yeah women perceive sexism and the moon is made of green cheese...

The "perceived" really pisses me off. Yeah, we're just imagining sexism, we do it all the time.

Kinda like how we "percieve" pain associated with menstruation? Oh wait.... :P

I was hesitant to read the article but at least they gave examples of the OBVIOUS sexism that was NOT just "perceived."

It still pisses me off that they used that word in the title, though.

And how can younger women not think Hillary Clinton's struggles are their own struggles? The sexism isn't just aimed at women over 40, for godssake.

I wonder if these younger women who are so cavalier about the prospect of a female president will regret their vote in 20 years.

If the "perceived" part wasn't enough, why do they keep insisting on calling her "Mrs. Clinton". She has a title, it's SENATOR, and has nothing to do with her marital status. They do the same to Obama and Edwards, but it seems that this happens to Sen. Clinton in almost every major publication.

The sexist treatment Clinton has received during this campaign is largely subjective. As it is a subjective matter, the NYT doesn't want to take sides in the headline - nor would it make sense to do so if it's not an editorial.

Every. Fucking. Where.

Wait. Almost all of the supportive quotes about how the sexism against Clinton opened their eyes and helped them see that sexism is alive and well are from women under 40.

1. "Amy Rees, a stay-at-home mother". No age given, but young enough to have kids at home.

2. Allison Smith-Estelle, 37

3. Michelle Six, 36

4. Sarah Kreps, 31

5. Jodi Cohen, 31

6. Priya Chaudhry, 31

But then they assume that young women can't relate to sexism and find ONE quote to support it from a 39 year old woman? I suppose working for a feminist organization is also supposed to mean she represents "young" feminists.

I think, Geek, that when they talk about "young" women they mean women in college or in their mid-20's (even though they quoted a 39 year old... hmmm).

I often feel like the only 25 year old woman on earth who recognizes sexism when it rears its ugly head.

I'm 24 and I recognize it too SarahMC!

But I guess I've just been recognizing "perceived sexism" and not horribly fucking obvious sexism...

I was particularly disturbed by the quote by the 31 year old feminist writer: "Clinton's struggles are not my own. They are not the struggles of my generation." I just don't see how they're not. These reporters and analysts keep telling us that Obama is the young women's pick because we don't perceive sexism as an issue anymore-- it was our mothers' issue but not our own. I'm 24 and I couldn't agree less. Young women today who don't recognize our lives are still jeopardized by patriarchy are doing all women a disservice. We need to stand up and SAY it-- and vote like it too!

To be fair, the first definition in my dictionary (Oxford American) for perceive is:

To become aware or conscious of; to come to realize or understand.

There is no listed definition that even loosely translates to "imagine."

As someone who writes headlines every day, I (and my coworkers) parse every word for meaning and accuracy. So I think it's a little bit unfair to go crazy on the NYT based on some people's assumed (though incorrect) definition for the word perceive.

SarahMC,

I'm 25 too, and I see it loud and clear :P

BabyPop's link:

I spent four years in the Marine Corps. That news disgusts me, but I only wish I could say it surprised me. In the armed forces, domestic violence is well above the national average, but in the Corps, it's higher than all the rest. I'm pretty sure it's extremely under-reported as well. While the incidents usually get investigated thoroughly, the general attitude is your typical misogynist ranting. (Shoulda stayed in the kitchen, shouldn't get in the way of his football game, etc)

I don't remember where I was going with that, but I certainly won't be going back to active duty.

Zoelawgirl, the woman in the quote is 39 but I totally agree with the rest of what you've said.

SarahMC, you're probably right, but my point was that the article starts with an assumption that isn't supported by the quotes. They don't even quote anyone under 30 and the women who saw sexism as an issue were younger than the woman who didn't.

Maybe it's true that young women don't support Clinton because they don't see sexism as an issue, but so far I haven't read any articles that actually support that with polls or interviews of young people.

It could be that women under 30 are actually a diverse group of humans with a variety of reasons for voting the way they do, but I know that's a tough concept for the media.

I know in this title it sounds like "alleged" sexism instead of "seen" sexism... how do they manage to take a neutral word and make it sound like women don't know what they're seeing?
*yoink - online dictionary*
1 a: to attain awareness or understanding of b: to regard as being such
2: to become aware of through the senses; especially : see observe

2 of 3 definitions here would be totally fine, as in "sexism women have come to understand" or "sexism they have observed", and yet, somehow, the connotation ends up being "something women are regarding as sexism".

Silly, silly media. What's sad is I'd like to rant about everyone here jumping to conclusions, and blah blah dictionary, blah blah usual connotation, but...
"Women's support of Clinton rises in wake of being made aware of sexism"... I'm trying to have faith in people. Really I am.
It just keeps coming out "Women's support of Clinton rises in wake of what those silly girls regard as sexism. *nudge nudge*"
Gr!

Yea, I noticed that headline, and it pissed me off, too.

sncreducer - denotation and connotation are not the same thing. When "perceived x" is used in conversation and in reporting it is often intended to (or perceived to!) call into question the reality or validity of what is being observed.

SarahMC, I'm going on 25 and I see it, and many of my friends of the same age see it . . . but I don't know how representative we are. I work with undergraduate students and many of the women strike me as not being completely clued in to how much of a handicap their sex is as far as this culture is concerned.

I am done with the MSM and their (non)debates pitting us against each, blech.

Btw does anybody know of any feminist blogs discussing/analyzing the candidates specific positions and policies? thanks!

And how can younger women not think Hillary Clinton's struggles are their own struggles? The sexism isn't just aimed at women over 40, for godssake.

I wonder if these younger women who are so cavalier about the prospect of a female president will regret their vote in 20 years.

I do see Senator Clinton's struggles as my own, but I'm still not going to vote for her during the primaries. Whether I regret it or not depends on her winning the nomination. If she wins the election and winds up being a lackluster president, I won't regret it. If she loses the general election, I will very much regret that so many other women voted for her.

Actually, to "perceive" is to take notice of something and NOT to imagine or have an opinion of something. It's one of those words that gets abused by semiliterate journalists in much the same way as the word enormity is often misused to mean something of great size when it really means the badness of something. One of my pet peeves is people throwing around words without knowing what they mean. Flaunt and flout are another example.

Women perceive (proper use -which is to say they have detected and taken notice of) a lot of crude sexism and misogyny aimed at Hillary by the MSM. Even worse, when their misogyny backfired in New Hampshire, they set up a straw man about racism to explain Clinton's win. Anything is better than Chris Matthews facing the truth: He has a tiny little dick and was waving it everywhere after Iowa. This caused a number of undecided voters to rally around Hillary.

I have been perceiving sexism since I was 7 years old, 55 years ago. Attending a Catholic school, we were preparing to receive our First Communion. The boys went up to the altar first. I have 5 younger brothers, at that time so much smaller and dumber than I was. Up went my hand. "Sister, why are the boys going first?" She didn't hesitate: "because they can become priests; they are closer to God." Two years later, I had to endure my 18-month younger brother becoming an altar boy, which was a surprisingly lucrative source of wedding and funeral tips. I knew the then Latin responses about then times better than Richard.

Young brothers and the Catholic Church enable a smart girl to see the light very fast.

Just an FYI

The NYT refers to everyone as Mrs. Mr. Ms., etc. because it is their newspaper style guides. It is not meant as disrespect.

Perceive is to notice or realize something through the senses. Women are perceiving (hearing, seeing) sexism from pundits and other people, while other people obviously aren't noticing it. Sexism and other oppressions are beyond the perception of people of the majority population. For example, I don't believe that people in wheelchairs are making it up when they say that they have trouble going to certain places because there is no access ramp, but I don't always notice when there is no ramp. That's part of being privileged -- I don't have to know if there's a ramp.

And as someone said before, it pains my nerves to hear and read "Mrs. Clinton."

the fuck?

Perceived?

So seeing some asshat shouting out "iron my shirt" as sexist was just my perception? He was really, what, looking out for the unemployment rate by offering up a housekeeping job?

"I often feel like the only 25 year old woman on earth who recognizes sexism when it rears its ugly head."

Um, I'm 19 and have been able to recognize sexism since I was a young teenager. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

"One of my pet peeves is people throwing around words without knowing what they mean. Flaunt and flout are another example."

Yes I hate that too. I've noticed people using the word "travesty" as if it were the same as "tragedy." They think they're sounding like they have a large vocabulary yet all they're doing is looking dumb.

I think this is all way more about connotation than it is about dictionary or formal definitions. I notice the word "perceived" being thrown around a lot, but I also see people largely believing that it means a certain [not entirely correct] thing as a result of that common use.
In this context, I think it was a jab at the validity of the sexism.

As a 20 year old woman doing undergraduate work, I sometimes *feel* like I am one of only a few younger women who is truly upset by sexism. I KNOW I'm not the ONLY one, but sometimes, in my dady-to-day life, it certainly feels as if I am.
I don't think voting for Senator Clinton will change that- especially since I don't agree with her platform, and vote on aspects other than which "naughty bits" a candidate has. ;)

Not sure if this will be helpful or not, but the headline can be read both ways, because language isn't a static thing. Common understanding of a word eventually becomes accepted meaning... no need to have some official committee deem it such. I think that here, if they hadn't meant for the existence of the sexism to seem tentative, they could have said "...in wake of sexism."

Also, it would seem that anyone at this blog or in any other feminist space is obviously aware of sexism being still very alive. What is scary is that the majority of young women , unless you give them the drastic obvious examples (e.g. men who think women belong in the kitchen, obviously objectification of the female body, etc.) a lot of young women... or at least in my experience in college so far... barely realize that the ugly reaches of patriarchy are still grabbing and manipulating. I will freely admit that I wasn't even aware that feminism was still alive and kicking until one of my english professors to his lecture class (a class of about 60 or so students, with perhaps around 10 of them being men) asked if we knew what feminism was. This was in a british literature class and he simply brought it up because we were going to read Sylvia Plath. One or two girls hesitantly raised their hands and muttered something about equal rights. It was only after that class a couple of semesters ago that I started doing my own research. I guess what I am trying to say is that it's not surprising that SarahMC may feel alone. Being someone who is *not* in women studies (at our university it's women and gender studies) and doesn't have many friends who are geared or equipped in that general direction, I've realized more and more how lonely it can actually be. A check in the plus column for the internet this time around.

The article itself wasn't that bad. In fact, I thought the woman quoted toward the end sounded incredibly stupid saying Senator Clinton's battles weren't hers when they had JUST listed several examples of blatant sexism against the candidate.

For a better take on all this, read Judith Warner's new blog post. That woman has such a refreshing voice compared to Maureen Dowd's - in this instance, she points out that for most of the election Clinton has been one of the few candidates who DOESN'T try to manipulate people's emotions - she talks about facts more than anyone else, and the reward she gets for it is nothing.

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/emotion-without-thought-in-new-hampshire/?em&ex=1200200400&en=f8f083d6db0f6ae0&ei=5087%0A

I think this part was worse than the title:
"All over the country, viewers scrutinized coverage for signs of chauvinism in the race, and many said they found dismaying examples."

We "scrutinized" it? How about we were sitting there watching the coverage because we're interested in politics or something, and the sexism was so incredibly palpable that it was impossible to ignore it? Even my Dad noticed it, and he didn't watch that much. (The Daily Show helped crystallize it for him.)

Here's an interesting clip of Rachel Maddow informing Chris Matthews that his assholism may have helped Hillary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jsVM-ma9DM

If the NYT were not trying to subtly suggest that women's perception of sexism might be wrong, the would have titled the article "Women's Support for Clintn Rises in the Wake of Sexism" It's parsimonious and less clunky. The headline would be no less accurate had they left out "perceived" altogether. What purpose does that word serve but to challenge the reality of sexism. There is definitely a misogynistic undertone to the title.

Does anyone else think the MSM may be actively attempting to disenfranchise women voters?

Or not that it's trying to stop women from voting, but it's trying to bully them into voting for someone who is not HRC?

I agree with you, SarahMC.
I also think the MSM just has way too much influence in general- major news networks literally just decide to CUT OUT candidates they don't deem "viable." As a result, people like Dennis Kucinich [among others] don't get really ANY coverage at all. It's totally unfair and biased.

Jessica don't use the misogynist word "motherfucker", PLEASE!!!!! mothers get raped too and I hate it when people use that word so casually.

Jessica, you are correct. People have been seeing sexism since 08/26/1920. And sexism has been really bad since 01/23/1973, or for nearly 35 years. So the score is Jessica Valenti 7, New York Times 0

To be fair, the first definition in my dictionary (Oxford American) for perceive is:

To become aware or conscious of; to come to realize or understand.

I first "perceived" sexism in grade school back in the 70's when I stated in class that I wanted to be an astronaut. All the boys in the class said, "You can't because you're a girl!" Same old crap 30 years later. Clinton has my vote.

People have been seeing sexism since the beginning of time, Jovan!

Before deciding whether this headline is pernicious or harmless I did a Google search using the following "New York Times+perceived". The second hit "Battling Subway Crime, Both Real and Perceived - New York Times" gives credence to the argument that the NYT does, at least on occasion, define "perceived" in its vernacular use as, if not the opposite of, at least in some wise as in opposition to "real". Given that it has become acceptable, in everyday speech, to use the concept of "perception" to indicate a given individual's subjective understanding of a given situation, the NYT's use of "percieved" in this context can easily be construed to be code for "oh those women, they see sexism everywhere". Whether it is intended to denigrate women's perceptions is a moot point. That particular word lends nothing to the headline (as someone has already pointed out) and should have been omitted. That it wasn't lends credence to the perception that the NYT lacks a certain sensitivity to the nuances of language. In an institution whose central mission is to parse the nuances of political language this is a serious flaw and not nearly as harmless as some might "perceive" it to be.

ok, so a male friend of mine told me the following joke: "how do you make a hormone? you kick a woman in the stomach" a whore moan, gee great. i attempted to explain to him my problem with this joke after which he immediately got defensive and tried to convince me that im being too sensitive and that its no different than your average dead baby joke. yeah ok, we're just perceiving sexism.

ok, so a male friend of mine told me the following joke: "how do you make a hormone? you kick a woman in the stomach" a whore moan, gee great. i attempted to explain to him my problem with this joke after which he immediately got defensive and tried to convince me that im being too sensitive and that its no different than your average dead baby joke. yeah ok, we're just perceiving sexism.

ok, so a male friend of mine told me the following joke: "how do you make a hormone? you kick a woman in the stomach" a whore moan, gee great. i attempted to explain to him my problem with this joke after which he immediately got defensive and tried to convince me that im being too sensitive and that its no different than your average dead baby joke. yeah ok, we're just perceiving sexism.

ok, so a male friend of mine told me the following joke: "how do you make a hormone? you kick a woman in the stomach" a whore moan, gee great. i attempted to explain to him my problem with this joke after which he immediately got defensive and tried to convince me that im being too sensitive and that its no different than your average dead baby joke. yeah ok, we're just perceiving sexism.

ok, so a male friend of mine told me the following joke: "how do you make a hormone? you kick a woman in the stomach" a whore moan, gee great. i attempted to explain to him my problem with this joke after which he immediately got defensive and tried to convince me that im being too sensitive and that its no different than your average dead baby joke. yeah ok, we're just perceiving sexism.

yea. I was just percieving that there was a sign that said "Iron my shirt"

Yeah age 20 and recognizing sexism every day! Well, not that it's a good thing that there's sexism to recognize every day.