This post of Cesar’s replacing women w/ black people. I think it’s a valid rhetorical strategy, NOT because I think we should fall into senseless arguments about who faces more discrimination, but because of the different ways sexism and racism are perceived.

In our society, white people value this colorblind sort of rhetoric (which is utter nonsense and only upholds the status quo, but anyway…). If something is overtly racist, there is a kind of knee-jerk “Oh god how *awful*” reaction from most whites, because “racist” is the label that everyone hates. There is no similar sort of reaction to sexism. Openly sexist comments and behaviors are much more acceptable in our society than openly racist stuff (which isn’t to say that sexism is a greater or lesser problem than racism; only that it works in different ways). That’s why Cesar’s comparison seems valid to me. It makes the discrimination apparent. Cesar’s comparison makes us *notice* the sexism.

I don’t take it to mean that women have it worse than blacks, or anything like that. The reason racist remarks are so unacceptable to us is that racism is now hidden from the dominant white culture by all this colorblind rhetoric. Which is worse, dealing with openly discriminatory behavior (sexist attitudes), or completely hidden discrimination (racism in the colorblind guise)? I would never be able to answer that, and I wouldn’t try to. They’re both horribly damaging and frustrating. But I do use the race/gender comparison to make sexism visible to males who would never see it as something problematic otherwise, because like I said, it’s not about who is suffering worse discrimination. It’s just about making the discrimination apparent. And because of our sensitivity to the “racist” label, sometimes the clearest way to show discrimination is to use it.

That, at least, is my take on it. Obviously I’ve never experienced much racism first hand (I’m half-Korean, but white looking enough to “pass,” I suppose). I’m very familiar with the colorblind rhetoric because I used to buy into it. I think it was very damaging to my perceptions of people of color, and I know racism was invisible to me for a long time. Anyway, I’m interested to hear your take on why the comparison is such a bad one. To me it seems very effective.

I think Men are from Mars… is really fucking sexist, but YMMV.

I dunno if I agree with the idea that it’s not sexist to draw broad class distinctions between the sexes. When a generalization like this is made, the group described ceases to be a collection of individuals and starts to be an undifferentiated mass. It’s true of “positive” stereotypes, too, like the model-minority stereotype, or any number of fetishistic stereotypes directed towards women. They lead to a lazy understanding of that group and all the people in it, such that you think of them and their potential in really simplistic terms. When that group is marginalized, the stereotype inevitably assists in dehumanizing them.

I have never seen this show, Dog Whisperer. I have unfortunately seen this other show a few too many times. never quite that blatantly at that particular site, though. boggle. yeah.

There are too many television shows dedicated to confusing pets with children.

I’ve seen essentialist comments on other self-help shows, from Dr. Phil (haaaaaaaate) to Dr. Drew. VS is right that these statements are commonplace. It’s not not okay to perpetuate stereotypes about how all men and women think and feel, particularly in the realm of pop psychology. The problem is that racism has its own elephants, and that there are all kinds of perfectly-acceptable horrors perpetuated because of racism. The one-in-three statistic is as unremarkable as the likelihood of rain in October.

I have never seen this show, Dog Whisperer. I have unfortunately seen this other show a few too many times. never quite that blatantly at that particular site, though. boggle. yeah.

as i’ve rhetorically asked elsewhere, why o why do people feel the need for this sort of gambit in the first place? But i do know she’s said similar-ish things before, although to be perfectly honest i’d just sort of filed it away…yeah. i ‘spect i thought there were only so many people and so many ways i could be pissed off about at once, and she didn’t do this one OFTEN, that i’d been reading (admittedly not much lately), but.

But the way she talked to Shannon and the rest of you just had me on the floor. And then to shut it down! Jesus, people were frigging having a tea party in there; she’s let threads go on for much longer and much more rancorously before closing comments. I just wonder what would’ve happened if I don’t know say MaxJulian had found his way there before she shut down. morbidly inquiring minds and all. i have a feeling with one thing or another we’d all still be scraping bits and pieces off the walls.

yeah you know frankly, i think she actually made it worse by shutting it down; or well, you know, plus being unwilling to give, like, a millimeter, “gee, maybe you have a point at that.” o well.

That brings us to what is there to be done about it? The show has a blog that Milan supposedly posts to during the season’s run, but season 2 is over now. Is it worth writing to NGC? Will they care/listen? Should boycotts be called for? Or should we pitch in and get Caesar some sensitivity training?

1) Is what Caesar said sexist, or merely an observation?

I think that this ties in partly with your subsequent question about the use of the word ‘species’. I doubt Caesar meant it to be insulting, and indeed using the term is pretty standard in our culture, but it’s inherently sexist. It Others women (and sometimes Others men, when it’s used by women), and is often used in a way that implicitly puts the gender in question down.

In this case, let’s look at what Caesar was saying: woman always applies affection before discipline

Given that his show revolves around pushing a punishment/domination method over a reward/non-domination based one, this is is a put down.

His argument is one of a gender essentialist, too. He says women always use affection and contrasts that with men, who he says apply discipline and are “more psychological than emotional”.

He’s using the same psuedo-science that has been used since recorded history to reinforce gender roles. That is sexist. Not to mention not currently supported by science; while sexual differences do exist, we don’t currently know to what extent, if at all, it affects our behaviours and personalities.

2) Is it okay to say women are diffrent from men without implying that women are less than men?

I’ve already addressed how I believe that, even if he wasn’t meaning to, Caeasar’s words were putting women in a lesser position.

I think that it’s okay to say that women and men are different. I think it’s okay to say ways in which you believe they are different. However, I don’t think it’s okay to perpetuate your own beliefs as proven (using the term “always” and stating this is how men “are”), especially when traditionally this has been used to make women lesser.

3) Also, could he have gotten away with making the same remarks about black people?

My gut instinct says “no”, but not only am I (as a white person) not in a position to provide a definitive answer, having thought more carefully on the subject, these days people can get away with passing offensive concepts off as facts. So, it’s entirely plausible that he could have gotten away with it.

I think there’s an image that people tend to be more tolerant of racial minorites being racist towards each other on issues that are generally accepted as racist when coming from a white person.

I don’t know how true the image is, though. I don’t have any relevant experience with this kind of thing, beyond having a few instances in which individual people have used it to try to excuse racist things they’ve said about other minorities.

I do think, however, that no matter what group that sort of thing is said about — and no matter who it comes from — it’s not acceptable. Period.