Hierarchies of Oppression
There are moments when it becomes acutely irritating that Urbanagora is populated almost entirely by white men, even while acknowledging that certain members of this particular group of white men still constitute “the other” in certain areas (religion, sexual orientation, marital status). I had such a moment after watching this diavlog between Ezra Klein of the American Prospect and Christopher Hayes of the Nation, which covers a wide range of topics but tends to focus on identity politics and the Democratic primary.
The whole thing is a pretty illuminating discussion, but here’s a snippet I found particularly interesting. It’s about 8 minutes long, but for those who don’t have that much time to spare, it basically begins with Chris Hayes talking about this editorial by Gloria Steinem that ran just before the New Hampshire primary, which basically weighed how hard women in our society have had it vs. African Americans and coming down on the side of women having it worse.
Hayes responds to this by saying that if you look at the progress that African Americans have made materially, it’s very minimal (they continue to have high rates of incarceration, poverty, joblessness, lack of education, etc.). At the same time, if you look at the progress they’ve made culturally, it’s been much more significant in terms of what sorts of things can be said in polite company and what social and cultural consequences there are for being a racist or saying things that are racist. And when you take that same approach looking at the progress of women, it’s pretty much the exact opposite: materially, women have made great strides in terms of access to education and closing the wage gap and breaking through various glass ceilings; whereas culturally, our society seems to have taken dramatic steps backwards (think Maxim, the Man Show, etc.).
Ezra Klein then adds a little to this point by pointing out how much easier it has been for Barack Obama to kind of step outside of his “box” merely by being “out of the ordinary” in terms of the stereotype of black men: he’s well-educated, articulate, and all the rest; and therefore society at large embraces him as a symbol of progress and hope. For Hillary Clinton, it’s much more difficult for her to step outside of her gender and therefore critics of Clinton can say things in a sexist way that a critic of Obama could absolutely never say in the equivalent racist way. Klein attributes this in part to the point Hayes made earlier: because women have been much more successful at ingraining themselves in the power structure of our society, they present much more of a threat to the traditional order. To put it crudely, Hillary Clinton reminds white men of their female supervisor whom they feel uncomfortable with. Whereas the privilege that white men enjoy is not particularly threatened by black men, who continue to suffer the material effects of institutionalized racism. It’s therefore much easier and even compelling to embrace a black man like Obama than a white woman like Clinton.
After typing all this, I realize that I’ve pretty much done nothing but sum up the discussion between Klein and Hayes rather than contribute much in the way of my own thoughts, but I guess I’d just say that this is a big part of why, even though I’m an Obama supporter, I wouldn’t be saddened if Hillary managed to win the nomination: a big portion of the progress that women have yet to make in this country deals much more with cultural attitudes than material benefits, and the opposite is true of African Americans. And while electing a woman as President will help to make progress on the cultural sexism front, electing a black man as President will do little to make progress on the material racism front (and quite likely would even hurt that progress to some extent, as white people will congratulate themselves for electing a black man and start thinking the civil rights movement has come much further than it really has).
I’m dreading the onslaught of attacks on this post from the more conservative-minded contributors to this blog who will find this whole discussion either boring or irritating, placing far too much focus on race and sex than on practical policy considerations. But to head that argument off at least a little, I would point out that the policy distinctions between Hillary and Obama are rather minimal, which allows for these sorts of consideration to come much more to the forefront. They are also just genuinely important considerations, I think, but particularly so given that this is a primary contest between two candidates who largely agree on policy.
Also, not that I think anybody will listen to this, but I would again say that the entire discussion between Klein and Hayes is quite interesting, and if you’ve got an hour to kill (as I do, thanks to a wonderful faculty retreat at Georgetown which has given me a really long weekend), you should check it out.
Comment by Anonymous on 19 February 2008 at 2:29 pm:
good thing you gave yourself a pat on the back while insulting nearly everyone else that contributes to the blog…thanks
Comment by Brian on 19 February 2008 at 2:32 pm:
Huh? Where’d I do that?
Comment by you must be new anon on 19 February 2008 at 2:33 pm:
Brian’s backhanded pretentiousness is found on this blog at least once a week.
Comment by J. Prescott on 19 February 2008 at 2:59 pm:
As a white male living in the middle of a higher learning institution, I was stunned to find out that there is still prejudice in this here society. Thank God Klein and Hayes can clarify the issue for us, and resolve the mystery of prejudice in america.
But quick clarification. Why is it that Klein and Hayes have a better grasp on the situation, since they are, after all, also white males? I mean, you infer that as white males that there is something deficient in our reasoning faculties, and that we cannot possibly comprehend certain topics due to our bourgeois perspective from atop the figurative American food chain. What exempts them from the same deficiency?
Comment by Augur on 19 February 2008 at 3:18 pm:
This is an interesting take I hadn’t really considered. One point to add might be that men associate Hillary with the feelings they had toward powerful women in the 1990s rather than now, I think a fresh woman might encounter less opposition, because of that association.
My aversion to Hillary is based in part on the ease with which she lies. I believe Obama to be primarily values driven. Also, he is unifying and she is divisive. I would give serious consideration to supporting at third party bid by bloomberg if Hillary were the nominee, because I think 4 years of Hillary would be bad for the Democratic Party. Were I convinced Bloomberg could only be a spoiler and hand it to Walnuts, I would quickly come back to supporting Hillary, but the visceral rejection men have towards Hillary is at least partially personality driven.
It would be interesting to see how the discussion you talked about would change if the female nominee were someone like Sebelius or McCaskill
Comment by Brian on 19 February 2008 at 4:01 pm:
Prescott,
The two of them actually do acknowledge at one point that a discussion of these topics by two white men is necessarily not going to be the most edifying discussion possible.
More importantly, I have no idea how you inferred a lot of what you did from my post. I imply that “as white men there is something deficient in our reasoning facilities”? Really? Where do I do that exactly? I’m not asking in an argumentative way, I’m seriously asking where you’re taking that from. I certainly don’t mean to imply that. My post, and Klein and Hayes’ conversation, is about that nature of different kinds of prejudice in our society, how our society is shaped in part by those kinds of prejudice, and how they have been affecting the Democratic primary. It’s more than just saying “there is still prejudice in this here society,” and it’s not an argument that white men are in some way deficient. I don’t really get how people are taking that message away from this post.
If this is all stemming from the first sentence of my post saying that it sucks that it’s a bunch of white men on this blog, I also don’t see how that’s insulting. It’s not that white men don’t have anything to contribute, it’s just that having ONLY white men contribute to this blog necessarily means we’re not hearing certain perspectives. How is that insulting, or even in any way controversial?
Augur,
I think you’re right that there is to SOME degree something about Hillary as a person, but also even more importantly there’s something about the Clintons specifically, that makes it harder to disaggregate exactly what’s driving criticism of Hillary. There are some ways in which the Clintons as a family are on the receiving end of criticism they don’t deserve purely because they are Clintons, and there are some ways in which Hillary is on the receiving end of criticism because of things specifically related to Hillary. But there are certainly ALSO, and I would say to a rather significant degree, ways in which Hillary is criticized in a way that results from her being a woman. Go read Andrew Sullivan’s blog for a sampling of that.
Comment by Brian on 19 February 2008 at 4:31 pm:
Augur,
On your last sentence, I’d also say that part of what makes women like McCaskill and Sebelius more palatable than Hillary is that they’re not women who are seen as having had their eyes on the presidency. Hillary is faulted by many for being “coldly ambitious” and the like, when she’s really been no more ambitious than most men who have run for President in modern history.
And again, it’s not like there aren’t things that Hillary’s done that feed into that criticism (e.g., all of her shenanigans with superdelegates and Michigan and Florida), it’s just that it’s much more commonplace that she is criticized for being calculating, political, ambitious, etc. than it would be if she were a man, and that there is a much greater intensity to that criticism.
Comment by Hanno on 19 February 2008 at 4:42 pm:
“It’s not that white men don’t have anything to contribute, it’s just that having ONLY white men contribute to this blog necessarily means we’re not hearing certain perspectives”
Now as the only sorry excuse for a minority who regularly writes for this blog I have to take issue with this statement. Whitino power. I’m done.
Comment by Hanno on 19 February 2008 at 4:53 pm:
I wait. I forgot to add something:
Don’t oppress me just because I’m ethnically diverse.
Comment by Brian on 19 February 2008 at 5:19 pm:
Hanno,
Duly noted. We’ve also got Lally as a token female, but neither of you ever contribute any more! Get with it, people. I demand diversity!
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 19 February 2008 at 5:37 pm:
We’re going to be changing and expanding the blog soon and one of my major goals is to get more diverse voices involved. Anyone who is interested in being part of the new blog should email me: billyjoemills@gmail.com
Comment by Augur on 19 February 2008 at 7:16 pm:
kiyoshi is a latasian, hard to be more diverse than that
billy, you should do a quick post on the front page w/ the timer set way in the future so it stays on top saying we’re looking for more contributors.