a race between the Others

The Times columnist David Aaronovitch set up the Democrats' primacy battle as 'a race between the black man and the woman', concluding that America is 'more misogynist than racist'. It has been almost impossible - at least for me - to ignore this (what seems to me) obvious term of reference, but I'd decided not to comment on it before as I wasn't sure how simple the apparently polarised set-up really was, and for fear of sounding too much like I'm mongering for a 'victim culture' argument.

But as BBC Radio 4 brought it up themselves, as of course Aaronovitch has in his column, I felt justified in having thought about the situation in the same way. Is there is a genuine debate to be had on it?

I had definitely noticed ways in which Hillary Clinton's sex is drawn attention to - the ways in which she is measured for supposed levels of 'femininity' - or what 'kind' of woman she is - and criticized for showing too much or too little emotion - (because for some reason the level of emotion shown by a woman is notable, in a way it's rarely even mentioned in relation to male candidates competing for positions of power - Condoleeza Rice is another at whom criticisms concerning 'emotion' are levelled, not to mention crude allusions to her sex/sexuality).





Who Hillary Clinton is as a woman seems to matter more than who Barack Obama is as a man, and she is satirized with her sex as the root of the satire in a way that Obama's colour or race could (quite rightly!) never ever be satirized.



In other words, in today's society it's completely unacceptable to mock a person's ethnicity, but it's still perfectly acceptable to mock a person's sex. The favourite comparitive image for women aspiring to positions of power is the 'Ice Queen' or the 'Ice Witch' (of Narnia fame!), and Clinton has been no exception. Another Times columnist described Clinton's reaction to watching votes slip away from her to be like 'the Ice Queen watching winter melt into spring'!



Personally, I'm very tired of this analogy. Indeed, it's a very tired analogy! But if it's not an allusion to witches or bitches, some other similar analogy would be drawn up in its place, because the problem is within social psychology: the psychology that unconsciously aligns women with 'unfemininity' and even 'badness' or 'evil' if they in any way deviate from socialized secondary positions of submission to men. In the psychology of women as well as men, power = male, and so if a woman displays characteristics of, or aspirations towards, power, she strikes a discord in our psyches:- she doesn't make sense, there must be something wrong with her.

I only had to click on the 4th link listed after googling 'Hillary Clinton' to find something which commented on her gender and her presentation as a woman, above any discussion about her suitability as a primacy candidate. Click on the pic:



As Aaronovitch says, the qualities of self-control and authority that a woman needs to demonstrate in order to be considered as a serious candidate for a position of power are exactly the qualities that she will be criticized for, and label her 'unfeminine'.

This paradox of positioning - that she cannot win if she doesn't show her ability to be assertive and strong, and yet if she does, she risks being disliked for her show of supposed 'unfeminine' characteristics and so will probably not win that way either - reveal how virtually impossible it is for a woman to reach that very top spot. No doubt at all that Obama has to overcome racist prejudice to win his position, but he does not embody a political paradox the way Clinton does.

Despite my belief that both misogyny and racism are obstacles in the way of both men and women reaching positions of power, in this particular debate even I am a bit wary: that a female candidate and black male candidate are now the two front-runners for the Democrats' leadership can only reflect positively on American society. This whole situation is unprecedented, and whoever wins will have made history. Also, it would be extremely unfair, not to mention ridiculous, to polarize and divide everybody up into racists if they vote for Clinton and sexists if they vote for Obama! And this was what kept me from mentioning it until now. But nevertheless, having a race for power between a black male representative and a white female representative does effectively illustrate the psychology behind the ways we choose our figures of leadership, and this alone, however much the prejudices are exaggerated, is a useful window into societal behaviours.

Technorati Tags:
misogyny, racism, power politics, hillary clinton, condoleeza rice, barack obama, a race between the others

there's 0 between the 'n'-word and the 'p'-word

I don’t really want my blog to turn into a Big Brother commentary for the next 2 months, or however long it’s going to be on for, but it’s no good; I just can’t ignore what Laura said to Gerry about Liam on Wednesday night’s episode!! In reference to the gimp outfit BB made him wear for this week’s task, Laura told Gerry that Liam looked like a p**f. Now, admittedly BB called Laura into the diary room for a reprimand. And she apologised… to BB, not to Liam or to Gerry. But last month Emily was unceremoniously thrown out of Big Brother for calling Charley the ‘n’-word.



I’m not going to start a debate about whether this was the right course of action in the first place – since I’m divided on it. But what frustrates me more than anything is the double standards, and the inequality and inconsistency within semantic laws and social rules. Why is it considered so much worse to be attacked on the basis of your race or colour than on the basis of your sexuality or gender? If BB is going to be consistently politically correct then they should have also thrown out Laura for using a derogatory and disrespectful term for homosexuals.



In fact, by the same token, derogatory terminology about women should also be outlawed. Yes, that would make general conversation a linguistic minefield, because – would you believe it?? – there is a seemingly endless stream of potentially abusive language about women. Racism in language is perhaps easier to recognise and police because the words stand out, but words like c**t, t**t, w***e, s**t and s**g pass through conversation as if they were nothing more than a bit of verbal punctuation. I am, of course, in complete support of any anti-racism measures, but I am fed up with its unequal position as the ‘favourite’ social injustice. No one should ever face abuse directed at any aspect of an identity that they have no control over. We have no control over our race or colour. But we also have no control over our biological sex, or our sexuality and sexual preferences. So there is no justification for condemning one, whilst merely mildly frowning at the other.



If BB can kick Emily out for making a racist comment to Charley, then BB should show some consistency in Big Brother Land’s Judicial Legislation and kick Laura out for making a homophobic comment to Gerry.

Technorati Tags:
big brother, homophobia is no less offensive than racism, political correctness, sexism, racism, homophobia, big brother state rule