newprotest.org: RACE AND GENDER

RACE AND GENDER

January 08, 2008
by: jovial_cynic

image: Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama at YearlyKos 2007 (cc) Son of Broccoli

I read a post on a forum today that forced me to analyze my own decision making processes. It was a pro-Obama thread in which one of the forum members said the following:

"When I watch the debates, it never really crosses my mind that I am watching a black man running for president. It often occurs to me that I am watching a woman when Hillary speaks, though. This is odd because I always thought I was more racist than misogynistic."

I found that to be a rather eye-opening statement. I also tend to ignore the fact that Obama isn't white, but I'm keenly aware that Clinton isn't male. I really wonder how much of that is because of my own expectations of male and female gender roles.

On the other hand, I do favor Obama, and that may also play a part in the perception. I wonder if I would feel the same way if the roles were reversed -- would I be as aware of the gender of a female that I favored? I'm not sure.
np category: politics
tags:

COMMENTS for RACE AND GENDER


Red Queen said:
Maybe a better question is what would it take for a female candidate to be your preference? Would she have to be so far above the rest of the competition as to make it an impossible feat? I think that is what is true for a lot of men when it comes to voting for women. They might be okay with it in principle, but when it comes down to it, their requirements for a female candidate are purposefully unrealistic.
January 08, 2008


The Conservative Manifesto said:
Either way, it's doesn't really matter...

Unless you reverse course and actually plan on voting.

=P

January 08, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
Red - It's really the issues over anything else -- it's not about being "above" the other candidates. I don't need a woman to be a super woman for me to vote for her -- I just have to agree with her stance on some key issues. An anti-corruption platform is a big deal for me, and I think in that case, Obama is "far above the rest of the competition," using your phrase.

TCM - I like Obama. Who knows? I might end up liking him enough to vote. But that would require something pretty amazing on his part.

January 08, 2008


Red Queen said:
But Obama has a very brief history in politics- not a lot of time to be corrupt. And i'm not sure what is corrupt about Hillary either? I don't think there has ever been an ethics charge against her, unless you count all the right wing smear stuff from whitewater. But after years and years of investigation, she was never found guilty of anything.

I don't agree with all her policies, but that's different from saying she's corrupt.

January 08, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
That's just it, though. The "not a lot of time to be corrupt" is almost exactly what I'm talking about. Spend enough time in the grease factory, and you're gonna get greasy.

Campaign financing is a really big issue for me, and since I'm a long-time comic book fan, the issue surrounding Clinton and Spider-man creator Stan Lee has pretty much boxed her into the corrupt-politician bin for me.

A part of Obama's campaign centers around not being involved in dirty deals, and also not breaking campaign laws.

January 08, 2008


Red Queen said:
True- Obama hasn't been in politics long enough to get grease spattered, but he also hasn't been in politics long enough to be effective
and with the huge problems were are facing right now, we need effective. I don;t think our country has been in a more critical state since the great depression.


January 08, 2008


Red Queen said:
totally off topic- any chance you've got the mad html skills to help me with a problem I'm having with my blog template? My font colors are all screwy and no amount of tinkering on my end has fixed it?
January 08, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
That Obama hasn't been in long enough to be effective depends on what you mean by effective. In terms of foreign relations, which is what the article you linked addressed, my opinion is that a president needs to be able to be a decent human being who's willing to balance both personal convictions and the will of the people, and to also have a good feel of the global climate. I don't expect buffoonery from Obama when dealing with foreign leaders. If you're good with people, you're good with people.

And yeah - I'm an HTML coder. It's what I do for a living, actually. Is it the link colors you're trying to fix?

January 08, 2008


Red Queen said:
good with people and diplomacy are vastly different. international relations requires a really solid grounding in a zillion different disciplines and the ability to both read and deal with people well.

It's more complicated than just changing the colors- the font colors from the left column are somehow attached to the font colors from the main column- details at my place

January 09, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
I get what you're saying about being grounded in a "zillion" disciplines, but I think diplomacy either means you're a greasy snake, or it means that you know how to make wise decisions.

If a person is very diplomatic, it might be that they know how to take the right bribes and make the right deals, and in the short-term, everybody is happy. That seems to be something that happens when you've been in the political system for a while. The stereotypical used-car salesman can be said to be diplomatic... but he's slime, right? Both parties are happy when the paper is signed, but in the long run, you get hosed.

Good diplomacy is, to me, just about making right decisions and being good with people. No sleeze -- just genuine concern for balancing the needs of individuals with the needs of the government, and the needs of businesses, etc.

After listing to Obama's NH concession speech, I don't know that I could call Obama anything other than diplomatic.

January 09, 2008


Luke said:
Why is Obama called Black when he's only half. Couldn't I just as easily and validly call him white?

We should rightly call him milato instead of favoring one race over the other. For some reason it bothers me...

January 11, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
Luke - it's because identity is defined by differences. In a room full of people wearing red hats, you're not "the guy wearing the red hat," right? There's no identity in that. He is identified as being black because it is different than the white folks who are running. I would not be surprised if he got called "white" by other black kids growing up.

Being half-asian, I get it. In Korea, my white side is obvious. In America, I am keenly aware of my korean ethnicity, even though I don't look Korean.

In any event, as I said -- I haven't focused on his being black; I forget that it's even there.

January 11, 2008


Max Hyland said:
Talk about religion, nay, the very nature of creation, and you get a handful of comments over several posts.

Mention Race, Politics, and Gender in the same post, and you get 7 in three days. Tells you something about how we view the world eh?

January 11, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
Well, not everybody can relate to religion. Everybody can relate to either race, gender, or politics.
January 11, 2008


Max Hyland said:
Hmm... Hadn't thought about it like that, in terms of relation as opposed to interest.
January 12, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
I think people generally take interest in things with which they either do or wish to identify.
January 12, 2008


Wonder said:
By the way,

Please Vote!
if you're really, really absolutely undecided on a particular issue you can usually abstain from voting that spot on the ballot. or, heck, go with your gut if you must.

who ever you vote for, however you vote,

SHOW UP

i still believe it matters.

January 17, 2008


add comments. you are limited to 5,000 characters:

<< your name
<< your email (won't be displayed)
<< your website / location
<< type these numbers: 292688 (plus 0NE)

(html -enabled- / no scripts)

<< Comments temporarily disabled >>

Rules: Don't spam. Don't harrass. Don't be a jerk. Your IP address (54.158.25.146) will be logged.