It's that time of year again. Some have vowed to hit the gym more often. Others are swearing off cigarettes. For some, coffee has been replaced with copious amounts of socialist green tea. Still others are signing up for community service projects to help improve the world around them.
Yes, many Americans have made their New Year's resolutions. Perhaps the conservative media establishment should do the same.
Most of our discussions about rankism here at Open Left have been about its application in specific political contexts. But for me, the essential power of the concept is its vast generality without dissolving into mindless mushiness. And to really grasp the power of that generality, it helps to go back to basics, as Robert Fuller does here in this guest post.
There's just one thing I want to stress in advance--the fact that everyone can be on the receiving end of rankism is extremely useful. It stands in sharp contrast to the extreme defensiveness we've seen among whites about recognizing the continued existence of racism.
At the same time that we need to keep confronting the denial involved in this, taking up the new, broader theme of rankism opens up another line of potential progress, an easier way, in that it invites a more inclusive outlook, in which all have experienced some form of abuse, but a harder way, once the lesson has sunk in, in that it ultimately removes all our excuses for resisting change.
One last thing: tremayne has a diary scheduled for 5 PM EST about a dramatic example of rankism that started off victimizing poor and minority criminal suspects, and now threatens just about everyone: the routine abuse of tasers.
Somebodies and Nobodies:
Understanding Rankism
by Robert Fuller
What is rankism? First, some examples; then, a definition.
An executive pulls into valet parking, late to a business lunch, and finds no one to take his car. He spots a teenager running towards him and yells, "Where the hell were you? I haven't got all day."
He tosses the keys on the pavement. Bending to pick them up, the boy says, "Sorry, sir. About how long do you expect to be?"
The executive hollers over his shoulder, "You'll know when you see me, won't you?" The valet winces, but holds his tongue. Postscript: That evening the teenager bullies his kid brother.
The dynamic is familiar: A customer demeans a waitress, a boss humiliates an employee, a principal bullies a teacher, a teacher mocks a student, students ostracize other students, a parent beats a child, a coach bullies a player, a professor exploits a graduate student, a doctor insults a nurse or patronizes a patient, a priest abuses a parishioner, a caregiver mistreats an elder, executives award themselves perks and bonuses, police use racial profiling, politicians serve the special interests. Surely, you can add to the list.
I've been thinking lately about how ridiculing, demeaning, criticizing and humiliating are weapons of oppression in our country. They are no longer shameful secret tactics used behind closed doors by mentally-ill parents on their helpless and vulnerable children. They now are the favorite public expressions of "the boss" or the persons in charge on most reality shows.
More and more we learn that very successful business owners, CEOs, agents, movie stars, authors, and top-level politicians have apparently achieved their success largely by ridiculing, demeaning, criticizing, and humiliating their competitors and the people over whom they have any authority. We see young ambitious people in all the professions stand up publicly and proclaim that they will enthusiastically not only cheat lie and steal to get ahead, but they volunteer their views on their competitors by openly ridiculing, demeaning, criticizing and humiliating them. "That punk, I'll kick his butt." We even saw some of this in the Max Blumenthal video about privileged young kids in Israel mouthing off demeaning comments about the President of the United States, calling him a "pussy," openly and deliberately trying to humiliate him. Behavior that once would have been unthinkable is more and more openly embraced among certain privileged segments of society
People who were abused as children often end up being abusers themselves. We understand that there is a tragic mimicking of sick behavior, a terrible destruction of lives, created by the abusive parent, destroying the lives of their children, but also creating damage for future generations.
But what about the current popularity of extolling and embracing sick abusive behavior as a part of our public persona? What used to be the hidden, shameful, secret conduct of disturbed parents, usually kept secret by the victim/child who felt ashamed that they were treated horribly, has now been incorporated into the basic training for all of our professions and other high-paid positions. What formerly was considered horrible behavior is how applauded.
Women and minorities, as individuals and as members of a group, are routinely subjected to ridiculing, demeaning, criticizing, and humiliating comments and behavior. These tactics are used by the dominant and powerful groups in our society to rationalize and reinforce the oppression of the minority and weaker groups. Every time we hear men making "jokes" about women's bodies, almost dissecting women and treating them as body parts and objects instead of as human beings, this has the effect of reinforcing the exclusion of women from opportunity in our society. It also creates terrible feelings of both fear and shame in women: fear that their body parts will be attacked or molested, shame that they are publicly humiliated in that fashion.
When I first got out of law school, I worked in a law firm in which one of the partners would invite all the male associates out to lunch once a month. I was the only female associate at the time, and I was never invited. One of the male associates who was a good friend of mine told me that the lunches were horrible, and nobody wanted to go. This partner, who was as uptight, rigid, Republican, racist and sexist as can be imagined, used to spend the whole lunch hour making vulgar comments about the waitress or other women who walked by -- vulgar comments about their breasts and other body parts. No wonder I wasn't invited. This is male-bonding behavior intended to reinforce sexist attitudes, and the exclusion of women.
Another partner in that firm actually made a watermelon joke to me about a black secretary -- behind her back, of course. The privilege felt by professional white men, the obligation almost, to perpetuate the exclusion of women and minorities by ridicule, is widespread, extremely damaging, and ultimately very effective.
I have a friend who is a white male, and in 2008, his "boss" inside a relatively successful mid-sized company had the habit and practice of circulating, at work, by e-mail, disgusting and vulgar drawings of women engaged in sexual activity, as well as horribly racist drawings of Obama. This is not history. This is current and ongoing. Criticizing, ridiculing, demeaning, humiliating women and minorities, in particular, is a weapon used to reinforce sexism and racism, to break down the individual members of the groups as well as deprive the group overall of any sense of self-esteem or dignity.
A refusal to ever praise or acknowledge the merit of anything done by members of these groups is a part of that same tactic. I used to work with an attorney who never praised, never thanked anyone for any work they did for him. It was apparently part of his effort to keep control over his employees. This is a white man born into wealth and privilege, a man whose most creative work in the past 20 years was probably writing up a grocery list for his wife. Yet he never once complemented his secretaries or thanked any of the attorneys who did sometimes remarkable work. It's a tactic. It's intentional. The intent and the effect is to undermine other people, strip them of any sense of worth to make it easier to manipulate and use them. Simply ignore people's achievements, never praise. It works to convince people that maybe their work isn't really that good, maybe they're not that good.
Not only is this true on an individual level, but on a group level as well. When we think of famous American artists, for example, few women or minorities come to mind. Men decide what art is valuable, what art has merit, and they routinely exclude women and minorities from consideration, or they judge them to be inferior. We have so few women or minorities allowed in politics, and they are kept at low levels in most professions, so it's hard to find role models, or people to be proud of in those fields. The history that is taught in our schools ignores most women and minorities, and still generally only praises and discusses the conduct of white men. The failure to praise, refusal to give credit, is itself a form of oppression, a tool intended to prevent women and minorities from every being able to feel good about "their" people.
What does this have to do with Michael Jackson?
We see some groups highly critical of Michael Jackson since his death, only discussing his alleged sexual molestation of children. There are newspaper cartoons showing him going straight to hell, for example. I don't recall ever seeing a newspaper cartoon when Nixon died showing him going straight to hell for the two million Vietnamese who died as a result of the war against Vietnam, a war which he accelerated and enthusiastically supported. I don't recall ever seeing a newspaper cartoon when Reagan died showing him going straight to hell for all the death squads he set up and funded in Central America, and all the people who were murdered because of that. And I don't recall seeing newspaper cartoons showing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and that whole goon squad they ran with going straight to hell because of the illegal war against Iraq and the torture and murder of innocent victims.
I would never minimize sexual abuse of children. But I sometimes wonder whether our society imposes a harsher, fatal condemnation of any women or black person who allegedly violates some law or norm, in contrast with the known mass murderers who are our heads of state, whose slaughter of people in other countries is always given a pass on their death. White men who kill millions are buried with white rose wreaths and fancy limousines and church choirs, while women or minorities who allegedly harmed one person are condemned to secret burials, pine boxes, insignificant headstones. Not This Time.
I've noticed a really strong cohesive response by leaders throughout the black community in this country, all uniformly praising and supporting Michael Jackson, all using very laudatory words about his body of work, all rejecting any media discussion of the questions about Jackson being a man with severe problems. But the leaders of the black community not only are hushing up any discussion of this, they are praising Michael Jackson and mourning his death as if he was Martin Luther King, Jr., instead of just a pop-singer.
It occurred to me that this is intentional conduct by the black community. Despite the overwhelming contribution of black Americans to music, they do not yet have "their" black American popular performer who can be called, for all time, a "King" of some type.
Michael Jackson was their best bet, and they will not allow white society to take that away from them by the same old tactics of criticizing, ridiculing, demeaning, and humiliating either Michael Jackson himself, or the black community for supporting a man who was flawed in his personal life. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Spike Lee, all the young rap and R&B artists, have made an announcement to white America that they will not allow Michael Jackson to be destroyed by being criticized, demeaned, ridiculed, and humiliated. They will not allow white America to take away from the black community "their" Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, whose name will reign forever alongside the greats such as Sinatra, Elvis, and the Beatles. Not This Time.
If Perez Hilton Can Call Miss California A "Dumb Bitch," Can I Call Perez Hilton A Stupid Fag?
Apparently not at Truthdig, one of my favorite blogs. Their comment moderator sent my comment, described above, to the dustbin. They put in writing that Perez Hilton called Miss California a "Dumb Bitch," and also posted the video of him saying it. [They weren't approving of it, just posting it]. But for my response, in which I just raised the question of whether, if Perez Hilton can call Miss California a "Dumb Bitch," can I call him a "Stupid Fag," they decided no, I couldn't do it. They would not post my comment.
So here's the question. Is it that male thing again? Some protective gathering of the male-klan to protect each other, even their members of the homosexual variety, from the slings and arrows of women? Is it that old idea that men can do anything they want to women, but they must make sure women never, ever, stand up for their own kind? We must remain subjugated and silent? Is that what's going on?
Because otherwise, I can't see any difference. And that's the point I was trying to make. It is not okay for any man ever, in any context, in public or in private, to call any woman a Dumb Bitch. That phrase, all the nasty words used against women -- slut, whore, cunt, bitch -- all of them are foreplay to the violent men in our society who punch, kick, beat, too often murder women in order to control them.
Given the history of violence against women in this society, given the astonishing ongoing levels of violence against women, given that women continue to be excluded from equal opportunity in hiring and promotion, given that women are largely excluded from representation in the Senate and House in numbers reflecting their 50% citizenship, but instead only get a token to keep the little ladies happy, given that women continue to have 1/3 of their earnings ripped off the top and pocketed by some white male, given all that, is it really appropriate for men to continue to call out violent and degrading terms to women at random? Aren't we treated badly enough in this society that maybe somebody could give us a break on the nasty name-calling?
Women pretty much hear and see that our society considers them useless, worthless, discards every day of their lives from the time they are born. They are branded as inferior, stupid, property, desired for sexual reasons, breeding and household work but still largely treated like slave labor.
A woman who is with a violent man is in most danger when she is pregnant. What does that tell us, other than that there is a national diseased attitude towards women that affects all of us, which goes to the central core of her physical being -- the ability to reproduce. What is it about this condition that men simply refuse to admit? Anti-female hatred, sexism, results in more deaths and beatings and violence every year than does either racism or anti-gay attitudes. Yet men refuse to admit or acknowledge this, our society largely ignores it. Is it because men are afraid it would take away all their fun if they can't continue to ridicule and demean women, as part of the "male-bonding" experience?
It's okay with me if gays get married. I don't think anyone, straight or gay, would marry Perez Hilton because he seems like an out-of-control jackass. But for my gay friends, if they want to get married, I'll be the maid of honor and best man, I'll be first to show up at the wedding and last to leave, and I'll toast the loudest and the longest.
But this has nothing to do with gay rights or gay marriage. All this incident shows is that privileged white men, regardless of sexual orientation, continue to ridicule, demean, humiliate women in public as part of the white-male-privileged life in America. I'm really sick of it.
http://NABNYC.blogspot.com
I just had two interesting discussions with my mom and my sister, both of whom were Hillary supporters in the primary, that really got my thoughts going on what McCain is trying to do with this pick, and why it's set up to fail.
I've seen the polling that says only 66% of Hillary supporters are supporting Obama, and 27% are backing McCain, and I think that's the biggest reason for this pick. McCain and his advisers obviously see an opening there. Palin brings nothing else to her table, since her age doesn't matter because she has zero qualification in terms of experience. So let me tell you what I think he's attempting with former female Clinton supporters, and the likelihood of pulling it off.
Just curious how other people feel about the photoadvertising that's in the middle of posts here now. I was sort of disturbed by the Snorg Tees ads--though the company and its shirts seemed pretty inoffensive when i clicked over--but I don't know if I'm just off in my sleep-deprived haze. The other ads (Avis, Yell.com) raised different objections for me about pushing messages across very visibly on behalf of large corporate entities. I know the site needs money to run, but I was curious what people thought about this, especially in the context of the lengthy conversation about feminism / misogyny that happened here a few weeks ago.
( the latest post in our mutual guest-blogging series. Thanks Pam, and looking forward to what people have to say! - promoted by JonPincus)
In looking back at the MSM treatment of Hillary Clinton over the course of the primary season, there was an expected eruption of misogyny -- from Chris Matthews Greatest Hits and The Tweety Effect, to the infamous Hillary nutcracker -- yet what I found most interesting was the handwringing over the whole matter. Similarly, there was desperation by some on the left (and right) to declare 2008 a "post-racial" election; they saw their hopes dashed as the bloody chum was tossed out to the hungry media sharks by Clinton surrogates and the usual GOP shills, rife with allusions, counter-charges and just plain old race-baiting idiocy (see Geraldine Ferraro, Andrew Cuomo, Bob Johnson).
Just over a week ago, on Friday, June 6, I promoted a diary that caused considerable controversy and misunderstanding, that I'd like to try to address. The diary was by Pamela Gerloff, The Real Reason Hillary Should Not Be Veep. Pamela is is the co-author, with Robert W. Fuller, of Dignity for All: How to Create a World without Rankism (forthcoming, June 2008, Berrett-Koehler Publishers). Fuller is the originator of the concept of rankism, defined as the abuse of power derived from rank. The opposite of such abuse is respect for human dignity.
Some forms of rank are inherently abusive-valuing men over women, whites over blacks, Jews over Arabs, etc. Other forms of rank are socially useful, but subject to abuse. A great leader will not just inspire others, but develop their capacities to become leaders in their own right. There is nothing inherently abusive in this. Yet leaders throughout history have repeatedly abused those they have lead. Rankism is a way of talking about what these forms of abuse share in common, and how to overcome them. It is a conceptual tool in the ongoing struggle for human liberation.
In spite of the fact that sexism has been such a prominent dynamic in this campaign, the thrust of public conversation is that Obama should pick a Republican or conservative Democrat to balance the ticket. Even when we're talking about Democrats, that almost always means someone willing to occasionally defenestrate women's rights or health. I don't want to get started on what a slap the anti-choice Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would be.
There are a lot of legitimate reasons a person might have had to support someone besides Hillary Clinton for the nomination. They were both good candidates, there's no need to assume anything about why anyone supported one of them.
The only major demographic group still supporting Clinton to the tune of 51% or more is women aged 50 and older. This group's preferences have changed little during May, at the same time that Clinton's support among younger men (those 18 to 49) has declined by nearly 10 points. - Gallup
... Pundits debated whether Clinton's tears were "real" or "manufactured" -- that is, whether she was some weak sob sister who couldn't hack the rough-and-tumble of a man's world, or just a power-grabbing witch who would do anything to hang on to her broomstick.
A few, such as San Francisco Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci, offered more cogent appraisals. She pointed out that female voters didn't seem to be responding to Clinton's tears so much as to their outrage at men's reactions to those tears (in particular, men in the media). ... - Susan Faludi
Kos and Chait both quickly noticed Hillary Rodham Clinton's outrageous (morally, intellectually, politically) argument today that to not allow her to go back on her word on Florida and Michigan (she originally agreed that the two states would not count) so her delegate margin could get reduced (she'd still be prohibitively in second place) is similar to the denial of the right to the vote to women, and of civil rights to blacks in the South in the 60s.
This mostly speaks for itself. What is truly unfortunate (for her, her followers) is that many journalists, party activists, and rank-and-file Dems liked her OK but just preferred Obama (more progressive, etc.) before the primary. Now, with such ridiculous pandering (and intellectually vacuous reasoning and hypocrisy and maniacal fear-mongering) she has truly become a political monster, a figure unlikable (not for her being a woman or being "shrill" or any of those other euhpemisms for sexism) because she is simply intolerably, cynically corrupt and destructive.
She is a pox on the Democratic Party, on progressive values (including feminism), and on our country's future. I hope she is pushed out (not just rejected as VP, but truly pushed out of the party leadership) and shown the error of her ways.
It was a brilliant summer day in Atlanta, and the lumescent, blue sky lifted my already risen spirits as I was planning my wedding. A coworker and I were shopping for wedding dresses in an upscale suburb, both of us dressed in the standard uniform for such an event: sweats and sneakers. My coworker carried the look off with much more chic than I, with her tall frame, warm brown eyes and rich, espresso colored skin giving her the natural grace of a woman for whom sweats is a weekend indulgence.
Arlington, Oregon Mayor Carmen Kontur-Gronquist was stripped of her political power through a recall vote on Monday, after 3-year-old pictures of Kontur-Gronquist wearing (not too skimpy) underwear surfaced on the internets and web e-mails like MyFace.
With all due respect to my esteemed colleague at Nerve, Brian Fairbanks, the "world is NOT on the warpath against female politicians". The Mayor Stripper was on our warpath against America. Not only did she harm the the mayorlty of America forever through her stripping policies, she harmed Arlington Oregon through her golf policies. At the end of the day, according to the recall cheerleader Ron Miller, this was about something much bigger than washboard abs and amazing arms: "the recall vote was also about some of her decisions as
mayor.... That included her management of the city golf course."
Mayor Stripper, have you no shame? She shows no signs of remorse: "I wouldn't change anything. I wouldn't. It is what it is. I'm proud of myself for doing what I did...for hanging in there." And even worse, she's selling signed copies of the photos on ebay. And is she giving the proceeds to a worthy charity? Like the golf course? No. The morally bankrupt mayor-stripper is donating the money to the local health department. I'm going to be sick.
I've noticed something this primary season. Even though we are told that a double standard doesn't exist, it surely does. There were obvious examples of sexism during this heated primary season... like Chris Matthews gaffes that ended with a public apology. But there have been others. Recently, my mother forwarded me an essay by Robin Morgan of the Women's Media Center called Goodbye To All That #2. Robin wrote Goodbye To All That (#1) back in 1970, when she and other feminists took over a counter culture magazine called Rat.
A couple weeks ago, I wrote about my experience at the BlogWorldExpo political panels, and noted the alarming moral degeneracy among the conservative attendees. I was helped in this by the notes taken by K T Cat. He made my point for me by condensing several examples of this government's behavior (warrantless wiretapping, shredding the Constitution, going to war on lies, etc.) that I find more offensive than words for sex and body parts into the dismissive phrase "Bush administration policies," then promptly declaring that sexual attitudes should be the top priority of society.
Right. Because when your fellow citizens are being made homeless by the perfidy of our banks and financial institutions or remaining homeless because the Bush administration abandoned the poor of the Gulf Coast, or are living in debt peonage, or when police violence and impunity continues to escalate across the nation, or while the country is being bled dry to feed Halliburton, Bechtel, CH2M, Lockheed Martin and Blackwater, that's the time to rail against the horrors of one of our species' most basic biological urges. Unless it's time to rail against the horror of knowing that you helped pay for a kid's bone marrow transplant, which ought to make you mad, for some reason.
Which is no better than the ignorance displayed by someone in the audience at a Friday panel at Blog World, from the near unnavigable site Democast, who insisted that the Tamil Tigers were just another example of a dangerous Muslim group bringing fascism to the world, after I mentioned that they were the original suicide bombers. But as I'd said, the Tamil Tigers are a nationalist movement, spurred by the racist policies of a Sinhalese government instead of religion, and they happen also to be Hindu. Not Muslim. Not Arab. Tamil Hindus. Kind of puts a damper on blaming all the ills of the world on the Scary Islamic Jihadis.
Wingnuts. They'd almost be cute if their leaders hadn't seized control of the government by means of vote fraud and a corrupt court. Also, if they weren't so racist. Really dampens the charisma potential.
STATE BLOGS
