One More Try

For some reason, many (not all) people are either unable or unwilling to see the sexism being directed at Hillary Clinton this primary season.  I know I’ve been going on about this, but I thought I’d give it one more try.  But, this time I’m going to go about it differently.  I’m going to provide a list, for those having difficulty avoiding sexism, of legitimate reasons not to vote for Clinton.

  1. If you are against women controlling their own reproductive freedom and this is an important or decisive issue for you, then don’t vote for Hillary Clinton.  You probably want a Republican.
  2. If you are anti-immigration, either because of wage depression or xenophobia, and this is an important or decisive issue for you, then don’t vote for Hillary Clinton.  All of the other candidates are better for you.
  3. If you believe that the gun industry (or any industry) should be protected by Congress from civil litigation and this is an important or decisive issue for you, then don’t vote for Hillary Clinton.  Again, all of the other candidates are better for you.
  4. If you are against universal pre-K, and this is an important or decisive issue for you, then don’t vote for Hillary Clinton.  You’re going to want a Republican in this election.
  5. If you are for massive amounts of debt for public colleges and this is an important or decisive issue for you, then don’t vote for Hillary Clinton.  The Republicans are better for you on this.
  6. If you want to keep tax rates as low or lower than they are now and this is an important or decisive issue for you, then don’t vote for Hillary Clinton.  The Republican candidates are much more likely to keep tax rates down.
  7. If you are against free trade agreements and this is an important or decisive issue for you, then don’t vote for Hillary Clinton.  All of the other candidates are against free trade.
  8. If you are against the Affordable Care Act, either because government should stay out of healthcare or because it doesn’t go far enough and this is an important or decisive issue for you, then don’t vote for Hillary Clinton.  The Republicans will help if you want government out of healthcare and Sanders is your man if idealism is that important.
  9. If you are a pacifist and this is an important or decisive issue for you, then don’t vote for Hillary Clinton.  Bernie Sanders or a third party candidate will be your best bet for pacifism.
  10. If you are against trying to mitigate the effects of global warming and this is an important or decisive issue for you, then don’t vote for Hillary Clinton.  The Republicans have this covered.

Obviously, this is not a complete list.  I just want to point out the important features of this list.  First, it sticks to actual issues and positions of the candidates.  Second, at no point does it assume that Clinton is nothing more than an extension of her husband.  Whatever you think of her, she is her own person with her own ideas and agency.  Third, it doesn’t play into any pre-existing stereotypes.  Let’s face it, when people try to make issues out of Clinton’s work, looks, decisiveness, income and shrillness (among other things) they are playing into those stereotypes.  I know this will raise hackles, but there is nothing you can say about Clinton in these areas that doesn’t also apply to all of the other candidates in this, and any other, election cycle.  Even Bernie Sanders is rich (certainly by my standards, and most regular people’s standards), has excepted compensation from institutions most people despise (The House of Representatives and Senate), fails to look presidential, yells a lot and has voted for things in the past (like the Crime Bill) that he now feels differently about.  Finally, I avoided talk of Clinton’s personality altogether.  This isn’t an election to decide who we’d like to hang out with.  And, I’d really like to think that people’s decision to not vote for Trump or Cruz or Sanders has nothing to do with their personalities because it shouldn’t.  The decision should be based solely on the issues.

And, just as a reminder, I know this list isn’t for everyone.  Many people have already made up their minds for non-sexist reasons.  Also, this shouldn’t be taken as advocating a vote for Clinton.  It is just to aid those of you who don’t want to vote for Clinton, but are struggling to find a non-sexist way to do that because I’m really sick of trying to navigate through the truly abhorrent mass of sexism every morning as I try to read the news.  I hope this helps.

The Real Problem With Bernie’s Unqualified Comment

I wasn’t going to comment on this.  When I saw on the news on Thursday that Bernie Sanders had said that Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president, I was going to ignore it.  I was sure about a million other people would talk about it, so why add my voice?  Plus, I’m completely sick of this election.

I was partly right.  About a million other people did talk about it.  The problem was that no one seemed to talk about the actual problem with the statement.  Some people came to Clinton’s defense and spelled out her qualifications.  Others attacked Sanders by saying that he is less qualified than Clinton.  And still others agreed with Sanders saying that Clinton isn’t qualified.  No one that I saw, though, commented on the first thing I noticed in the statement, sexism.

I have no idea what Sanders was thinking when he made the statement, but it is really the perfect example of dog-whistle sexism.  He didn’t mention gender at all, but the only way questioning the qualifications of a former senator and secretary of state could land is by picking up on some kind of bigotry.  That may not have been his intention, and I’m willing to give Sanders the benefit of the doubt, but even unintentional sexism is wrong and Sanders needs to stop it.  And someone much more important than I am should let him know.

City Rats and Sexism

There are rats in New York City.  That probably doesn’t surprise anyone.  In fact, there are lots and lots of rats.  Estimates range from 2-10 million rats.  Even on the low end, 2 million rats is a lot of rats.  There are also people in New York City.  This, again, probably doesn’t surprise anyone.  In fact, there are lots and lots of people.  The current estimate is about 8.5 million people living there and roughly 50 million annual visitors.  The truly surprising thing is the sheer number of those people, especially those visitors, who have never seen a rat in New York City.

New York City is roughly 470 square miles.  That means there are (again using the low end of the estimate) 4255 rats per square mile.  It seems like with that many rats running around, most people would just bump into one every once in a while.  I know that the rats aren’t evenly distributed, but they go where the food is and the food is around people.  I know that rats are mostly nocturnal, but New York is the “City That Never Sleeps”.  I also know that the rats don’t want to be seen, but they are quite brazen about taking any food they can find and everyone who has been to New York has seen litter in New York.

I think I was in college the first time I saw a rat in New York City.  I grew up in Connecticut, so I had been to New York a bunch of times before college, but I never saw a rat.  I’m pretty sure I had walked right past them without seeing them.  I think that’s common.  The first one I saw was at Grand Central Station.  I was early for my train, but broke, so I was just sitting there waiting for the train.  I saw something move on the tracks.  I couldn’t figure out what it was at first.  I thought it was someone’s small dog that had gotten loose.  It was when it squeezed through a hole that I couldn’t even see that it clicked, that was a rat.

Since seeing that first rat, I don’t think I’ve taken a trip to New York City without seeing at least one rat.  I’ve seen them on the street, in alleys, under food stands, in trash cans and in the parks.  They really are everywhere.  I find it hard to believe I went the first 20ish years of my life without seeing one.  But, from talking to others, it seems that my story is fairly common.

There is sexism in the world.  That probably doesn’t surprise anyone.  In fact, there is lots and lots of sexism.  The statistics are everywhere.  Women only earn 79% of what men earn Only 4.4% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women1 in 3 women are victims of domestic violence.  I could go on and on, but even if this were all the sexism, that’s a lot of sexism.  There are also people in the world.  This, again, probably doesn’t surprise anyone.  In fact, there are lots and lots of people.  According to the best estimates, there are more than 7.4 billion people.  The truly surprising thing is the sheer number of those people who have never noticed an incident of sexism.

There are roughly 3.7 billion women on the planet.  That means that about half of the people in the world are possible targets of sexism.  It seems like with so much sexism and so many possible targets, everyone would notice sexism more than every once in a while.  I know that much of the sexism takes the form of microaggressions, but much of it doesn’t.  I know that most people don’t think of themselves as sexist, but that won’t stop people from noticing sexism in others.  I also know that victims don’t always talk about their experiences, but that can’t be an excuse.  No one would say a murder isn’t real because the victim stays silent.

I was in high school, starting my first job, when I first saw and really noticed sexism.  I know I had seen sexism before that, I just hadn’t really paid attention to it.  I see now that there was sexism in things like gendered chores and the fact that girls played the flute while boys played the trumpet.  But, as a kid, I didn’t really notice these things.  My first job was in a restaurant, cooking and washing dishes, and the sexism was impossible to ignore. There was the common sexism, like waitresses making more money by wearing tighter clothes, but it got much worse. There were sexist jokes, like calling the seafood platter a “hooker”. There was the fact that men could hold any position, but the women were only hosts or wait staff. There were the near constant discussions among the cooks about the women’s looks, clothes and what they might be skilled at. And there were even scheduling decisions based on who was cute enough for the Saturday night shift.

Since noticing the sexism at my first real job, I see and notice sexism all the time.  It’s in almost every school, workplace, club, movie, TV show, album, website and commercial I see.  It is everywhere.  Now that I notice it, I can’t help but see it.  I know I’ve been seeing sexism my whole life, and it’s embarrassing that it took me sixteen years to really start noticing it.  Also, it’s disheartening that that makes me better than many, if not most, other people.

It is easy to dwell on the negative, and clearly there is a lot of negative to dwell on.  I’m generally an optimistic person, though.  I choose to find something positive in my experiences.  That positive is the fact that even as an idiot teenager, I was able to recognize sexism and it has been impossible for me to miss it since.  I’m inclined to believe that the same would be true for others.  If we can get others to see and recognize sexism, they will continue to see and recognize it.  And more people recognizing sexism will lead to legitimate social pressures to curb sexism, which will lead to less sexism.  At least that is my hope.

The trick is getting people to recognize sexism when they see it.  Hectoring and yelling won’t do it.  That’s more likely to get people to close off than open up.  Illustrations probably won’t help much either.  Seeing a rat in a zoo isn’t going to help anyone notice a rat in New York.  People need to recognize sexism when they see it in its natural environment.  I can see the arts helping.  Most people are pretty good at seeing the connections between art and life.  But I think the most effective way is to just talk about it, especially with children.  When I say talk, that is what I mean.  Scolding and shaming won’t work.

We have a tendency to treat sexism as taboo.  We don’t talk about it in normal circumstances.  But I don’t understand why.  We talk about all kinds of other bad things that we encounter each day.  Many of us can’t wait to get to work so we can tell our coworkers all about that idiot who blew right through the stop sign.  And we take delight in sharing our experiences being stuck behind that person with at least twenty items in the express check out line.  So, let’s start talking freely about that idiot car salesman who only addresses the man when a couple walks in.  Let’s gossip about the jerk who thinks it’s OK to start talking to a woman even though she is clearly talking to her friend.  Talking can only help.

I’ll end this by saying that I know my analogy can’t be taken too far.  City rats and sexism are alike in that they are invisible to many people and once they are noticed, a person can’t help but notice them.  That’s as far as it goes, though.  Rats are actually pretty amazing creatures and I’m sure they fill an ecological niche somewhere.  Sexism has nothing positive to recommend it.  The sooner we recognize that, the better.

Recognizing Sexism – Hillary Clinton Edition

There has been something disturbing about the 2016 presidential election.  I should probably be more specific.  There have been a lot of disturbing things about the 2016 presidential election.  For right now, though, I’m thinking of one thing in particular.  That thing is the fact that so many people are failing to notice the rampant sexism directed at Hillary Clinton.  It’s sad that I have to get that specific.  Hillary Clinton has been the target of unbelievable sexism for her entire public life.  Last time she ran for president, I was pretty shocked by it.  This time, I was ready for it.  I still find it disturbing, but I’m not shocked by it.

That fact that people claim not to see the sexism, or really do not see the sexism, is what I am currently finding shocking.  Even some of Sanders’ supporters are failing in this regard.  If a person is progressive enough to support Sanders, I don’t get how they could miss blatant sexism, but they do (I should emphasize that I said “some” earlier.  I don’t believe that everyone who prefers Sanders to Clinton is being sexist.  There are legitimate reasons for that.  But, it is crazy to think that Clinton and Sanders are on a level playing field.).

Here is an easy way to spot sexist comments.  When someone says something about Hillary Clinton, simply substitute one of the male candidates’ names for her name and see if the comment still makes sense.  If it does, the statement is probably OK.  But, if it doesn’t, the statement is probably sexist.  Let’s look at some examples of typical statements about Clinton:

  1. Hillary* should just enjoy being a grandmother.
  2. Hillary should not have used a private email server.
  3. Hillary is too ambitious.
  4. Hillary should have left her husband.

Now let’s look at them again with my substitutions:

  1. Bernie should just enjoy being a grandfather.
  2. Donald should not have used a private email server.
  3. Ted is too ambitious.
  4. Marco should have left his wife.

It seems pretty obvious that 2 is the only one of those statements that works in both cases.  If 1 is true for Clinton, it is certainly true for Sanders who is older and has more grandchildren, but no one ever says Bernie should just enjoy being a grandfather.  3 is almost too ridiculous to talk about.  We are talking about someone who is campaigning to be President of the United States of America.  Of course she is ambitious.  Every single person who has ever run for the office is incredibly ambitious.  Bernie Sanders is ambitious.  Abraham Lincoln was ambitious.  Even Jimmy Carter is ambitious.  Ambition is considered a good thing in men, but people seem to think Clinton’s ambition is a problem.  4 is bad on several counts.  First, it’s no one’s business.  Second, how could any of us possibly know what Bill and Hillary Clinton’s relationship is like?  Maybe they truly love and respect each other, despite Bill’s transgressions.  Maybe it’s a marriage of convenience.  I have no idea and neither do you.  Third, people just don’t say those kinds of things about men.  The implication is that Clinton lacks agency or lacks willpower.

I’m not saying any of this as a partisan.  I’m not trying to get you to vote for Clinton.  I’m just trying to get people to notice sexism.  Sexism is a big problem and making it invisible just makes it worse.


*In general, it is annoying that men are referred to by their last names while women are by their first names.  You see it in politics, entertainment, sports and everywhere else.  I don’t want to belabor the point here, however, because Bernie and Jeb are frequently referred to by first name, and the fact that Clinton’s husband is a former president can make it confusing.  It’s just another thing to think about.

 

 

 

Derek Jeter Is the Cover Model for the 2015 SI Swimsuit Issue

The title of this piece is not accurate.  Hannah Davis is the cover model for the 2015 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.  But every single headline I saw lead with Derek Jeter, look at Yahoo!, CBS Detroit, and the Huffington Post.  In other news, Pierre Curie’s wife won the 1903 Nobel Prize for Physics.  Oh, and in 1955, Raymond Parks’ wife was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a bus.

I don’t just find this annoying because I find everything about Derek Jeter to be annoying (I do find Jeter’s very existence to be annoying, see here).  It’s annoying because Hannah Davis has apparently reached the top of her chosen field and America’s mainstream news sources can only talk about it in relation to the man she happens to be dating.  I know next to nothing about modeling and slightly less than that about swimsuits, but I know that if this is a newsworthy story, the story should be about Hannah Davis.  Congratulations Ms. Davis.

While we’re on the subject of the SI Swimsuit Issue, there’s apparently a plus size model named Robyn Lawley in this year’s edition.  According to Time magazine, she is a size 12, which is only two sizes smaller than the average woman.  God forbid they use an average woman as a point of comparison.  Apparently, the average model is a size 2 (Does that mean Ms. Lawley is 6 times bigger than the average model?  I don’t understand how this works).  The picture they have doesn’t look even a little plus size to me.  Don’t get me wrong, she looks much less like a pre-pubescent boy than most models and that’s nice.  But, if she’s plus size, what are all of the real women I see every day?

Monday Night Jazz

I went to see Renee Rosnes in Hartford’s Bushnell Park tonight and had two competing things on my mind.  One was how great it was, not just the band, but the whole experience.  The band was fantastic:  Renee Rosnes on piano, John Patitucci on bass, Carl Allen on drums, and Steve Nelson on vibes.  It doesn’t get much better than that.  Add to that that the show was free, outdoors, and it had a nice sized crowd.  If it were spring or fall, it would have been about perfect.

The other thing wasn’t so great.  When we listen to music lately, my daughter has started asking me, “Is this a boy or a girl?”  I usually just answer based on who is credited with the recording, but sometimes that gets awkward.  If we’re listening to the Campbell Brothers, but Shirley Jackson is the featured vocalist, I don’t know how to answer.  So, I’ll say something like, “Both.  A girl is singing and boys are playing the steel guitars.”  The more music we listen to, the more I notice that when there are girls at all, the girls are almost always singing and the boys are almost always playing the instruments.  Of course many women play instruments, usually guitar or piano, but they are almost always more famous for their singing.  Aretha Franklin plays piano, Bonnie Raitt plays guitar, Diana Krall plays piano, Cassandra Wilson plays guitar, but they are all more famous as singers.

While watching Renee Rosnes tonight, I couldn’t help but think of these conversations.  As I thought about them, I just kept wondering why.  Why is it so rare to find a female instrumentalist?  Is it overt sexism?  Are women not permitted to focus on instrumental music?  Or is it the less obvious, but harder to fight, kind of sexism where little girls never see female instrumentalists, so it never occurs to them to go that route?  Should I begin a steady diet of Regina Cater, Terri Lynn Carrington, Cindy Blackman, Geri Allen, and Renee Rosnes in our house?  I’ve promised myself that I won’t push my tastes on my daughter.  She can explore and like whatever she chooses.  I just hope she won’t ever spend time wondering about such things.