I don't know. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. I can just as easily see this being said in reference to a man. For example, I've heard reporters ask W if it brings him down that his poll #s are so low. I expect politicians to be with it enough to not make sexist comments, but I do not expect them to avoid every truly accidental slight of speech that can be misconstrued. And yes, I have most certainly been derided for being "emotional" in professional settings.

Lauren's observation is an astute one. This galls me.

Subtle, yes. Innocent, probably not. In that moment, I think he played on the stereotype that women are "emotional" to his advantage.

Yes, Obama was criticizing Hillary for being overly emotional. However, I also don't think overly emotional=woman. He could have said that when McCain is "feeling down" he supports dumb-ass wars. I don't think sex has anything to do with it.

Lizzy, the point is though, that he didn't. He said it about a woman.

I can see both sides here. It's certainly not an overtly sexist comment. And what makes this kind of sexism so hard to fight is that no one believes it. I say it's sexist because I don't believe Obama would not have said that about McCain or any other man running. He said it about Clinton because it's that father figure in him that's kicking in.

And then I certainly don't hate him for it. But I do wish he'd show a little more respect.

kissmypinapple - wait, so we can criticize men for being too emotional, but not women?

Yes, thank you! Some people are characterizing this as a "sexist dogwhistle," but "periodically"? I think that makes it a sexist regular whistle! That choice of words almost makes me think it really was an honest slip ... "when she's feeling down" would have been sufficient by itself to convey that women are volatile, emotional creatures.

I'm going to have to try launching political attacks next month instead of chocolate.

I don't think that this was a sexist remark. It's just a statement that we hear all the time: when someone is feeling bad about themselves, they often respond by trying to make other people feel bad too. In politics, this comes out in negative campaigning. I think he would have used the same words had his opponent been a man. Referencing feelings makes it personal for any candidate and in doing so he is making Clinton responsible for launching attacks and making it seem like she's being immature, which I think is the point regardless of the sex of the candidates.

eh, i interpreted it to mean when hillary is "feeling down" obviously due to declining poll numbers or lost primaries, not because she's just got those lady mood swings. maybe i'm not in the best place to judge so i'll just stay out of this one, but i will say that i first read about this one some completely ridiculous abc news link, one that went considerably further than ann goes here and claims obama was alluding to PMS by using the word "periodically." it read like a parody of gender analysis and shows just how desperate the mainstream media is to make a buck that they'll invent a story out of anything.

clearly this isn't that absurd, but i do think perhaps it's reaching a little. i really do think obama would have said the same thing if his principal challenger at this point was edwards instead of clinton. personally i was offended way more by his "you're likable enough" remark to hillary than this.

Well, sexist are no (I happen to think it is, a little) it was certainly meant to be sort of patronizing and obnoxious.

I mean, it's not like the candidates themselves design their ads. Their campaign staff does that.

I mean what Obama is saying hear is sort of like the adult equivalent of a little kid taunting "haha... you're just mad cuz I'm ahead..." I think it's a fairly emotional reaction on his part...

I don't find this comment to be sexist. Hillary is down in the polls. She is down in the number of elected delegates, and she is losing some of her superdelegate support. I don't think we can should automatically assume that because he's talking about a woman he's being sexist. This comment could have equally been made to describe a man.

I think people are reading too far into this. It's generally Obama's style to apply this type of language to men or women, and at most it is probably an unfortunate choice of words. I very much doubt, given his track record, he'd go for a patronising, sexist put down, when he was unwilling to even be nasty to Hillary on legitimate stuff for so long.

Also 'feeling down', to me, and I'm female, doesn't suggest anything about women. I've heard people describe both genders in that way.

Also, if anything, I find Hillary's staged crying acts, based on the idea that it allegedly worked on women the first time, more sexist than this.

I agree with adj04...she IS down, literally.

I think Obama was trying to mention the fact that he's in the lead without actually saying it, or even mentioning the polls or the delegate count. I think it was his way of being chivalrous and not arrogant.

I really don't think he was talking about Hillary's emotions or gender.

This is just more evidence to me that even though Obama is running on a campaign of "change" he is just a status quo as the other male candidates.

I took "is feeling down" to mean "perceives she's down in the polls," and not about emotions at all.

Also, if anything, I find Hillary's staged crying acts, based on the idea that it allegedly worked on women the first time, more sexist than this.

What would those be?

I totally cringed when I read the text. It certainly did look sexist in print. But when you watch him actually say it, it really doesn't look like it could have been planned or deliberate, or that "down" has anything to do with emotion.

He seems to be searching for a word that matches his impromptu construction "feeling" (which we all use as shorthand for "thinking" or "my perspective is" as well as happy sad, etc.) to something that meant "down-in-the-polls" but would make sense given how he set up the sentence. He's a smart guy, and I think at the last minute (watch him search for the right word) he realizes that you can't "feel" "down in the polls" so he just leaves it at "down" in general. "Boost" is usually used in reference to poll numbers and "appeal" follows the same track, so I think once you see the video, it all falls together. Some things just look really unfortuante in print. If he had emphasized "feeling" with his voice or something like that, sure, but he didn't.

And I really agree with spikenard, that Obama has had plenty of chances to say/do sexist, or even just nasty, things, and has a track record of taking the high road in his rhetoric. (The unfortuante "likable enough" thing aside. I think at the time he said that, it was pretty common knowledge that he was really annoyed at some of the neagative ploys from her campaign, so he couldn't exactly say he "liked" her and not seem insincere, so he looked for something objective to say, but jeez, it played like a blooper for sure.) Why would he suddenly jump in with the lowest kind of offense he could play, now that he's doing so well? It simply doesn't make sense.

Verdict for me: A logically constructed sentence that took on a double meaning in print.

The "It would-be-inoffensive-if-used-to-describe-someone-about-whom-it-is-not-stereotypic" argument is tenuous.

A lot of non-Black people didn't get why people were offended by Joe Biden's comment that Obama is "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." A lot of non-Black people railed against the statement being characterized as biased. "What if," they asked, "people said the same thing about a White candidate." But nobody was saying that about White candidates. 'Cause nobody is surprised when a White candidate is articulate, bright, and (For fuck's sake! Really!) clean.

Similarly, I have seen zero observations about male candidates' "periodically...feeling down." However, it would certainly not have the same implication regarding a male candidate. That does not mean it is not a statement that expresses subtle bias. 'Cause male candidates are generally assumed to be rational and not dangerously influenced by mood changes. The stereotype of dangerous, irrational hyper-emotionality is specific to women.

People are likely to rail against the notion that Obama's statement shows some subtle bias. I am a little surprised to see feminists doing that, though.

I think "periodically feeling down" would have been more significant if Hillary Clinton was 40 and not 60. But it is still a loaded phrase that can be considered more offensive when said about a woman than about a man. If this were said about Obama, it wouldn't hit as hard, since periodic blues isn't considered part of a man's life. It's like when David Shuster said that Clinton was "pimping out" Chelsea, if that were said about Obama, the load of that phrase would have been way heavier. So while the phrase may sound not so bad, it means more when it's said about a person from a group that is oppressed by that very stereotype.

I'm likely to attribute this to poor word choice. However, poor word choice does come from somewhere. Men are taught to use sexist stereotypes to their advantage from day one, and it is difficult to unlearn something that benefits you.

Okay, when we look at the facts people, we can't know for sure how he meant it. It could have had no gender connotations whatsoever. On the other hand, it /could/ be he would have used another choice of words if his opponent had been a male. Fact is, we're not in Obama's head, we can't know for sure.

Same thing with Bill Clinton's now-infamous "boy" comment. It could be he would have made the same comment if Hillary Clinton's opponent was a white candidate who was as young as Obama (I understand to Feministing readers Obama doesn't seem young -but to some people the age of the Clintons he does). On the other hand, Bill Clinton's comment could have been one that he would have only thought to make about a black candidate. We really don't know for sure, based on what we know.

But why. WHY... would you assume in the first case that the comment wasn't sexist, and in the second case that the comment /was/ racist. I feel like this is a pattern I see a lot in my personal life, where women just assume that things aren't sexist unless they're explicitly sexist -they do this /especially/ in the case of things done or said by men they generally like.

Why these sorts of assumptions? While sometimes the assumptions may be right, other times they are not. And I feel like these sorts of biased assumptions (usually giving men we like the benefit of the doubt) sort of works against women in general...

I mean, I think it's fine to say that no matter how Bill Clinton meant his use of the word "boy" he should have known that it had racist connotations and he should have known better than to say that. I'll agree. So why don't we say the same thing about Obama's choice of language? Maybe he should know better than to use patronizing and emotion-centered language when describing women...? Heck, if he's such a good guy, maybe he should even publically reprimand supports of his who say very explicitly sexist things in national media...
Just a thought...

"Also, if anything, I find Hillary's staged crying acts, based on the idea that it allegedly worked on women the first time, more sexist than this".

I don't want to be confrontational, but what staged crying acts? What I saw was Clinton's eyes glistening and then the media running with it as though she was an emotional wreck. I didn't see how it helped her either.

Peepers, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for being more articulate than I am. Jennifer, of course not. But we're not talking about every permutation of what he *could* have said. That's ridiculous. We're discussing what he *did* say.

not the best move obama, and i am saying that as a supporter of his candidacy.
i agree with dna, though, that this, if i may engage in a bit of comparative martyrology, is nowhere near as bad as the race baiting performed by the clinton campaign, nor the sexism of matthews.
also, in context, the comment is centrally about how the clinton campaign continues to utilize the politics of attack and negativity. but he used inappropriate language to make the point.

"Periodically."

He didn't say "when she's down in the polls," he said, "periodically (pause) when she's feeling down..." He goes on to talk about what the American people want to hear, and then he mentions topics that they are both supportive of; he didn't do much of a job of separating his goals from hers. She attacks him; he attacks her as an essentialist; they both claim they want the same things for the people of this country. It's a bit boring, actually, but no one wants real any real infighting.

I want to recommend "When God Was a Woman" here, because it is the book that inspired my theory that this women-are-more-emotional shit might have begun when goddess worshippers, priestesses of the temples of Ishtar/Innana/Arinna etc., would ritualistically mourn for the death of the goddess's consort. This crying signified adherents to goddess worship and not to the invaders and their patriarchal God. Any men who cried would be betraying their own sex, so they would be worse than women crying. The book's more detailed--I really, really, really recommend it.

Her first tears looked questionable, to me, whether she was really crying or not and how she managed to get out a little nasty comment about her opponents almost immediately the first tear sprang. I'm always suspicious of Hillary's motives because I think in the past she's proved herself to be a very self-serving and manipulative candidate. After that, she would have 'emotional moments' the night before a primary, after the news media went on about how her crying influenced women voters.

In any case, my suspicions of Hillary aside, which I accept might be somewhat unfair... is Obama sexist? Would he resort to sexist, patronising quips? Generally, I think his conduct in the election says no. He has been far less antagonistic than Hillary has been. As for sexism, how can a sexist person make this speech?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUl99id2SvM

It's also notable that Hillary has tried to paint him as the 'anti-women' candidate, distorting his views and votes on abortion, for example.

I find the comment patronizing, mostly because he dodges some actualities. The first is that Hillary's poll numbers for WI, Ohio, & Texas are looking strong. The second is that the so-called negative ad she ran in WI was a well-deserved criticism of why he refused to debate with her here. Yes, they have debated 18 times, as his response ad points out, but only 1 of those debates was one-on-one, and that was before Super Tuesday. The poll numbers here in WI are pretty close, and voters could have benefitted from a debate here -- yet he refused the invite, while she accepted. So in response to her questioning that, he appears to be characterizing her as sad, insignificant, and negative in order to convince voters that her ship is already sunk. Flock to me, he says. It's certainly one strategy, and maybe it will work, but I find it to be beyond condescending, since they remain in a very tight race.

Hillary Clinton neither cried nor faked tears in Sobgate. Find another straw argument.

Obama, between this comment and his, "You're likeable enough" sarcasm, is at best patronizing of Hillary Clinton. Did he talk like this about/to Edwards? Nope. I smell that arrogant, patronizing, insidious sexism to which EVERY woman is subject by the time she's about eight years old.

...is Obama sexist?...As for sexism, how can a sexist person make this speech?

Of course he is. Show me a man that isn't. Show me a woman that doesn't have a sexist bone in her body. My dear, sweet, feminist Mr. KMP is sexist. He was raised in a sexist culture, and while he fights that and works hard on it, b/c he knows it's wrong, he will never magically reach a point when he has been washed clean of sexism. Hopefully, if we ever have kids, they'll be even further along than we are.

I may be a bit biased as an Obama supporter, but I don't think his response, however poorly worded it may have been had the intention of sexism.

However, I can see where people could get the "stereotypical emotional female" idea out of his quote.

I think what Obama was trying to indirectly say is that Hillary has been losing primaries for a while now(her delegate numbers are down) and is trying to boost her popularity by creating hype/controversy and that the hype/controversy is distracting from where the focus should be, on the American people.

Once again, please watched the speech I posted (his speech before Planned Parenthood) and hear him talking about women's rights, then see if you think he' likely to say something sexist and patronising, even insiduously.

Obama has a 100% voting record from Planned Parenthood, and even controversially supported late-term abortions on the basis that women know best what to do in terms of their own bodies, and has been vocal about women's rights and has sponsored a number of relevant bills (dealing with better treatment for victims of sexual assault, for example), but it was Hillary who claimed, somehow, that his record on abortion and other women's issues is flawed.

I don't see how this, his general unwillingness to engage in any type of nasty attack with her until recently, reflects a patronising attitude towards women or Hillary generally. His 'likable enough' comment was hugely unfortunate, but if you'd watched the debate, it was really the only time he lashed out in a way the other candidates did consistently (and after Hillary complained that her feelings were hurt, if you find that relevant). Hillary hasn't exactly been a model of civility either in any case.

At the end of the day, whether she cried or not or whatever, I just don't think there is anywhere near enough proof that 'feeling down' was intended to be sexist, or really even was sexist. Hillary has called Obama reluctant, weak, and frustrated before - are these somehow all comments on his race?? On a more personal note, he's talked repeatedly of how he was raised and suppoted by strong women - his grandmother, his single mother, and his wife. How is this one 'feeling down' comment enough to undo all of that?

I really think people are reading way too much into this, and not looking at the actual issues - what are the candidates records on women's rights?

If we talked about that, we wouldn't be assuming that vague things are sexist, and, admittedly, I wouldn't be transferring my legitimate suspicion of Hillary on policy and other issues to the way she conducts herself.

Also, if anything, I find Hillary's staged crying acts, based on the idea that it allegedly worked on women the first time, more sexist than this.

BINGO!

So, Deborah, if I disagree with you, I 'just don't get it'?

I'm not allowed to (particularly as a woman), find some things sexist, and others not, and define that for myself?

I feel like, if anyone criticises Hillary or attributes her motives to anything understand, suspicious, cynical, or manipulative, they MUST be doing so because they somehow think any powerful women are those things or because they don't like the fact that she's a woman.

No, woman, or man, or giraffe, I just don't like Hillary Clinton, her policies, or the way she has conducted herself during the campaign, I find her 'emotional moments' suspicious, just as I find Huckabee's claim that God is backing him massively suspicious, and often I also find it patronising and sexist.

I hate the way if you don't agree with someone, you're meant to be unenlightened, in some way, or not 'getting it'. We don't all have to have the same conceptions of sexism, racism, or any of these things exactly. You and I might both be female, but that might be the only commonality between us.

*sorry, that should read 'underhand' instead of 'understand', I apologise for all my typos.. I've been studying for 9 hours today and I think in a little while my brain is just going to give up on me.

The famous moment in New Hampshire could possibly be interpreted as crying. I would like to know what the other "emotional moments" from Clinton's campaign were. ("That hurts my feelings" was a JOKE meant to play on the perception of her as cold and therefore unlikeable.)

I've admitted 3 times now, the15th, that it was an unfair comment for me to make. Originally, I was referring to the NH 'moment' (which I base my suspicion on), and the one at Yale (which seemed more genuine to me, though conveniently the night before a primary).

I am willing to fully admit that I've been unfair in this respect. So, ok, let's remove from the equation my personal idea that Hillary's 'moment' might've been faked and the implications that can have. You win here.

Let's go back to the original point - was Obama being sexist or not?

1. I don't think the words 'feeling down' in this context had anything to do with Hillary being female
2. This is made more unlikely by the fact that Obama has been noticeably less antagonistic and sniped at Hillary less during the campaigns generally, particularly earlier one when he attempted to take some kind of higher ground
3. On his voting records, his previous conducts and comments, and even his life story, I find it very unlikely that he'd say something patronising and sexist. Therefore, I assume it was an unfortunate choice of words, though really I do not think saying that someone is 'feeling down' is implying that they're a weak, emotional, irrational woman.. particularly since Obama has used that type of informal, emotional language on a number of people, both male and female.

If I was to argue that Hillary has been legitimately sexist (in a way that to ME seems sexist), it's this: she has, purposely, consistently, distorted Obama's record on women's rights, particularly in terms of abortion. That troubles me, because it suggests that rather than showing alliance with an aspect of her fellow candidate's track record that should be positive, she's willing to make him look sexist for her own personal gain.

It annoys me to click on a topic that's supposed to be about a sexist comment Barack made, only to find a bunch of comments essentially saying "But Hillary's much worse!"

Spikenard, you seem to be conflating the potential to make a sexist comment with deliberate, hostile intent toward women. They are not the same thing. As kissmypineapple pointed out, well-meaning people of any sex are capable of sexist though and speech because we are affected by the sexist culture in which we live.

It would clearly be egregious if Obama intentionally used a sexist trope to undermine his opponent. I agree that we will never know his intention. However, intent is not the end-all be-all of moral responsibility.

"It annoys me to click on a topic that's supposed to be about a sexist comment Barack made, only to find a bunch of comments essentially saying "But Hillary's much worse!""

Yeah, exactly! And you know for all the feminists here who knee jerked against Good By To #2 and other heart felt feminist essays on the subject, you are proving many of their points ;)

I think this is a nice summary of some of the things he's regrettably said.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011977.php

I just got to watch the video clip with sound, and I totally, /honestly/, don't think he would have used that same language with a male candidate.

And yes, spikenard, that is a very nice speech. But similarly, if you look at the work Hillary Clinton has done in relation to Civil Rights, I do not think she is racist in any significant sense...

But like Clinton and Obama, as people, are prone to being influenced by the culture in which we all live. Much like what I wrote in my longer post above.

Kate21 and KMP get it...

I mean honestly, if people were like "boy it's a shame Obama is using sexist tactics, even if they were spur of the moment and not really thought through, but I'm supporting him for his overall positions anyway" as opposed to this "Obama is infallable and look how I can manage to interpret everything Obama says or does in the best possible light" crap. I think that latter attitude is dangerous. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Obama is a politician. He is a politician a politician a politician. A progressive, very intelligent man. But a politician. A politician who has a good speech writer... but ultimately, a well-off, famous politician.

I think the comment is based on gender-stereotypes and sexist, but on a large world scheme of things, this is not outrageously sexist.

"I mean, I think it's fine to say that no matter how Bill Clinton meant his use of the word "boy" he should have known that it had racist connotations and he should have known better than to say that. I'll agree. So why don't we say the same thing about Obama's choice of language? Maybe he should know better than to use patronizing and emotion-centered language when describing women...?"

Exactly. Obama is a brilliant man, and especially, a brilliant speaker - both scripted and ex tempore. So you can count on any "accidental" characterizations of Hillary as emotional (or any other female stereotype) are part of his strategy. The fact that he's doing this subtly enough for Feministing readers to debate about it just shows how skillful the man is, for better or for worse.

also, lyra27, that's a very interesting post. That makes sense...

Although, in all, this is a bad campaign move, sexism included. He is criticizing her turn towards negative campaigning against him But he is criticizing it in such a way as to negatively campaign against her, implying he is emotional, reactional from "feeling down," and then implicitly suggesting because she is a woman. Just all around a bad move.

Although, in all, this is a bad campaign move, sexism included. He is criticizing her turn towards negative campaigning against him But he is criticizing it in such a way as to negatively campaign against her, implying she is emotional, reactional from "feeling down," and then implicitly suggesting because she is a woman. Just all around a bad move.

I agree Nina. Whatever happened to being suspicious of politicians? Why are people now acting like Obama can do no wrong, its just "unfortunate wording?"

No, I don't really think Obama consciously thought, "Let's see, how can I word this to be subtly sexist and patronizing?" Though it is possible that he did. But I do think that he was being patronizing and sexist, just not completely aware of it. And that's bad too.

Just because he supports women's rights and whatnot doesn't mean he can never be sexist.

Why am I reading that Obama hasn't said anything bad about Clinton until recently? - that's all I've gotten in the mail all through January. Stuff from Obama reading Hilary sucks - I'm for change.
Nothing of substance. It's part of why I voted for Hilary.

I don't think this is sexist. And I don't think it has anything to do with her being down in the polls, because she's attacked him when she was leading before. I think its that sometimes she does lash out unnecessarily and that’s what its a reference to. I think he said “periodically� because he had 5 seconds to answer, not because she’s a woman. “Feeling down� is a reference to her being upset, but I'm assuming he was asked only about Hilary and that’s why he answered only about her. The same thing about lashing out could be said almost any of the republicans. The reason that most of the sound clips from Obama and Hilary are directed at each other (rather than other dems) is because they’ve been the frontrunners for so long.

Staar, YOUR post seems to be reiterating Obama's sexist sentiment. Hillary "does lash out unnecessarily" even when she's in the lead? She's just "feeling down," not because of the polls but for some random reason, and so she lashes out at her political rival? Sounds like the "women are irrational" stereotype to me.

I just think that anyone who doesn't find this phrasing intentional is underestimating Obama. These are politicians. Everything they do and say is calculated. Characterizing Hillary as weak and emotional because she is a woman, however subtly, plays to the doubts Americans may have in voting for a female candidate. We've already gone over how the Clinton campaign has strategized similarly to underscore voters' doubts about a Black candidate.

Lauren's point is a good one. Surely my male colleague doesn't think he's being sexist when he says "now, don't get mad at me, but I disagree..." or similarly treats me with kid gloves, as though I could become emotional at any moment. He's a good guy. But he doesn't talk this way to males - his expectation that I'll be emotional is sexist. (Especially since I have never given him reason to expect it.)

Whether or not Obama's insinuation is all part of the political game, and no worse than what Hillary's campaign has done is a separate argument - but this is absolutely a sexist comment.

I agree that Obama was being sexist there. In the spectrum of sexist things to say, it's far from the worst. But it's still patronizing and sexist, and I fully agree with Peepers that subject and object position is extremely relevant to the analysis. He didn't say it about a man (and probably would have instinctively used different language), and the particular context matters.

However, if Obama does think, at any level of consciousness, that it is an 'emotional female' thing to 'lash out' or make personal attacks when feeling down or outdone, I think he's greatly mistaken. The story told by this blogger below suggests the reverse:

http://ms-jd.org/does-your-partner-hide-behind-your-skirts

B. Clinton did *not* call Obama a "boy." Good Lord, I am sick to death of hearing this misquoted. He did call him a "kid," which he certainly should have known better than to do, but "kid" has a very different valence than "boy" when applied to a black man.

I'm with apb3000. Clinton and Obama both are career politicians. Not everything they say, but much of what they say is calculated. Given that this is a regular motif in Obama's comments about Clinton*, I don't think this is a slip of the tongue or poor wording.

*e.g., when he suggested she was playing the gender card or not able to 'play in the big leagues' when she characterized his and Edwards' comments as attacking her.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

I'm not convinced that this is harmful. Perhaps, being a young male, I'm biased.

Personally, I believe that sexism, as well as racism, is on a spectrum.

I believe that every person in the world is at least a little sexist and a little racist. We shouldn't refer to comments and people as being non-sexist. Nothing ever is. But, of course, some things are far more harmful than others.

I just don't see this breaking past the sexism malignancy threshold.

This is like the Target ad that was overanalyzed a while back: not sexism and not worthy of mention, IMO, except as an incredible stretch.

apb3000's beaten me to it, but: no matter your opinion of the man, it cannot be denied that Obama's a master orator. The man knows his way around a connotation. I don't buy that this is a mere careless word choice.

He had me at "periodically".
I am a Clinton supporter who was warming to Obama. How could you not warm to him? He's a charismatic guy who can turn a sentence like no other (and that voice!). But this "periodically when feeling down" business puts me in a bad mood. At its face, the statement doesn't make any logical sense. Periodically means "at regular intervals", which doesn't apply to political polls, which are prone to wide, un-periodic swings. And "feeling down" because you are down in the polls? That's a stretch. Obama's statement really irked me, because I thought he was beyond all that subtle or unconscious sexism.

"Feeling down" was boderline sexist. It also didn't seem all that calculated to me. But really, transforming the word 'periodically' into some kind of jab about menstrual cycles is pretty thin.

Periodically seemed to me to refer to the up and down nature of the primary contest so far. She was in third before NH and then down again after SC. Between those two contests she was dismissing Obama's attacks, calling him "frustrated".

He could have said something better than "feeling down", but "periodically"? Really?

Also, it's a bit naive to expect a man to be beyond unconscious sexism. Just like I don't assume white people are beyond unconscious racism.

Just a quick nitpick, Juan.

Why only white people are racist?

Because just as sexism is the systematic privileging of maleness and masculinity, racism in America is the systematic promotion of white supremacy.

/threadjack

Also, it's a bit naive to expect a man to be beyond unconscious sexism. Just like I don't assume white people are beyond unconscious racism.

Exactly. The comments on this thread that worry me are those along the lines of, "But look at his voting record! That should be enough to tell you he'd never make a condescendingly sexist comment!" Sexism is insidious. It's ingrained in every aspect of our culture. A guy's voting record represents positions he's thought through in a purely intellectual frame of mind and had plenty of time, over the course of his life and career, to filter for sexism or any other type of unconscious bias, if he's so inclined. An off-the-cuff comment during the flow of conversation represents what connotations he subconsciously assigns to certain ideas, without the opportunity of standing back and considering why.

People are not honestly assessing their own behavior 100% of the time, which accounts for a lot of the small prejudices that are let slide in a culture like ours. If, as feminists, we don't realize that unconscious sexism is a vast and wide-ranging and minutely complex component of the sexist culture, and that anyone and everyone, including ourselves, is suspect, then we've got a problem.

Juan, racism is /not/ just defined as white supremacy. Other races can be racist against each other too (and sometimes that racism can be quite extreme)... There are all kinds of specific examples of this in the US and elsewhere

Can you really believe that to say Period. ically feeling down is not a reference to menses and female mood swings? Of course, most of us know Senator Clinton is probably past menapause, but it doesn't change the way that sounds to male ears.
I think the Clintons have made mistakes w/ racism, but Obama has used sexist language more than once. Why is it so hard to believe that he might play rough too? Of course, he was subtle about his sexism. He doesn't want people like the ones on this thread thinking ill of him. Regardless, it was sexist, and more than likely in a point like this in the campaign, purposeful.

Because just as sexism is the systematic privileging of maleness and masculinity, racism in America is the systematic promotion of white supremacy.

So its impossible, then, for an asian to be racist against blacks?

I call bullshit on that.

Racism is not exclusive to the white community.

People of either sex can perpetuate sexism, but it's useful to use the collective 'men' when describing the patriarchy.

POC can promote racism, but white people are the majority in this country and the dominant class. They are the ones who receive the privilege. Sexism:Patriarchy::Racism:White Supremacy.
/threadjack

I'm conceding that "feeling down" was inappropriate and came from a place of privilege, but "periodically" is really splitting hairs. Find me another word that means repeating at regular intervals. It's a common word and it isn't one that people parse in their heads when they hear it. It's not sexism's "niggardly."

This is the second time I've clicked the link in Ann's post on a sexist incident, and am left wondering if the two of us were reading/watching the same thing.

Certainly "periodically" combined with "feeling down" can be interpreted as referring to PMS, but that doesn't mean it was meant that way. Maybe it was, but I see no reason to conclude that it was.

Yes, Juan, in America (nice catch btw), white men are the primary benefiters of racism. But thats not the point here. Your original post said, "I don't assume white people are beyond unconscious racism."

The implication being that white people are racist by default, but non-white people are not. I don't think that's a fair assertion.

I may be a bit biased as an Obama supporter, but I don't think his response, however poorly worded it may have been had the intention of sexism.

Of course, he intended to be sexist. Politics is a dirty game, and he is going to use anything to his advantage. However, I can just imagine the outcry if Hilary Clinton used a racist stereotype in a comment about Obama.
Why do people think that a sexist comment is okay from a man just because he is in a racial minority?

If Obama's statement was sexist, then this statement by Hillary was racist:

"There's a big difference between us -- speeches versus solutions, talk versus action"

There are two racist stereotypes at play here:

1) Blacks are stupid and cant come up with good ideas

2) Blacks are lazy

Medical Student I'm going to have to disagree with you. She's basically saying that Obama's "All talk, no action." That phrase, as far as I know, has never been about race.

Why do people think that a sexist comment is okay from a man just because he is in a racial minority?

I think that it would probably be considered okay from any man by a lot of people, and from any progressive man by a lot of progressives.

I don't think this is sexist at all. In fact I would never have even thought of this if it wasn't for this site. This is a big reach IMO.

Basically what people are saying here is that no male can ever use the words "feeling down" or "periodically" in reference to a woman. That is what you are saying.

Are you telling me that if you looked through every single speech, statement, etc. that Hillary as ever made you wouldn't find anything that was sexist or racist? Even if you applied as high a standard as you are holding Obama to here? I guarantee you'd find all sorts of things that could be construed the wrong way if you tried.

I appreciate what this site is trying to do, but to me these types of posts just hurt the feminist cause and make people feel feminism is no longer relevant, when they see that this is what feminists are discussing.

Actually that's not what anyone is saying, HoneyBee. If a male friend told me that a female friend was "feeling down" I wouldn't go off on him. Who would? That's because that's personal affairs, not politics. In MY opinion, in politics no one should say that a woman is attacking someone because she is "feeling down." That IS sexist. No one would accuse a male politician of attacking someone because he was sad or upset.

As for the whole "periodically" thing, I don't know if that was intentional, but if people are taking his words that way then its perfectly possible that he meant for his words to be taken that way.

Wildberry, I think everyone has the capacity to be sexist and racist, but I just think men are more likely to be more sexist and i think white people are more likely to be more racist. That's just me, if you find it unfair, I'm sorry.

Tying in with the topic of the post, what I was originally trying to get across is that it's a losing game to demand feminist purity from men (whom most politicians are) just like it's a losing game to demand anti-racist purity from white people (whom most politicians are).

"Feeling down" was sexist, but not deliberately. I'm not a woman, but if I were I'd probably let it slide. Just like Joe Biden's "articulate" comment was unconsciously racist, but I'd let it slide because it wasn't an actively bigoted remark.

Spikenard, I think it is very naive to assume because a candidate makes a speech about something they wholly support the cause. This is what politicians do...make speeches in which their words write checks their actions can't cash.

HoneyBee, when someone is known for their rhetorical skills and their "way with words", they should be held to very high standards. Because if you don't think that every word on a campaign trail is calculated, crafted and planned...you too would join spikenard in the pollyanna club.

I think that it would probably be considered okay from any man by a lot of people, and from any progressive man by a lot of progressives.

This is true, but sexism is found in all races. However, when a non-white male makes a sexist comment, people seem to be a lot less judgmental than if the same comment were made by a white male. Why should women, as an oppressed group, be put down by members of another oppressed group simply because they are male? I don't give a damn what color a man is. If he is a sexist, I'm going to call a spade a spade.

Bah, this doesn't annoy me nearly as much as going back through and re-reading about his thoughts on filibustering the Alito nomination.

Sure, Juan, you think everyone has the capacity to be racist and sexist. How VERY fair of you.

However, you specifically said that you think white people are racist BY DEFAULT. You said that ONLY about white people. Why are only white people racist by default? THAT is what is not fair.

As for who is more racist than who, I'm not going to get into that argument, I don't think it is productive. And I am in no way arguing that white men get most privilege in American society. But I still rebel against the idea that all white people are automatically racist, but not non-white people.

Sure, Juan, you think everyone has the capacity to be racist and sexist. How VERY fair of you.

However, you specifically said that you think white people are racist BY DEFAULT. You said that ONLY about white people. Why are only white people racist by default? THAT is what is not fair.

As for who is more racist than who, I'm not going to get into that argument, I don't think it is productive. And I am in no way arguing against the fact that white men get most privilege in American society. But I still rebel against the idea that all white people are automatically racist, but not non-white people.

Sorry about the double post. My original one said that I am not arguing that white men get the privilege, but I amended it in the second one.

"Feeling down" was sexist, but not deliberately. I'm not a woman, but if I were I'd probably let it slide.

The jury in my head is still out over Obama's quote, but in general I really feel like women are constantly expected to "let things slide."

This often comes up in conversations with supposedly progressive males on Republicans who might bridge the gap (or whatever), especially if the resume is ok...with the exception of reproductive rights. There is usually a comment regarding "compromise," but more often than not it's the ladies who have to do the compromising.

This is true, but sexism is found in all races.

I get a rainbow of catcalls on a given day!

But yeah, I've also seen men of all colors on my TV express concern or laughter over the possibility of a woman as president. Lovely.

"I just don't see this breaking past the sexism malignancy threshold."

What do we have to wait for in order to meet the standards of the 'spectrum'? Sexism doesn't have to be horrifyingly overt in order to be effective. Such casual relativism reduces everything to beningn neutrality. If Obama was employing the sterotype that women are not only more 'emotional' than men (much science exists on whether/how this is true or not), but that this emotion affects their [political] judgement, and seeing as this has been used as a reason not to employ or promote women in the past, to use it now is not only sexist but shitty.
"Feeling down" and "boost her appeal" are undeniably gendered phrases in this context, although I agree with the posters who pointed out the difference between printed text and spoken, 'spontaneous' remarks.

Wow. Hillary must be losing really badly for Obama detractors to be reaching *this* far. Oh, wait...that's right. She is.

THE BARACK BEATDOWN MARCHES ON!

I think calling this sexist is reaching too far, especially if you listen to the WHOLE thing.

Picking out words like, "Periodically" to say he meant period is very paranoid and she go on the offense a lot and while he unites, she has that "let's go stump some Reds" attitude.

So, its not like he's off base.

never did he say over emotional or hint at it.

"Feeling down" is in no way an attack. when you lose do you feel great? No. When you lose and you start attacking people, is that sign of the awesome feelings flowing inside you?"

no.

oops. i said flowing..ya know flow.

ben and Jennifer,

Are you denying that Obama sounds patronizing in that sound clip? I think he sounds quite patronizing...

And Jennifer, just b/c some people hear some things in a sound clip that you don't, does *not* mean they are reaching. You should know Ann is an Obama supporter (I believe) yet she is the one saying these words are sexist, which pretty much nullifies your desire to invalidate some other people's complaint.

In fact, I'd say a lot of the rabid pro-Obama-could-not-possibly-have-said-anything-sexist-in-his-life (really? I mean, do you seriously think that kind of logic flies!?) people on this thread are essentially using the same logic that whites and men have used to deny paying more attention to marginalized groups' complaints throughout the later part of the 20th century. (e.g. the people I know who argue against affirmative action b/c they only understand racism as overt racism, and they've never witnessed that kind personally)

Once again, nothing a person does or says in their life means that at some point they could not semi-consciously/unconsciouisly promote a harmful stereotype. It happens a lot.

*sigh* Dear White Feminists,

Stop with the bullshit, already. We women of color are, frankly, tired of it.

Sincerely,
The Angry Black Woman

Are you denying that Obama sounds patronizing in that sound clip?

Not only am I denying it, I'm getting sick of this dog whistle feminism that sends rational women screaming in the opposite direction. Sweet merciful crap, are your lives so posh that you can just sit around LOOKING for shit to be pissed off about? I guess you'd really get mad at this, huh?

Feminism: goddamn it, I will MAKE it about me!

Oh, one other thing since Lauren apparently likes to censor voices that don't mesh with her "woe is me" rhetoric:

If you’ve never been told you are “ruled by your emotions� in a professional capacity, you probably wouldn’t get it either.

I have heard this - as a woman and as a black person. (Note to feminists: women of color are still women. Shocking, I know.) And I still think you're a shrieking harpy, Lauren, digging for something that isn't there.

And Jennifer (blahblahblah) You should know Ann is an Obama supporter (I believe) yet she is the one saying these words are sexist, which pretty much nullifies your desire to invalidate some other people's complaint.

See also: "I'm black, but..." and "I'm black, and..."

Feminism: fuck you, I AM a victim!

Tempest and Jennifer,

Jesus christ, what is it with the incredibly rude tones? This site is into pointing out sexism, both blatant and subtle.

And what is up with equating "white feminists" with priviliged all the time? I mean, sheesh, I grew up in a low-income community, I was abused some as a kid, I have friends (white, brown, etc.) who have been raped.

And who ever said women of color aren't women? And you /did/ say that only people against Obama could say this was sexist, more or less...

Heck, /I/ may be voting Obama, but I can still critique/criticize his comments, and it has /nothing/ to do with privilige. Maybe you are sitting in a priviliged place, to say that you don't care about sexist comments in politics/in the workplace? But I don't know you, so I won't assume anything...

And yes, Jennifer, I would say that youtube video you posted /is/ pretty offensive. I wouldn't hold Obama responsible b/c he didn't make it, but I'd say whoever did probably doesn't think very highly of women. You think that makes me priviliged? I'm so glad for you that you don't mind being called a "bitch" in a derogatory manner. Actually, not really. I think the lack of self-esteem is unfortunate...

/In fact/ while we're on the topic of privilige, who is the multi-millionaire who got a law degree at Harvard? (well, one of them, any how)

Do you think Obama is somehow overall less priviliged than moderate income white women?

If not, then how are we displaying privilige by criticizing him?

I guess what I'm getting at, is there are different sorts of privilige, and they interact in complex ways, and I hope you understand that if Obama was white, this comment would /still/ be seen as sexist by the same people people, and I think it's wrong of you to not allow other people their own analysis.

You are allowed to disagree about this being sexist, of course, but calling someone a "shrieking harpy" is not only sexist, but really showing a disinterest in anyone else's perspective. That is pretty anti-feminist theory, and won't fly very far on this blog. I imagine you get mad when people try and invalidate your perspective on issues important to you...

I mean, also just out of curiosity, where would /you/ draw the line? What is the subtlest kind of comment that women (white womenz, brown women, etc.) are allowed to comment on without being called dumbfucks?

You tell me, please.

And what is up with equating "white feminists" with priviliged all the time? I mean, sheesh, I grew up in a low-income community

*pulls out Bingo card* This should be fun, folks!

Feminism: we're all for women who think like us. If not, FUCK YOU, BITCH!

I love how you managed to ignore most of what I said Jennifer, to arrive at a conclusion that I did not even hint at.

Let's see, quoting you:
"Feminism: we're all for women who think like us. If not, FUCK YOU, BITCH!"

Quoting me:
"You are allowed to disagree about this being sexist, of course, but calling someone a "shrieking harpy" is not only sexist, but really showing a disinterest in anyone else's perspective."

Umm, /how/ do you get the first out of the second?

White low-income women might be priviged in that they're white, but they're sure not priviliged in that they're low-income and women. Just like Obama is priviliged in that he's rich and male, and not priviliged in his race. Why do you think you can simplify the issue?

I also like how a poster on your livejournal said this:

"On the real, though: will the REAL feminists please stand up...and then drag these bitches out to the parking lot and beat them."

I should hope to god the women on feministing wouldn't allow posters to say something like that about someone who disagreed with /them/.

Calling women "shrieking harpies" and then talking about beating women who disagree with you? How is that at all favorable to feminism or civil rights or any kind of equal rights movement?

And once again, I /really/, /really/ do want to know:

"I mean, also just out of curiosity, where would /you/ draw the line? What is the subtlest kind of comment that women (white womenz, brown women, etc.) are allowed to comment on without being called dumbfucks?

You tell me, please."

Please, please answer.

Please, please answer.

No.

Feminism: I'm an entitled white woman (or wish I was one)! GimmenownownowRIGHTNOWIWANTITNOWNOWNOWNOW!!!!!!

Wow.

I read a lot of the comments, but I will be honest and say I didn't. I just wonder if the Hillary: Sexism Watch has become that, looking for anything that could be sexist. It seems to me, after watching the video, that it seems to be falling into the stereotype of "anti-man/anything-he-says-is -sexist" type feminism. I have been following the Sexism Watch, and I agree that pretty much everything I have seen in the blog has been rather blatant sexism, but how far do we want to take it?