I just read a NYT article by Maureen Dowd, who has written articles that I've greatly enjoyed in the past. The article discusses how this race is quickly shaping up to be the "Duel of the Historical Guilts", as in who has it worse - women or blacks?Read the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/opinion/05dowd.html?em&ex=1204952400&en=b939969e7f0792da&ei=5087%0AAlthough I know Maureen is reporting "just the facts" without inserting much of her personal opinion here, reading the article still managed to irritate me - mostly because I know the situation has come down to this in many voters' minds. I'm growing very tired of Hillary supporters acting like not voting for her or bringing her past record up are crimes against women. They are doing a big disservice to the "women are equal" cause with their constant whining, complaining, and bitching that Hillary is being attacked whenever her opponents point out a flaw in her arguments. I wish those Hillary-supporters who are always crying sexism would look up the definition of "sexism". It's not sexist to disagree with a woman. It's not sexist to think a woman isn't right for a job when there are plenty of non-gender-related reasons that demonstrate her unworthiness. It's not sexist to dislike a woman's combative personality. It's not sexist to ask that a woman be consistent in her campaign message and her policy positions. It's not sexist to ask that a woman be held accountable for her past and present actions. It's not sexist for us to use a woman's past as an indicator of what she will do in the future. It is, however, sexist to assume a woman is the best candidate simply because she has a vagina. It is sexist to imply a woman will be a better president because she's inherently more sympathetic and nurturing than a man. It is sexist to always assume that if someone doesn't like a particular woman, it must be because she's a woman (maybe it's just that the particular woman is unlikeable). It is sexist to assume that a woman is qualified to do her husband's job because they bounced ideas off of each other (isn't that what most married couples do?). It is sexist to force the media to go softer on a woman because she's a woman. It is sexist to insist on double standards under the pretext that you're fighting to erase double standards. It is sexist to vote for a candidate because she shares your gender/sex. It is sexist to expect others to vote for a candidate because they share the same gender/sex. And finally, it is *extremely* sexist to constantly refer to your gender as a qualification for why you SHOULD be president, HILLARY.If Barack were a woman, I'd still vote for him (well, her) because I'd be voting for the better *person*.Hillary's "feminist" supporters keep trying to make this race about a white woman vs. a black man for president. This is becoming feminist movement vs. civil rights movement 2.0. This is obviously a diversionary tactic meant to keep us off the scent of Hillary's inferior candidacy. This race isn't about sex vs. race. It's about old politics vs. new politics, misrepresentation vs. transparency, bullying tactics vs. diplomacy, mistaken judgment vs. sound judgment, lying vs. honesty. I hope Obama addresses this soon and doesn't continue to allow Hillary to establish the parameters of this race on her (sexist) terms.
Here's an excellent debate between Gloria Steinem and Melissa Harris Lacewell that explores the topics of the historical context of gender vs. race in America and how gender and race are factoring into this presidential race. I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this topic.
Debate part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQkzgr8kXDcDebate part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4MnThZ1lT0&feature=related Debate part 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S2-Ba7P8n4&feature=related
Debate part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJuuHrKcrSg&feature=related
Comments are closed for this post.
