S
Sophia
Guest
http://www.sapphosbreathing.com/archives/000090.html
Politics and the petty sexism of progressive men
Today was the Democratic primary for mayor in my neck of the woods,
and in these woods, Democrats (and the rare Green)
are the only game in town.
Whoever wins the primary will win the general election in November.
There were three candidates, and my candidate came in a distant second.
Since Phaon and I were both involved in this candidate's campaign,
tonight we were "poll watchers,"
showing up at the polls at 9 p.m.
t
learn the numbers for each candidate.
By the time I drove from my poll to Phaon's
and we were in the car together, we knew our guy had lost.
We phoned in our numbers to "campaign headquarte
rs,"
the candidate's house, and we arrived there a few minutes later.
Other poll watchers and supporters started
to arrive,
and the mood was uncomfortably tense.
Our guy, who happens to have a Ph.D. in philosophy,
received more votes than the other male candidate (who is a dolt),
but the female candidate won with a 2:1 margin,
taking every district in the city.
It didn't take long, in this room of disappointed,
lefty men, for these comments to surface
(not from the candidate himself):
"Should have been born a woman."
"The people could've had rational discourse
if they wanted it.
But instead they have the first woman [mayor]."
(This announced loudly to the room.)<
br>
She wasn't the best candidate; that's why I didn't support her.
But I believe she won because she has name recognition
and a public presence, and a lot of people know her and like her.
She has solid progressive politics. I'm sure she'll do a fine job.
Why jump to the easy "affirmative action" excuse
that she won because she's a woman
and not because people believe she will be the best ma
yor?
Why be so petty?
She has a clear mandate now.
She is our first woman mayor.
But why think that she was elected because she's a woman?
And why say - as a few people did tonight -
that women voted for her because she's a woman?
As a woman and a feminist, I'm insulted.
Sexism is too easy, and I'm disheartened when men
who would claim to be feminist allies
fall readily into its arms.
Women never win power just because we are women.
Men, on the other hand, carry the presumption of power,
whether social or physical or intellectual.
In philosophy, when female graduate students
go on the job market
and are lucky enough to get inte
rviews or jobs,
at least some of their disgruntled male peers -
and some of their professors, too -
will say that female candidates fare better
because universities need to make affirmative-action hires.
A woman's success in philosophy often carries the mark -
the suspicion - of special trea
tment based on sex.
Yet from graduate school to the tenure track to tenure,
the percentage of women in philosophy decreases.
Women may be interviewed disproportionately
(I don't know if that is true),
but the numbers show that they don't receive jobs
disproportionately, and they certainly don't get promoted
at the same rate as their male colleagues.
Sexism in philosophy p
ersists and continues to exclude
and marginalize women.
To point to the fortunate women as examples
of women's general success,
or to claim that successful women benefit from
"r
everse sexism" at the expense of equally-
or better-qualified men,
is to sacrifice truth to baseless, if compelling, ideology.
Posted by Cleis at September 9, 2003 10:48 PM | TrackBack
Politics and the petty sexism of progressive men
Today was the Democratic primary for mayor in my neck of the woods,
and in these woods, Democrats (and the rare Green)
are the only game in town.
Whoever wins the primary will win the general election in November.
There were three candidates, and my candidate came in a distant second.
Since Phaon and I were both involved in this candidate's campaign,
tonight we were "poll watchers,"
showing up at the polls at 9 p.m.
t
learn the numbers for each candidate.
By the time I drove from my poll to Phaon's
and we were in the car together, we knew our guy had lost.
We phoned in our numbers to "campaign headquarte
rs,"
the candidate's house, and we arrived there a few minutes later.
Other poll watchers and supporters started
to arrive,
and the mood was uncomfortably tense.
Our guy, who happens to have a Ph.D. in philosophy,
received more votes than the other male candidate (who is a dolt),
but the female candidate won with a 2:1 margin,
taking every district in the city.
It didn't take long, in this room of disappointed,
lefty men, for these comments to surface
(not from the candidate himself):
"Should have been born a woman."
"The people could've had rational discourse
if they wanted it.
But instead they have the first woman [mayor]."
(This announced loudly to the room.)<
br>
She wasn't the best candidate; that's why I didn't support her.
But I believe she won because she has name recognition
and a public presence, and a lot of people know her and like her.
She has solid progressive politics. I'm sure she'll do a fine job.
Why jump to the easy "affirmative action" excuse
that she won because she's a woman
and not because people believe she will be the best ma
yor?
Why be so petty?
She has a clear mandate now.
She is our first woman mayor.
But why think that she was elected because she's a woman?
And why say - as a few people did tonight -
that women voted for her because she's a woman?
As a woman and a feminist, I'm insulted.
Sexism is too easy, and I'm disheartened when men
who would claim to be feminist allies
fall readily into its arms.
Women never win power just because we are women.
Men, on the other hand, carry the presumption of power,
whether social or physical or intellectual.
In philosophy, when female graduate students
go on the job market
and are lucky enough to get inte
rviews or jobs,
at least some of their disgruntled male peers -
and some of their professors, too -
will say that female candidates fare better
because universities need to make affirmative-action hires.
A woman's success in philosophy often carries the mark -
the suspicion - of special trea
tment based on sex.
Yet from graduate school to the tenure track to tenure,
the percentage of women in philosophy decreases.
Women may be interviewed disproportionately
(I don't know if that is true),
but the numbers show that they don't receive jobs
disproportionately, and they certainly don't get promoted
at the same rate as their male colleagues.
Sexism in philosophy p
ersists and continues to exclude
and marginalize women.
To point to the fortunate women as examples
of women's general success,
or to claim that successful women benefit from
"r
everse sexism" at the expense of equally-
or better-qualified men,
is to sacrifice truth to baseless, if compelling, ideology.
Posted by Cleis at September 9, 2003 10:48 PM | TrackBack