Alright, this is pretty priceless. According to the CNN Ticker, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh (although who takes that guy seriously anymore?) believe that Obama's recent nominee to the Supreme Court is racist.
Apparently in one of her speeches, Sotomayor said "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Gingrich interpreted this as being in the same vein as someone who would say something like "my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman."
He clearly is not seeing his privilege in making these kind of comments. Nor is he understanding at all what Sotomayor was saying in her speech. Her speech was about how lived experience can inform judicial opinions. And, I'm sorry, but when you grow up as a white male your lived experience is one of privilege. Which is, I think, what Sotomayor was trying to get at in her speech. It's one of the reasons we need more than just while middle class males on the bench!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Gingrinch calls Sotomayor "Racist".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13958
nope. She just stereotyped white men as all privileged. It is only a minority of rich and powerful people that are privileged.
Hahahahhahaha!
dsds openly stated in the "sexy pictures" tread that he is an anti-feminist. I suppose he thinks it's cute to try to educate us. I don't he will last long.
You don't know what "privilege" means in this context. It's not only about income. I suggest you read Peggy McIntosh's essay on white privilege. It's pretty short.
http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf
Wow. I can only laugh, it's so absurd.
I don't know about y'all, but this attitude is the single hardest barrier I've encountered when trying to talk to a priveleged white male about feminism.
Like my father, for instance. Trying to explain "privelege" to him, he takes it personally to the extreme. "Hey, I've had bad experiences like anyone else! It's part of life! I've had to work hard too!" and all that noise.
I sort of see it as a chart in my mind. On the left, it's labelled "Life Privelege: Starting Value". The bottom part represents people at birth: Straight White Male (middleclass), Straight White Male (poor), Straight White Female (rich), Gay Black Male (poor), Trans Latina Woman (middleclass), Straight Black Female (rich) and so on. So, you are born, and you are a straight male and not poor: your "bar" on the graph goes higher than a female's of the same class and orientation, reflecting a high "Life Privelege". But wait, are you black? Drop that bar down, mister! Oh, and you, poor black/minority female, you have the lowest bar of all. Gay/Straight/Trans add another dimension as well. These all factor into your privelege.
These starting points make all the difference when the journey of life commences. The male, who already has a high bar, may have some difficult times in his life, but it's nothing compared to the minority woman, for example, who started out with a very low bar and has to work VERY hard to even get up to the level the white male started out at when he was born. If she ever gets there.
Someone who started out "high" will not have the same experiences of those on the bottom of the Privelege graph. They will assume things are as easy or difficult as they have experienced. They will call Affirmative Action "reverse racism/sexism", because they assume we all start from the same point on the graph, when we do not.
This comment has been deleted.
You are obviously a troll seeing as that all the comments I've read from you just today display complete ignorance and laughable reasoning. We have equal rights? Well somebody pinch me! I guess our work is done!
Annoying troll is annoying.
Oh, poop! I got here too late and didn't get to be amused by the bridge-dweller. Oh, well. :(
I usually use a balance metaphor. You take a balance scale with nothing on either end, and both ends represent two individuals. Then, you put small weights on one side of the scale, and each weight represents the weight of oppression that certain groups feel. There's the female weight, the poor weight, the brown weight, the disability weight -- there are all kinds of weights. The weights on one side of the scale make the other side of the scale rise ever higher, without doing anything to the empty side of the scale. That represents how people with privilege don't have to do anything, like call a Black person the N word or sexually harass a woman at work, in order to rise above minority groups and weight them down (which is something people with any kind of privilege don't get).
It's more of a visual aid to describe privilege. I don't mean to say that a Black man and a White lesbian are somehow dealing with the same kinds of discrimination or are equal to each other in the eyes of the dominant groups, simply because they would each have one weight on the scale.
That last part should say "Black man and a White gay man." I was going to put "White woman" and decided to change the woman to a gay man, and the two ideas sort of mixed together in my brain, which cause me to say "lesbian."
Haha, I just realized that in my title I called him Gingrinch. I guess that's what happens when you're typing fast and don't check your posts. Or maybe something in my subconscious wanted me to be implying he was a grinch. Oh well, funny though :)
You should apologize. There's no reason the Grinch should be insulted so terribly :)
Obvs, she meant her greater life experience helps her to have greater perspective. Obvs not racist.
And most obvs, Newt Gingrich is a smug egotistical dickhead who can't get out of the spotlight. Notice no elected Republicans have made such statements. He can say this crap because he's not currently in office. They call it retirement balls.
Troll banned.
Look out, right below, another one!
I think as a nation we have lost the concept of individuality. Women's and minority groups have segregated themselves and declared war against white men. It seems we've become disrespected and blamed for every problem in the world. Not every white male has had success handed to him. There are white males who've overcome adversity and earned their status in life. My greatest concern is for children, especially white boys. How would you ladies explain your ideology to a group of Kindergarten white boys? Should they be scorned for prior injustices at the hand of their race and gender? It seems we are creating a generation of self loathing white men.
Sigh. To copy and paste what is above:
I suggest you read Peggy McIntosh's essay on white privilege. It's pretty short.
http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf
You don't understand what we mean when we say the word 'privilege.' The above link will be helpful I think.
Sidenote: I'm always wary when I read a comment that says "you ladies." First, it seems a bit patronizing. Second, it implies that all feminists are women (not the case at all, especially in the Feministing community). And third, the way it reads implies that you think of feminists as a monolith.
And I won't go too much into privilege (because I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are actually interested in this discussion and will read the above link) but I will say that I recognize that being white gives me certain privileges, and I don't loathe myself. And when I read things about white privilege, I don't feel anyone is disrespecting or blaming me for anything.
Maybe its not a question of understanding the privilege philosophy. Is it possible I just outright disagree? Am I wrong for not assimilating to your opinions? While I see some logic to white male privilege, it seems many feminists have come to the conclusion every one who doesn't agree with them is incorrect.
Oh, by the way, Sotomayor is not a racist or sexist. She made a simple comment that's being over analyzed. Give that some thought the next time you cry misogyny every time a guy makes an innocent comment. What the conservatives are doing is hypocritical. There applying the shackles of political correctness to her comments. What these guys don't realize is the umbrella of political correctness doesn't apply to white guys. I have no problem with that except for the individual white boy who might ask mommy and daddy why his gender and race is disrespected.
"Give that some thought the next time you cry misogyny every time a guy makes an innocent comment."
Where did I do that? I think you are attributing opinions and positions to me that I do not hold. Until you respond to what *I* said, rather than responding to some feminist somewhere else who said something else, I won't continue this conversation.
"Am I wrong for not assimilating to your opinions?"
Did I say you were?
"it seems many feminists have come to the conclusion every one who doesn't agree with them is incorrect."
So because I'm a feminist you are attributing an opinion to me regardless of whether or not I hold it? Or are you directing this statement to the ether?
How do you equate 'ladies' with condensing? I see it as a term of respect. Maybe I should have abandoned my outdated chivalrous excuse for masculinity and sanitize any term that might offend a very small percentage of women. How would you like to be referred as? Would you rather 'you guys'. I have an idea, I'll use the term 'Double X' to signify our chromosomal differences. I guess I should walk on egg shells when addressing you.
{When I blog, I get feisty -- its nothing personal, ladies} Shit! I'm sorry I used that condensing term again. What the hell is wrong with me? How do I cleanse myself of this demonic misogyny?
You seem to be fighting with someone who is not me. I was informing you of how your "you ladies" comment was likely to come across. I was not assigning any morality to your use of the phrase "you ladies."
Not all of us are women. Not that I particularly care what you call me in terms of gender labeling, just calling out a point of fact.
Yeah, I said I wasn't going to go too much into privilege until you read the linked to article, but I can't resist.
There are many types of privileges. Male privilege, white privilege, class privilege, able-bodied (non-handicapped) privilege, heterosexual privilege, etc. Someone born with (or someone who later attained) a certain privilege has certain, specific benefits that a person without that privilege does not have. But saying that someone has male privilege or able-bodied privilege does not imply that they have class privilege or some other privilege, and thus is not saying that they are necessarily in a better position that anyone else anywhere without their specific privilege. So when someone has able-bodied privilege, it doesn't mean they are necessarily better off than someone who does not have able-bodied privilege but who, say, is a millionaire and thus as lots of class privilege. It just means that with respect to their able-bodied status, the structure of our society confers certain benefits (or does not impose certain impediments). Regardless of the millionaire's money, if that person must use a wheelchair, and a building does not have an elevator, that person will be impeded from getting to the 10th floor. (If the building had neither stairs nor an elevator, than able-bodied and non able-bodied individuals would both be impeded from getting to the 10th floor).
Class privilege is the easiest to understand, so lets focus on it. Clearly, all other things being equal (emphasis on all other things being equal), someone, person A, born into a family that has $1 in the bank will have a harder time succeeding in life than someone, person B, who was born into a family that has $100,000,000 in the bank. If person A and person B have the same intelligence and work just as hard in life, person B will end up ahead of person A because person B started ahead of person A. That doesn't mean person B should loathe themselves or feel guilty. But it would be silly for person B to think that they are ahead in life from person A because they deserve it because they worked harder or something (because in this hypo, person B didn't work harder).
Ugh, this is turning into a tome. I'll finish later if you still don't understand.
If you want more info on other privileges, this link links to other lists similar to the McIntosh list for other privileges:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/09/26/a-list-of-privilege-lists/
So we CAN like our own comments! That explains so much now!
I did it by accident once, but I like the play fair and not like my own comments, in the official "click the link" sense, of course.
Troll Banned? Do you mean an individual who doesn't agree with the rigid ideology of Feministing? Feminism and censorship goes together like peanut butter and jelly. If you can't handle debate, then you must have come to the conclusion your movement has severe flaws.
"If you can't handle debate,"
Have you ever read anything on this website? It is nothing but debate. Perhaps you should base your conclusions on some facts. You may find it a useful practice in life.
Believe it or not, I like this site. I guess that makes me a troll. I usually skim through the comments and prefer to rant instead of reading the posts very careful. I'm not sure why but I have some theories. It could be the 6 pack of Becks or the dime of 'green'. The internet bores me unless I'm loaded.
By the way, I've always thought Jessica Valenti looks like Rhonda from Grease 2.
Tell me what you think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHW4tyg511k
"The internet bores me unless I'm loaded. "
:) Ok, now I definitely know to just leave this conversation. Have fun with your beer.
Punch buggy Green? Is that when you see a green VW and punch the person next to you in the arm? I'm not being sarcastic, I remember that from college. I haven't herd that term in quite some time.
I was drawn to Feministing when I read a post about why more women weren't involved with extreme music. Examples would include Heavy Metal, Punk, and Industrial. I thought that post was intriguing because I'm a music nut and part time drummer.
I give you the lovely Lucia. {My favorite female singer}. She's with the band, KMFDM / MDFMK. They are a legendary German industrial band. Her vocals could melt lead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9lNQ7bDSYM&feature=related
Well, peanut butter makes a lot of people's throats swell up and break out in hives, so peanut butter and jelly can be a disastrous combination. See, that was an example of me setting aside my lack-of-allergy privilege to recognize the plight of people with allergies, while totally blowing a hole in your analogy.
Sotomayor's comments were stupid. Obama and Sotomayor have acknowledged as much today.
That said, I don't think she's a racist. We all say stupid things from time and time, and you have to look at a person's actions as a whole over their lifetimes. Gingrich is just trying to throw bombs-- which is fine, because that's what characters like him do. If it was a white male Republican nominee and roles were reversed, Jesse Jackson would have said the same thing.
That said, I don't think this kind of discussion is particularly helpful in the end, because it just gets people defensive and accomplishes nothing.
You obviously didn't read the full context, otherwise you would see that the statement was taken out of context and had said earlier that white men have been able to make decisions concerning race and gender and pointed to Brown v. Board of Education as an example. Fail for not getting the whole story.
If anyone here has heard about Sotomayor’s quote about Latina women and white men and wants to know more, here are a couple quotes from her 2001 speech and under the quotes is a link to the full speech.
“Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.”
“Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml
Part of me believes conservatives are more bothered by the "Each day I learn something new" bit than anything else.
Wow, I was excited when I saw how many comments my post got...but then I saw it was because it had been hijacked by a troll...ugh.
Oh well, thanks for the discussion from those that actually understood my post.
Here's something for all of you to enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dot3eR_-Fig&feature=related