Well! Speaking of Sexism…
Published by Lisa Kansas May 16th, 2008 in Looks like someone needs an intervention, Politics, What Patriarchy?…how would I have reacted if that engineer had offhandedly addressed me during the software demo as “Sweetie?”
The moment came at a campaign stop in Detroit, when Peggy Agar, a reporter at ABC’s Detroit affiliate WXYZ-TV, asked Obama this question: “Senator, how are you going to help the American autoworkers?”
“Hold on a second, sweetie. We’ll hold a press avail,” replied Obama, referring to a structured question and answer session with the media.
Hours later, Obama left Agar a voicemail, apologizing for not answering her question and for calling her “sweetie.”
“That’s a bad habit of mine,” Obama said in the message. “I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front.”
Oh? How bout I refer to you by a diminutive term commonly used for members of your race by members of mine…..boy? But I wouldn’t mean any disrespect! cause that’s what whites always call blacks for whom their first and greatest feeling is respect.
But apologies are always nice. Even when they’re worded rather…misleadingly. “With all kinds of people?” or would it have been a lot more accurate to say that you “do it sometimes with all kinds of women?”
It apparently is a habit. In an earlier campaign stop, Obama said to a woman, “Sweetie, if I start with a picture I will never get out of here.”
And then: “Sweetie if I start doing autographs I just won’t be … I am really late.”
When men throw out words like sweetie or honey or girl in movies like “9 to 5″ or “Anchorman,” it is portrayed as supremely condescending.
Yes, to the point that it’s almost a caricature of disrespect. c’MON, man! I can hardly even believe that such a patent non-idiot like you would have such a stupid verbal tic. As a matter of fact, given what a polished speaker you are, I find it impossible to believe you have this kind of blatantly silly verbal tic. Generally, the only men who aren’t stupid and/or unworldly who make a habit of referring to women in the public eye this way are, well, conservative Republicans. But then you have often enough expressed admiration for them, haven’t you?
Now here’s something you don’t often get to see–a woman famous for mentoring other women start counseling us all about our sexual sensitivities causing trouble in the workplace!
“If you don’t like someone calling you sweetie, call them on it, but don’t assume their intentions are bad,” Johnson said.
“I think in general, whether politics or in the workplace, when we start policing spontaneity we’re in trouble. And we should let people be themselves, and we should not assume the worst when somebody uses a word like sweetie.”
Let’s see…so when a past boss of mine was telling me that one of the reasons he liked me so much was that I was “humble. Women should be women!” I really shouldn’t have felt even a twinge of negativity. Don’t police other people’s spontaneity, dammit! isn’t that the horror of “political correctness?! After all, he was just being himself, and he was complimenting me–isn’t sweetie a nice word too..?
This is lame, Senator Obama. And a surprise. Please try to do better than that. Or I hope to see the day when you are absentmindedly referred to, to your face, as boy by someone who is running for the position of your supreme commander. When that day comes, I sincerely hope you accept the apology given to you on the grounds that that person does it “all the time with all kinds of people” and “didn’t mean any disrespect, it’s just a bad habit” of his. And I hope Tory Johnson wouldn’t feel in that situation like you shouldn’t police out his spontaneity and not let him be himself because you can’t assume his intentions are bad.
Eh.
He shouldn’t have said it. I hope he’ll refrain from saying it in future. It is not business-like. It is not suitable language for a presidential candidate to use addressing general population.
But speaking as someone who makes a living with words — verbal tics, like any other kind of tic, really can be just a stupid habit. And I know that if I spend a lot of time in a situation where one kind of language is acceptable — for instance, talking to my students — I will automatically pull that kind of language when I’m talking to people with whom it’s not appropriate. I try not to do it, and I apologize when I slip up.
I’ve used endearments with people with whom they weren’t appropriate. I’d be shocked if I were the only one who hangs out here who’s found themselves saying “hon” to some bureacrat on the telephone, the same way I’d say “hon” to my partner when he’s being aggravating but I want to establish that I’m not peeved with him in a general sense.
This seems very minor, and he apologized. If he does it a lot and stops seeming cowed about it, and particularly if it seems correlated with behavior like treating women reporters as less significant than male reporters, then I’ll worry about it. Meantime: eh.
I would probably have an opinion on this if I weren’t from New Orleans.
Obama seems a well-meaning sort, who simply may not have yet had his consciousness raised to the sexist culture he lives in. I will, for now, give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he’s not consciously using sexism, although I won’t pretend he isn’t using it here. I reserve the right to be wrong about this should it come out that way.
Given the pervasiveness of sexism in America, and how rarely it’s brought up (especially by those who are listened to, which in this case means men), I can’t find too great a fault with someone employing sexist language. They may simply not realize it; the question is not, “Is person A being sexist?” but rather, what person A does when called on his* sexism.
The apology is a good first step. We’ll see if this incident curtails or eliminates his “bad habit” and then we’ll see how serious his regret is/was.
*or, less likely but possibly, her.
MH, very few people mean to be sexist (or racist, or classist, or whathaveyou). Using a term like “sweetie,” to refer to a professional in a professional context, betrays a level of unconscious sexism. Does this mean that a person who uses the term “sweetie,”* in talking with women is also going to work to curtail access to abortion, or propagate violence against women, or even believe that women are more likely to be better homemakers than men? Not necessarily. It simply means that the person in question has acquired some very gendered habits in dealing with people, and that these habits carry a sexist message.
The thing about a term like “sweetie,” is that, as Lisa pointed out, it’s unlikely that Sen. Obama uses it for “people.” Has anyone ever heard him call a man “sweetie”? It’s a term that he most likely uses for women and children. Most people do.** It’s an endearment and a mild diminutive (no, it’s not like the Baltimorean “hon,” or the “luv,” used in some parts of the U.K. as far as I know.)
* I confess that sweetie is one of my usual endearments. I use it for all my boyfriends and my one boyfriend’s kid. Strangely, I never find myself getting confused and inadvertently calling Sabotabby*** “sweetie.” I don’t call my co-workers or interns “sweetie,” I don’t call my students “sweetie.”
** I did once have a female employer who called everyone sweetie: the (mostly male) programmers, the (female) CFO, the (male) president, me. I didn’t take offense at that, because she really was very egalitarian in her random endearments. Also because when I called her “sweetie” (and “bosslady,” and “crazywoman”) she just laughed and took it in stride.
** With whom I have an offline friendship, and to whom I talk pretty frequently.
I agree with your criticism of Obama’s remarks, they were sexist and inappropriate. I appreciate that he apologized, but that’s clearly not enough.
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.
Well yeah, I basically agree with all that. My point is that now it’s a bit less unconscious for him, so it will be interesting to see what effect having Obama’s gendered habits brought to his attention has on him, in the semi- or full-public view of a campaign/presidency.
Yeah, Obama’s apology was pretty damn weak. “People”, ha. Nothing sexist to see here, nope, just move along. Just designed to get people off his case, nothing more. That said, I’m pretty sure if you compare the number of sexist things Obama has said with all of the racially discomfiting things Clinton has said (e.g. implying that Obama is unelectable because not enough white people will vote for him), I kind of feel like Obama comes out ahead. Then again, I’m not a woman. Nor am I black. (Wait, so do I even have a right to be listened to at all??? Okay, probably not. Oh well.)
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…
I’m pretty much on board with what everybody is saying here…I only disagree with one thing–what I have done, in my example of “boy,” is do the exact opposite of participate in the Oppression Olympics. I have said, “You being called this racist diminutive would be the same as if I were called this sexist diminutive.” The basis of the entire Oppression Olympics is, “my oppression is worse that your oppression and I’m gonna PROVE it!!” In sharp contrast to an Oppression Olympics event, this post makes no statement that ANY -ism is more or less shitty than any other–it merely makes the point that ANY -ism is bad! and you should do unto others in terms of -isms the way you want others to do unto you.
He had his consciousness raised in January of 2007 when he called Senator Barbara Boxer a cutie. I guess that’s what he means by all kinds of people. Senators, journalists, all kinds of female people.He was taken to task for it then, and apologized then too.
It is just possible that he behaves like an arrogant condescending asshat because he is an arrogant condescending asshat.
“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.”
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.
What was his reaction to that court decision? I can’t seem to find it anywhere.
Mandolin, sorry, I was sloppy in that I didn’t really want to make any of this argument about *you*, but certainly it came off that way, and I apologize. You’re absolutely right that I don’t know anything about how you act or speak; but you were defending Obama’s language by comparing his situation to your own life, and that’s why I went there. Bad form, though. Obviously you’re right that I have zero empirical claim to knowing anything about your unconscious thoughts — although I do have my ideas about human traits universal to all of us.
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!
If he was also caught calling a guy sweetie would that make it less sexist? It would also make his apology make sense.
If he called a guy “sweetie,” that would be fascinating.