"Baby mama".
We all know Fox News went there. I can't say it any better than this:
To everybody who cares about Obama’s racial identity, either positively or negatively, the man is a black man, married to a black woman, who has black children. Black black black black black black black black.
It sure as hell matters to Fox News, which is why it’s dog whistling about Barack so loudly that it’s vibrating the windows.
Calling Michelle Obama a “baby mama” isn’t just Fox News having a happy casual larf; it’s using urban slang to
a) remind you the Obamas are black,
b) belittle a woman of considerable personal accomplishment, and
c) frame Barack Obama’s relationship to his wife and children in a way that insults him, minimizes his love for and commitment to his family, and reinforces stereotypes about black men.
Someone at Fox News just ought to call Barack Obama “boy” at some point so we can have all the cards right out there on the table.
Or the N-word, perhaps. It really is quite curious.
Racist is as racist does.
Still, there's one question I'd like answered.
Will all the White women who hollered about the sexism thrown at Hillary please
stand up for Michelle Obama?
Hey, Geraldine! I'm hearing crickets!
The problem is that some feminists (certainly those who are most concerned with "glass ceiling" issues, and least concered -- or well versed -- in matters affecting poor women or women of color) have allowed themselves to effectively become organizations concerned about white women.
We have become tragically ignorant as a country. Some of us study the issue of racism, but don't know a darned thing about sexism. Some of us study sexism, but don't have a clue about racism, and some of us ignore poverty altogether.
And then there are those who write for FOX TV.
I hope the feminists I speak of (the NOW feminists) prove me wrong, but I don't think they really "get" that racism is a problem and that Michelle Obama will be doubly set upon because she dares to be black and a woman and intelligent and strong.
Yes, I hope they do prove me wrong. I think Michelle Obama is an amazing woman, and her lack of silence and her forthrightness about this country which she loves (and so dares to be clear-headed about, as a patriot should be) has much to teach white feminists.
June 13, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful comment, BTW.
Scientific, beautiful post. You bring a great perspective to TPM and I always make it a point to read your posts. Haven't seen one yet that I don't agree with.
June 13, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
ditto
June 14, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
They won't prove you wrong. They'll be silent like they always are on matters such as this. Take the Imus thing, the only time white feminist stood up was to say, "Some of the girls weren't even black!".
June 14, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't bother to check that assumption did you? NOW was the first organization to speak out about Imus, Kim Gandy met with MSNBC executives to demand that Imus be fired, within a few days, NOW organized a letter writing campaign to the radio stations and cable station that carried Imus, not once but twice, once before he issued his apology and second when his employers refused to fire him, generating over 20,000 letters to MSNBC. I remember Kim Gandy on tv demanding that Imus be fired and not once did she ever say anything remotely like you suggest she did. I don't remember any feminist saying that. I also remember NOW leading the battle on Title 9 that assured that basketball team the same funding given men's teams.
June 14, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not true at all. NOW didn't say anything until almost a week or two after it had blown up in the black blogosphere and black media.
June 14, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not true. Imus made his comments on April 4, 2007 and by April 8, 2007 NOW initiated a "Take Action" alert generating over 10,000 letters within 72 hours. They then protested the two week suspension with the "Dump Imus" campaign and generated over 20,000 letters. Of course NOW had a campaign to rid the airwaves of Don Imus for his sexist comments long before the Rutgers U. team was insulted. You didn't know that, did you?
June 14, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know anything about NOW, do you? You didn't even bother to research the organization.
It's really a shame that people who are completely ignorant of one of the hardest working, liberal and compassionate groups feel free to criticize and attack it, repeating over and over the righwing conservative talking points of those who would like nothing better than to destroy that group's influence on legislation and legislators in DC for women's and minorities' issues.
And why? Because NOW had the temerity, the audacity to endorse Clinton and so they must be punished - you don't know anything about their work, you don't know anything about the issues and policies they support, you don't know anything about their past history or their current history, but you heard somewhere that is was an organization for old, rich white women, which was the mantra of the wingnuts for the last decade, so you parrot it, hoping you can do as much damage as possible to it.
June 14, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stop with the facts, BevD.
White feminists don't care about black women. That's the story we're all supposed to go along with now, for some reason.
June 14, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because the Independent Women's Forum, a rightwing group has been promoting this meme for a decade now - feminist organizations are only for rich, white women. They call it "Take Back The Campus", I call it stealth warfare on feminists.
June 14, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You rock, BevD.
June 14, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is real simple, BevD. Link to the story.
And don't take this as a challenge. This is actually a story I would like to read, because it certainly has gone under the radar.
June 14, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would you think I didn't read the article? I read every article he linked to in his essay or I would not have commented.
June 14, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is quite clear that women's organizations have supported racial equality. But the thing that was so disturbing about the democratic race was the extent to which the Clinton camp didn't seem to care about whether it was damaging feminism by its "for us or against us" mentality. It inadvertently, and this is a good thing, opened up the question, on a very large stage, what does feminism(s) stand for?
"Hillary is NOW Damaging Feminism"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/page/3/
June 14, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, yeah. Hillary Clinton has damaged feminism. That's laughable.
June 14, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There are as many feminisms as there are feminists"...are you serious? You know what is wrong with this? Women are always expected to take everyone else's needs and put them before their own. "Feminisms" is now about securing rights for every other group except themselves, yet, since the very beginning of the movement when women put aside their own pursuits to work for abolition, no other group has ever supported women and women's rights.
I never see any other group asked to give up their goals to work for another's. Never has any black civil rights organization worked for women's rights, no one has ever asked them to give up their fight to work for immigrants' rights, they've never been asked to work for gays' rights, they've never been asked to work to secure abortion rights, yet women's groups are asked all the time to do so. And they always have done so.
June 14, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ridley, today, wrote a great piece about this on Huffington Post's political blog.
HuffPo also has a most-viewed piece about E.D. Hill or whatever her name is (I don't watch Fox) introducing her body language expert to explain the "terrorist fist bump", wherein Ms. Hill never bothers to even explain why she chose to call it a "terrorist fist bump".
I sometimes give a mock salute to my boss when I pass him in the hallway. I sometimes give a peace sign to a driver who thanks me for letting them merge in to the lane in front of me. I give a high five to every kid I meet (and they all know what a high five is and I swear it must be one of the first things they learn).
But I never call my mock salute to my boss a "terrorist mock salute". I never call my peace sign a "terrorist peace sign" (as IF??), and I never say to a little kid, "Give me a terrorist high five, kiddo."
June 13, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the tip about Ridley's piece; I've added it to my entry for this piece on my blog. And the "terrorist fist jab" has become a running joke in my office and with friends. It's so ridiculous at this point.
LisB, thanks for the kind remarks. Please read my blog and comment there as well. I'd love the feedback!
June 13, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Scientific. This whole episode makes me so angry, I want to boycott every advertiser on Fox News. And that, by the way, is the only way to get their attention.
I am waiting, but getting impatient, for women to start standing up for Michelle. Waiting, waiting, waiting . . .
June 13, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do they publish a list or do you actually have to -- shudder!! -- WATCH Fox News to know who is advertising on there??
June 14, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scientific, this is about the best, concise critical analysis of what Fox (and others) are doing with race and language in this (and other) instance(s).
Good work.
(And I like your rhetorical question at the end; another very good point.)
P.S.: Why don't you change your avatar? It has a real punky-brat look, which is almost like setting your caps lock on. But your statements are often more mature than I anticipate. There is an incongruity between the two, and I think your words would be better served if not served up by a punky brat kid who's having a huffy fit. Just a suggestion, from a cute black kitten.
(Okay, never mind.)
June 13, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! The avatar is the character Huey from the comic strip The Boondocks. It's one of my favorite series, and Huey reminds me a lot of myself as a kid. That's the main reason I chose it. (Also, it seems to stand out from other avatars, and I'm not too keen on putting my photo on this site.)
I'd hope people don't read too much into it. But thanks for the thought.
June 13, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the avatar just fine. Kids are often far more direct and honest than adults, and it's seemed to me that your posts try to reflect your view of the world with similar directness. I don't see it as detracting from what you write at all.
I'd say you should keep it. But then I prefer fairly static avatars anyhow: it makes it easier to identify who is saying what.
June 14, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm keeping it.
June 14, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to always think that Scientific hits it right on, as I do this time. But I have to admit, I am very weary of fighting the feminist cause that also combats racism on TPM. There are a few strident white feminists (and some of the are black, at least they say they are) who just can't see beyond what they perceive as sexism in this election to see blatant racism. It's the old "white women before black men" issue. In my view, a rising tide raises all boats. But there are some women who are so angry and so blinded by what they see as mistreatment of HRC that they almost relish watching the same thing happen to Michelle Obama (okay, drumroll, here comes Dijama riding her white horse of anger and bitterness). What they fail to see is the double jeopardy that Michelle Obama faces, which means we must work doubly hard to defend her. Like I said, I agree with LisB that your posts are always dead on. Thanks for that. The Obamas are facing all new territory, and we need to support them against the onslaught that is sure to come.
June 13, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've said everything I believe. I hope that someone can come up with a positive way to counter these attacks on Michelle because I fear they will be brutal. Any suggestions? Thanks.
June 14, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me they've crossed the line so far that no one should be subtle in confronting them head on. The Obamas represent everything the hypocrites on the right demand of black families. They worked hard. They went to college. They got jobs. They got married. Then they had children. That's family values and if the right wants to take that image and drag it through the mud then they ought to be called on it early and often in language as explicit as possible.
June 14, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to see it as the old "white women who don't know anything about the early movement who seem to think that it was about 'white women before black men' because they don't bother and probably won't bother to do more than a cursory wikipedia search and therefore do not understand the underlying principles and issues that were of importance at the time the decision was made to separate from the Equal Rights Association and form their own organization to promote suffrage for women too and not just men and think the evidence of absence is absence of evidence because it they don't see it, it doesn't exist and believe that anyone who stands up for the feminist movement and the women who worked so hard and so long to bring about equal rights are just AWW and because they have the vote think that the feminist movement shouldn't identify and point out obvious sexism and if they do don't understand that it is really all about racism and women should keep quiet about sexism because it makes them look so, well, angry, and that's not a very attractive quality for women to show and besides they don't have the right to be angry because no one else sees any sexism and let's not point out how really sexist and contemptuous of women "baby mama" is" kind of thing.
June 14, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, yeah, they will!
I'm sure the right-wing noise machine plans to do to Michelle the same thing they did to Hillary when she was about to become the nation's first lady. Fox thinks they have a bonus this time--they get to use sexism and racism.
What I'm dearly hoping for is that Fox (and the rest of the noise machine) will soon begin to look uglier, more cartoonish, and more irrelevant to greater numbers of Americans. Then all this crap will backfire on them.
The younger generations are coming of age. Those of us in the middle are evolving and moving on. Hopefully, within a few years, Fox and Rush et al will have only the dead-end old-timers and completely irredeemable bigots as their only audience.
June 13, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
See a pattern here, Laura?
June 14, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a post over at Daily Kos discussing Rove's involvement with the right wing 527's and saying that so far just one of them, repulsively named `Freedom's Watch` has about $200 million to spend.
Hopefully this will get publicity in the press and the MSM - it needs to. As some of the GOP are aware,
“Karl is an advantage and a disadvantage,” one strategist said. “If Karl can give quiet counsel, that’s helpful. But the more public he is, the more you feed the Democratic fodder that this is the third coming of George W. Bush. Karl has a lot of baggage.”
Another prominent GOP consultant dubbed Rove a “two-edged sword. Don’t forget, he’s the architect who got us in this mess.”
So try spreading it around the net as much as you can.
In the meantime, regardless of Obama's admonitions to the contrary, I'm pinning all my hopes on Soros outspending them with a 527 of his own.
The man made over a billion killing on the London stock exchange overnight some years ago. Hopefully he'll think it worth giving some of it back now.
June 14, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Want to compare potential 1st ladies? The media needs to discuss Cindy McCain's drug addiction/theft history pre-rehab. Also accused of shoplifting. Are these really the qualities we want in our 'First Lady'?.....I don't think so. WE WILL BE STAYING ON THIS ONE !!!!!!!!!!
Greg Jones
www.Blacks4Barack.org
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...Dedicated To TRUTH !
June 14, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to go there. It's negative and defeats Obama's message. I can stand up for Michelle Obama without denigrating Cindy McCain.
June 14, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know . . . that blank stare permanently afixed to Cindy McCain's face gives me the creeps. There's something wierd about her and it makes me think there's something wierd about McCain, too. I think the way McCain seems to really believe he's squeaky clean despite his checkered past (Keating Five, etc.) is somehow related to that blank stare on Cindy McCain's face. There's some kind of suppression of reality that's going on in that family that makes me think they're dangerous--that they could do anything because they're so good at denying reality, through self-delusion and, if necessary, drugs.
Contrast that wierd empty stare with the real and endearing affection Barack and Michelle demonstrate for each other in their little fist pumps. Mr & Mrs Obama seem like real people who are truly engaged with each other and with life. Mr & Mrs McCain, on the other hand, seem like scary hollow shells when they're together, not quite connected to each other or to reality.
June 14, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I repeat, this type of negativity is not conducive to Obama's goal and the 'change' we all state we want and need in our political arenas.
June 14, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to go there and it goes against Obama's message. We can stand up for Michelle Obama without denigrating and going negative on Cindy McCain.
June 14, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is fox screaming "NIGGER" loud and clear. The fact that that this isn't THE story tells you that they can jerk us around with impunity. "I don't see nothin' or hear nothin'" will be the press mantra every time they pull this shit unless we scream to high heaven EVERY time it happens.
June 14, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle Obama: Be Not Afraid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqCYFpUAJ2Q
This clip from Iowa was the first time I'd seen Michelle speak. Seems like ages ago, but watching it again is a fresh reminder of how much good stuff she brings to this contest.
As more and more Americans get the opportunity to hear Michelle, what they'll notice is not that she's black, but that she's adamantly, eloquently unafraid. Black, white and brown are all gettin' plain tired of being told how afraid we oughta be. When I heard Michelle give voice to this sentiment, I knew I'd gotten on the right bus.
June 14, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hello, Scientific,
I'm new here and I love Huey. I'm one of those Hillary supporters who will stand up and spit in Fox's eye over the fist bump issue.
On the baby mama line, I tend to think that Fox was trying to brand the Obamas as black (does anyone not know?) or they thought they were being cool. The first, of course, is outrageous and racist. If the second was their true intent, then they need to hire a black person to review their copy for ignorant statements.
While I will stand up to any sexism or racism that I see directed against Michelle, I have to wonder why she didn't offer Hillary that kind of kindness or decency. And you, Scientific, did you ever stand up for Hillary? I'm just curious.
June 14, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me for jumping in here - but did Hillary offer 'that kind of kindness or decency' to Michelle? Just curious.
And yes, I did stand up for Hillary when I was aware of any sexist jabs, just as I would for any woman.
P.S. Thanks for contributing and Welcome to TPM!
June 14, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you find any example of Hillary Clinton not being gracious and kind to the Obamas? From the first time they came to Washington and before that when she campaigned for him in his senate run, she offered her support even holding several fund raisers for Obama one of which was in her home, introducing him to influential people in D.C. and encouraging others to support him. So the answer is yes, Clinton was gracious and kind to the Obamas.
June 14, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was addressing the 'racist-sexism' (during campaign) issues of this post. I know that Clintons did extend support within the arena you referenced.
June 14, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been standing up for the Clintons, especially her, since the '90s. I decried the sexism when it came about, but rightly held her feet to the fire during this campaign for the dirt she did.
All of that is besides the point. We're talking about the Obamas here.
June 14, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scientific,
There are PLENTY of women standing up for Michelle - many of us admire her completely. Her female fans are legion. We are all over the web, and being very vocal within our various social groups. I, for one, have also been hammering the media with letters.
This doesn't sit well with any of us! I can't speak for Hillary supporters, but there were so many female Obama supporters that the noise will be very loud.
Additionally, while many women may have a healing period ahead of them in terms of being enthusiastic for Barack - just see how motivated they get if these right wing-nut jobs continue attacking Michelle. That will unite them in the healthier direction very quickly.
June 14, 2008 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scientific,
We are already supporting Michelle Obama, and will continue to do so. See proof of this on Theda's thread from yesterday and the day before. Ironically, one of the people we have to defend her against is a TPM poster, Dijamo, who styles herself as a black woman, yet has an ugly "eye for an eye" revenge syndrome going against Michelle; she posits that because Hillary was allegedly victimized, so should Michelle be.
I agree, absolutely with thinkingcaringperson who thinks that women will support Michelle in two waves: 1)We Obama supporters who do think Michelle is being subjected to both sexism and racism, are already in her corner. 2) Next will be those women who truly believed Hillary was the victim of sexism, but who will realize, as a matter of comparison, that the double barrel attacks aimed at Michelle are far worse.
The call to support Michelle must come from men as well. We must be united in saying this.is.unacceptable. Period End.
Thank you for your post.
June 14, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Allow me to interject here and repost my response to you from yesteray.
Please note I never said Michelle Obama is not worthy of support and protection. I said our failure to speak up as a party with a vigorous defense of Hillary when she faced sexist attacks has reduced our standing to cry foul for Michelle Obama. You can't turn a blind eye one day and then come rallying to the cuase without people seeing right through your hypocrisy and calling you on it.
When Hillary was Bill Clinton's wife she went through the same crap Michelle Obama will go through because they are both strong intelligent women who seem not likely to bow down in the face of attacks. I wish Michelle Obama the best of luck and while I will not condone those attacks, I will speak up vociferously and expose the hypocrisy of those who think they determine which women should be respected and which should be thrown to the wolves.
We all rely on those who came before us to pave the way and Hilalry paved the way for what Michelle Obama will be piut through. Of course Hillary became a polarizing bitch because she refused to back down. Perhaps Michelle Obama will find a way to make it through the misogynistic attacks unscathed. But please note those Obama supporters who were silent in the face of sexism against Hillary Clinton have made it harder for us to confront those attacks on Michelle when they happen.
And that's what happens when you rely on situational ethics - destroy Hillary by any means necessary even if it means violating that code of respect for all people that Democrats used to stand for.
Once you head down that road, it's pretty hard to turn back and the people you left behind and told you the party was losing its way will be mighty pissed. Don't expect a welcome home party for Michelle Obama's defenders (who are not feminists and are defending her honor rather than demanding respect for all women) from the feminists who have been smeared and demonized and radicalized and called racist simply for expecting that the first female with a serious chance of winning the presidency should have had more support in the face of the sexist and misogynistic attacks upon her.
June 14, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
And again just to make it even MORE clear. I have never said Michelle Obama should be attacked. I said she WILL be attacked just as Hillary was when Bill was running becaus ethey are both strong, intelligent women with a mind of their own. We as democrats have less authority to stand up to the GOP sexism and smears because significant parts of the democratic party stood silent or participated when Hillary was attacked on gender.
So yes I ma for the radical theory that ALL women should be reated with respect - not just black women and not just the ones we like. I despise Condoleeza Rice and Katherine Harris but can express my disgust in ways other than attacking them on gender. It's called principle.
Those who particpated in sexist attacks on Senator Clinton o stood silent have zero moral authority to wave the feminist flag for Michelle Obama.
June 14, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
If/when Hillary Clinton is subjected to something as offensive being called "baby mama" in a streaming headling on national (if ridiculous, in the case of FOX) television, I'll be just as outraged for her as I am for Michelle. However, I can't recall anything of the supposed list of sexist attacks on Hillary that came even close.
(And, yes, I'm including the comment about "pimping Chelea" --- that was a reference, admittedly crude, to parents "using" their child for a political purpose, having her embarass or charm superdelegates into endorsing her mother .. at the same time she was being protected as someone not involved in the campaign and therefore not available for questioning by the press. In other words, it was a description, however poorly stated, of a reality. ------- There is nothing remotely realistic about calling Michelle a "baby mama" It was done simply to smear and to degrade her in both a sexist and racist manner.
June 14, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't think of anything that came close to that? Hmmm...let's see, Mike Barnicle claiming that Clinton was every ex-wife standing in front of probate court, Mathews calling her supporters the castrata chorus, the nutcracker Clinton doll, the Shuster comment that she was pimping out her daughter, Carlson claiming that everytime he heard her voice he had to cross his legs, or Monica Crowley stating that Clinton will cut off men's manhood, or any of the other hundreds of comments made since 1992 about the Clintons including Clinton murdering Vince Foster and her intimidation of so-called bimbos.
June 14, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And lets not forget Bos before Hoes t-shirts at Obama allies. Keeping it classy!
June 14, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does that have to do with Michelle Obama? This is exactly what we don't need right now. We all knew about those few idiots - I'm talking about a major national news network doing this. Let's keep perspective.
June 14, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a matter of fact, I do NOT find those as offensive as what was said/done to Michelle.
Look, Hillary Clinton was doing everything she could to convince the world that she was scrappy, a fighter, never quit, tough enough to "obliterate Iran" etc., etc. If some men reacted to that by remembering their ex-wives - and said so, it's too bad -- but it is NOT totally unrelated to how she was acting (I'm an ex-wife myself, so I know). If a man was acting as gung-ho and beligerant perhaps some women reporters would have reacted and called him "abusive" or a "caveman" or something like that -- which just as sexist but would also be related to his behavior.
None of the examples you note were as totally unrelated as 'baby mama' is to Michelle Obama .... her only connection to what she was called is that she is black and a woman (or a woman with children, if you want to be technical). That's it. And that's what sexism - and racism - really is, at its core, the kind worth fighting and fighting hard. It's when someone is degraded simply for being wrong gender or wrong color and NOTHING ELSE ABOUT THEM MATTERS.
Using a sex-related or race-related term to describe what they are actually doing isn't pretty and it isn't being PC or particularly imaginative, but it is not discrimnating against someone *because* of their sex or race.)
There is a difference - a very real difference. I'm sorry if you can't see it because several of you seem very determined to fight sexism, which is admirable. Anyone who wants to fight prejudice has to learn to pick their battles. Some idiots holding up an "Iron my shirt" sign just makes the people holding the sign look like idiots -- ------- A news organization "officially" designating someone as something unrelated and unsavory in a headling is a whole other matter. The first can be dealt with by a little ridicule or simply being ignored; the latter is something very much fighting.
June 14, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to both you, Caringthinkingperson and laurajordan. All I needed to hear was a big "Hell yeah", and you both came through brilliantly. Good posts!
June 14, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks - I'm glad to hear you're already on the front lines, so to speak. I appreciate you reading the post.
June 14, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem here is that the demographic that FOX is targeting a) likely doesn't understand the reference and b) is quite likely to be turned off by the response -- especially the way FOX will ultimately spin it:
1. Hey, what's the big deal? We don't understand all this "hip hop jargon."
2. Look at how angry these people are in denouncing our simple mistake!
3. Come to think of it, why is there even a word with that meaning in the black culture?
4. Wow, black people have so many problems, yet they complain when we call attention to them.
5. Given the problems in the black community and the Obamas' overly sensitive refusal to acknowledge them or even have them spoken of, how can he deliver change?
I suspect you'll see this over and over again: seemingly "innocent" commentary that is designed to whip up a frothy debate on cable news. If you can get B-roll footage of angry black men protesting and Hannity can compare them to Muslims upset at Danish cartoons, then you can start to erode Obama's support among white independents and sympathetic right-wingers who happen to watch FOX. Not at all sure what the antidote is here...
June 14, 2008 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the more likely intent is to motivate soft McCain support by the same process.
June 14, 2008 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hey, what's the big deal? We don't understand all this "hip hop jargon."
They'll have a hard one playing that one. The first time I ever HEARD that particular 'hip hop jargon' was from FOX itself! It's not a combination of words you would stumble on naturally.
June 14, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, Scientific.
Until the end, maybe. I don't know if it's fair for you to tell "white feminists" what they should be outraged about.
Because here's the thing -- when these white feminists stood up for Hillary, Obama's supporters jumped all over them. So why should they care a wit about Michelle Obama now? See, you're saying they're hypocrites if they don't. But it's just as fair to say that the people who were critical of Gloria Steinem or Geraldine Ferraro when they stood up for Hillary are pretty hypocritcal to call on them to help Michelle now.
June 14, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it depends on how they were standing up for Hillary.
It's one thing to support Senator Clinton's candidacy. It's one thing to even get a little overzealous in one's support for a candidate (regrettable, but understandable)...that is, as long as you're sticking to the Politics of it.
But that's not what Mrs. Ferraro did. She brought race into the equation, using it as a tool of division and reduction. I have no truck with any poster who blasted Geraldine Ferraro for losing her racist mind all those months ago.
Any white feminists who defended Ferraro, but now stand silent as Michelle Obama is attacked do have a lot to answer for. There's your dividing line of hypocrisy.
June 14, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle Obama stood by silently while Hillary dealt with a sexist media so I don't see how people can ask Hillary's supporters to stand up for Michelle now.
June 14, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then don't be surprised when some people refer to these same "feminists" as racists.
June 14, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. And what does that make Michelle Obama who stood by silently while Hillary was pilloried by sexist attack after sexist attack?
June 14, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be trite, but assuming you are correct in your premise - you agree 'two wrongs make a right'? If we condone and engage in adjusting our reactions/actions to others negative processes, how will we ever obtain a positive climate for change?
June 14, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kind of a convenient argument there.
You have to earn help. If Michelle Obama wants Gloria Steinem to stick up for her then Michelle Obama should have stuck up for Hillary. Barack should have too.
Here's the thing, Hillary didn't lose because of sexism but neither of the Obama's really did anything about it, either. They let it happen. Now Michelle needs help?
June 14, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again I ask: If we condone and engage in adjusting our reactions/actions to others negative processes, how will we ever obtain a positive climate for change?
June 14, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should they care?
Because there's a possibility that John McCain stands to be elected the next President of the United States if they don't.
Reason enough for me.
(Lastly, I love it when people condemn "Obama supporters" - like every person that voted for Obama felt the way you assert. That's a gross assumption, and it invalidates a lot of your point. And if you deem what Geraldine Ferraro was doing "standing up for Hillary", you need to wake up. She was doing Hillary no favors.)
June 14, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed regarding keeping McCain out of the White House.
Sorry for generalizing about Obama supporters. But it's hard not to do when you say "will all the White women who hollered about sexism..."
You're generalizing too.
As for Ferraro: She was ineffective, for good reason and she should have thought before she shouted. Her heart was in the right place, though. The woman is no racist.
June 14, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
How is "all the White women who hollered about sexism..." generalizing? Just because I can't say that there's a definitive number of them? Saying "all White women" would be generalizing. And besides - there's nothing critical in that phrase, or in the question. It's a challenge, and it's encouraging to see how many women in here that say that they are ready to answer the call.
Ferraro had every right to defend her friend, but she crossed the line. I'm sure a lot of people's hearts "are in the right place" when they do terrible stuff. (Please. That is such an incredibly weak excuse for what was inherently racist behavior.) And I think it's a big reason why we won't hear word one from Ferraro defending Michelle Obama from similarly sexist remarks.
June 14, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"hollering about sexism" seems pretty pejorative. But, fine, it's a challenge. But it's also a challenge that Michelle Obama failed at -- what did she do to criticize the sexist treatment that Hillary received in the media? Nothing. She left Hillary to deal with it on her own. So, Michelle can deal with it too.
I guess this is the root of my problem with your challenge -- you want the feminist establishment to stand up for Michelle Obama? First convince me that she's done her part for feminism.
And no, Ferraro isn't a racist. I find it sad that it's become acceptable to say she is.
June 14, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does "baby mama" belittle Michelle Obama? Are you saying that it reduces women to little more than hos and bitches and baby factories? It doesn't even occur to you how contemptuous, how filthy, how sexist this is, does it? You see it in terms of how it affects you, a black male - how demeaning it is to Obama, how it reinforces stereotypes of black males, that it reminds people that the "Obamas are black", to you it's a racist comment when it really has nothing to do with race and everything to do with how women are perceived in this society.
This doesn't reinforce stereotypes of black males, this reinforces the stereotypes black males have of women.
June 14, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are seriously asking this?
And, newsflash, of course it's sexist, but it is racist as well, and its time you get your head out of whatever cloud you're floating in.
I know that the only thing that matters to you is how women are treated in this world, but racism matters too, because some of us have live and breathe this in our daily lives. Black women as well as men are in the front lines of this every day. And if someone, be it a person or a news organization is going to take racially tinged shots like this, then we're not going to check their gender card first before we get outraged. We'd appreciate similar ferocity from the Feminist side of the side. Apparently, this is too much to ask of you.
This comment not only reduced Michelle, but it also reduced the Obamas as a couple, a black couple who have done things the right way, and are still belittled for it by the same sexist/racist media you have been railing (rightfully) against.
June 14, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really don't get it, do you? This doesn't have a damned thing to do with Obama, which you and Fox seem to think it has - it does have everything to do with the perception of women as "baby mamas" which I didn't know was a reference to black women only. Why does this "reduce Obama" - because it insinuates he's married to a ho?
"They've done things the right way"? So what does that make women who don't get married and have babies?
Keep digging the hole and blaming feminists for this - you know those feminists you are so sure are racists although you really don't know that, you've just been told that.
June 14, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nowhere in that post, nor in mine, were feminists blamed for anything. Read it again.
June 14, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for going completely off the deep end.
Sigh. Read my post. You can see exactly what I said.
You seem to have a really nasty habit for reading far too much into my posts. I make the point that the comment was sexist with my question at the end! My goodness! So, unless I make it all about gender, and not anything about race - even though it obviously was about both - you're not happy. Sheesh.
Do us both a favor - stop reading and responding to my posts. You wreck the discussion with your far-out theories about what my posts actually mean, when in fact, it's plain for everyone to see. Everyone but you, it seems. And it seems that I couldn't post "I love puppies" without somehow setting you off, so hey - why not save yourself the trouble?
And I'm not even asserting that in order for you to understand my points that you need to agree with them. But don't twist my point into something that you can get angry about, seemingly in service of some strange, confrontational urge that you quite obviously have.
You're exactly the kind of person I'm asking that question of at the end of my post, and it's evident that your answer is "no."
June 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here’s a quick test on whether Obama should be considered fully black: Poof! Barack Obama has been magically transported to a KKK meeting in deepest, whitest Klanistan without his Secret Service detail.
The Klan determines racial identities in the US?
June 14, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Folks, I really appreciate the commentary on this post, both positive and (constructively) negative.
If you like what I've been writing, please take a moment to visit my actual blog, 1,369 lightbulbs. I hope you enjoy what you see there.
I'll continue to cross-post some of my thoughts here at TPM. Thanks for reading.
June 14, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, you make a good ppoint however I must point out one thing.
I personally criticized Ferraro because in her attacks against sexism she said that Obama would have lost long ago if he weren't black.
I question a persons merits as a person who is out there fighting the good fight for equality when they will say that a black mans accomplishments are only achieved because of his race.
I just feel she was hypocritical in saying this while trying to say a womens accomplishments were being belittled because she is a women.
June 14, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair point. Look, I'm not proud of Ferarro. I just think she got carried away and spoke without thinking. I don't think it's fair to call her a racist. Good people say stupid things sometimes.
June 14, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think she's racist either. I do think she was insensitive in putting one groups problems over another.
I think as Obama supporters we are overly sensitive to this topic because the argument gives the less informed voter the idea that Obamas' nomination was somehow illegitimate. This election is too important for anything to stand in the way of Mcains loss.
June 14, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see where you're coming from. Thanks for guiding me along!
June 14, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
My upbringing taught me that using such phrases even when accurate is incredibly low-class behavior. I think I'd rather see my daughter on a girls gone wild commercial before seeing her face next to that ticker.
I can't help but wonder what kind of collective upbringing resides at Fox News that produced a ticker on a national cable news network - that describes our next first lady as such.
June 14, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is surprising that so many trailers have cable.
June 14, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we have digital satellite to thank.
June 14, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem I have here is that of course I was immediately outraged to hear this comment being used to describe Michelle Obama. Not only is it insulting and ignorant on many levels but I really, genuinely like Michelle Obama. She is very intelligent, real, and classy. So perhaps like some Hillary supporters have done with comments made about her, I have taken this comment by Fox a little more personally.
As I have found statements by Fox News regularly offensive, outrageous, fabricated, inflammatory, and designed to create attention, ratings, and response however negatively, I don't really know how to express outrage in any way that would be understood or comprehended by Fox News. The way I feel about Fox News is very similar to how I feel about George Bush... there isn't much either of them could have to say that is worth listening to. After so much violation from both I have gotten to the point where just considering the source is enough to invalidate anything said. They have NO credibility with me. I assume Fox would just love and eat up outrage in response to their comments as if it feeds the ignorant monster. So, I guess my question is how can I use my energy in a way that would take Fox to task, really? I am open to suggestions. I just think it's like trying to reason with George Bush... Maybe my energy is better directed at trying to fight for more regulation of media ownership and fighting for better education for all...
June 14, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink