Schwarzenegger’s “hot blood”
Which side are you on?
There is a war between men and women; and it is a class war. People don’t like to hear this. Nearly all of us find ourselves in this war in contradictory ways that both obscure its bipolarity and leave the violence of this war un-categorical, and therefore subject to manifold concealments. That is why I want to present it in a categorical and bipolar way. It is a war in which there are bonds of kinship and even love that cross the line.
And it is a war that is terribly unequal: a war of men against women, as separate, complimentarily inseparable, socially-constructed classes. It is not characterized by mere equality, but by structural domination-and-subordination. Gender as a class-system is imbricated with economic class, and with race and nationality.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger infamously remarked in a recently released tape, “She maybe is Puerto Rican or the same thing as Cuban. I mean they are all very hot. They have, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that, together, makes it.†The polarized reaction to his remarks were more illuminating than the remarks themselves. The former bodybuilder is already on record as a misogynist who makes unwelcome advances to women, and who disparages males by devaluing females (calling them “girly-menâ€).
Schwarzenegger quotes on the record:
“Bodybuilders party a lot, and once, in Gold’s – the gym in Venice, California, where all the top guys train – there was a black girl who came out naked. Everybody jumped on her and took her upstairs, where we all got together.”
“I get laid on purpose. I can’t sleep before a competition and I’m up all night, anyway, so instead of staring at the ceiling I figure I might as well find somebody and fuck… we had girls backstage giving head, then all of us went out and I won. It didn’t bother me at all; in fact, I went out there feeling like King Kong.”
“Sex was simply another kind of exercise, another body function… I didn’t have time to take one girl out regularly and go through a normal high-school romance with all its phone calls and notes and squabbles. That took too much time. I needed to be in the gym. For me it was a simple matter of picking them up at the lake, and then never seeing them again.”
So sayeth the blonde beast.
For those who say people can change, I’d be the last to disagree. But his suggestion that there is something called “Black blood†or “Latino blood,†that makes one “hot†was recorded this Spring. A reference to blood as being Black or Latino is clearly the reflection of a belief in innate racial characteristics; and only the most disingenuous apologists for the Governor of California will deny that the notion of “hotness†in women with skins darker than Arnold’s is very closely bound up with the belief that Black and Latina women are (1) promiscuous, and (2) un-rape-able. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a racist; and he is a misogynist. In his own words. On the record.
He is apologizing, because even most public figures who share his general world view know that such direct expression of those beliefs can be very politically damaging. Afterwards, we are all supposed to let it go — the offending individual has expressed his remorse — accept his lame excuses and explanations, and pretend that he doesn’t represent the views of most white people about brown people, or most men about women.
(One of the more remarkable things about the coverage was that his remarks were declared to be ethnically or racially “insensitive.†The sexual objectification of women was INVISIBLE.)
Our networked society, however, defies the discipline that a political party can impose on its operatives. It gives voice to the loose-lipped of the Amerikan mainstream, and so we hear from those who refuse to serve up their poison unadulterated, as well as the worst paid flaks. As readers peruse their remarks, consider my assertion that men are at war with women, that they see them as subordinates who must be subdued and colonized, a bit like the Bush administration sees Iraq. And just as there are collaborators in Iraq with the occupation, there are women who collaborate in their own — and their sisters’ — subjugation.
Schwarzenegger had said of Republican Bonnie Garcia, “Black blood mixed with Latino blood equals hot.” … Garcia, whose parents are from Puerto Rico, insists there was no need for Schwarzenegger to apologise, saying she refers to herself as a “hot-blooded Latina” all the time. -Indo-Asian News Service
State Sen. Martha Escutia, a Democrat who chairs the California Legislative Latino Caucus, said Schwarzenegger “has never been disrespectful to the Latino community.” – Michael R. Blood, Associated Press
As Sigmund Freud supposedly said: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar… Same with things that are said about race. Sometimes something said about race isn’t racist, but sometimes we’re all just too PC to face up to that fact. John Gibson, Fox News
Blog commentary:
People need to stop being so rediculously (sic) PC. He was complimenting them!
With all of the problems we face in today’s world, we spend our time on something like this – what a joke! … But let’s keep trying to make stories where there are none – that’s what is good for the real problems of the world… Hot or not – who cares? … Those complaining about what he said should be reported for insinuating that latinos are not hot – isn’t that the same? Isn’t that a slam on those who want to be known as “Hot”. Where do you draw the line on what you can say and not say?
If Arnold had done this in New Mexico he would be behind bars as it is now status quo for women to lie to law enforcement to end a mans career, profession and livelihood (sic).
Garcia earlier told the Times she often calls herself a “hot-blooded Latina.†Doesn’t sound like THIS gal is afraid of her sexuality.
Political correctness is way out of control these days. People are pretending to be much too sensitive because they think they can get something out of it. I applaud Bonnie Garcia for downplaying this harmless remark. Actually, I think she’s pretty hot too. Why are today’s women so affraid (sic) of sexuality? For today’s women, it has become a badge of dishonor to be thought of as sexy. What a shame.
He’s just pandering to the Mexican/American voters… This will come back to bite him. The ladies are HOT, but the gentlemen are JEALOUS. They might not let their wives and girlfriends go to the polls in November because of this… Karen, what about Ahnold is showing, that all Austrians like sweets?
Well at least he speaks his mind! There could be some truth in what the governor says!
I don’t know Arnold real well but I have been on a ski trip with him as part of the group (back when we were young and beautiful) and I can tell you, without hesitation, Arnold is a highly motivated and intelligent individual.
yeah big deal. i’m cuban and i’m not offended. though i see why some people might find this sort of comment annoying, if unchecked. but sounds like he was sort of joking around, and lord knows we all do that!
Arnold is still the man! Besides…if it is an inside joke then why be offended? Unless of course what he is saying is not true at all?
This is complete and utter BS. I fail to see the problem with the comment. Now I am pissed at Schwarzenneger (sic) for being such a pussy for bowing to these whiners. Get a backbone Schwarzenneger (sic)!
well, it may be a little bit racist but at least it wasn’t blatantly insulting, just biased. it could have been a lot worse.
What is it with republicans and the footinmouth? I don’t think his comments were terribly racist just unbelievably stupid. Question to Schwarzenegger: At the time of his missspeakings (sic) were both hands on the table?
C’mon, it’s Arnold. Give it to him because he’s awesome. He should be the next President. Too bad he was born in Austria (I think that’s right).
The reason that so many Democrats are also giving this guy a pass is that the Democratic Party is almost as white-male dominated (don’t tell me about their figureheads; I’ve been studying Dems for ten years) as the Republicans. The issue here is that these were not simply racist remarks, alluding to a belief in racially-encoded characteristics in the circulatory system; the position of women in this society is still one of such structural subjection that overt expressions that sexually objectify women, that reduce women’s value (for men) to their constructed desirability as a willing servant of what men perceive to be men’s “bodily functions†(it is in fact a question of colonization and power).
The invisibility of this issue serves to perpetuate that power. The ridicule of those who remind us of it as “PC†perpetuates that power. The devaluation of women in everyday speech (girlie-men, pussy, bitch) perpetuates this power. The dismissal of charges against anyone who engages in the devaluation of women, as they laugh, as “just humor,†perpetuates that power. The economic dependency (note, I did not say inequality, as if there was some separate measure) of women perpetuates this power. The socialization of women into that dependency perpetuates that power. The way we educate women, and men, perpetuates that power. The fact that many women, regardless of the law, still live under the daily threat of violence from men — often men who claim to love them — perpetuates this power. The fact that representations of women — in “entertainment,†in advertising, and in pornography — consolidate the sexual objectification of women in an inescapably ubiquitous way perpetuates that power. And so I make the claim that most men are still collaborators in the war on women.
But we don’t have to be. And we don’t have to give California’ Governor a pass.
There was an old union slogan back in the day — before business unionism and outsourcing and McCarthyism — that laid it out plain and simple with regard to the bosses and the workers. It applies here, too.
Which side are you on?
Marilyn Farhat:
Hey Stan,
I am glad you brought up the issue of the war between men and women and Schwrzeneggers’s values and comments.
I will address one of the comments:
>>
The above statement has so many things that are wrong with the way many men (and women) think.
1- It assumes that “Arnold” can do what others can’t because of his charisma or super star status, after all that is what got him elected in the first place.
2- It may also mean that because of his fame and charisma, he is harmless to women and his comments should not be taken as offensive. Or women should feel lucky that they are getting his attention for a brief moment????
3- The fact that he is “awesome” gives him more leeway and permission to transgress into areas other men may be forbidden to go into, mainly treating women like dirt. Therein comes the class wars between those who are famous (rich?) and those who are not. Too bad all you poor skinny non-blonde males out there are out of luck! After all, those who can, will (if they have no morals).
4- As far as him deserving to be the next President, that ones scares the daylights out of me. I am hearing this a lot among Republicans in California who really want to amend our laws to allow Americans not born in the US to become President just because they want “Arnie” to get the job. This is an indication of the depth of their understanding of the purpose of political office and the laws that regulate them.
5- “Too bad he was born in Austria.” Do I detect a hint of racism against Austrians? Or is it that we love Austrians when they act like hogs towards women and shun them when they abuse other nationalities? This is the kind of disconnected thinking that is prevalent here.
There is, and has been, a cultural and political war against women all over the world, but here are many men I know who would be obhorred by what Schwarzenegger said and there are many women who do not mind it.
When Arnold was first elected as Governor, I was asking people who voted for him why they did. Following are a few responses:
1- He is sooooo cute (peace activist woman)
2- We need someone in office who is not a politician for a change. Maybe things will get better then (a psychiatrist I work with and Colonel in the National Guard)
3- He has a cute accent (another “liberal” woman)
4- He is famous and therefore he can get a lot of things done differently (a number of males)
There were other factors involved in his election (Republican vs. Democrat), but that is not for this discussion.
I think this culture is enamoured with CELEBRITIES. Such infatuation cuts across class, economic, and gender lines. I keep thinking back to OJ Simpson and the fiasco of a trial he went through because of his fame. He was a male who possibly committed the greatest crime against a woman (murder). In all class wars, women are at the bottom.
We are at the beginning of the twilight of this empire. Our morality reflects it. It is non-existent in the larger scheme of things. We are enamoured with shallow and glitzy people because they symbolize success that is based on materialism. Morality becomes insignificant.
I was once talking to a female nurse co-worker about the fact that we have never had a female president in the most democratic nation in the world. Her reply was the following: “This country is not ready yet for a woman president and women can be just as nasty as men in politics.”
I don’t know what to say when it comes to why people like Schwarzenegger get voted into office despite their abysmal record on how they treat women and lower income people. There is respect towards Schwartzenegger by Republican males because he symbolizes the spirit of entrepreneurship that they are after (Capitalism?). After all, he did come from a humble background in Austria and managed to become famous through much effort a certain degree of intelligence. But what these same Republicans do not realize is that Schwartzenegger is the exception, not the rule, where accumulation of wealth and fame are concerned.
I think the way to combat gender issues in all areas of our culture, we have to start by teaching our children how to recognize it and how to treat each other respectfully. The female is an important part of the child rearing process, but if the female is socialized into a role of subservience and acquiescence to disrespect, she will transmit those values to her children in the same way that dominant and disrespectful men transmit the image of their dominance and ownership of females. In a sense, children reared in such families will get a message that is doubly reinforced by the submissiveness of the mother and the dominance of the father (both parents internalize the necessity of such an arrangement and agree to it).
This will only change for the better if women are able and willing to participate in the same areas that powerful men participate in, but then, they will have to say no when their rights are violated. Our laws, over time, have been amended for the betterment of women. Despite that fact, abuses remain prevalent because, culturally speaking, the idea of true equality has not been internalized amongst many men and women.
10 September 2006, 6:08 pmStan:
I suppose I should explain why I have an aversion to the word “equality.” I associate it with liberalism. Not “liberalism” in popular usage, but the more general philosophical trend of liberalism associated with the capitalist form of patriarchy.
Liberty. EQUALITY. Fraternity. (note the latter applies to men only)
What does it mean, this equality?
Here is a thought. I have a sycamore tree in my back yard. Very distinctive and identifiable leaves. In the world at large, there are probably billions of sycamore leaves. Every single one is recognizable as a sycamore leaf, just like we are recognizable as human beings. And every single one is different, just like every one of us is different.
So there are some identifiable patterns that make us the same species, but concretely we are most assuredly not equal. And that is just at the most basic biological level. Add social differentiations, and the inequalities multiply like nutria.
In a liberal society, where this philosophy is the expression of property and sexual and racial-national relations, and those relations and that philosophy have institutional expressions in the form of civil society and the state, as well as legal expression in the form of laws, the notion of equality only applies to immediate situations, with any reference to historical inequality, or even social inequality, excluded from the “equation.”
A few owmen competing with a few men for seats on the board of directors fo a Fortune 500 company has nothing to do with equality, but this is precisely what “equality” looks like in the liberal universe. Property, a dnagersous and destructive social fiction, which forms the basis of our most dramatic social inequalities, is protected by liberal law as the very basis of liberal society.
So in the piece on Schwarzenegger I was very explicit: I said, “The economic dependency (note, I did not say inequality, as if there was some separate measure) of women perpetuates this power.” The problem between white and non-white, between men and women, worker and owner, between core nation and periphery, etc., cannot be expressed as an equal sign or a not-equal sign. This suggests (the liberal fallacy) that the problem is abstract, like like qualities in unlike quantities…. a kind of numerical difference. It suggests that the higher numbers of men, white people, capitalists, etc. have no direct bearing on the lower numbers of the Others. So we look for numbers to figure it out, and we come up with per capita income, net worth, GDP. etc., and the basis of the relationship is still obscured. The problem is that one group can demand obedience from the other, and enforce that obedience with violence and guile. the structure is not described by the term “equality” or “inequality,” but by domination and subjugation, tied together in a single relation.
Just something to think about.
When we use liberalism’s categories, we cannot escape from liberalism’s fallacies. Audre Lorde said it: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”
10 September 2006, 7:37 pmYolanda Carrington:
Marilyn…I associate “equality” with philosophical liberalism as well, and liberalism is something I have no time for. The idea that “we” are all governed by a social contract—a contract created solely for property-owning (white) men only mind you—is the premise of liberalism, a premise that’s extremely infuriating to me.
I don’t WANT to be equal to white men, ’cause I like to think I can do better than that. I want to get out from under the damn yoke that white guys have created for the other five billion-plus of us on Earth. I want a humanity that doesn’t make the White Man the standard. Equality has nothing to do with liberation.
By the way…FUCK YOU Governor Schwarzenegger! Just had to say that.
11 September 2006, 12:00 ampeggy:
Just to be stroppy, Stan, I think that “equal” is one thing and “identical” is another. Most people know (I hope) that no human being is identical to any other. Even no sycamore leaf is identical to any other. If two leaves were identical, that would mean they were just exactly the same in every respect.
But equality is a matter not of inherent properties (such as color, gender, blood-type, circumstances of birth, et cetera) but of value. Value is ascribed to a thing or person; it is not an inherent property of that thing or person. The call for “equality” is a call for all human beings to be ascribed equal value by all other human beings. No human being should be regarded as intrinsically infereior to others, nor as intinsically superior. Whether that goal is achievable or not is another question. It is an ideal way of thinking to which a particular individual may or may not subscribe. Difference is fine and in itself to be valued as necessary. But difference should not be confused with, or converted to, inequality.
Yolanda is obviously not identical to Arnie. But is she, or should she be, his equal? Should she be valued by other human beings as highly as Arnie is valued? I for one value Yolanda much more highly than I value Arnie, and it would be very hard for me to ascribe equal value to them. But doesn’t Yolanda deserve to be treated, at least by the law of the land, as of equal value to the most privileged celebrity anywhere? And vice-versa? And if there are existing measurable inequalies, for instance in access to all the things that money can buy, shouldn’t those inequalities be levelled? I think they should.
Yolanda and Arnie should, for instance, have equal access to the same quality of health care, the same quality of legal protection. This kind of equality I think is both desirable and achievable. The only differences that should be recognized are differences in need. If Yolanda needs a new house but Arnie doesn’t, Yolanda should be given assistance to get a new house and Arnie shouldn’t. Who could argue with this? Only those who think that Arnie is of higher value than Yolanda, because he is a white man, and white men are more important and of higher value than women of color. I don’t think that, but obviously some people do. It is up to us to show those people why their value system is at odds with empirical fact.
Which brings me to a second point. I believe that no intelligent person who had bothered to find out the factual truth about certain things could hold the views that Arnie has expressed. Arnie is widely considered to be not too bright. Unintelligence is part of the total gestalt which is Arnie. So either he really is unintelligent or he has created an appearance of himself as being unintelligent, the further to endear himself to those many who value unintelligent, muscle-bound guys.
For I don’t know how long, there has been a struggle in the United States between those who value intelligence in others and those who value its lack. I don’t know why this is. Probably more than one book has been written on this very topic. The people who value unintelligence seem to be in the majority in the US. Otherwise, why would such obvious displays of stupidity that people like Dubya and Arnie are given to be tolerated by the public?
I won’t go on to burden folks with my own speculations as to why so many Americans value both stupidity and ignorance in others. At least not right now. I just want to direct Feral Scholars’ attention to a phenomenon I think may have been overlooked in our discussions.
12 September 2006, 2:35 amYolanda Carrington:
“Yolanda is obviously not identical to Arnie. But is she, or should she be, his equal? Should she be valued by other human beings as highly as Arnie is valued”?
Peggy, the example you give still sets the Governator and his class (rich white men) as the standard. That’s exactly what I was saying—I don’t WANT to be equal to this standard. It’s a violent, wasteful, dehumanizing, unsustainable standard. Schwarznegger and his ilk have power and privileges that neither they, nor any human being, should have. Shit, he executed a person, for God’s sake.
I don’t want to be equal to members of the ruling class in a system of gender, wealth, and race domination. That’s the kind of equality that Oprah Winfrey and Colin Powell have. And they can keep it too.
No one’s arguing against the idea that all humans are equal in value and basic rights, but that’s not the question we’re talking about. We’re talking about the liberal notion of equality. My self-worth or the self-worth of anybody else from my class has nothing to do with this question. If human worth had anything to do with material assets, all women on Earth would be billionaires.
12 September 2006, 4:39 amMarilyn Farhat:
I think we all understand terms and lables based on our backgrounds and area of specialty. The equality I was referring to has nothing to do with liberalism. I do not identify with any particular philosophy or religion. I used the word “equality” from a purely linguistic and legal perspective. We are all equal under the law (human rights laws). Men and women should have equal opportunities and responsibilities based on their individual capabilities, needs, and contributions. Treating women differently to their personal and economic detriment because they are women is inequality between the sexes (genders?), with one getting the lower end of the stick.
Men and women are different but equal. They have different capabilities, they remain equal. They express their needs differently, they remain equal. Despite that equality under the law, they do not have real access to the same opportunities. Accessibility is the issue.
I just heard another comment today at work from another female nurse: “that is the reason we should never have a woman for president. Women are bitchy and hormonal.” How far can women go if they believe this rubbish? And the woman who was making that comment makes over $80,000 a year with overtime, loves animals, likes guns, belongs to the NRA, thinks Bush is stupid, does not like children, loves cats, campaigns against the building of a Super Wal Mart in the city, but still makes a comment like that. Is there a contradiction? I think economically speaking she is doing great.
Those are the kinds of cultural attitudes that are perpetuated by men and women and that continue to oppress women. Men and women, in the US, are equal under the law, but they do not have equal rights in society because this nation, as a collective, does not have the political or cultural will to cross the line. But we see that in other areas too, not just in gender issues.
In my opinion, the true measure of power is in the ability to influence others publicly and, therefore, economically and politically. Women remain far from that status. Things may change (slowly) if enough people (men and women) have the will and stamina to encourage women to seek positions of influence in society and to sell them on the idea that it is good for all women and men.
Values cannot be legislated or changed by force. They come over decades and centuries of indoctrination. In the case of our current world view, it is one dominated by patriarchal, authoritarian, tribal, and vindictive philosphies derived from a world view that puts the male in charge and the woman as the cause of our descent from Heaven into an imperfect world, and therefore, the weaker and more imperfect one. It is THE dominant metaphor in our 3 “Great” world religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is those 3 religions and their descendents that are duking it out in the world and they are doing it in all areas of their belief, including how they view and treat women. The stricter they are, the better Christians of Muslims they (men) are.
There are so many things that contribute to the problems between men and women and it would take a book to talk about them, but it will always be a struggle. No way around it. Just like violence and war. We will always have them. The question to ask in this case is: how do we still promote the ideas and practices that encourage human worth in all individuals and, how do we sell those ideas to as many people as possible?
How do we tell a farmer in India that it is better for his daughter to go to school so she has a better chance when she grows up when that farmer’s immediate concern is: who will tend my flock when my daughter is in school, otherwise the whole family will starve? Meanwile, the male child has the “privilege” of going to school.
Poverty? Yes. Exactly. Values? Also yes. How do we erase poverty off the face of the planet? Well, the way things are going, the future does not look too good and the global corporations are mainly to blame. Fueling that is the insatiable gluttony of the West for more natural resources.
Our current form of world economy and our patriarchal ideologies really make it difficult to improve the lot of most women around the world.
There have been experiments done in India and other places where women were taught and encouraged to start their own businesses within their own communities. These women were able to rescue their small villages from economic collapse. Those approaches can help ease the burden. They may not be perfect but they are a step forward:
http://www.indiatogether.org/women/business/business.htm.
I think the best way for any of us to help is to practice what we believe in ourselves by encouraging independence and self-esteem in our female children and by nurturing those among them who want economic prosperity to go for it WITHOUT feeling guilty and without compromising their values.
12 September 2006, 10:43 pmMarilyn Farhat:
As a follow-up, this link is not about Schwarzenegger, but about the rising problem of dowry deaths in India. It comes from the same website above. The basic premise is that there is a deeper values related cause to the oppression of women in India. It is not strictly economic since many of those mudered come from middle class families. We do not kill women for dowries in the US, but statistics indicate that 1/3 of all women in the US are sexually, or physically abused at least once in their lifetime, usually by a close male friend, relative, or spouse. Statistics also show that the #1 cause of homicide of women in the US is domestic violence or a close male, and it cuts across racial, class, and economic lines.
Women are the property of men because men and women are socialized into those roles. Those are roles we have not shed in thousands of years.
Try to fight them and both men and women will shun you. Been there, done that.
http://www.indiatogether.org/2006/mar/ksh-marriage.htm
12 September 2006, 11:29 pm