Jeremy picks up on this CNN talking point. It’s Race vs Gender and Black Women face a Tough Choice! As noted in the first comment in the thread, “this ‘race vs. gender’ construction, as if men have no gender and whites have no race, is driving a lot of people crazy.”
{ 1 trackback }
{ 33 comments }
abb1 01.22.08 at 8:44 am
Everyone should get a pair of those magic sunglasses that allow you to see them for what they really are.
Josh in Philly 01.22.08 at 9:27 am
I think Atrios was the frist to observe that it’s not that unique and that he can think of at least one other group with exactly that dilemma.
JP Stormcrow 01.22.08 at 11:57 am
Yes, others finally get to see the pain of uncertain choice that white men have had to struggle by themselves with, lo, these many elections.
ajay 01.22.08 at 11:58 am
2: do you mean white men? (As in “Well, Hillary’s white… but Obama’s a man! Oh, it’s too much for my frail little brain…”)
I suppose you could think of all sorts of categories. Mormons who hate and fear ferrets, for example, face the Mitt/Rudy choice.
Seth Finkelstein 01.22.08 at 12:22 pm
Well, if you’re white and male, you vote Republican, no conflict there! :-)
Jon H 01.22.08 at 12:26 pm
Surprisingly, at this time CNN.com has a front-page story on these complaints. Doesn’t really accomplish anything, just presents the complaints, but hey, it’s something.
Martin Wisse 01.22.08 at 2:40 pm
And poor old class is neglected as usual.
Black Women Everywhere 01.22.08 at 2:53 pm
Luckily, we have scheduled a meeting just before the South Carolina primaries where we will decide whether we are women first, and only black as an afterthought; or black first, and only secondarily female. One a decision is made, we will then all vote as a block, and either shun or disenfranchise fellow black women who do not follow the party line.
Contemplation of the relative merits of the specific candidates will be excluded from the debate, as the decision whom to vote for will follow naturally from the determination of who were ARE, not any given policy positions we hold.
Also, if the candidate we chose to all support does not win the primary, we have taken a vow to all support John McCain in the presidential election.
Steve LaBonne 01.22.08 at 3:00 pm
[snark]Perhaps because it’s something the Clintons conspicuously lack. [/snark]
Serious response: that’s because of the MSM conspiracy to avoid mentioning the existence of John Edwards, who is the only candidate talking about it.
Kirsty Y 01.22.08 at 4:32 pm
I know some women feel insulted by assumption like this, but it’s not a total “construction”, there’s quite a lot truth in the generalisation. The voting patterns support that view and many are happy to play the stereotypes. Many women say they are rooting for Hillary Clinton because they want to see a woman elected president, and they don’t even find it remotely embarrasing to say that.
geo 01.22.08 at 6:02 pm
For a timely reminder of why identity politics is such a terrible idea, see Walter Benn Michaels, The Trouble with Diversity.
P O'Neill 01.22.08 at 6:23 pm
It could be that in CNN land, men vote according to their sex while women vote according to their gender.
Righteous Bubba 01.22.08 at 6:35 pm
I await David Broder’s suggestion to split black women in two so Hillary and Obama can share them.
Aulus Gellius 01.22.08 at 7:21 pm
I’d take 11’s point a little farther: it is, in fact, a lot more likely (and legitimate) that a black person’s vote should be affected by the desire to elect the first black president, or a woman by the desire to affect the first woman president, than that a white man will be getting all excited about continuing the record streak. (If a dead male Second Sophistic grammarian ever gets on the ballot, he’s certainly going to have an advantage in winning my support.)
Of course, there is a related dilemma faced by some white males (and others): “I hate both black people and women, and, for the purposes of this illustration, I have forgotten about the existence of both John Edwards and the Republican party! Whatever shall I do?” But it isn’t really the same thing.
Aulus Gellius 01.22.08 at 7:28 pm
To be fair, CNN does seem to assume, in its approach to this issue, that black women are all idiots. But I’m inclined to a generous interpretation of that: if you work in TV you probably get used to assuming that everyone’s an idiot. Anyway, CNN aside, there is an actual issue there.
KCinDC 01.22.08 at 7:39 pm
When did Obama turn orange?
will u. 01.22.08 at 7:49 pm
17, I was wondering that as well. Either the race in question is Oompa-Loompa, or it’s the effect of the orange make-up I’m told people wear on television.
will u. 01.22.08 at 7:50 pm
Also, with a law professor named O’Bama in the race, Kieran should have no trouble choosing.
Seth Finkelstein 01.22.08 at 7:57 pm
#15 – That could be the basis for a pretty funny article in the satirical “The Onion” – something like “Area Yellow-Dog Democrats torn between discomfort with blacks, women” (“Trog Lydite has been a conservative Democrat all his life. But with the current front-runners, he now finds himself faced with a uncomfortable choice …”)
CJColucci 01.22.08 at 8:56 pm
That’s far and away the hottest picture of Hillary Clinton I’ve seen.
Jon H 01.22.08 at 10:05 pm
“That’s far and away the hottest picture of Hillary Clinton I’ve seen.”
Looks a little like Nina Hartley.
gag.
amrood 01.22.08 at 10:08 pm
I am more concerned with social security and health coverage [issues] but unfortunately the fuss has been about experience vs. change [whatever that suppose to mean] or black man vs. woman. It’s made a big deal in the US about choosing a woman leader. We did it in a Pakistan back in the 90s [twice]. Bhutto was no different than her male counterparts. Same is true in other countries that had female leaders. Sadly, the media isn’t covering the issues
At the end of the day, both are Clinton Democrats.
CJColucci 01.22.08 at 10:22 pm
Looks a little like Nina Hartley.
You’re right, I see the resemblance. Nina is still working, by the way, well into middle age.
Katherine 01.22.08 at 10:23 pm
as if men have no gender and whites have no race
But this is whole damn point y’see. When a major news broadcaster (and every other damn broadcaster) can apparently be completely oblivious to the fact that they treat white and male as the default state of existence, it illustrates how little has really changed. It’s more than driving me crazy, it’s depressing.
Luke 01.22.08 at 11:14 pm
As a gay, I can assure everyone that no pictures of Hillary are “hot.” No Venn Diagram for her, no sir.
Besides, where’s my gay candidate? Not all of us get to vote in Idaho or South Carolina!
Jon H 01.23.08 at 12:25 am
“Besides, where’s my gay candidate? Not all of us get to vote in Idaho or South Carolina!”
The Republicans are set on the idea that Hil’s a lesbian, so there’s that.
vivian 01.23.08 at 2:04 am
@15: “it is, in fact, a lot more likely (and legitimate) that a black person’s vote should be affected by the desire to elect the first black president, or a woman by the desire to affect the first woman president, than that a white man will be getting all excited about continuing the record streak.”
Hey, that explains why so few white men run for office,
spendwaste their private fortunes, give money to others and run private vote-caging operations.Luke 01.24.08 at 1:55 am
“The Republicans are set on the idea that Hil’s a lesbian, so there’s that.”
Jon, until I receive photographic evidence of her in plaid flannel, eating organic yogurt and rocking out to the Indigo Girls, or at Lilith Fair, I’m just going to say that she’s got an ugly, mannish haircut.
Then again, being married to Bill could turn anyone from carrot sticks to onion rings.
Red 01.24.08 at 5:35 am
Y’all feign surprise, no? Marked and unmarked categories. White = the standard/unmarked category; hence the marked category: “people of color”; “The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People”; etc. So too male (standard/unmarked) and heterosexual. Bit of a mouthful, but white male heteronormativity is the order of the day in most Western, settler-colonial states. Deviations are marked and othered. I learned it in Cultural Studies 101.
Gotta love the elision of the Amerindian peoples (i.e., their continental ethnic cleansing and depopulation) in Obama’s rousing and hopeful Manifest Exceptionalism:
“It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail
toward freedom through the darkest of nights.
Yes we can.
It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and
pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.
Yes we can.”
He may be black but the racist and genocidal foundations of the nation-state are game for his hopeful amnesiac-pieties too. Little wonder his stance on the regime Desmond Tutu calls a “worse than apartheid” state (Israel) is indistinguishable from the most frothy of neocons. Gotta toe the colonial-settler, Western expansionist line(s) to be Prez, black, yellow, or blue. One line in the church of MLK Jr on a Sunday and another for AIPAC and the Council on Foreign Relations on working days.
LCautioin 01.24.08 at 7:55 am
What I find interesting is that the same pundits who assume it is natural for Blacks to vote for Obama get upset about women who vote for Hillary because she is a woman.
As for me, after months & months of agonizing, I’ve just about decided for sure to vote for Hillary. Not because she’s a woman but because if she wins, it will drive Andrew Sullivan, Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson (well, let’s face it: the entire right wing) plud the webwide HDS sufferers nuts.
abb1 01.24.08 at 9:21 am
Right, #30. Like I said: everyone needs a pair of those magic sunglasses.
Jon H 01.25.08 at 2:11 am
luke wrote:”Jon, until I receive photographic evidence of her in plaid flannel, eating organic yogurt and rocking out to the Indigo Girls, or at Lilith Fair, I’m just going to say that she’s got an ugly, mannish haircut.”
Yeah, I don’t really buy it. The lamest are the ‘rumors’ about her female assistant. OMG! The assistant answers the phone early in the morning and late in the evening! Er, isn’t that standard for any Senator’s gofer?
Luke 01.25.08 at 4:34 pm
As a Senatorial Gofer, Jon, the answer is “Yes” and that we’d all like to be paid more.
Of course, what they might be tarring Hillary for is that her staff is full of women, and is therefore, sapphic, once again confusing the homosocial with actual box eating. If this were a two way street, American football teams should be widely expected to be butt pirates. (I say this as one of the latter group)
I will maintain, however, that the cultish, fervid behavior of Hillary’s Staffers makes the rest of us Democrats look like shrinking violets.
Comments on this entry are closed.