As long as she's universalizing, perhaps we can glean that paying Mark Penn $25 million to run your post-Super Tuesday campaign into the ground is the largest problem facing the world.

a;ldkjf. These statements/ beliefs are bad for allll the "isms". Why we feel like we need to compete between who has it worst is beyond me. We should all be against "oppression", not just sexism, racism, heterosexism, classism, etc. individually. SO frustrating, esp. from our leaders.

Wait, we've been waiting for MONTHS for Clinton to call everyone out on the sexist bullshit she's had to face throughout this campaign. It finally happens and all we can talk about is the oppression olympics again?

I don't see this as being about sexism is worse than racism. She's talking about global scale - where we see a universal hatred of women but don't see a universal hatred against any given race.

I for one applaud Clinton for FINALLY talking about the misogyny. I wish she could have done this months ago. Obama got to give his speech on race and received nothing but praise; Clinton brings up sexism and it's the oppression olympics - a cutesy phrase that does nothing but shut down any attempt at a real dialogue about what she's saying.

a cutesy phrase that does nothing but shut down any attempt at a real dialogue about what she's saying.

I think it would be easier to have a real dialogue about what she was saying if what she was saying was of more substance, and didn't attempt to privilege women's issues above all other concerns in the world.

Personally, I see racism, sexism, and homophobia all as part of the same basic problem: dehumanization.

Right on Jessica.

It's hard to deny that sexism has been present in this presidential election, some of it from mainstream media.

But to argue that is the one thing keeping Clinton from having the nomination is absurd. And this "my oppression is worse than yours" is unhelpful.

It was disappointing to see people like Steinem and Ferraro engage in this ridiculous argument. Remember that the Clinton campaign asked Ferraro to end her relationship with the campaign over remarks that are close to what THE CANDIDATE HERSELF IS NOW SAYING.

The needs of the poor should always come first.

One of the main reasons I voted for Obama is that he actually understands that class>race>sex.

Hillary because her glass is 2/3 full (she's rich & white) can only see sexism everywhere.

"these bloggers weren't acceptable because they "trumped race over gender"."

Ugh, I'm sick of those kinds of accusations. The other way around is just as bad: I remember an article by a woman of colour who was accused of being a 'race traitor' for voting for Clinton - for 'trumping gender over race'.

The whole 'oppression Olympics' thing is stupid - racism doesn't trump sexism, or vice versa. Both are big problems that should be taken seriously, and trying to dismiss one in favour of the other just damages both anti-racist and anti-sexist movements.

I appreciate what Clinton's trying to say here - that discrimination against women remains a very serious issue, that is generally overlooked by the mainstream media - but putting it in some sort of contest with racism is just not helpful.

I completely fail to see how this plays into the oppression olympics, especially given that she explicitly says, "I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head."

I don't think Hillary Clinton, at least not from this excerpt (or anywhere else that I've seen), has stated that she thinks sexism is worse than racism. She is, however, pointing out that hatred of and violence against women is a global problem.

Of course there has been racism in the mainstream media (Lou Dobb's "cotton picking" comment, anyone?) but there has been justifiable outcry about it. However, a thousand different pundits call Hillary Clinton an evil, conniving, castrating bitch who should be taken out back and shot for the good of the party is pretty much par for the course, and of course.

Issues of race in media surrounding Obama's campaign have been treated with kid gloves because, despite the fact that racism is still rampant, pretty much everyone knows that being called a racist is a bad thing. Being called a sexist does not have the same stigma.

"I think that both gender and race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I've seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman [than] to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on either."

All of the exit polls I've seen show that people who rate the gender of the candidates as important to their vote went with Clinton, not Obama.

Furthermore, polls of people who rate race as important also tend to favor Clinton, from what I've seen.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen any polls that verify what Clintons claim here.

Wow, thank you for this entire post. I'm shocked at your personal experience- that someone would blatantly ask you to refer a panelist who only sees issues in terms of gender, (and in a gender/race dichotomy at that)- but I'm sadly not surprised at this alleged "necessity" for allegiances. Yeah, didn't we learn from the mistakes of the forcefully and intentionally white, middle-class, feminist movement of the sixties?

IggyKoopa,

Do you have the wrong link or something? What are you reading? Just based on the 3 quotes below I have to seriously disagree with your assessment.

"The treatment of women is the single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world"

"[E]very poll I've seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on, either."

Q. Do you think this has been a particularly racist campaign?

A. I do not.

I'm with moriath. I am so glad to see her finally point to the sexism that has been at work throughout the mainstream media throughout the campaign. (which frankly is only possible because she's in a losing position now. Now the risk that merely pointing out sexism would cost her the nomination is kind of moot. She may as well use the stage while she has it to point it out.)

And I just don't think these quotes are that damning. She centers blame on the media for being complacent about sexism. It's a very specific critique. And she makes a point to say that racism and sexism and all -isms deserve equal denouncement.

And how does saying "the oppression of women is the single biggest problem in the world" necessarily mean that she's excluding racism? Half or more of every oppressed group are women.

and, to the commenter above who said class>race>gender (sorry if I got that wrong, I'm going from memory) isn't that engaging in exactly the same oppression olympics we're complaining about?

"these bloggers weren't acceptable because they "trumped race over gender"...like me to find a young women (preferably a young woman of color) who would be willing to talk about sexism but not bring up race"

Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor.

This? This nails it home for me...it's a "click" moment. I think because I've been exposed mainly to third wave feminism I didn't "get" how some feminisms were so priviledged and so focused on white women's problems...I mean I got it academically but I didn't get it viscerally. This? This demonstrates how far we have to go, and how disgusting our "allies" can be.

One of the main reasons I voted for Obama is that he actually understands that class>race>sex.

WHAT? Seriously, WTF?

I'm with Moriath and Sidewriter here. I am sick of the phrase "Oppression Olympics" being trotted out whenever someone points out the FACT that sexism is more tolerated than racism. That is not oppression olympics. Oppression Olympics would be claiming that bigotry against women is worse for women than bigotry against POC is for POC. Neither, in practice, is worse. They are different. And one is definitely more tolerated (hell, celebrated) in our society than the other.

My reading skills are just fine, thanks.

"The treatment of women is the single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world."

While there is racism worldwide, it is not always directed at the same race. I believe the point she was trying to make is that globally, one entire half of the population are hated, beaten, raped, killed, diminished, condescended to, treated as sex objects, and not treated as humans based solely on their sex organs. When those women are not part of the ruling class in their respective regions, they are hit with even more severe oppression.

I think Clinton is wrong that there this hasn't been a particularly racist campaign, but specifically speaking of the mainstream media, there has been measurably less racism than sexism.

Given the MSM's general lack of coverage of issues relating to people of color and more egregious outburts of racism, I don't think this is because the MSM is not racist, but rather because for whatever reason, they love Obama and hate Clinton.

I, personally, think their hatred of Clinton has more to do with her gender than their love of Obama has to do with their love of his policies. YMMV.

Sidewriter,

There is no Olympics because the order is not contestable. Folks can quibble about it all they want, but as I said before the needs of the poor should always come first.

Notice that the quibbling is aways between sexism and racism (2nd and 3rd). Might that be cause the least powerful (the poor) don't even have a seat at the table.

"I'm with Moriath and Sidewriter here. I am sick of the phrase "Oppression Olympics" being trotted out whenever someone points out the FACT that sexism is more tolerated than racism. That is not oppression olympics. Oppression Olympics would be claiming that bigotry against women is worse for women than bigotry against POC is for POC. Neither, in practice, is worse. They are different. And one is definitely more tolerated (hell, celebrated) in our society than the other."

But she is claiming that sexism is worse than racism in the political arena, which to me isn't much different from saying that sexism is worse than racism overall.

Sidewriter, Moriath, SarahMC,

Are you really so blind as to see how this is an example of playing oppression olympics?

Jesus, let's just start with the fact that after being asked about RACISM in the campaign Sen. Clinton starts talking about sexism and how bad it is compared to racism.

SarahMC, while I would disagree even with your claim that sexism is more tolerated or celebrated than racism,(racism might look different than sexism does, but that doesn't mean it isn't tolerated, and if you really believe that it isn't, you must be draped in privilege), I have to return to Jessica's question: What is the point of even comparing tolerance for sexism to tolerance to racism? What do you gain from that as a feminist? What does Hillary Clinton gain from purposefully turning away a discussion of race and instead opting to talk about sexism? What is the point? Even if sexism were tolerated more than racism, what is the point of constantly talking about which ism is most prevalent? Why not just try to unravel them all at once?

I agree with several posters that Clinton is talking about sexism being worse than racism on a global scale. That said, racism and sexism both play a part in this campaign. However, I think the sexism in this campaign is tolerated more than the racism when neither one should be tolerated at all.

So you can say "sweetie" on TV America and get less flack than saying the "N" word. The two terms aren't even close in severity. Big deal.

Meanwhile, back in real America... Women live longer than blacks. Women have better health care than blacks and Women have better access to education than blacks. Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.

Once again though I have to ask why is no one talking about the poor? They have it the worse.

Moriath and Sidewriter,

I agree that many have wanted Clinton to speak up about the sexism demonstrated by the media during this election, but why could she not do it without the comparison to racism? Why could she have not have simply said:

1. The polls I have seen demonstrate that a substantial number of people would not vote for a woman candidate...

2. The treatment of women is one of the most pressing and significant issues...

3. Q:Do you think that this has been a particularly racist campaign?

A: Yes. Racism, like sexism, has clearly influenced a number of people's votes...

I more or less complain about sexism during some point of every day. Every time I manage to do so without making a comparison to other forms of oppression. Why can't Hillary Clinton do this?

The problem is ofcourse racism and sexism can both affect one person, and so relating them becomes difficult. I do agree that sexism is more accepted than racism, but that doesnt mean race has no part in the vote, or less of a part. It means that the media is called out on racism more so than sexism a lot of the time. I dont like how Clinton is trying to blame her loss in the race to her gender, when racism is still rampant. This is oppression olympics in the sense that she is using it to help her campaign more than to promote the discussion, thats what it looks like anyway because of her wording. Although it is an important discussion to have, it should not be a presidential nominees task to argue about race and gender, it should be the people who come together to understand that dehumanization in every form is wrong.

"Notice that the quibbling is aways between sexism and racism (2nd and 3rd). Might that be cause the least powerful (the poor) don't even have a seat at the table."

Most of the poor are women and children, and POC. You can't seperate racism and sexism when you talk about the poor.

Meanwhile, back in real America... Women live longer than blacks. Women have better health care than blacks and Women have better access to education than blacks. Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.

Black women don't exist?

You sure should separate it out, otherwise it's self serving. The beauty of prioritizing the poor is that in doing so the group that a given society mistreats the most (because they will naturally be represented in larger numbers) will be helped the most. Even those from the named oppressor class will not be forgotten, though they will be aided in much smaller numbers.

ellestar,

You may be able to crush me at soccer, but I would so whip you at Basketball, Lacrosse and Venn Diagrams. Lol.

"The treatment of women is the single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world."

Yes, I'm with IggyKoopa on this one. Yes, minorities around the globe suffer greatly, and obviously both class and severely inequitable income are substantial factors in that suffering. But neither race nor class, alone, puts you at risk for having your genitals mutilated simply for the sake of tradition or marital fidelity. Neither race nor class, alone, puts you at risk from dying in childbirth because, in parts of the world, girls/women are not worth the cost of a doctor.
Who received the right to vote first -- blacks or women? Who has integrated into the armed forces first? Which is less acceptable in many public places: "n----r" or "c--t"?

Nothing about recognizing the injustices suffered solely by women suggests that we can't, also, seek justice for other oppressed groups. And Clinton never suggests anything of the sort. You are looking for bases to criticize where none exists.

"The treatment of women is the single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world."

Yes, I'm with IggyKoopa on this one. Yes, minorities around the globe suffer greatly, and obviously both class and severely inequitable income are substantial factors in that suffering. But neither race nor class, alone, puts you at risk for having your genitals mutilated simply for the sake of tradition or marital fidelity. Neither race nor class, alone, puts you at risk from dying in childbirth because, in parts of the world, girls/women are not worth the cost of a doctor.
Who received the right to vote first -- blacks or women? Who has integrated into the armed forces first? Which is less acceptable in many public places: "n----r" or "c--t"?

Nothing about recognizing the injustices suffered solely by women suggests that we can't, also, seek justice for other oppressed groups. And Clinton never suggests anything of the sort. You are looking for bases to criticize where none exist.

It seems to me that she might be bringing the conversation back to sexism as a way to prove her point - no one's asking anyone if this has been a "particularly sexist campaign" because it is more widely acceptable to be sexist than it is to be racist. The questions about racism play right into her point - we are more willing to talk about and call out racism than we are to talk about and call out sexism. Obama has had to face racism, no one denies that (not even Clinton, especially if you read 'campaign' as a reference to the work that the individual candidates are doing, not the race for the presidency in general), but plenty of people would be willing to deny the fact that Clinton has had to face both blatant and subtle sexism.

"You sure should separate it out, otherwise it's self serving"

As ellestar pointed out, you're so busy seperating women and blacks, you can't even see where the two come together. Until you can do that, you're not doing the poor any good.

Sidewriter, Moriath, SarahMC,

Are you really so blind as to see how this is an example of playing oppression olympics?

Jesus, let's just start with the fact that after being asked about RACISM in the campaign Sen. Clinton starts talking about sexism and how bad it is compared to racism.

SarahMC, while I would disagree even with your claim that sexism is more tolerated or celebrated than racism,(racism might look different than sexism does, but that doesn't mean it isn't tolerated, and if you really believe that it isn't, you must be draped in privilege), I have to return to Jessica's question: What is the point of even comparing tolerance for sexism to tolerance to racism? What do you gain from that as a feminist? What does Hillary Clinton gain from purposefully turning away a discussion of race and instead opting to talk about sexism? What is the point? Even if sexism were tolerated more than racism, what is the point of constantly talking about which ism is most prevalent? Why not just try to unravel them all at once?

I think Commodore08 sums up just what is wrong with saying "Sexism is more acceptable than racism." I have repeated this point so many times and I'm just tired.

moriath: thank you. thank you. THANK YOU.

why is the part where Hillary says sexism has been more accepted in this campaign (which it HAS! did anyone read "Goodbye to All That #2"?? let's be serious here. the shit hillary has put up with would never be tolerated on a similar scale of racism towards obama) highlighted, and RIGHT AFTER the part where she says "And I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head" is just overlooked? I by no means think Hillary is trying to compete here, it is a FACT that sexism has been more accepted in this campaign. If we can't acknowledge that, what kind of feminists are we anyway?!

What makes ME sick is the phrase "oppression olympics." Nobody thinks this is a game. We can all agree that white dudes have it easiest. But let's be realistic about the kind of discrimination each candidate has faced in this campaign.

Yes, I'm with IggyKoopa on this one. Yes, minorities around the globe suffer greatly, and obviously both class and severely inequitable income are substantial factors in that suffering. But neither race nor class, alone, puts you at risk for having your genitals mutilated simply for the sake of tradition or marital fidelity. Neither race nor class, alone, puts you at risk from dying in childbirth because, in parts of the world, girls/women are not worth the cost of a doctor.

The fact that women of color face problems that men of color do not does not make gender a more important issue. I would expect that hearing a great number of WoC say that race has negatively effected more than gender should count for something, unless white women know better somehow. This isn't to say that race trumps gender, it doesn't, nor does gender trump race, they are interrelated, as are both of those and class.

The other thing I'm sick of is white feminists saying that racism somehow is acceptable in polite company while sexism isn't. Most of the examples used aren't consider sexism by most men. I don't bring that up because I think that they aren't sexist, I bring it up because it is the same with a great number of racist incidents, they aren't considered racist, or at least not as serious as the incidents of sexism, by mainly white feminist observers. That right there is a direct result of white privilege.

P.S. You want a great example of racist oppression, look at the war on the Iraqi people. How many have died in the last 17 years? Most people don't even pay attention to the fact that we've been starving them so long. We just don't care that much about brown people off in some distant land.

I know that racism manifests differently than sexism.
There is institutional/systemic bigotry and there is outward, blatant bigotry. To say that outward, blatant sexism is more acceptable in our society IS NOT to say that institutional/systemic racism doesn't exist.
But that is not the issue at hand! The issue at hand is the blatant, public, personal bigotry against women, which is glossed over, celebrated, and unchecked.
The point of comparing outward sexism to racism is waking people up to how bad it's been and how it should NOT be tolerated - just as blatant, public, personal racism is not tolerated.
We all know that many people don't even NOTICE the sexist treatment of Hillary (or other women in the public eye).
So to open their eyes, it's often effective to remind them that a, b, and c (racist remarks) are rightly denounced in our society (so why should x, y and z sexist remarks slide?).

I agree with a critical point made by Commodore08, Coathangrrr, and others: Racism and sexism are DIFFERENT. They are not comparable. They are interrelated of course, but they are not simply identical phenomena directed at different targets.

I might agree that the sexism in this campaign has been more overt than the racism. That makes some sense to me. This is not because sexism is "more acceptable" than racism, it is because sexism and racism manifest themselves differently.

For instance, I see racism in the constant references to Obama as 'elitist.' A black man in this country has a choice: He can either 'act black' and be deemed unacceptable and ignorant by the majority, or he can 'act white' and be deemed elitist. It's the 21st century equivalent of 'uppity negro.'

Clinton, on the other hand, is frequently referred to as a 'bitch' or some other vaguely clothed euphemism that means essentially same thing. This is sexism.

'Bitch' is clearly a gendered word, while 'elitist' is not clearly a racialized word. This does not mean that 'bitch' is worse than 'elitist,' or that 'elitist' is worse than 'bitch,' or that 'elitist' and 'bitch' are on the same level. None of those are true because comparing the two is nonsensical because they are different.

Also, I wonder if anti-racist blogs are as invested in ending bigotry against women as feminist blogs are in ending bigotry against people of color.
Half the people of color out there are men - men who don't give a SHIT about women, even women of color. That's no reason people of all races shouldn't be anti-racist. But anti-racist organizations aren't hell-bent on giving feminism equal time, so why the reluctance to point out the very real difference in the way the media (and the public in general) view racism vs. sexism?

But that is not the issue at hand! The issue at hand is the blatant, public, personal bigotry against women, which is glossed over, celebrated, and unchecked.

My point is that there is blatant racism and that racist commentary is only considered so when it is accepted by whites to be racist.

Also, I wonder if anti-racist blogs are as invested in ending bigotry against women as feminist blogs are in ending bigotry against people of color.

A huge number of those blogs are written by women, and I know from experience that they sure as hell are interested in ending bigotry against women. It seems obvious that you don't read anti-racist blogs, so what is it that makes you competent to comment on them?

Can anyone point me to exit polling showing that there are more people unwilling to vote for Clinton based on her gender than for Obama based on his race? Most everything thing I've seen is the opposite, particularly out of the more recent primaries.

If she and Steinem are right, is it still wrong to engage in this sort of competition? How can one highlight the hypocrisy without comparing the levels of racism and sexism?

I can see an upside: if more progress has been made on the racism front than the sexism front over a given period, then it's worth asking how that progress can be translated for the latter.

I only read racist blogs written by women, Coathangrrr. What I am asking is whether MEN of color have ever even devoted one thought to sexism the way feminist women of every race care about all oppressions.

THAT is what I'm sayin', ladenedge!
The point of saying, "Saying [racist remark] is off-limits in the MSM so why is it OK to say [sexist remark]?" is to HIGHLIGHT HYPOCRICY!!! Why isn't that allowed?!

I think PaperCup has it right. THe two -- sexism and racism -- are different enough that the effects are not directly comparable in the "this is worse" way.

After all, most white women aren't going to get shot by a cop. Does that mean that black men have it worse because every traffic stop is a potential "gang related shooting incident?" Of course not!

Does the fact that being a woman makes you more vulnerable to spousal abuse mean that black men have it better than white women because they are sometimes the abusers? Hell no!

Christ almighty, is everything so eitehr/or?

Jessica, you should NAME the organization that did this BTW. Don't let them get away with any of this crap. I would have ZERO qualms about doing so. I don't care about the consultant's feelings or the organization's. neither should you, IMHO.

I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter, although I do agree with much of what she said in the quotes about sexism and racism. Bringing up racism in the context of it being less acceptable than sexism may be playing "oppression olympics" in many cases, and certainly I've seen it used that way, but I don't think it's fair to claim that because sexism and racism are different and manifest in different ways that it somehow makes it not OK to make a comparison at all. It is perhaps BECAUSE they manifest in different ways that making a comparison is so important.

SarahMC,

If you read the comment section from Naral's blog from the day after they endorsed Obama, the number of overtly racist comments from NARAL supporters is truly disheartening. It is important to remember that feminism has a history, and for many years during that history white women were arguing that we should have the vote to balance the "uncivilized" addition of the Black vote. Feminists span a wide range from activley anti-racist to extremely racist, just the way Men of Color span a range from very sexist to very feminist. I don't think either group should be claiming the moral high ground on that.

"The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable or at least more accepted."

That's 100% true. No one would get away with racism against Obama to the degree that sexism is levied at Clinton. How about the "iron my shirt" thing? What if someone stood up at an Obama speech and yelled out "pick my cotton" or something like that? They'd be dead before the sound waves of the sentence got all the way across the room.

Jessica, I want you to know that I believe your reaction to what that org asked of you was appropriate, needed, and even, in light of your profession, brave. But I respectfully ask for a moratorium on the term "Oppression Olympics."

As a former long-distance sprinter/gold medalist in those Games (on the "color"ful national team), I can now say that (a) everyone's own personal grievances are the closest to their own hearts because they are the most visceral and immediate, and (b) that's okay.

It doesn't bother me that a low-income, Tennessee-hills, European-American man raised by an abusive parent might feel "poor Southern Whites" have it terrible. Fact is, many do. And it doesn't really get my goat that he might speak more passionately and one-sidedly about that issue; that's natural. And I even understand him saying "I believe that my group's issues are less visible in society than those of some other groups."

The only thing I ask and expect of him is that he NOT claim the fact of his group's situation as evidence that other situations don't exist. I.e. the way some "what about the men?" analysts use men's crappy paternal (work) leave or treatment in sitcoms as "proof" that women have arrived in this society and no longer face problems.

The main reason Clinton's comments sound like part of the Oppression Olympics is because her campaign has systematically adopted race baiting as a central strategy, believing that by racializing the campaign they could corner the white vote. So while Hillary has been a victim of sexism since her tenure as First Lady, her raising it as an issue is a bit of a lightning rod. Peggy Noonan wrote an interesting piece in the WSJ about how Hillary should turn the tables on sexists by following Margaret Thatcher's technique. Apparently, "Iron Lady" was first meant as a putdown to Margaret. In that vein Hillary should have set that nutcracker down on every podium she ever spoke at & said she'd use it to crack Washington, crack lobbyists, and, oh yeah, crack Osama...Can you imagine how much money she'd raise selling t-shirts with that nutcracker on them? Its an effective technique which Tina Fey demonstrated with her "Bitch is the new black" SNL skit. And, of course, Hillary's best line of the campaign followed Bill's totally BS argument that Edwards & Barack were ganging up on Hillary because she was a woman. When asked if she felt the same way, Hillary responded by saying "They're ganging up on me because I'm the frontrunner." Now that was a signature comment! Academics & pundits can make the sexism claim, but Americans don't elect "victims" as President, even if they're really a victim.

Have any interviewers asked Obama if he thinks this has been a particularly sexist campaign? If so, what did he say?

"No doubt there are certain burdens for Sen. Clinton running as a formidable but first-time front-runner as a woman in the same way I've got to deal with some issues as an African-American," Obama told ABC's Jake Tapper.

"There is no doubt that there have been occasions where Sen. Clinton has had to overcome particular hurdles, and that is part of the groundbreaking nature of her campaign," he said.

the real "oppression olympics"? Shutting down any discussion about sexism in this campaign with the term "oppression olympics" if it is also mentioned that it is not taken as seriously as race.

Instead of bolding the comments you did, you could have bolded these:
And I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head.
...
I think is a very unfortunate commentary about the lack of seriousness that should be applied to any kind of discrimination or prejudice. I have spent my entire life trying to stand up for civil rights and women's rights and human rights and I abhor wherever it is discrimination is present.

I think it's sad that the conversation about sexism in this campaign is so stifled on this blog.

"the real "oppression olympics"? Shutting down any discussion about sexism in this campaign with the term "oppression olympics" if it is also mentioned that it is not taken as seriously as race."

Clinton shuts down discussion of racism in this very interview by saying it hasn't been a problem when, clearly, it has. Just look at the exit polls, or Clinton's own claim that Obama can't win white voters in the general even though his positions aren't so far from Clintons. Gee, I wonder why white people would vote for a white democrat, but not a black one?

Frankly, I don't think feministing is shutting down discussion of sexism in this campaign with this post. Just look a few posts down and you'll see another post dedicated entirely to sexist media coverage.

They're just pointing out that Clinton is very clearly downplaying Obama's obstacles while emphasizing her own. That's pretty much the definition of Oppression Olympics, and I don't see how you could not be offended by this.

But it's also worth pointing out that she's probably been advised to meet every question about Obama into with a response that does more to emphasize her strengths, her electability, and her challenges than his.

I'm sure that, like the recent RFK gaffe, she was operating on autopilot without realizing how people would react to comments which, in her mind, were just business as usual for a candidate who is constantly having to make her case to an increasingly unsupportive public.

I have seen some interesting questions in the last part of this discussion, and I look forward to the answers.

moriath et al:
i would be a lot happier about clinton calling out the horrible sexism in the race if she did not frame her comments as saying how sexism (for her) has been so much worse than racism (for obama), especially since the only reason she is bringing the point up is to try to get more votes.

Hi All: IMHO, "Oppression Olympics" is a perjorative term for the discussion of the roles of racism and sexism in this primary campaign.

Senator Clinton is NOT talking about how society is more sexist than racist or vice versa. She is talking about what I talk about all the time "unequal rules of engagement."

The MSM has clearly treated racism with kid gloves and any comments that could even unreasonably be cast as "racist" have been done so. In addition, the MSM is so afraid of being Imused, that they have really learned their language skills when it comes to talk about race.

Not so with sexism. It is not only more tolerated, it is completely misunderstood by the MSM.

This situation is not "Oppression Olympics," it is the Olympics being oppressed by unequal rules of engagement forced upon the Olympics by the rulers of the Olympics.

Sexism diminishes those against whom it is used. If you don't think there has been more diminishment accomplished against Senator Clinton on the basis of sexist language and behavior, then I don't know what rock you have been hiding under.

Race, on the other hand, has hardly ever been used to diminish Senator Obama. The MSM won't go there anymore.

Diminishment has a very significant impact on how we appraise someone's talents, skills, knowledge (you name it). If you don't think so, tell me why.

This Olympics has been oppressed by unequal rules of engagement. If you can't talk about the unequal rules of engagement and how that works to diminish Senator Clinton (and by so doing, enhance Senator Obama, almost automatically), then when and how can you talk about it without someone trying to mischaracterize it as playing the "victim" card.

Pullleeeezzzeee...

In a sense, though, she's right. Racial attitudes and problems and the way tha they are handled change depending on where you are in the world, but sexism, and violence against women, seems pretty constant.

Beauvoir pointed out in the second sex that women are not a group unto themselves in the same way an ethnic/religious/economic group is. We are everywhere, part of almost every group, and pretty much universally oppressed.

I also think the sexism in this campaign has largely gone on without comment in the mainstream, whereas racism in all it's horrible glory has been openly discussed without any demonisation of the people who fight its influence. It's bad for modern American feminism that women of colour here don't feel that their experiences matter to other feminists, or that they are largely ignored. It's true that racism is just as important, and just as insidious, as sexism in our culture.

Pointing out that one is treated as a more legitimate concern than the other doesn't have to come at anyone's expense. It shouldn't.

And your anecdote is certainly horrifying.

In a sense, though, she's right. Racial attitudes and problems and the way tha they are handled change depending on where you are in the world, but sexism, and violence against women, seems pretty constant.

As I pointed out above, this is patently false. Racism is more than just some phrases that offend people, it is a system that denigrates and destroys people who are not white. That is an international reality. Look at Africa and the damage that is inflicted there. That is racism. Look at Iraq and the millions who have been killed through bomb and starvation over the last 17 years by the U.S. That is racism.

I also think the sexism in this campaign has largely gone on without comment in the mainstream, whereas racism in all it's horrible glory has been openly discussed without any demonisation of the people who fight its influence.

You're right about the sexism, but wrong about the racism. Look at the demonization of Reverend Wright. He was speaking out against racism.

Sexism is a huge problem, a huge, huge, huge problem. But it doesn't help us to make light of other forms of oppression.

Has anyone else noticed that the various prejudices tend to come in a single package?

If I meet someone who is racist I assume they will be homophobic and sexist.
Likewise if I meet someone who spills forth sexism or homophobia. To date I've very rarely found my assumption to be wrong.

I think for this reason you can't really say sexism>racism or vice versa. Because generally you're dealing with the same people for all forms of hatred.

Hi All: Somehow, I think it is a bit unfortunate that the particular post we are responding to here is really about at least two very different but significant issues...

(1) Whether the Oppression Olympics is really the right word for what is allegedly going on with Senator Clinton's talk about sexism in this campaign cycle; and

(2) What is worse in the world, racism or sexism?

The first item, I think, is as I stated before, the term "oppression Olympics" is, in my IMHO, a pejorative term used to keep "we the people" from talking about how sexism has made for an election Olympics that has been oppressed by unequal rules of engagement as it relates to the diminishment of the contenders in this election Olympics.
Number 2 is a huge subject and, I don't think it is fair to try to discuss both of those issues in the same post. One kind of taints the other in a way to interferes with an objective discussion of the term "Oppression Olympics" and they are not the same subject matter.

Clearly, racism is as potent a source of oppression as sexism throughout the United States and the world... but, that is a different discussion than whether sexism or racism has been utilized more powerfully in this campaign season to diminish one of the contenders.

I don't think you can possibly come up with significant data to support the contention that Senator Obama has been more diminished by the use of racism in this election cycle than has sexism been used to diminish (I would say "hammer") Senator Clinton, almost with impunity.

So, can we settle the "Oppression Olympics" thing and move on?
It is very unfair to use that term to put-down those who wish to engage in a very important and legitimate discussion of what oppressive forces have been used to diminish which candidate the most. Analysis matters, don't you think? Or, would you rather be blind to how much sexism has been used to diminish Senator Clinton in this campaign cycle (which, as you know, diminishes all women).

Hillary has faced sexism, but she's won the male vote in a number of states, net-net, its difficult to describe her losing primarily as the result of sexism. On the other hand I think "Oppression Olympics" accurately describes the situation we have where the foremost race baiter this election cycle decries sexism. She's a flawed vessel to make the claim. The dialogue on the issue is also hard to take seriously when the 1st person to raise it the national conscienceness, Gloria Steinem, said flatly that sexism is worst/harder than racism. After comments like that, and after the Clinton campaigns race baiting, its unreasonable for Hillary to raise the issue while expecting others to question her motives and sincerity.

Oppression Olympics isn't always useless. However, it is very counterproductive when it's done within the same camp of progressives. For fuck's sake people, at the end of the day, Clinton and Obama are far more alike in their positions, policies and benefit to the country and the world as the US president than they are not. If we're going to compare unequal treatment in the media, why not at least go after the other camp? Clinton and Obama have both been dogged by ridiculous and persistent attacks in the media. Then there's McCain. He runs an utterly corrupt campaign staffed with corporate lobbyists, he gets the facts wrong on the Middle East with at an alarming rate. Where are the media hounds on those trails? His pastor, John Hagee, has been hating on gays and Jews openly for years, and the media has seen fit to ignore it until very recently, giving the McCain campaign plenty of time to deal with it.

So you there, the one with the vagina and the other one with black skin, you two can squabble over who's gotten more teaspoonfuls of shit all you want. The fact is, both of you are being shat upon while the old white guy gets to skip the scat.

SarahMC, Sidewriter, Moriath,

THANK YOU! Seriously, if you can't see that this sexism is FAR more accepted in mainstream media than racism than you must be turning a blind eye. Are we supposed to just ignore it and not talk about it? Obama himself gets away with calling reporters and other professional women sweetheart. Seriously. UGH.

If I have to read the term "oppression olympics" one more time my head is going to explode.

What I am asking is whether MEN of color have ever even devoted one thought to sexism the way feminist women of every race care about all oppressions.

Don't you find that a little insulting to women of color?

Thank you for this Jessica. And your anecdote is horrific.

As an aside, I know plenty of men of color who care about sexism. Maybe people need to get out more.

Well, she's right. Obama may be black but he is still male, and does not threaten the increasingly more fragile male power structure.

Hillary is a woman, and the idea of a female POTUS scares the sh*t out of most men. Not me, I would love it, but I'm not normal. :)

On another note, there was an article in The New York Times about the increase in college women's wrestling programs. The only downside was that it was occurring in primarily smaller institutions because, ironically, Title IX encourages larger universities to choose sports that have higher numbers of players (50+), whereas wrestling usually only has twenty or less.

May a women's wrestling team, and ski-jumping too, go to the olympics and win gold.

And may we have a woman president soon.

david

Why is sexism OK is the question? Why do white women continue to show their guilt by pretending that racism is worse or that they are not related or comparable? Saying sexism is wrong does not mean racism is right. Saying sexism is wrong and asking why it's still acceptable is a valid question.

I am not a writer. I work in the film industry where racism pales in comparison to sexism- men who have experienced racism know it and shake their heads in pity towards us when they witness (or participate in) BLATANT sexism. I experience this DAILY.
Join me in the film industry or another industry where sexism goes unchecked.
You want a feminist fuck you for the Oscars? Where the fuck are the female directors? they are not in the boys club getting their reels together - that's for sure.

Women are standing there being attacked with no recourse while others sue the shit out of people and better yet, get job opportunities and the chance to see racists literally shaking from fear they will be outed. Bigots get to join forces in their sexism and throw it around because frankly, white women in power do not stand together against it nearly enough.

It's horrid for women in politics too-
stop being a handle.

SarahMc:
"Half the people of color out there are men - men who don't give a SHIT about women, even women of color."

Yes. Men of colour don't give a SHIT about women, even women of colour. Thanks for telling me that about myself and all the other men of colour out there. It's nice of you to speak about us and you probably know more about all of us better than we do ourselves.

Great job.

I think you are missing the point of Sen. Clinton's comments. It is not that sexism is worse than racism, it is that sexism is ignored by the MSM and society in general. It is merely accepted in a way that racism is no longer accepted. In fact, one could argue that the MSM uses overt sexism to create ratings.

Your personal example certainly shows an agenda on the part of the consultant.

But the quotes from Clinton show a global feminist perspective, and in no way suggest that sexism is a "worse -ism" than racism. She just notes that sexism is much more acceptable in the American media than racism, and that globally, oppression of women is a much larger problem (affects more people) than oppression of particular races.

In this instance, you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill (i.e. an inoffensive comment, not racism or sexism), which makes you seem to be speaking more as an Obama partisan than as a feminist commenter.

But the quotes from Clinton show a global feminist perspective, and in no way suggest that sexism is a "worse -ism" than racism. She just notes that sexism is much more acceptable in the American media than racism, and that globally, oppression of women is a much larger problem (affects more people) than oppression of particular races.

In response to a question about racism she talks about how bad sexism is. That is the textbook definition of being dismissive. She goes on to say that "the treatment of women is the single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world." Read that again. She clearly says that sexism is the biggest problem in the world, clearly. How is it making a mountain out of a mole hill to say that is a problem. It is a problem. Most importantly, sexism can't be a larger problem in terms of people it affects because there are more people of color to affect that there are women, there's all the men of color and all the women of color.

Racism is responsible for horrible things all over the world, as is sexism. I'm not going to say that one is worse than the other, they are interrelated so one isn't worse than another they're just different.

And finally, all this dismissiveness on the part of white people is rather disappointing. When are we going to accept that calling someone a name is not the extent of racism?

When are we going to accept that calling someone a name is not the extent of racism?

Who has suggested out stated that outright? Those of us who disagree with this post acknowledge that name-calling is not the only form of bigotry! Nobody said it was!
But the so-called Oppression Olympics is ABOUT name-calling, and what is permitted in the MSM.

"Well, she's right. Obama may be black but he is still male, and does not threaten the increasingly more fragile male power structure.

Hillary is a woman, and the idea of a female POTUS scares the sh*t out of most men. Not me, I would love it, but I'm not normal. :)"

Yes, Obama does threaten that structure. That's why, by Hillary's own admission, he has trouble attracting votes from "hard-working" white voters.

Not all of them, mind you, but just those who happen to live in states where racism thrives.

Meanwhile, I'd like to see a statistic that says Obama is taking a disproportionate number of male voters.

Who has suggested out stated that outright? Those of us who disagree with this post acknowledge that name-calling is not the only form of bigotry! Nobody said it was!
But the so-called Oppression Olympics is ABOUT name-calling, and what is permitted in the MSM.

My point is that blatant racism and sexism need not be name calling, which is pretty much the only thing that feminists who want to "prove" that there is more blatant sexism than racism will cite. Many people here have said that there is little to no blatant racism, I think that is being extremely dismissive of the fact that racism is not just what we say, it's what we do. For someone to say it isn't blatant just means they can't see it.

I think that analysis is useful, and doesn't have to be called "oppression olympics". For example, in the recent California Supreme Court decision saying that same-sex marriage should be legal, they compared the treatment of homosexuals to the treatment of blacks -- that black and white couples could marry now, so why not two men or two women?
This was a useful analysis that lead this court, the majority appointed by Republicans, to decide that it was also wrong to not let same-sex couples marry.
They weren't trying to say life is better for interracial couples, just that we should not be hypocritical.
Same here -- sometimes it is useful to point out ways that racism is no longer accepted but sexism is to get people to see their prejudices.
It doesn't diminish me, a straight woman, to point out that there are ways that gays and lesbians are still being discriminated against (like employment) that women aren't. It's a useful analogy to help people get past their prejudices. I won't start crying "oppression olympics" or "sexism" if those analogies are used by people examining homophobia.

"Oppression Olympics" being trotted out whenever someone points out the FACT that sexism is more tolerated than racism.

"But the so-called Oppression Olympics is ABOUT name-calling, and what is permitted in the MSM."

SarahMC: You seem to have this habit of capitalizing your assertions as though this will somehow make them true.

As for that first statement, I've seen a few people make this declaration that sexism has been worse than racism in this campaign (and some are saying on a global scale as well). Just what is that based on? To take the olympics analogy a little further, do you have a spreadsheet where you award points for each gaffe, slight, and humiliation? One point to Clinton for each Lorena Bobbit comparison, one point to Obama for each OJ one, and so on?

In the second statement, you (and others making the same point) specify that we are talking about a certain TYPE of discrimination (which just so happens to be the one you are more perceptive to). So, for our oppression olympics game we can award double points for overt discrimination (2 for iron my shirt!) and more covert instances of discrimination will be met with what, a sympathetic shrug (take the uppity negro business elsewhere)?

My whole point is that the term oppression olympics is perfect. The term is offensive because the line of thinking it describes is offensive. If I could think of a more objectionable term to describe this petty, shallow, and pointless line of reasoning, I would use that.

I am not a writer. I work in the film industry where racism pales in comparison to sexism- men who have experienced racism know it and shake their heads in pity towards us when they witness (or participate in) BLATANT sexism.

Metahara,

Are you kidding me?? This statement is a textbook example of White privilege, along with a failure to acknowledge the reality of the film industry's continuing problems with racism.

Racism and sexism are alive and well as seen in many films which continue to present an All/mostly White portrayal of American life that is quite unrepresentative of most American lives....to the blatant cultural appropriations and/or Whitewashing of foreign films/stories to suit the American audience. Some recent examples include the "Memoirs of a Geisha", "The Departed", and "Speedracer".

What's more interesting was that some of this very research which shows the high levels of racism and sexism permeating the film industry with pernicious consequences were done by Feminists in the field of Film/Cinema studies.

It is also confirmed by several acquaintances who are working in the film industry and faced racist and/or sexist BS on a regular basis.

I've accepted the fact that it is impossible to have a rational or nuanced conversation involving anything Hillary Clinton. I have to agree however that in this case her comments seem to have been deliberately misconstrued.

Anyone with basic reasoning skills can grasp that the issue is a great deal more complex than "my oppression is greater than yours," and that the point being made here is that women face the same double standards in fighting it and speaking out against it that we do in other aspects of life. Pointing out how pervasive and accepted sexism is in our society is merely to state the obvious, and to accuse women of engaging in "oppression olympics" for pointing it out is, in my opinion, short sighted and condescending.

The people who think she's exaggerating should have a look at what the lives of women in war zones and the developing world are like. Even the UN agrees that the oppression of women across the globe causes political and economic instability, they wrote a report about it a few years ago. And the fact that talking publicly about these problems by a woman running for President of the United States has to be defended from attack on a feminist blog only proves her point.

I've accepted the fact that it is impossible to have a rational or nuanced conversation involving anything Hillary Clinton. I have to agree however that in this case her comments seem to have been deliberately misconstrued.

Anyone with basic reasoning skills can grasp that the issue is a great deal more complex than "my oppression is greater than yours," and that the point being made here is that women face the same double standards in fighting it and speaking out against it that we do in other aspects of life. Pointing out how pervasive and accepted sexism is in our society is merely to state the obvious, and to accuse women of engaging in "oppression olympics" for pointing it out is, in my opinion, short sighted and condescending.

The people who think she's exaggerating should have a look at what the lives of women in war zones and the developing world are like. Even the UN agrees that the oppression of women across the globe causes political and economic instability, they wrote a report about it a few years ago. And the fact that talking publicly about these problems by a woman running for President of the United States has to be defended from attack on a feminist blog only proves her point.

What I am asking is whether MEN of color have ever even devoted one thought to sexism the way feminist women of every race care about all oppressions.

I am a man of color and I have devoted a lot of thought to sexism-- more than I have devoted to racism.

Sexism and racism cannot be compared in that way and it's unhelpful to compare them in that way. They are qualitatively different. SarahMC is correct in that sexism is expressed as more blatant acceptance while racism is more institutional and underground.

And the Hollywood in sexism AND racism is absurd.

HRC says in the article that "I think that both gender and race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I've seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman [than] to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on either."

I asked if anyone had any polls to support this, but no one responded, so I didn't a couple of quick searches on my own. The first one that popped up was this story on CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/22/exit-polls-race-gender-play-role/):

"Race and gender may have played a role in the Democratic primary results, the exit polls show.

"Twenty percent of Pennsylvania Democrats said the race of a candidate played an important role in determining their vote. Clinton won those voters by nearly 20 percentage points, 59 percent to 41 percent.

"Twenty percent of voters in neighboring Ohio, which voted last month, also said race helped decide their vote – and went for Clinton by 20 percentage points, 59-39.

"Twenty-one percent of Pennsylvania primary voters said the gender of a candidate was an important factor in how they voted. Clinton overwhelmingly won among those voters, 71 percent to 29 percent."

Combined with the Kentucky and West Virginia polls showing that 20% of the voters said race affected their decision, it would seem that HRC's initial premise is inaccurate. But, I remain interested in polling data, as opposed to anecdotal citatations, that would support her point.

You can go to places in the world where there are no racial distinctions except everyone is joined together in their oppression of women.

OK, I call shenanigans on this. At a minimum, I want specific examples.

In my experience, the only cultures that don't have issues with ethnicity or race are very, extremely homogenous cultures. Even then, if you poke beneath the surface, you'll find dislike, distrust, or outright hatred of any minorities who exist in that culture or of people of different ethnicities/races who live right next door. If you find a culture that's allegedly kopacetic on ethnicity and race, they either have no minorities or the minority population is so small they're practically invisible.

Happy to be here: This Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx) proves HRC's assertion that there are more people who would not vote for a woman than would not vote for an African American. But it is rather low for both of those groups compared to others.

Pointing out how pervasive and accepted sexism is in our society is merely to state the obvious, and to accuse women of engaging in "oppression olympics" for pointing it out is, in my opinion, short sighted and condescending.

It most certainly is a problem when it is pointed out in a question specifically regarding racism. If someone asks me about problems that, say, people with mental disorders face in this country and I start going on about how many problems atheists face then there is clearly a problem. Even taken out of context her saying that sexism is "the single biggest problem" is frustrating at the least and an example of not being helpful in terms of talking about race.

Pointing out that this campaign has definitively shown that it is far easier to be sexist than racist in this country may be the "oppression olympics" to many of you, but it is a valid observation and I firmly believe that making it HELPS feminists.

The observation in no way implies that racism has vanished or even that racism is somehow less of a problem than sexism. What it does do is draw much needed attention to the hypocrisy and immorality of our society, something that this site does very well every day.

Senator Clinton is obviously bitter and angry about losing to such a poorly qualified opponent, and her loss was clearly not only the result of sexism. Her statement, like every single statement any of the three candidates makes, is politically motivated, but it is a valid complaint and it is inadequate to simplistically label it and toss it away.

Comparing attitudes and reactions about two problems in no way assumes that one of the problems has been solved. It doesn't even imply that one of the problems is more serious and damaging than the other.

Here's a violent analogy for ya: Imagine someone has had both of their arms chopped off and is bleeding to death. The doctor treats the right arm with great care and sensitivity and any time the person complains of pain in that arm, the doctor immediately jumps up and looks concerned. But the left arm gets only a hasty binding and any complaints about pain in that arm is ignored.

Someone watching might ask "Why are you paying so much attention to the right arm?" Does it makes sense for the doctor to jump up and shout "These wounds look similar, but the history and nature of each is actually quite different! How dare you try to compare them? Are you suggesting that the wound to the left arm is more life-threatening? You're just marginalizing the wound to the right arm! Can't we just agree that both wounds are serious!!!"

We all know racism is a serious problem; we aren't trying to marginalize women of color - it's just that it's freakin' obvious that there's blood shooting out of the left arm and society at large doesn't seem to care or notice. Does it not make sense that a person might be frustrated and alarmed by this observation?

Another example: let's imagine that we hypothetically sent a lot of aid to China after the earthquake, but almost nothing to Burma after the typhoon. If a person pointed this difference out, do you turn your nose up at them and say "psssh... disaster olympics. You should know it's impossible to compare these two events, can't we just agree that they are both terrible?"

Well, yes they are both terrible and it doesn't make a lot of sense to measure human death and misery. But the observation is about the nature and extent of society's reaction to these problems, not about the relative seriousness of the problems themselves.

Sexism happens openly in this country to a ridiculous degree relative to racism, and no one gets called on it. Why? Turning your head and saying "opression olympics" or shrugging it off with a "'cause they're different problems" helps no one, not people of color, and certainly not feminists.

Pointing out that this campaign has definitively shown that it is far easier to be sexist than racist in this country may be the "oppression olympics" to many of you, but it is a valid observation and I firmly believe that making it HELPS feminists.

No, it isn't a valid observation, and that's the point. Regardless of how often white feminists want to say that it does.

And really you make exactly the same banal arguments I have seen a million times from the gender trumps race crowd.

Her statement, like every single statement any of the three candidates makes, is politically motivated, but it is a valid complaint and it is inadequate to simplistically label it and toss it away.

It was a complaint to a question about racism. How is that not a problem? If someone asks me a question about the role of sexism and I go on and on about racism and say it's the greatest problem in the world, that's a problem.

We all know racism is a serious problem; we aren't trying to marginalize women of color - it's just that it's freakin' obvious that there's blood shooting out of the left arm and society at large doesn't seem to care or notice. Does it not make sense that a person might be frustrated and alarmed by this observation?

Regardless of your intentions you are marginalizing women of color. And you marginalize even more people by pretending that society is somehow noticing racism more than sexism. Look at Jena, look at New Orleans. Look at all the PoC being shot and beaten by police. Has that stopped? Does anyone really talk about it in the press? No and No.

Sexism happens openly in this country to a ridiculous degree relative to racism, and no one gets called on it. Why? Turning your head and saying "opression olympics" or shrugging it off with a "'cause they're different problems" helps no one, not people of color, and certainly not feminists.

Which misses the point. Yes, we need to confront sexism, yes we have huge problems with sexism, but what Hillary did here is exactly what you accuse others of doing. She ignores racism and focuses on sexism exclusively. That is the oppression olympics.

No one, here at least, thinks that Hillary shouldn't talk about sexism, she just shouldn't do it in response to a question about racism.

You know, read almost any interview with a politician and you will see that they don't necessarily answer a question directly. They pivot on to something they want to talk about.

I can see why Senator Clinton, a white woman, would talk about sexism instead of racism.

Does that mean she's saying sexism is worse than racism or she is "ignoring racism"? No.

Does that mean she's saying sexism is worse than racism or she is "ignoring racism"? No.

Except she says exactly that. Did you read the bolded parts?

She didn't say sexism was worse than racism.

She said that "The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable or at least more accepted. "

That's a different question. I think that it is certainly possible that media studies after this campaign will find more examples of sexism that were not criticized than examples of racism.

That's not the same as saying sexism is worse than racism. It's talking about this campaign and what reaction to sexist or racist comments/videos/photos have been.

On the playground in many kids' schools, homophobic taunts are still prevalent, while racist and sexist ones aren't. Does that mean that I am saying that homophobia is worse than racism or sexism to say that? No, it's just pointing out my observations. Hillary made her observations about the treatment of sexism on the campaign and how little it has been criticized, as compared to racism. I expect that her observation will be quantified in the post-campaign analysis. And even if not, it just means her (and my) observations, not that we are engaging in "oppression olympics."

The treatment of women is the single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world.

There is where she says exactly what you say she doesn't say. Let me quote it again.

The treatment of women is the single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world.

She is saying that sexism is worse than racism, outright, not in some subtle back handed way. Exactly as did Steinem.

That is precisely what the oppression olympics are, saying "my oppression is worse than yours." And that is exactly what she does. This isn't tough to see, she straight out says it.

So I have a very honest question for those who don't find Hillary's statement's problematic:

As a feminist, I expect men who claim to be pro-feminist to listen to women when women say they find something offensive. If I tell a man that I find something offensive and he immediatley begins explaining to me why it is not actually offensive and how I don't understand why it is not offensive, I take that man to not be as feminist as he claims. Based on reading this blog and the comments regularly, I think that most people here do the same.

As a white person who strives to be anti-racist, I consider it only natural that I do the same for people of color. If a non-white person tells me that they find something offensive or marginalizing, I recognize that from my position of privledge, it may me harder for me to see why something is offensive, but being anti-racist means listening to people of color and assuming that if someone finds something offensive, there is likely a reason for it.

People of color, and particularly women of color, have overwhelming expressed throughout this campaign that these comparisons are both offensive and marginalzing. I guess I don't understand how white women can reject that conclusion without making the implicit assumption that Black women don't understand their own opression.

AP:
“People of color, and particularly women of color, have overwhelming expressed throughout this campaign that these comparisons are both offensive and marginalzing.�

I agree with you, AP, as well as what you said before that, and to all the posters who said racism and sexism are very different and how a comparison between the two would be comparing apples and oranges.

I also find it ironic that isn’t it common knowledge that men do not get to dictate to women what sexism is, but somehow, it’s okay for whites to tell people of colour what racism is?

Regardless, both –isms are important issues that should be addressed. (stating the obvious, I know).

I realized something, and I want to explain myself and my reasoning.

I now understand how Hillary's response to these questions can be characterized as Oppression Olympics, because she is dodging a question about racism by answering with a response about sexism. I do see why that's problematic and offensive to people of color.

At the same time, I maintain that in order to point out the media's and the public's hypocricy re: outward expressions of bigotry, it is sometimes necessary to point out that some -isms are more tolerated than others when expressed publicly.
That does not mean I think sexism in general is more prevalent than racism in general, or that the absence of outward bigotry means everything is A-OK. But it'd be nice if people at least pretended to think sexism is wrong.

I do not want to alienate or offend women (or men) of color, and it seems that I've done so throughout this thread. I apologize for being dense to some of the things you've been saying, and I appreciate that folks have been willing to continue the dialogue.

"In my experience, the only cultures that don't have issues with ethnicity or race are very, extremely homogenous cultures. Even then, if you poke beneath the surface, you'll find dislike, distrust, or outright hatred of any minorities who exist in that culture or of people of different ethnicities/races who live right next door."

I lived in Japan for two years, and I was told by a Japanese woman that Japanese consider themselves superior to Chinese and Koreans because Japanese have a lighter skin tone. In Japan, Korean minorities aren't treated very well. A lot of Americans were surprised by this because Americans tend to think that all Asians look alike. I learned how to tell the difference but not necessarily by skin tone. Anyway, I never lived it down when I thought a Korean man was Japanese (apparently, Koreans don't want to be mistaken for Japanese either). I was told by a Chinese man that all white people look alike to them. So, racism is a problem even in a culture where a lot of Americans think everyone looks the same.

Agree Virago that racism & xenophobia are found the world over, eg its hard to look at the racial violence in S. Africa today & not think it ironic...So trying to debate which is the worst, broadest, deepest, most hurtful, etc of the -isms reduces the ability of people to come together on common ground to fight the -isms. Its a common technique of the establishment to pit dispossessed groups against one another. Historically its been done with blacks & women, blacks & working class whites, hispanics & blacks, heck, even labor and environmentalists...so trying to pit two groups against one another is nothing new. Fortunately, though, that means we can recognize the con game for what it is, demand an end to it, and come together.

"But the quotes from Clinton show a global feminist perspective, and in no way suggest that sexism is a "worse -ism" than racism. She just notes that sexism is much more acceptable in the American media than racism, and that globally, oppression of women is a much larger problem (affects more people) than oppression of particular races."

thank you.

prevalence doesn't = magnitude. to point out that sexism is widespread, perhaps more so than racism ON A GLOBAL SCALE, is a far cry from playing the "oppression olympics." given the context of the line quoted throughout this thread (the GLOBAL treatment of women), i took 'biggest' to mean most widespread. i guess that's subjective, but the subject matter made it an easy conclusion for me.

it really scares the fuck out of me that a discussion on sexism is labeled oppression olympics.. it doesn't seem much better than saying she's "playing the gender card." we're really going to parse words instead of discussing the relevant issues she brings up?

AP, you said everything I was going to, but far better.

Coathangrrr, I feel you are absolutely right on all counts. I also bow down to your dedication in addressing every point brought up.

Like you mention, this isn't new. Even advocates of women's rights with the best intentions have often not just overlooked but contributed to the marginalization of people of color (including women of color) in the United States. Even Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony and many of their contemporaries engaged in race baiting when they felt a new door was being opened in politics for the participation of people other than white males following the Civil War. They were both extremely dedicated abolitionists before, but when it came down to it, they were willing to try to interfere with the ratification of the 14th and 15th Amendments in order that women get the vote, if not first, concurrently. They tried to get white men to side with them by arguing that white women voting (way to ignore the women of color, again) would dilute the influence unrefined "Sambo" had on electoral politics. (I'm not kidding.)

It's not that this is quite as atrocious, but it reflects a similar mindset -- that it's okay to dismiss the oppression of another group (I know she did it subtly, but saying sexism is the biggest problem in the world does marginalize all other oppressions, as if they can be compared and weighed that way) to point out the need for the advancement of another oppressed group. I also admire Stanton and Anthony in *some* ways, but nobody should simply sweep under the rug the problems many well meaning feminist leaders have had dealing with race. The Oppression Olympics -- though I dislike the flipness of the name a bit -- have been around for a while and they aren't about to go away unless we learn from those mistakes and accept the fact that there are good and bad ways to fight sexism; and that using or marginalizing racism is definitely one of the latter.

I also find it ironic that isn’t it common knowledge that men do not get to dictate to women what sexism is, but somehow, it’s okay for whites to tell people of colour what racism is?

Timothy Nakayama FTW!!!

I'm curious as to why this reporter even asked her about race, given that she's an upper class white woman and as such has never had to grapple with it like she has sexism. I mean wouldn't it make more sense to ask Obama these questions? Or if they're going for the alternate perspective that's fine, but at the very least ask him to answer the same questions about sexism, in the interest of fairness and all.

If people don't want to hear what she has to say about these issues, perhaps they should stop baiting her with inflammatory questions and ask about what really matters, ie how she'd go about solving our universe of problems if she were elected. But I guess that's all besides the point.

I lived in Japan for two years, and I was told by a Japanese woman that Japanese consider themselves superior to Chinese and Koreans because Japanese have a lighter skin tone. In Japan, Korean minorities aren't treated very well.

Though lighter skin color may be the immediate reason perceived by your Japanese friend, the roots of Japanese racism against Koreans, Chinese, and other Asians is a product of the Japanese colonial legacy.
Kinda similar to how Western Europe and the US racism was derived in part from the legacy of their colonialist pasts.

One of the means used by the Japanese empire to justify annexing other societies such as Korea was the fact they were superior in race and other factors....otherwise why was it they advanced so quickly into becoming a colonial power while other Asian societies became colonized pawns of the Western and Japanese imperial powers? Unfortunately, while this mentality is more common among the older generation...especially the right-wing revisionists who want to portray Japanese colonialism as an altruistic gesture on behalf of other "less advanced" Asian societies.

I lived in Japan for two years, and I was told by a Japanese woman that Japanese consider themselves superior to Chinese and Koreans because Japanese have a lighter skin tone. In Japan, Korean minorities aren't treated very well.

Though lighter skin color may be the immediate reason perceived by your Japanese friend, the roots of Japanese racism against Koreans, Chinese, and other Asians is a product of the Japanese colonial legacy.
Kinda similar to how Western Europe and the US racism was derived in part from the legacy of their colonialist pasts.

One of the means used by the Japanese empire to justify annexing other societies such as Korea was the fact they were superior in race and other factors....otherwise why was it they advanced so quickly into becoming a colonial power while other Asian societies became colonized pawns of the Western and Japanese imperial powers? Unfortunately, while this mentality is more common among the older generation...especially the right-wing revisionists who want to portray Japanese colonialism as an altruistic gesture on behalf of other "less advanced" Asian societies, I still see some of this attitude in a vocal minority of international Japanese grad students. Thankfully, they are often challenged by other grad students...including more knowledgeable/aware Japanese grad students.

THIS is playing the oppression Olympics! Why does every time someone come out and comment on the degree of sexism Hilary Clinton has been under in this campaign, does someone have to write "Oh well, Obama is black, so he is being discriminated against as well and that should not be ignored!". I don't think anyone is ignoring that racially motivated statements have been made against Obama. It just seems like from the Clinton camp, pretty screwed up that the conversation about Clinton always is that she cannot be a leader because she is a woman. That includes Obama literally talking down and over Clinton herself. That should not be ignored. Can't we just ignore these stupid articles and focus on what has been happening; people of all races, sexes, creeds, supporting both of these candidates for the presidency and not because of their obvious sexes or races. Because they are both good candidates for office. How often do we get TWO people running for the democratic party that might actually be good leaders in office? And that are not white men?

Exholt:
"Though lighter skin color may be the immediate reason perceived by your Japanese friend, the roots of Japanese racism against Koreans, Chinese, and other Asians is a product of the Japanese colonial legacy. Kinda similar to how Western Europe and the US racism was derived in part from the legacy of their colonialist pasts."

You're absolutely right.

Sly:
"Agree Virago that racism & xenophobia are found the world over, eg its hard to look at the racial violence in S. Africa today & not think it ironic...So trying to debate which is the worst, broadest, deepest, most hurtful, etc of the -isms reduces the ability of people to come together on common ground to fight the -isms."

Sly, I can agree with you that racism is found the world over, I don't agree with the last part of your statement. Globally, there aren't human beings more despised than women as a group. While racism is a problem worldwide in different cultures, there isn't any one race that is as despised as women globally. And if the woman in question is a minority in whatever culture she belongs to, she has to deal with both racism and sexism. In Asia, a lot of the hatred toward Japanese by Koreans and Chinese has to do with the mass rapes and forced sexual enslavement of Korean and Chinese women during WW II. Okinawa is a small island off the coast of Japan, and it's considered part of Japan. However, the Okinawans do not consider themselves part of Japan at all because of the atrocities that they experienced at the hands of the Japanese during WWII as well. Again, a lot of the hatred has to do with Okinawan women being sexually enslaved by the Japanese military. These women who were victimized by the Japanese occupation still suffer psychologically to this day. In Japan as well, there are Japanese women who refuse to get married and have children because of the sexism they experience from Japanese men. In a country with a low birhrate like Japan, this isn't good news. I think Clinton hit the nail on the head when she talked about sexism being worse on a GLOBAL scale.

Globally, there aren't human beings more despised than women as a group. While racism is a problem worldwide in different cultures, there isn't any one race that is as despised as women globally.

Why is it that People of Color have to have some sort of measuring stick to show just how much racism we experience in order for our experiences to be validated? Y'know how when you go to the emergency room and they ask you to rate your pain on a scale from 1 to 10. If I say I'm experiencing a 10, who the hell are you (speaking in general) to tell me that "No, it's really just a 4."

Also, has anyone even considered the fact that this sort of thinking not only disenfranchises People of Color, but transpeople, the disabled, homosexuals, and any other oppressed group out there?

Globally, there aren't human beings more despised than women as a group. While racism is a problem worldwide in different cultures, there isn't any one race that is as despised as women globally.

This is the textbook definition of the "oppression olympics" being discussed in this topic. It marginalizing those of us who deal with racism, especially WOC. In fact, this very attitude was the reason why feminists who happened to be international students and WOC had so many problems with the upper/upper-middle class suburban White/Asian-American campus feminists and Women Studies department being too "White-washed" and "US-centric" when I was there in the mid-late 90's.