The Chronicle of Higher Education
November 13, 2011
By Female Science Professor
How to respond to a sexist dig is a topic that always generates debate and criticism on my blog. I am referring to incidents in which someone (most commonly a man) in my academic life has treated me in an apparently disrespectful way. Many of those incidents could be interpreted as sexist, but no matter what you call them, they are somewhat (to very) humiliating.
The incidents themselves are not what generates the debate on my blog. Instead, the sometimes-heated discussion focuses on how I have chosen to respond to such slights: that is, my tendency to react in a calm, polite way, perhaps with a bit of humor or gentle sarcasm. Except in extreme cases, I prefer not to respond to insulting remarks with anger, and I try to move on with the research, teaching, or service task at hand.
Full Commentary: http://chronicle.com/article/Can-Well-Behaved-Women-Make/129738/?sid=ja&utm_source=ja&utm_medium=en
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Monday, November 10, 2008
Women's Group Not Hot on Summers
The Washington Post
By Garance Franke-Ruta
Posted at 11:23 AM ET on Nov 6, 2008 Category: Transition
A group founded by supporters of former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) weighed in today against the potential appointment by President-elect Barack Obama of former Clinton administration Treasury Secretary Larry Summers to the same position in an Obama administration.
"Larry Summers has a clear and unequivocal record of sexism and misogyny," said the group's co-founder Amy Siskind in a statement. "Summers' work history demonstrates a clear inability to work well with others, especially women."
Another founding member of the group, The New Agenda, which has taken pro-Sarah Palin stands in the past and advocated against media sexism during the primary, is Dr. Nancy Hopkins of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hopkins famously clashed with Summers at a January 2005 MIT forum on women in the sciences after Summers, who was then president of Harvard University, said that the paucity of women in the hard sciences might be a reflection of their "intrinsic aptitude." [Full Story: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/06/clinton_supporters_not_hot_on.html]
By Garance Franke-Ruta
Posted at 11:23 AM ET on Nov 6, 2008 Category: Transition
A group founded by supporters of former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) weighed in today against the potential appointment by President-elect Barack Obama of former Clinton administration Treasury Secretary Larry Summers to the same position in an Obama administration.
"Larry Summers has a clear and unequivocal record of sexism and misogyny," said the group's co-founder Amy Siskind in a statement. "Summers' work history demonstrates a clear inability to work well with others, especially women."
Another founding member of the group, The New Agenda, which has taken pro-Sarah Palin stands in the past and advocated against media sexism during the primary, is Dr. Nancy Hopkins of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hopkins famously clashed with Summers at a January 2005 MIT forum on women in the sciences after Summers, who was then president of Harvard University, said that the paucity of women in the hard sciences might be a reflection of their "intrinsic aptitude." [Full Story: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/06/clinton_supporters_not_hot_on.html]
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Sexism, Racism: Which Is More Taboo?
Published: 1/14/08, 6:46 PM EDT
By DAVID CRARY
NEW YORK (AP) - Expressions of sexism and racism emerging from the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have been blatant, subtle and perhaps sometimes imagined, and they are renewing the national debate over what is and isn't acceptable to say in public.
Clinton's camp has perceived sexism in comments about her appearance and emotions. Supporters of Obama have complained about racial overtones in remarks about his Muslim-sounding middle name, Hussein, and his acknowledged drug use as a young man.
Beyond the back-and-forth between a white woman and a black man seeking the Democratic presidential nominaton, the situation has created a snapshot of the nation's sensitivity - or lack thereof - to certain kinds of comments. Is it more acceptable, for instance, to make a sexist remark than a racist remark?
"It's always been easier," says Marie Wilson, president of the White House Project, which encourages women's advancement in politics. "With women, you can get away with it.
"With race, you can hardly say anything."
Feminist leader Gloria Steinem, argued in a New York Times op-ed last week that gender is "probably the most restricting force in American life" - more so than race.
But others involved in politics suggest the situation is more complex and that both race and gender are used to discriminate against people.
Yvonne Scruggs-Leftwich, a board member of the Black Leadership Forum, said that as a black woman she has experienced both racism and sexism, and suggested there was little point in ranking them.
"In parts of the country, the racist terms fall just as easily off the lips as they always did," she said. "And there are also places that I can't go because I am a woman, and that bothers me just as much."
Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said sexist and racist expressions both remain all too common in public discourse, though she said the racism often may be "somewhat coded." [To read the entire article, go to: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U5U2K81&show_article=1]
By DAVID CRARY
NEW YORK (AP) - Expressions of sexism and racism emerging from the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have been blatant, subtle and perhaps sometimes imagined, and they are renewing the national debate over what is and isn't acceptable to say in public.
Clinton's camp has perceived sexism in comments about her appearance and emotions. Supporters of Obama have complained about racial overtones in remarks about his Muslim-sounding middle name, Hussein, and his acknowledged drug use as a young man.
Beyond the back-and-forth between a white woman and a black man seeking the Democratic presidential nominaton, the situation has created a snapshot of the nation's sensitivity - or lack thereof - to certain kinds of comments. Is it more acceptable, for instance, to make a sexist remark than a racist remark?
"It's always been easier," says Marie Wilson, president of the White House Project, which encourages women's advancement in politics. "With women, you can get away with it.
"With race, you can hardly say anything."
Feminist leader Gloria Steinem, argued in a New York Times op-ed last week that gender is "probably the most restricting force in American life" - more so than race.
But others involved in politics suggest the situation is more complex and that both race and gender are used to discriminate against people.
Yvonne Scruggs-Leftwich, a board member of the Black Leadership Forum, said that as a black woman she has experienced both racism and sexism, and suggested there was little point in ranking them.
"In parts of the country, the racist terms fall just as easily off the lips as they always did," she said. "And there are also places that I can't go because I am a woman, and that bothers me just as much."
Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said sexist and racist expressions both remain all too common in public discourse, though she said the racism often may be "somewhat coded." [To read the entire article, go to: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U5U2K81&show_article=1]
Monday, January 14, 2008
Women Are Never Front-Runners
The New York Times
January 8, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
By GLORIA STEINEM
THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.
Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?
If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.
That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).
If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.
[To read the entire op-ed, go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?em&ex=1200459600&en=4d398271b1a7c7da&ei=5087%0A]
[See one response to Gloria Steinem's controversial op-ed from a young feminist:
http://www.glamour.com/news/blogs/glamocracy/2008/01/an-open-letter.html ]
January 8, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
By GLORIA STEINEM
THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.
Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?
If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.
That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).
If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.
[To read the entire op-ed, go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?em&ex=1200459600&en=4d398271b1a7c7da&ei=5087%0A]
[See one response to Gloria Steinem's controversial op-ed from a young feminist:
http://www.glamour.com/news/blogs/glamocracy/2008/01/an-open-letter.html ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)