Race vs Gender

[naughty]

Ok...Why is there such a furor over CNN saying that black women would be put in an interesting position in SC in having to decide to vote in this primary? Also is this not virtually infering that there are no other candidates of substance other than Clinton or Obama? Let's not be naive, I think the bottom line is perception. How does the individual see either candidate as supporting their personal needs and issues? I just dont feel there is any need to get worked up about it. What do you think?

 

[B_Hickboy]

King Kong vs. Godzilla
Nature vs. Nurture
This vs. That
Da Bulls vs. Da Bears

Our media do all they can to foster a dualistic, adversarial mindset. They constantly barrage us with questions of one thing versus one other thing in an effort to sell us on the pernicious adage that there are "two sides to every story". It's bullshit. There are three hundred million of us in this country, so there are three hundred million sides to this story. Life is complex, and everybody needs to get over whining about it.

The media want us to believe that the outcomes of the primaries and subsequent election will be based on the participation of any one group. Where they get this crap, I don't know, but I'm offended by their ceaseless pandering to the lowest-common-denominator-dumbed-down, least sophisticated elements of our society. There is no "them" vs. "us" here. There is only us, and we are fucked unless we all somehow learn to count higher than two. Sure, there will be only one winner, but efforts on the part of the media to decomplexify the process will ultimately do more harm than good.

 

[snoozan]

Just like any other person, why wouldn't we expect a black women to vote for the candidate that she thinks will run the country most effectively? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. There's no need to have this idea that a black woman must break ranks with either her race or her gender to vote. Who would say that same thing about white men if they choose to not vote for one of the white male candidates?

However, it is somewhat true that Hilary and Obama are looking to be the viable candidates for the democratic ticket with John Edwards coming in a rather distant third, so in a way it does boil down to just Obama and Hilary for the upcoming primary. When the general election comes is will be one of them against a white male, who at that point these women should not have to feel they are breaking ranks if they vote for him.

 

[Principessa]

Ok...Why is there such a furor over CNN saying that black women would be put in an interesting position in SC in having to decide to vote in this primary? Also is this not virtually infering that there are no other candidates of substance other than Clinton or Obama? Let's not be naive, I think the bottom line is perception. How does the individual see either candidate as supporting their personal needs and issues? I just dont feel there is any need to get worked up about it. What do you think?

There are no other viable democratic candidates of substance. I didn't hear the CNN report but doesn't South Carolina usually end up voting Republican?

I think that it would be lovely if the candidates were judged on on merit but lets be homest, this is America.

I new it would come down to race vs. gender at some point but I thought they would wait until summer. Looks like the mud-slinging may start early this go round. :frown1:

 

[HazelGod]

Also is this not virtually infering that there are no other candidates of substance other than Clinton or Obama?

No, it doesn't...which is probably why they think the choice will be interesting.

For black women in SC, a vote for Clinton might be seen as a sellout of their race and their home state

A vote for Obama might be a sellout of their gender and home state.

Finally, a vote for Edwards might be seen as support for their home candidate (yes, I'm aware he's from NC)...or it might be seen as a sellout of both their race and gender.

Of course, you'd have to be a fucking retard for any of these things to be a significant basis for your decision...but then again, that does describe a sizable chunk of the eligible voters in this country, doesn't it?

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

For some reason the debates about Obama remind me of discussions about affirmative action. There seems to be an unreasonable concern that he will garner votes simply because of his skin color, and that is entirely possible.

However, Huckabee may receive votes because he is evangelical christian, Hillary because she is a woman, Romney because he is Mormon, etc.
There are variables and a matching voter base with any candidate, it would be nice if Obama's were not singled out as unusual.

 

[B_cigarbabe]

King Kong vs. Godzilla
Nature vs. Nurture
This vs. That
Da Bulls vs. Da Bears

Our media do all they can to foster a dualistic, adversarial mindset. They constantly barrage us with questions of one thing versus one other thing in an effort to sell us on the pernicious adage that there are "two sides to every story". It's bullshit. There are three hundred million of us in this country, so there are three hundred million sides to this story. Life is complex, and everybody needs to get over whining about it.

The media want us to believe that the outcomes of the primaries and subsequent election will be based on the participation of any one group. Where they get this crap, I don't know, but I'm offended by their ceaseless pandering to the lowest-common-denominator-dumbed-down, least sophisticated elements of our society. There is no "them" vs. "us" here. There is only us, and we are fucked unless we all somehow learn to count higher than two. Sure, there will be only one winner, but efforts on the part of the media to decomplexify the process will ultimately do more harm than good.

Beautifully said by one of my favorite people!
cigarbabe:saevil:

 

[widenine]

I don't know why gender, or the implied solidarity based on gender, would be a serious consideration for a black woman in America today. Perhaps it will be once all minorities feel (or start to feel) that they, too, have access to all that america has to offer.... and that race is a neglible factor in what you do, where you live and the types of jobs that are accessible. If black women, in general, have equal rights and access to employment possibilities and all that this would provide, maybe gender would be worth discussing.

People vote for candidates who support their ideals. Black women and black people, in general, are still skeptical, disheartened or angry about the evasiveness of the American dream. And it's especially difficult to see other recently arrived immigrants having more access than blacks have been able to achieve. Note that I'm speaking generally and about those black people who have paid their dues and really are being excluded just because they are not white.

So when it comes time to vote for someone who is also black or someone who is also a woman. The choice should be clear. In times when equality is absent, although less so than in the past, the vote goes to he or she who shares your greatest problems. I suggest that boasting womanhood, when white women both reap the benefits of white male dominance and often embrace racial discrimination, equates to minorities as just more of the same.

A minority oresidential candidate who believes in equality for everyone, and shares the experience of isolation because of race, despite his new prominance, will be challenged to strive for change and will be much more believable to minorities and others who share the same pain.

Yes, white men and women also fight for change against racism in America. But, being a black democrat or independent, were would your vote go? Believe me...............nobody votes based on what would be best for the country.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Naughty, I'm surprised that you don't find that CNN comment to be offensive and outrageous.

What that comment means to me is that the folks at CNN don't think you, as a black woman, have the intelligence to choose your candidate based on issues, ideology, and platform. That is offensive. The whole concept of "breaking ranks" absolutely drives me mad. The idea that a candidate's race or gender is more important than what he would do in office is just disgusting.

As an illustration, and casting no apersions upon anyone, given the choice between:

Lex and Beverly LaHaye: Lex.
You and LaHaye: You.
You and Mike Huckabee: You.
Lex and Huckabee: Lex.
Hillary Clinton and Louis Farakhan: Clinton.

For anyone to suggest that I should feel obligated to vote for a white male, simply because he is a white male like me, is a slap in the face. I would think that for any person, even a black female, suggesting that your only choice for political decisions depend on race or gender, would also be a slap in the face. Suggesting that "a black woman's choice between a black man and a white woman for president is a difficult one" is just an outrage.

 

[naughty]

Naughty, I'm surprised that you don't find that CNN comment to be offensive and outrageous.

What that comment means to me is that the folks at CNN don't think you, as a black woman, have the intelligence to choose your candidate based on issues, ideology, and platform. That is offensive. The whole concept of "breaking ranks" absolutely drives me mad. The idea that a candidate's race or gender is more important than what he would do in office is just disgusting.

As an illustration, and casting no apersions upon anyone, given the choice between:

Lex and Beverly LaHaye: Lex.
You and LaHaye: You.
You and Mike Huckabee: You.
Lex and Huckabee: Lex.
Hillary Clinton and Louis Farakhan: Clinton.

For anyone to suggest that I should feel obligated to vote for a white male, simply because he is a white male like me, is a slap in the face. I would think that for any person, even a black female, suggesting that your only choice for political decisions depend on race or gender, would also be a slap in the face. Suggesting that "a black woman's choice between a black man and a white woman for president is a difficult one" is just an outrage.

DC,

I think Widenine has really touched on the crux of the matter. When I was AGAIN watching CNN last night, they had Faye Waddleton and a professor from Duke on the show discussing how they felt about the Race vs Gender issue . Waddleton pointed out that to be truthful there has always been a schism between women from the inception of the women's movement. From the initial convention of women in the 1850's, a black woman was never really a player in the game. Yes, Sojourner Truth's poignant "Ain't I a woman" speech was used to make the larger point of the viability of women for equal rights, yet she was still seen as a black woman by the leaders of the movement and thus lesser than. Perhaps it may have been because many of the initiators of the women's movement had been white women of privilege who had even the option of complaining about their "Gilded Cages", but most women and especially black women at the time had worked and worked hard all their lives and had no voice.
Unfortunately, this continued even through the revitalization of the Women's rights struggle of the 70's and 80's. White feminists seemed to have embraced their "sisters" only long enough to garner their support on gender issues but were not as eager to assist black women in their fight for racial issues. The collective memory is a long one, so many older black women and women from certain socio economic situations do not see Senator Clinton as someone who understands what they go through as a black woman.

When their platforms are so close to one another it will basically come down to the perception of "What have you done for me lately?" Which is basically what most people will be voting for be they black, white, asian, latino, gay, straight. "How do you feel about my issues?" and "How will you make my life better?" Does it sound selfis?, It is very much so, but most people, as sad as it may seem, generally go with that which is most comfortable for them. I am not going to call them f....... retards, as HazelGOD so eloquently stated, but it is what it is...

 

[Osiris]

The media is trying to play up Hilary the woman and Obama the black guy. It's ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as saying Oprah would strengthen the black female vote for Obama when in fact her viewership is 30-40 and white female. Race and gender are overshadowing the real issues here and they should be taken off the table. Look at congressional record, look at where they stand on issues that should be your guide.

The sad fact is that there are a lot of black voters who can be easily lead and as such, will "vote for people like them". I think if you present that arguement, and it were substantive, it would hands down be Obama over Hilary because black women don't trust white women as a rule?

What was that you said? My last statement is ridiculous? Yes it is just as ridiculous as a person voting based on race or gender.

IMO Obama and THE Clintons better get their act together. This school yard crap they are pulling all of a sudden is going to make Edwards a shoe in for the next Democratic candidate and will once again lock the Democrats out of the White House.

 

[DC_DEEP]

When their platforms are so close to one another it will basically come down to the perception of "What have you done for me lately?" Which is basically what most people will be voting for be they black, white, asian, latino, gay, straight. "How do you feel about my issues?" and "How will you make my life better?" Does it sound selfis?, It is very much so, but most people, as sad as it may seem, generally go with that which is most comfortable for them. I am not going to call them f....... retards, as HazelGOD so eloquently stated, but it is what it is...

Naughty, I actually thought about adding something along these lines in my post, but it was already way too long...:biggrin1:

I agree that it gets a little more difficult when the platforms are close. I may be an anomaly, though. If presented with that situation, my first reaction still would not be a "genetic choice" such as race or gender. I would do a little more research into their political past, and carefully study their historical positions on key issues.

And no, it's not selfish. As a gay man, I can certainly understand wanting a president who leans more toward equal civil rights than against them. Civil rights issues among various groups have similarities and differences.

But believe it or not, if it were down to two candidates, one of them a single-issue gay rights advocate, and one of them fairly neutral on gay rights but strong in support for all the "more disenfranchised," I would actually choose the one who supported more of the minorities rather than the one who supported fewer of them.

I guess a better (hypothetical) way to say it would be this. If it were down to those two, and Obama was strong on rights for blacks, and Clinton was strong on rights for women and gays, I would choose her. If Obama was campaigning on rights for blacks and women, and Clinton supported women's rights, I would go for Obama. The more inclusive candidate would get my support, not just necessarily the one who claimed to support my one little group.

 

[OmahaBeef]

Quit the Herd and join the Pack...

Ron Paul

...OB

 

[widenine]

I believe you have a strong point. And I also believe it's inaccurate if you are implying that the disenfranchisement of blacks is the same as that experienced by non-heterosexuals. Were you saying that or did I read too much into your analogy?

 

[HazelGod]

Here's a very poignant take on it from the perspective of a black female law professor from USC (Univ. of S. Carolina):

You can't turn on a 24-hour news channel or your nightly news this week without seeing a feature on African-American women voters. It makes sense, being that the South Carolina Democratic primary is only one day away and African-American women will make up approximately one-third of the voters.

The angle in these news features is virtually identical. The commentators wonder and marvel at the extraordinarily difficult choice for African-American women in this primary -- will we vote for the woman candidate or the African-American candidate? Reporters have been busying themselves traveling to crowded beauty shops all over the state to answer this question.

The funniest, or perhaps most disturbing, thing about these stories is how far they are from my reality. I am an African-American woman living in South Carolina. I have African-American women family members and friends who live in this state. I actually visit beauty shops to get my hair done. Never once have I heard a single woman I know frame the choice about whom to vote for as a question of gender or racial politics.

So what are African-American women talking about when the cameras aren't watching or, more importantly, what are we telling the media that is not being fairly reported? African-American women are talking about the issues!

We talk about the vision that each candidate has for leading this country. We enthusiastically discuss the possibility that real, positive change will come from this election. We even parse the policy distinctions in the candidates' positions on education, creating jobs and ending the war in Iraq.

Sometimes, the issues we talk about do deal with aspects of gender and racial identity. We debated Sen. Hillary Clinton's statement implying that Martin Luther King's civil rights movement did not fulfill its promise until Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. We argue and marvel at the significant generational divide in the African-American community that is being exposed by this election process.

If you listen closely to the women in the news features at the beauty shops, they are commenting on these issues, even when the voice-over in the same feature is telling you that the women are discussing whether it's more important to have the first woman or the first black president.

Why is the media determined to make us choose? Why do they insist that we declare our loyalty to either women or to African-Americans? This is a truly false dichotomy in that we are the living, breathing embodiment of both identities. Asking us to prefer our gender over our race (or vice versa) is the equivalent of asking us to prefer one vital organ over another.

That is not to say that identity politics are completely irrelevant in this election. African-American women are expressing their pride in both candidates and in the progress this country has made that allows a white woman and an African-American man to be strong contenders for the presidency. My mother is uplifted by the idea that Obama's candidacy means that her two grandsons will grow up being able to realistically dream about being president.

On Saturday, we will carry this pride into the voting booth with us, but when we cast our votes, we will be thinking about the serious issues facing this country. That's the truth, and don't let the media tell you otherwise.

~ Danielle Holley-Walker

 

[Osiris]

Here's a very poignant take on it from the perspective of a black female law professor from USC (Univ. of S. Carolina):

Thank you HazelGod! I think the point has been made on where black women stand.

Do you hear that? I think it's the fat lady singing on this issue...

And yes she is black and singing her own tune. :wink:

 

[DC_DEEP]

Thanks for that article, HG. It was a bit more elegant and eloquent than my clumsy attempt to say exactly the same thing.

I believe you have a strong point. And I also believe it's inaccurate if you are implying that the disenfranchisement of blacks is the same as that experienced by non-heterosexuals. Were you saying that or did I read too much into your analogy?

To whom, specifically, is this addressed? You probably should quote someone, or use their username in your post, if you are addressing a specific person.