Exactly! They're both class issues. To say that one form of discrimination is better than another just makes you sound like an asshole.

Yes, sexism and racism are interdependent, you can't seperate or compare them. But, I'm not sure that's what this is about. The amount of disgusting sex jokes that I hear about Hillary and the frequency that sexist comments are made about her does not compare to comments made about Obama. Why? Not because it's racsim v sexism, because nobody is making those comments about Obama! Not in the media anyway... I am so tired of the amount of degrading and sexist media coverage and public response to Hillary, and no Obama is not getting the same treatment. That's not putting sexism vs racism. That's fact.

The problem with saying "racism" and "sexism" are intertwined is that this usually comes from the extremes who have no interest in listening to each other.

I don't support either DNC candidate. i think they've both run flawed campaigns. However, Obama's gone out of his way to "move past" his race only to be criticized for everything from "not being black enough" to which type of black people are appropriate for him to associate with (no sharpton, no wright, no jesse no one not approved by Fox).

Conversely, Hilary Clinton seems to use gender when it benefits her and then scream sexism when someone calls her on it.

I've never known a male candidate of any race to conflate their spouse's experience with their own and get away with it as she has.

barack may not be the most qualified guy in terms of years in office, but at least he's running on his record and not michelle's.

Also I've never seen a greater perversion of the "woman/women" label by white women as i've seen with Hillary Clinton who only mentions women of color and issues that disproportionately affect women of color when it suits her needs. Otherwise she and her supports skate on this false-meme of white-women-speaks-for-all-women.

But to criticize her for any of this is to be sexist.

sometimes you have to call things for what they are. She's an opportunist who exploits her gender in the worst, most undignified ways possible.

And that an overwhelming number of white women refuse to openly acknowledge this infuriates and overwhelming number of people of color.

really? a feminist blog thinks this article is too feminist?

wow. you gals really have drunk too much of the obama kool aid. It's really quite sad.

"Not to mention the fact that Cocco's approach basically excludes all women of color from the conversation."

unlike samantha bee's approach:

"she's...half black, half woman! she's like a sexy chocolate minotaur!"

awesomeness. if there's an international oppression olympics committee, samantha bee should be iooc chair.

And that an overwhelming number of white women refuse to openly acknowledge this infuriates and overwhelming number of people of color.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps it is not a lack of acknowledgement but, rather, a disagreement with part, if not all, of that entire assessment? Or does disagreement with your perception just mean I'm "in denial" and should be dismissed? That's treatment I have not handed out to anyone during this primary but by gods, I've received more of it than I could possibly explain.

really? a feminist blog thinks this article is too feminist?

Um, no. Because feminism is not just about sexism alone - it's about battling racism, classism, heteronormativity, etc. So I'd say Ann was arguing that this article was not feminist enough.

Oh, and believing that an intersectional analysis is necessary for feminism does not mean one has drunk the "kool aid" of any particular candidate. How insulting.

I'm not sure if that paragraph is about how sexism is worse than racism, it's about how complacent everyone is about sexism. Fortunately, we've made progress to the point where blatant racism is taboo (not that people don't DO it, just that they get denounced, for the most part, when they do), and that's just not the case for misogyny. So I think that's aimed at the media who allows and encourages slurs about gender that they would denounce if they were explicitly about race.

But I wish people who denounce the sexism in that campaign would actually TALK about that, because otherwise they *are* playing oppression Olympics.

I agree that the paragraph quoted was messed up and that the oppression Olympics taking place throughout this campaign has been disheartening. I do think, however, we should be careful about criticizing articles on the grounds that "you could just as easily write an article entitled Racism I Won't Miss.� I say this because a few days ago the Washington Post published a story about racism faced by Obama, and many Hillary supporters I know immediately responded with “this is so messed up, why aren’t they talking about the sexism we face.� I feel like this immediate dismissal prevented them from actually reading the article and learning anything about racism from it, which they could have despite its flaws. I guess I just feel like this article, penultimate paragraph excluded, has something valuable to say about sexism. I would be saddened if those who have not thought much about sexism before dismiss the entire article on the grounds that an article could just as easily be written about racism.

I agree completely with exelizabeth.

It is quite often like a pissing contest of who is getting fucked over the most.

As someone who has an invisible minority status I've no real insight into how either of them really experience prejudice; but I have observed often how members of the Right wing seems to pull heavily for Obama in the belief that racism is a stronger motivation than sexism.

I wish it wouldn't come down to that, but it seems that it may.

I've also met people on my (our?) political side who have stated they support Hillary "Because she's a woman and I'm a feminist."

It all makes me very sad.

In the interest of full disclosure I support B.O. because of the financing of his campaign, his stance on the war, and to me he comes off as the most sincere person. I'm sure that to many, if not most, H.C. supporters she can seem just as sincere, but to me she is more of a "typical politician".

Her gender is a non-issue for me.

Great post, Ann. This entire campaign has been so disheartening. I am continually amazed at people's ability to erect the barricades and deny that racism and sexism could perhaps (gasp!) exist and have been (fetch my fainting couch!) present in both campaigns. If we're to get anywhere we're going to have to acknowledge that our preferred candidates have flaws and have exploited this ugliness in the national psyche this primary season and also that the opposing side has had to face painful nastiness that has made progress much more difficult. Both sides need to get some perspective, stat.

I think what is really trying to be expressed here is not which is worse in America, but which is more tolerated when it's overt. Sadly, racism is still rampant. No amount of sexism should ever "marginalize" that, and they shouldn't be competing anyway. But I do think that across the board people of different demagrapics don't notice sexism the way they notice racism. I think most Americans you talk to, even racist ones, will reflect on slavery and Jim Crow with a sense of shame or disgust, but few people look back on the plight of women (of any color) and shudder at the injustice. The sensitivity just isn't there. The American conscience was never confronted about sexism on the level that it was with regards to racism. So I just think it's not as vigilant about it.

Also there's an "otherness" going on here too, when you consider that a lot of the media (or at least the corporations and bosses on top of it) identify more as white and ruling class than "of color." In that sense they are aware of the boundaries and the etiquette. But when they're dealing with one of their own white, privileged circle, I think you get more Freudian slips.

To be clear, I don't think that Obama has had it easy or that race hasn't been trotted out in sneaky ways. The "secret Muslim" plot was particularly revolting. I just think the media are more self-conscious about their credibility in regards to race relations, but the sexism issues are less visible. And that might not be so if more people were feminists and held them accountable.

But you see Morph, it's because you haven't come to grips with your "white privilege" yet, that you feel that way. At least, that's what I keep getting told. Even though I'm not all that white.

Cocco's article would have been so much more ON if instead of using Obama, she just said "a man." Then it would have been simply true instead of an extension of the OP's.

I don't think the author here is trying to say that one kind of oppression "trumps" the other. I think she's trying to say that people react greatly when racist things are said about Obama, but completely ignore it when sexist things are constantly thrown at Clinton. I think she's saying that it has to go both ways.

But I don't think there are any victims in this campaign. Everyone says that Clinton plays dirty, but really Obama just has people play dirty on his behalf.

I just wish we could have a democratic candidate already so I can still like him or her by the time the real race starts!

This is not even the Oppression Olympics. Half the stuff feminist blogs denounce as Oppression Olympics isn't Oppression Olympics.

I'm not sure if that paragraph is about how sexism is worse than racism, it's about how complacent everyone is about sexism.

THAT is what it is. Acknowledging that sexism is given a free pass and even celebrated IS NOT THE SAME as saying sexism is worse than racism.

Can we please talk about and even denounce intersectional oppressions without resorting to that awful term "Oppression Olympics" and without jokily implying that anybody who's really oppressed expects or wants to win anything by it? Please?

These are serious fucking issues, and I'm sick of reading this phrase that reduces them to sound bytes, often silencing any discussion of intersectional biases within the same breath.

I really don't understand why none of these authors seem capable of just relying on the numerous incidents of sexism during this campaign to make their case, rather than lazily making the "if it had been a racial incident" analogy. Far from bolstering their claims, it just highlights the simplicity of their argument. Even if Clinton wasn't running against a black man, this analogy would still be problematic. It's just another instance of the same arguments we've been having over intersectionality.

A lot of people criticize pieces like Coco's for centering on gender to the exclusion of all else. I agree, but I think the problem is more with the notion that there is such a thing as "pure" sexism. We forget that Clinton has a racial identity (she is white) and a class identity (she is wealthy and highly educated). When we accept the default status of these privileged positions, it reinforces the hierarchy that leaves WoC out in the cold.

Ditto SarahMC.

This also reminds me of the Vick threads, where it was insinuated that anyone who thought it was mightily fucked up that you can't elicit anywhere near the same level of outrage when it is women being beaten or raped at the hands of celebrity athletes as you can when it is an animal must think that it's okay to beat animals, or that animal life isn't worth anything. Clearly, that's not what people were saying, but you couldn't get a word in edgewise on those threads without someone basically calling you inhumane and a dog-hater.

It's not quite the same here, but there's something similar going on. Obviously racism is rampant in the US. Obviously racism is disgusting and awful. Obviously sexism is rampant in the US. Obviously sexism is disgusting and awful. Obviously racism and sexism overlap and intersect a lot of the time. Obviously they both are disgusting and awful. In addition to all of that, we have a situation in our country where overt racism is met with a media response aghast and horrified. This is clearly warranted (though I would say not always sincere). Overt sexim does not elicit the same response. Saying so does not negate the first two statements I made, and it does not mean that I think women of any color are more put upon than people of color of any gender.

It is spot on that racism and sexism are intertwined and interdependent. As is homophobia/heterosexism, trans-hating, ableism, classism and so on. Usually any person or people who are misogynistic are also racist, homophobic, and just generally hatefilled. It really stinks that so many media try to make them separate issues cause it's simply not the case.

Factually stating that racism is much less overt than sexism in the national media, in magazines, on blogs, and on radio is not the "Oppression Olympics." Coco is absolutely right. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Jack Cafferty, DailyKos, TPM, et. al would NEVER get away with saying horribly racist things, and more importantly, the absolutely should NOT get away with it. That horrible Curious George t-shirt is an example. It is being rightfully decried for its ugly display of bigotry. All Coco is saying is, if people said these things about Obama (or any person of color) the way they did about Hillary (or any woman), they would BE FIRED and publicly excoriated.

That does not, of course, hit the real issue of people being bigoted behind closed doors or among "their own kind." I'm not stupid. I know this is under the surface. I fear Obama will be facing much, MUCH worse as this election cycle continues.

Let's apply our reactions and public punishment to racism AND sexism. That is all Coco is saying.

Why does that seem like "ZOMG sexism is so much WORSE" to you? I for one am glad somebody in the mainstream media finally said something. Of course, for bringing this out into the open, she is being vilified, by men and by women, by conservatives and progressives.

P.S. To claim that Hillary Clinton plays the gender card and screams sexism when someone calls her on it is bullshit. Show me where she did that. I think she also has been remarkably silent on all the hatred swirling around her gender. When Obama spoke so masterfully about race and bigotry, it was great. Was it "screaming" racism? No. It was pointing out the ugly truths about America.

You're still applying a different standard to the woman.

They may be intertwined, but they are not the same thing. Turing feminism into a synonym for egalitarianism instead of just sex-egalitarianism makes it a meaningless phrase, and fails to include people who are undeniably feminist but who happen to disagree with modern mainstream feminism on other issue, such as most if not all of the west's earliest feminists, who were racist.

some posters are still saying "Hillary" and "Obama", please people stick to "Clinton" and "Obama"

Fortunately, the country has largely come to terms with its long history of racial oppression and doesn't tend to (overtly at least) display racially-charged messages; unfortunately, sexism has not received the same attention. To put them in conflict with one another only serves to further diminish the argument of each, rather than to undercut the misogyny and racism that are prevalent in the campaigns and in society as a whole.
As for the interpretation of Cocco's paragraph - I don't think it was meant to be divisive of the two forms of oppression, but, as others have said, an acknowledgment of sexist complacency; but it still paints racism and sexism as separate forces rather than appraising them as intertwined.
I would have appreciated the article more had Cocco simply denounced the misogyny rather than feeling it necessary to relate Clinton's struggles in her campaign to Obama's stuggles in his; both deserve to receive attention, perhaps as compliments in a larger argument of a more complex oppression that needs to be addressed, but not in comparison to one another.

And feminism is not becoming synonymous with egalitarianism, but is acknowledging and exploring the compounding factors that influence oppression of all sorts that necessarily have an effect on one another.

I'm not sure if I saw this article as oppression olympics material. Because men and women are different in a way that black and white people aren't, sexism is always going to get more traction, in some ways, than racism is.

A few things:

To Black Canseco,
I basically 100% that Hillary plays the sex card when it suites her and plays the sexism card when that suites her.

To firelili,
I will continue to call Obama Obama and Hillary Hillary. Hillary refers to HERSELF as Hillary in her campaign literature, in speeches, as well as on her website. It is clear that her first name is her preferred name to be referred to by.

To tinfoil hattie,
How can you not say that Hillary uses her sex to her advantage when she so pleases? She rests on her husband's laurels like there is no tomorrow and continuously makes the case for how amazingly wonderful it would be to have gee wiz, a woman president because that shows everyone that they can be everything. Can you imagine if Obama said, I think it's time for a black president now, white folks move over! Yeah, that would play real well.

I really don't understand why none of these authors seem capable of just relying on the numerous incidents of sexism during this campaign to make their case, rather than lazily making the "if it had been a racial incident" analogy. Far from bolstering their claims, it just highlights the simplicity of their argument. Even if Clinton wasn't running against a black man, this analogy would still be problematic.

Precisely. There's been plenty of sexist bullshit-- why can't we just use that?

firelili-
I used to use senators obama and clinton because I thought it was the best way to recognize their equality. But I just went to see Bill speak here on campus and all the campaign signs say "Hillary for President." So now I just go with that.

Hm, what I got from Cocco's article is that if half the crap that's been done to Hillary in such a public way were done to Barack, there'd be a massive, angry uproar - and there hasn't been anything like that for the misogyny that's been heaped on Hillary. If racism and sexism are so interdependent, why is the MSM getting away with crap like "Bros before Hos" t-shirts and other deplorable acts? Where's the massive, angry uproar over that??

Seriously, people, wake up - how did it become the case that sexism is more tolerable than racism??

Seriously, people, wake up - how did it become the case that sexism is more tolerable than racism??

This is the problem. A lot of you are trying to parse this very thin line that these authors are only arguing that sexism in this campaign has taken one form while racism has taken another. I think that is true to some extent, if only that were what the authors were saying.

The author isn't making the point that racism merely takes another form, and her argument is not nearly that nuanced. Her point is the same as the poster's above, that sexism is more acceptable than racism.

Ugh, I have plenty more to say on this whole overt/covert business but I'm just gonna have to save it for later.

There are 15 female Senators and 1 Black Senator. His name? Barack Obama.

So you tell me whether it's harder to be a white woman or a black man in politics.

"Can we please decry the sexism Hillary Clinton has faced in this campaign without declaring that sexism trumps racism, and without marginalizing women of color? Please?"

Coco never once says sexism trumps racism and I'm unclear on how an article decrying sexism against a woman (HRC) who happens to be white is "marginalizing" women of color.

You're looking for controversy where there is none.

I'm very sorry this is the tact you've chosen to take regarding this excellent article. It's very rare to see the MSM acknowledge sexism at all. Coco should be commended for speaking up.

GASP! Stop playing the Oppression Olympics, Spottieottiedopalicious!!!

I'm glad that someone is finally using common sense! The Oppression Olympics have gone on for too long. Is sexism worse/easier, more prevalent/less prevalent than racism? How about we compare the relative evils of the slave trade to the holocaust? Or to the genocide of the American Indian. That would be a useful debate. Fact is, the relative comparisons are irrelevant: Consider this in US history there have been over 64 female Senators or Governors, while just 6 blacks have ever held this role. Understandably to black people this suggests racism is a steeper hurdle & yet sexism is pretty difficult too. No doubt that Hillary has faced tremendous sexism even in becoming First Lady--the Robertsons & Falwells criticized her mercilessly for not staying home & baking cookies.

But Obama has faced plenty of racism, or race-baiting--primarily from the Clintons! And when the Clintons play the gender card--and maybe that's ok--she shouldn't be surprised that it's a 2 edged sword. The reason Barack HASN'T played on race is because he wanted to avoid the trap of being labeled the "black candidate" as Jackson & Sharpton were. Hillary chose a different strategy; she's embraced being "the female candidate". That's her prerogative I s'pose, but clearly it has its disadvantages.

I wish you would have published the entire piece here. I read it earlier this week and actually agreed with most of it. I believe it is a very valid point that while sexism against Hilary Clinton was obvious and tolerated, because she was the less popular candidate, racist slurs against Obama were not. This is not saying one is more prevalent then the other.

Commenting that the sexism we encounter in the media would not be tolerated if it was racism is NOT oppression olympics. It's called the double standard.

But what an effective way to shut down women's voices when we demand the sexism to stop.

You realize that when the media was first criticized for their sexism of Clinton, it was ignored. Then when it was stated by people that it would never be tolerated it if it was racism (which is a fact), well then it's oppression olympics.

What an effective way for the Obama camp to shut down women's voices and basically allow the sexism to continue or be minimized.

I fail to see how this article is an example of the "oppression olympics". What's more, calling it the "oppression olympics" every time someone points out the double standard essentially has the effect of putting the muzzle back on women. Thanks Feministing!

You have indeed, "drank the kool aid".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/sexism-racism-and-rhetori_b_102429.html