Greenwald has an excellent piece on Sonia Sotomayor (and as usual, rips Establishment media a new one for using anonymous sources in the process).
I know far, far less than he does about Sonia Sotomayor or about the relative fitness of judicial nominees for the job. I was far more qualified to talk about Sarah Palin and the attacks leveled at her for being an affirmative action hire, a pretty dumb chick whose appeal was solely prurient.
Rebecca Traister pointed out the obvious gender bias to the TNR piece in question, a bias that is only multiplied by her being of Puerto Rican descent, as Adam Serwer notes. She’s bossy! She doesn’t shut up! She’s not that smart–Obama is prioritizing diversity! (The Clarence Thomas arguments, of course, are too obvious.)
When Bush nominated Harriet Miers for the Court, we heard similar arguments about her intellectual ability–and we didn’t argue. When Sarah Palin got the Republican VP nomination, we giggled and made our own jokes. Now Obama’s nominees will face the same kind of criticisms, ones that would never be leveled at a white guy up for the same job, and what do we say?
It’s a double bind. We don’t want to be unable to criticize female nominees or people of color (*cough cough* Gonzalez–or closer to home, Roland Burris) but we need to be consistent in noting the difference between substantive attacks and gender or racially motivated ones. It’s entirely possible that Sonia Sotomayor is not the best choice for the Supreme Court, but I very much doubt that she’s any less “smart” than Thomas, Alito, or any number of federal judges that the Right (or the nominal left as represented by TNR) would have no problem with–because they’re white and male.
The fact is, when it comes to the Supreme Court, there are probably many lawyers and judges and law professors who would do as good or better jobs than the people already on there. There’s no one best person for the job, and it’s also fairly difficult to predict how justices will rule once confirmed (note that the retiring Souter was nominated by George H.W. Bush and became one of the reliable liberal members of the Court). So there’s absolutely nothing wrong with picking a qualified justice who comes from a different ethnic and class background than the rest of the Court for the sake of diversity.
So the stuff I was writing about here has mainly been excused by the fans of that vile cartoon by the idea that it wasn’t intentionally racist! Just like that New Yorker cartoon was excused because it was SATIRE, man! Satire!
This is the thing: most of us are not intentionally racist. Most of us are not intentionally sexist. Yet these things still exist. (Yes, some people are gleefully, openly racist and sexist, but we’re not talking about them here. Don’t derail me.)
M. LeBlanc at Bitch, Ph.D. wrote an excellent post about racism and sexism a while back that I think you should read. Really.
Racism isn’t only about burning a cross on your lawn or about saying that you wouldn’t vote for Obama because he wants to enslave white people. It can be as simple as locking your car door when you drive through a black neighborhood, or assuming in your head that the black woman you see walking down the street with her kid must be unmarried. Or saying that the men in that cartoon don’t have the right hair texture to be black.
Sexism isn’t only about telling your wife to quit her job and get back in the kitchen, or jerking off to really offensive porn (whatever your idea of that is). It’s assuming that a woman who looks a certain way is stupid. It’s perpetuating a false dichotomy between “male” and “female” characteristics and according only the male ones value. (Why do you really think you value not wearing makeup and not shaving? Is it because doing those things makes you less a tool of the patriarchy, or because not doing them makes you less feminine?)
We all do a million little racist and sexist things every day. I do. You do. Barack Obama does and Hillary Clinton does and Noam Chomsky does and Beth Ditto does.
I love to harp on the fact that people are not either good or evil. There is not a line between the good guys and the bad guys that we can see. This isn’t a Batman movie (and hell, even that recent Batman movie played with those lines in a way that made me quite happy).
I’m not saying that there aren’t people who cross lines that make me unwilling to forgive them. Dick Cheney? No matter how much he renounced, I don’t think I’d ever be cool with Dick. Jesse Helms? Jerry Falwell? I did not cry or pronounce one word of regret when they died.
But having it pointed out that you unwittingly participated in something racist or sexist should not be a call for a huge defensive freakout designed to point out that you’re one of the good ones and therefore what you did couldn’t possibly be wrong or bad, because you didn’t intend for it to be!
In literary criticism, we don’t worry too much about the intent of the author. We look at the signs and signifiers, and interpret the message based on those.
This is a long-winded way of saying if someone calls you out on racism or sexism, the best thing to do maybe is give it a couple of seconds of thought, at least, and decide if they’re right. Then, the proper response is, if the questioner appears to be even remotely in good faith, “I’m sorry I offended you. I didn’t mean to be racist/sexist/ableist/whatever.”
Then you learn from it and get over it. It doesn’t make you the devil, or discount the good things you’ve done in the past, or even make most people hate you. It makes you human.
Leave it to a man to point this out: the costs of primping and appearance.
Remember the John Edwards “I feel pretty” video? (It’s on YouTube if you missed it.) Women are expected to spend a certain amount of time on their appearance, and even Hillary Clinton’s monochrome pantsuits and short, swept-back hair require more work than Obama’s basic lack of hair and monochrome suits.
Honestly, with all the talk of sexism around this election, this was one thing I hadn’t thought of.
NPR was just interviewing voters in Pittsburgh about Hillary Clinton and almost every one of them that spoke talked about how she acted when her husband cheated on her as some sort of a barometer of whether they liked her.
Granted, it was mostly favorable–”She was held up to the public as a woman scorned and she didn’t break down,” etc. but are we really basing our evaluation on whether or not she stuck by Bill? God.
And of course it was mostly men who said that. Because that’s what women are supposed to do, stand by their man? Who knows. But it makes me a little sick.
