I’m more or less with you on the “mountain out of a molehill” thing, if only because I think there are much more alarming things about all of the candidates (including Obama) than this annoying habit of his. But, I do think this has the potential for a fun discussion. Horserace politics can get pretty tedious, but human nature is endlessly fascinating and always good for shooting the breeze for a while.

Sweetie, when aimed toward a male or a female as people in this thread note they have met people who do, can also be a way of creating a nod to a personal relationship — a sense of, “I see you as a person, and not just a cog, and I want you to understand I bear you no ill will with this refusal.”

But it’s STILL a diminutive, and I don’t see any way around that. Yes, I can use “Sweetie” to attempt to put somebody who doesn’t know me at ease, but it’s also– intentionally or not– going to effectively be an attempt to raise my status over theirs, if only in that small moment. Do you understand why I think this? If not, I guess I can try to explain myself in more detail.

I usually have to make a conscious effort not to view everyone as a peer, and to do things like adjust to remembering certain people feel more comfortable when addressed by formal titles.

This is a hallmark, and a privelege, of people who view themselves as high in status in general. Only people with the *power* to set the tone of a relationship, will instinctually feel comfortable doing so. This is why I’m willing to bet, for instance, that none of your students ever call you by any diminutives like “sweetie”. (Do they? That *would* be interesting.)

Now, I know I am running the danger of having you misconstrue me, to think that I’m yet again implying negative things about you. But I’m not! Really. Some people are generally more comfortable being high status; some people generally like being lower. Neither is good or bad. Plus, of course, these inclinations are mutable based on your overall place in any power structure you’re interacting in (job, school, circle of friends, whatever), and can certainly change over time. I, for instance, think I tend to prefer high status in professional situations, and low status in social contexts. This was not a conscious choice, it’s just how my personality has come to work at this moment in my life.

Attempting to observe these things about ourselves is really rewarding, especially when we start noticing the secret motivations which underlie every seemingly innocent gesture. (Such as calling somebody “sweetie”).

P.S. Pop psychology is not automatically wrong about everything!

No, you don’t know what language I’m using.

However, I’d say you wouldn’t even know my secret, unconscious motivations if you did know — anymore than you know the secret motivations behind someone accidentally calling my fiance or my gym teacher “dad,” or the reason why I misspell the word rabbit nine times out of ten. Thank you, pop psychology.

“Mandolin, I’m also going to have to take issue with your suggestion that it’s easy to innocently slip into using the wrong kind of familiar language in the wrong kind of situation. I mean, you’re right, it is, but doing so DOES imply a feeling of superiority. Zingerella chose just the right word for the kind of language we’re talking about: “diminutives”. ”

Yes, but that doesn’t mean their only use is dimininutive.

Frankly, there are a lot of different reasons why language may be acceptable in one context and not another, including subcultural variations. The assumption we’re making here is that sweetie is a diminutive in this situation for the same reason one calls a pet ‘tu’ in french instead of the formal ‘vous’ — in that it automatically positions one party as superior to the other.

This may be the most common use. It’s certainly something Obama should be aware of. But it’s not the only use that appears in America. I often find in these sorts of internet etiquette discussions that, as a combination of the environments I live in and was raised in, I have a much lower threshold of privacy than most other people. Sweetie, when aimed toward a male or a female as people in this thread note they have met people who do, can also be a way of creating a nod to a personal relationship — a sense of, “I see you as a person, and not just a cog, and I want you to understand I bear you no ill will with this refusal.” I usually have to make a conscious effort not to view everyone as a peer, and to do things like adjust to remembering certain people feel more comfortable when addressed by formal titles. It’s not intuitive for me because those kinds of power markings were downplayed in my formative years.

Obama should be aware of the context in which his remarks will be perceived, as well as the sexist conventions which make that context problematic, and as a consequence, he should get that verbal tic out of his vocabulary ASAP. But I don’t particularly expect him to be perfect on that basis immediately, or to be able to withstand 24/7 scrutiny.

But the man sent an ungoaded apology to the reporter, and he’s on the bloody campaign trail, having his language examined more hours a day than I can imagine. People screw up. They take the time to apologize. Personally, I don’t tihnk the original slip up was particularly egregious, and nor do I see reason to be suspicious of the apology — it’s entirely possible he does use endearments for everyone, and not just women, although the endearments may vary by person.

This seems like a mountain from a molehill — a concentration on what is ultimately a very small detail, and which does not appear to be representative. There are several assumptions being made here that totalize the use of language and the contexts it exists in, where in fact there are lots of different ways that language is inflected in American subcultures. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be aware of the dominant context being criticized here — he should be, and appears to be. It also doesn’t mean I’m defending him on the basis of intent. Whatever his intent, he obviously said something injurious, and it is incumbent on him to make amends. Which he did. So, we’re back (for me) to: eh. Not a big deal. YMMV.

I’m much more concerned about the way he talks about gay rights — see also: his reaction to yesterday’s California court decision.

Mandolin, I’m also going to have to take issue with your suggestion that it’s easy to innocently slip into using the wrong kind of familiar language in the wrong kind of situation. I mean, you’re right, it is, but doing so DOES imply a feeling of superiority. Zingerella chose just the right word for the kind of language we’re talking about: “diminutives”. They’re loaded with power issues. I don’t know if that’s the kind of language you were talking about using with your students, but if so it’s because you feel like you have higher status in the relationship than they do. And inadvertantly bringing that kind of language into other interactions would say a lot about your unconscious attitudes to the people you’re talking to.

By the way, Zingerella, I think I may have dated your ex-employer. Okay, not really, because in my case, she called everybody “darl”, not “sweetie”. Always bothered me a little bit, actually, but I can’t really say as it was bad for any particular reason. Maybe just the vague sense it gave me that she thought of *everybody* as lower status…

However, I think that it does little to serve anti-sexist goals to employ racism to prove a point. I understand that you were being somewhat facetious, and I’m sure you never would have ACTUALLY said anything like that TO Obama or any other person of color, but I think it is still inappropriate. Obama’s comments would have been egregious and inappropriate if he were white, as well, and comparing sexism to racism in order to prove a point actually, in my opinion, detracts from the on-point criticism you are offering. Sexism is disgusting on its own, we (white feminists) don’t need to pull in oppression olympics or spurious identity politics to prove it.

Obama should know better because he’s an intelligent, progressive, (seemingly) empathetic individual with experience in politics, on the campaign trail, and someone who has repeatedly asserted his commitment to women’s rights. All of those things should serve as enough of a reminder to him that his behavior was unacceptable and inappropriate. It is unnecessary and, IMO condescending, to pull the, “you’re oppressed too, remember?” bit. Because what is most salient, to me, about that move, is the way that it serves to reinforce racism by re-asserting and -articulating racial hierarchy.