intent was in no way ill-willed. Race-related humor is an extremely slippery slope, but I don’t think it is always bad in all situations, though a majority of the time it probably is, thus the slippery slope. What do you or anyone else think? (Again, the McCain thing is not justifiable under any pretense)
and to me that’s more obviously sexist because she’s neither done nor worn anything that could genuinely be considered slutty
I don’t care what a woman wears, using the word “slut,” period, is a misogynist slur.
As for bitch, it has a lot of connotations besides “not nice.” It also heavily implies “uppity” — as in, not only a woman who acts like a shitty person, but also one who doesn’t know her place. Or a woman who is considered to be a shitty person simply because she doesn’t know her place.
Sen. Clinton is considered to be a bitch not because of her personality, which isn’t exactly magnetic but not worse than most of the other candidates, but because she fails to be demure and quiet. It dates all the way back to when she was first lady for a reason — she had her own mind and wasn’t going to pretend otherwise to make other people comfortable. That was enough to make her a bitch. And even, if we were using “bitchy” to mean “nasty,” I can’t think of anything particularly nasty about her. Giuliani’s pretty nasty, though, particularly when it comes to talking about Hillary.
What bothers me is that we give the “benefit of the doubt” when it comes to gender, but not with things like race and sexual orientation. Yes, I’m sure that some would still defend McCain answering the question if it had been a racial slur we were talking about, but I also think that the crowd would thin considerably. That’s a problem. People fail to see sexism even when it’s overt.
I remember my circle of friends back in the midwest looked a lot like the U.N., and we’d rip each other once in awhile along racial lines, but the intent was in no way ill-willed.
I would indeed say that’s a very slippery slope. I would also say that intent is not what matters, and thinking that person is not offended is in no way a guarantee that they aren’t. I would say that you’d have to know the person extremely well, and even then I would feel very, very uncomfortable saying that it would be “okay” in that situation.
In terms of comments on misogyny, I am more wary of them among friends because misogyny manifests itself elsewhere with people I know and is very pervasive; men talk differently about women when it is just among other guys, and it is really hard to tell where posturing ends and misogyny begins, or whether there is even a legitimate rationale to differentiate between the two, so I will speak against comments that reflect a misogynistic mindset.
As for the race comments, I can see how you might be uncomfortable even with people you are close with. That is really the key, how close you are with them and being highly attuned to what kind of humor they will embrace. Perhaps also there is an added level of discomfort by the very fact that you are white, though I will not presume to speak for you.
Oh, I think that it definitely has something to do with the fact that I’m white. For one thing, even if I did feel comfortable with it, which I wouldn’t, those types of jokes have the potential to come off much differently from a white person than from another person of color, even if the people are of different backgrounds. For another, I know that being white makes me more prone to prejudice, and therefore have good reason to want to avoid these thoughts all together, even if they are joking (while, at the same time, of course, not denying that they exist).
Re: ‘What bothers me is that we give the “benefit of the doubt” when it comes to gender, but not with things like race and sexual orientation.’: I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt about everything … today my father and I were discussing how many people in the world are evil, and he argued that a lot were, giving for example these two, and asked me to confirm that they were evil, which I had difficulty doing. They’re probably evil, but they must be so insane that I don’t see how you can sort out the evil from the crazy. (And writing people off as “evil” discourages the thought that they could be rehabilitated, but that’s really a separate issue.)
I’ve known people who’ve worn Confederate flags on their shirts or had them up in their windows, and I’ve not assumed they’re racist; rather, I’ve tried to explain to them that it’s really only a racist symbol, that their positive associations with the symbol are in fact due to their positive associations with (certain elements of) a racist culture, and that they can retain some of those positive associations while discarding the racism. I’ve generally found this approach to be successful, though I’ll grant that I have a fairly small sample to work from. (I’ll also grant that the suasion required some more objective facts as well, such as the fact that Georgia never felt the need to have a Confederate flag in its state flag until 1956, when it was starting to fear the anti-segregation movement and decided to make a statement.)
People are generally more amenable to new ideas than you seem to think, but you can be much more convincing when you try to see things from their point of view.
Actually, on second thought I guess I’m not being fair to you; you’re not writing this blog to try to convince John McCain that his behavior is offensive, but to share your thoughts and perhaps convince other people of things.
I guess what I’m thinking is that you could more effectively convince people who don’t already agree with if you gave more of your thoughts — if you explained why, for example, you feel that the word “slut” is necessarily misogynistic. (To some extent it might not make a difference, because I think some people will disagree with your opinions no matter how eloquently you express them — we’re not automatons, after all — but at least they’ll come away understanding your viewpoint better and probably being closer to it.)
I’ve known people who’ve worn Confederate flags on their shirts or had them up in their windows, and I’ve not assumed they’re racist; rather, I’ve tried to explain to them that it’s really only a racist symbol, that their positive associations with the symbol are in fact due to their positive associations with (certain elements of) a racist culture, and that they can retain some of those positive associations while discarding the racism.
I don’t know how to say this nicely, but I feel like it has to be said. So . . . I’m just going to say it.
I don’t think that you really understand the nature of racism.
I also don’t have the time right now to actually get into an in depth explanation of racism and how your understanding of it is flawed. I also tried to find a thread here that might sum it up, but couldn’t.
Anyone else: know of a good post or thread? Maybe on Rachel’s Tavern, which seems to do a lot of Racism 101 outreach to whites type posting?
Perhaps not. Also, that you think that’s a mean thing to say, while I don’t see what’s mean about it at all, suggests that we have might very different worldviews (and not just vis à vis racism/sexism/c.).
Here’s a good post that I found, doing a quick blog search. It’s not comprehensive, but it’s a good start. I’m sure that there are longer more detailed posts out there, and though white allies are great, a voice from a person of color would probably be better. But since I’m still short on time and this was the first good thing I pulled up that relates to racism and “intent,” it will have to do for the moment.
Quickly, the more specific problem with the Confederate Flag is that no American adult is oblivious to its history. They know that it’s tied to the Civil War. They know that the Civil War has come to be associated with slavery, even if that wasn’t he original intent (well, actually, I bet most Americans don’t know that the war wasn’t actually about slavery, but I digress). They also know that very many black people find it offensive. Especially in the South, where it’s so often a topic of discussion and anger.
To choose to ignore all of that because it’s something that you (they) don’t find personally offensive is in fact racist. Calling them racist may not be the best tactic to take with them in terms of discussion, and I might be willing to conceed that point, though I think that there are good arguments in both directions. But it is still racism, and they are still racist. As is just about every white person, by the way, because racism is about more than just hatred, it’s also about privilege and the inability to see privilege and that one is taking part in an oppresive system.
Cara, it never ceases to amaze me how people feel perfectly comfortable talking about how they engage in racist, classist, sexist, misogynist, etc. actions, and then say, but it’s not racist, classist, sexist, misogynist, etc. I hate the word slut. It doesn’t mean anything; it’s a moral projection onto a woman, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s no one’s business to be making that projection. A woman wears a super short skirt and you call her a slut? What does that accomplish? How has her clothing choice affected you? Why do you think it’s okay to make judgements based on her private sexual liasons? It’s such bullshit. And saying that bitch is just the feminine of bastard, prick, or dick, and thus not sexist is confounding. It is a specifically sexed insult. Hence, it is sexist. Why is that difficult?
Ran, to me, it’s one thing to call someone a racist or a misogynist, it’s another to tell them their actions or words are racist or misogynist. Coming back to this example: I wouldn’t call McCain a misogynist based on one remark. I can’t really tell from that remark whether he hates women or not. But I can say that remark was misogynistic. It was a remark that was hateful toward women, and the fact that me might not really hate women doesn’t make that remark okay. Does that make sense?
@Cara: Thanks for that explanation. I see what you’re saying, but I think I still disagree somewhat. For me, the swastika is a very painful and powerful symbol that chills my blood when I see it. (Actually, right now my blood is turning cold just thinking about the swastika — it’s amazing how powerful a symbol can be.) But when I see a swastika in non-anti-Semitic contexts (it being a traditional symbol in some Native American cultures), I have to try to ignore it or look away or leave. It’s painful for me, but that’s not their fault, even though in a perfect world either I wouldn’t be hurt by it or descendants of such cultures would be sensitive to my feelings (and those of other Jews).
@kissmypineapple: So you’d consider “bastard” and “prick” and “dick” sexist? I think they’re pretty obviously not, but you’re entitled to your opinion. I do agree that “slut” is an ugly word — and it’s odd that for whatever reason, people seem to be much more critical of immodest women (and immodest effeminate gay men) than of immodest straight men. Being somewhat of a prude myself, I’m equal parts bothered by the immodesty and bothered by the rude language. (This isn’t counting harassing uses of the word “slut,” like outside abortion clinics and whatnot; those are simply unacceptable, obviously.)
@roses: Fair enough. I’m not sure this particular remark was in fact hateful toward women (rather than toward one specific woman), but I see the distinction you’re making.
I would argue that the the swastika is a bit different, actually. Not because the history is any less ugly, in fact if we’re going to get into a losing game of “which is the worst atrocity,” the swastika would probably be representative of the absolute worst. However, the swastika was appropriated by the Nazis and used for evil purposes. I think that this is a very difficult and very unusual issue because obviously most uses of the swastika would now be completely unacceptable. But it also doesn’t seem right to take away another’s cultural/religious symbol because someone else went and used it in an abhorrent and hateful way. On the other hand, what about those who were the victims of what the symbol represented? I don’t have an answer for that.
As for the Confederate Flag, though, there’s not a whole lot of ambiguous area. The flag was created to represent the Confederacy when they broke away from the United States under the banner of “state’s rights.” As we know, a large part (though not all) of the “state’s rights” doctrine had to do with slavery and keeping it in place. Unless I’ve missed something really big in life, the flag has no other cultural or religious connotations. It’s a reference to the Civil War, the Confederacy and the “southern pride” that is based in that highly unfortunate history. The swastika has benign origins. The Confederate Flag does not.
And again, slut is not acceptable. It doesn’t matter how you feel towards “immodesty” (and “immodest” is not really what “slut” means anyway). Especially since there’s already a word for that — immodest! Having an opinion about “immodest” behavior is one thing, and judging women (and only women) because of how they dress or how they express themselves sexually is absolutely not acceptable, at all. Ever.
I think this argument about “bastard,” “dick”, etc. is similar to why being called a “cracker” isn’t really racist to a white person. Prejudicial maybe, but personally, being called a dick or a bastard in no way offends me, and is easily shrugged off. I think a lot of men are like that. The force is not nearly so powerful as calling a woman any of a number of misogynist terms, because it reminds and reinforces the power structure in society, i.e. men over women.
Well I do have something against bastard, because it’s actual meaning is “illegitimate child” or “your mother is a slut.” But that’s a whole other digression.
As for “dick” — that’s just another word for “jerk” or “asshole.” It’s true that all three of these words (along with my two faves, tool and douche) are used primarily if not entirely towards men. And that’s a problem because women can of course be all of those things. I would not only fail to have a problem with these words being used to also refer to women, I would prefer it. We are in desperate need of effective gender neutral insults.
I agree, bastard is not okay to use to describe anyone. Neither is slut. And quite honestly, I have an issue with dick. I don’t appreciate people appropriating my genitalia as a slur against others (i.e. cunt, pussy), and I see nothing negative about male genitalia either. Asshole, again, is equal opportunity, b/c both men and women have those, and b/c really, no one wants to be the gateway for shit.
. . . Yeah, I know. I really shouldn’t use dick. Sigh. I’ll admit that I have a personal attachment to “dickhead” — it has such harsher syllables than “asshole.” It’s easier to say and seems more appropriate when angry. I tend to say “dickhead” when I’m riled up and “asshole” when I’m not. But yeah, not an excuse, I know. I don’t have anything against male genitalia either (in fact, I’m fairly fond of it). Just pointing out that yeah, sometimes I suck, too (surprise of the century, right?).
I don’t think that tool or douche are used mostly against men, at least not amongst the people that I know. I suppose they might be used more against men in some places because “bitch” is the preferred generic insult against women. But my friends will use douche for any….douche, male or female. I’ve never thought of it as being in any way gender-specific.
Well . . . that’s good! Progress!
First off, way to go, Cara, your patience with explaining stuff that you hold to be self-evident (wait, where have I heard that line before?) is amazing.
I just can’t be bothered explaining ONE MORE TIME why “slut” is a problematic insult, or why it’s inappropriate for a presidential candidate to collude in calling Clinton a bitch. Kudos to you for having the patience!
Also, I love “douche” as an insult, because a douche itself is such a useless, pathetic, vagina-hating thing, that it translates (to me at least) into the perfect insult for a sexist guy.
Anyway, it’s been a while since I commented, just wanted to let you know I’m still reading!
@Cara: Slowly making my way through the comments there, I came to comment 48, which specifically addresses my attitude and I think makes a lot of sense. So I think I owe you an apology.
(Now comes the awkward question of whether saying that in itself constitutes an apology, or whether I have to additionally tack on “I’m sorry.” Performative speech is confusing. But anyway, I’m sorry.)
That was an excellent comment. I’m going to have to save that one.
Comments on this entry are closed.