Interesting observation. I’m just wondering what you would call the left’s treatment of Sarah Palin? Seems as if that was clear cut misogyn. Or was that all just harmless fun and games?
Sandra Fluke was called a slut for advocating coverage of contraception. Sarah Palin was called an idiot for saying, among other things, that she reads all the magazines, and that the proximity of Russia to Alaska granted her insight into foreign policy.
Certainly there were some misogynist comments directed at Palin - those that dwelled on her (relative) sexual attractiveness - but by and large the character assassination of Palin was aimed at her intellect, not her booty. Criticizing a woman for being an idiot is not misogyny.
I would call it deserving of its own chapter in the Misogyny handbook, if there ever is one. A lot of the remarks made about Palin disgusted people who didn’t even much like her. If you measure her against male conservative candidates or any candidate for that matter, as hardly any are respected for brilliance, she received about one hundred times the attention, insults, and scorn.
But Palin used her own treatment by the media for political fodder and she defended Limbaugh on that basis, saying the left does it, so why should he apologize? That’s interesting about her, that she’s a woman and a political strategist, and politics comes first. She’s also part and parcel of the modern conservative movement, which is out there selling the idea the idea that the only good women are conservative women. Other women represent the Left and are therefore worthy of derision.
That’s what a lot of this is about, “she deserves it because _______.” Fill in the blank.
No doubt there was plenty of criticism of Palin based on gender traits. That’s disgusting. Palin also played on her gender traits for political advantage (something about grizzly moms with lipstick or whatever), but that doesn’t excuse sexist comments directed at her.
It’s important to separate sexist criticisms of her (including the comments about “She’s crazy but I’d still do her”) from general mocking of her for her outre personality and anti-intellectualism and cronyism and quitterism and undeserved arrogance. All that stuff is fair game.
If someone is an idiot and also a woman, how does one determine whether a particular insult or criticism is misogynistic?
When I made fun of Dan Quayle for being an idiot, it certainly wasn’t misogyny. It felt the same when I made fun of Sarah Palin.
If the critiques/jokes/insults against Thomas are comparable or interchangeable with critiques leveled at a white conservative Judge, then no they are not racists.
If the critiques/jokes/insults against Palin would have worked just as well against a male candidate, then they are not sexist or misogynistic.
For example being called stupid because you can’t name a single magazine in an interview could happen to anyone one of any gender. Being called a slut for wanting birth control to be provided by insurance would only happen to a women and indicates disdain for women as a class.
In either case, it is possible for the volume or extent of the critiques/jokes/insults to indicate bigotry even if each one individual did not.
Context is important when defining sexual harassment.
I think it is safe to say that exotic dancers want to be looked at as desirable sex objects. They are trying to appear sexual and enticing. They are displaying their body for the pleasure of others. It is their chosen profession. This does not mean they should be attacked, groped, or otherwise treated poorly. It does not mean that they have no right to privacy or autonomy in their sexual choices. It just means that is not inappropriate to observe and comment their bodies in a sexualized manner within the context of their profession. A naked protestor is not in that same context.
These are good guidelines. Saying that Palin should go back to elementary school would not be sexist, since that could be said about a male politician. Saying she should go back to the kitchen would be sexist, since that couldn’t be said about a male candidate and have the same impact.
I’ve long believed that just because someone is a member of a certain gender, race, nationality, religion, sexual preference, etc. doesn’t mean they can’t be idiots or jerks.
:o Apologies to “Foresquare Phyllis,” the hardest-working working-girl in Carson City!
The official definitions of the words are thin. Chauvinism seems to be on a par with racism in that it’s pretty simple, believing oneself superior to another by birth. FWIW I see male chauvinism as a relic, a notion that thrived in an era of male privilege, rotary phones and Jell-o salad.
For present-day demeaning and debasement, examples include mainstream hip hop, websites for posting ex-girlfriend pics, the ravings of political wingnuts, and I’m told there are places where, if your thing is killing and eating women, you can hang out online with like-minded people. A random selection. None of the individuals in these camps actually *hates *women, so here is the place (IMO) to debate chauvinism vs. sexual objectification vs. clinical insanity or whatever. Collectively all of them, with the aid of some platform, create something extremely negative and larger than themselves and hostile to females – thus Misogyny.