home
about
archives
|
MISOGYNY, RACISM, AND THE GOOD OF THE NATION
05/12/2008
Misogyny and racism are real things.
White people do discriminate against blacks and men do try to keep women from gaining power. Even though things are much better in this nation than they were fifty years ago for both African Americans and women, we still see these twin evils in our everyday contacts with others and in this presidential election.
But it is a mistake to believe that misogyny and race define everything. They simply don't. Most people who support Hillary Clinton do so because they really believe in her and not because they are racist. And most people who support Barack Obama do so because he inspires them, and not because they are misogynists.
However, one of the biggest differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, two candidates who understand misogyny and racism as no other viable presidential candidates have, is the extent to which they emphasize these twin realities. Obama wants to take us beyond race and gender divisions, even though he knows they exist, while Clinton at times exploits those divisions in order to win.
I honestly don't think Clinton started out that way. I just think she is desperate and knows that appealing to people's fears and prejudices is the only way she can defeat Barack Obama, a force she never expected and so was unprepared to compete against. This hurts her as much as it helps her, and it certainly doesn't help the country.
On the other hand, Obama's post-race, post-feminism campaign has some weaknesses too. There is no doubt that Hillary's female supporters are willing to go to great lengths to have their voices heard, and Obama's relative silence on women's issues needs to end. It wasn't enough to bring out Oprah several months ago to appeal to women. More needs to be said by Obama in order to win over Hillary's very enthusiastic female supporters. Perhaps it is time for Obama to make a speech on gender, as he once did on race.
But whatever weakness Obama has with respect to addressing women's issues is overshadowed by Hillary's strategy to emphasize issues of gender and race. As this contest winds down we are hearing a myriad of rationales from Clinton's supporters as to why she should be the nominee. One is that the nation may not elect an African American because too many Americans are still racist. Another is that misogyny is older than racism and must be overcome first, i.e. a woman deserves to be president before an African American.
These are the silliest of arguments. They are also dangerous arguments for Democrats to engage in. The Democratic Party has been working for decades promoting both women's issues and issues of racial equality, and it is a shame to see a competition developing over which "minority" deserves the presidency first. Both African Americans (and Latinos and Asian Americans and Native Americans) and women can bring forth candidates capable of handling the job of president, but life being what it is, only one can be president first.
This campaign increasingly reminds me of the arguments that took place in the late sixties and seventies between white feminists and black feminists. Black feminists saw themselves as unique in that they were victims of both sexism (within both black and white communities) and racism (even in the white feminist community).
According to black feminists, white feminists said they spoke for all women, yet may have harbored unspoken racist views themselves. White feminists sometimes got so caught up with issues of equality for all women that they failed to realize just how important race issues were to one segment of American womanhood. Black feminists believed that in the civil rights movement "black" had become synonymous with "black men," while in the women's movement, "feminist" had become equated with white women. It caused some bitter feelings and the growth of a black feminist movement which looked at the bigger picture, the interconnections between race, gender and class discrimination.
Apparently, some of those bitter feelings remain today, the first evidence of which was the op-ed by Gloria Steinem, after Hillary Clinton's defeat in Iowa, in which she said:
"… the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter)."
She claimed her pitch wasn't to pit gender against race, yet that is the conflict her essay began. Her message was that women have a longer history of discrimination in this country than do blacks and therefore Hillary deserves special consideration. Many would dispute this version of history, of course, saying that even if black men got the vote before women, they still had to fight to actually exercise that right, and that white women had never experienced the violence and segregation suffered by the black community.
This op-ed caused a stir in the African American community, whose members began turning away from the woman candidate they were once inclined to support in overwhelming numbers, especially after they saw Obama's amazing and unexpected victory in Iowa.
It is sad that in a year when the Democrats found two candidates, each trying to make history by overcoming discrimination, they now find themselves in a nominating fight in which their supporters are becoming increasingly angry at each other over who deserves the nomination more and which evil (slavery or misogyny) must be overcome first.
Trying to determine which evil must be overcome first is like asking people to decide whether a cure for breast cancer must be found before a cure for lung cancer or vice versa. Both are deserving of attention, but life and financial contributions being what they are, it is likely researchers will find a cure for one first. However, a cure for one will no doubt further the research into a cure for the other, just as a win by an African American is likely to make a win by a woman much easier, and vice versa.
The one thing that will not help either candidate is bickering over who deserves the nomination more, or attacking the other with arguments based on race or gender.
I have not heard Obama say his supporters will not vote for Hillary because she is a woman, but I have heard Hillary say her white, "hard working" supporters are likely not to vote for Obama (with the implication that it is because of his race and aspects related to his race, like his membership in a specific church).
This needs to stop now.
Yes, it is true that Hillary will win West Virginia and Kentucky by very large margins, largely because of race and race related factors. Yes, it is true, there are still people in certain regions of the country who will not vote for Obama because he is black. Racism is a complicated thing, including fear, guilt, ignorance, and tribalism. But racism is always wrong and always unacceptable, no matter how many times Republicans have used it, both overtly and covertly, to win elections. But it does us absolutely no good as a Party, or as a country, to indulge those feelings, or for a candidate to take advantage of them to win a race or salvage an ego. In fact, when one minority helps another minority to be victorious it helps them both. But when one pits herself against another, claiming her cause is more legitimate than his, it hurts them both.
Those of us who, either because of our education, or diverse friendships, or economic prosperity, or even the influence of our very open minded and inclusive children, were ready to elect an African American or a woman many years ago, must set an example for our fellow citizens who are not there yet. And we must put pressure on our candidates not to make things worse, and never to use the lingering prejudices of a segment of the American people for short term victory, when long term change is what we must all be about.
All content © 2005 outragedcitizen.com
|
