Reply #8: That's a fantastic point [View All]

[TeamsterDem]

about diluting the power of the terms; I think I was headed that way in my post but never quite got there.

It's a dangerous thing to cry wolf especially when there are actually wolves out there. By that I mean there most surely IS sexism in this country (regrettably), and there is just as regrettably racism. But when we overuse those terms we create hostility towards our cause. Just look at the hostility I displayed in my post at being called a sexist for an example of how hostility is created.

By my lights we should be careful about how we use such terms if only because their overuse has a tendency to make people angry. Of course we should call things as they are and not be afraid to challenge racism and sexism when we see it; that goes without saying. But by shotgunning terms around in such a haphazard fashion we're angering people and fostering disunity (and yes, it works both ways: Obama supporters need to rein it in as well).

In another thread someone asked how Clinton is hurting the feminist cause. I provided an answer but have thought about it some more and would like to augment my response with this: Considering the scant nature of the "evidence" of sexism, most honest observers will notice that the charge is essentially trumped up. Some of those observers will then undoubtedly blame feminists as "uppity" women who'll complain about anything, thus damaging the true cases in which sexism is involved. And since there are feminists who prefer Obama to Clinton, they resent being labeled as "inferior" feminists, thus it fractures the feminist cause. Not good things to have in your cause, distrust and disunity. I'm a union member; believe me I know.