Imagine a candidate for president whose supporters kept telling people how good it is for white males that they are running. Think about people saying “it is inspiring” or that it would be helpful to white males to have “one of their own” in the White House. Think about that for a minute. Really think. I’ll wait.
OK now does that sort of thought make you really want to vote for that person? If you were female or minority would those thoughts fill you with hope and excitement about that candidate? Or would you be thinking “that person is being supported by racists and sexists” and fill you with some dread? Be honest now. If you were black and someone said “this candidate is a great step forward for whites in this country” would you be more of less likely to support that candidate? Be honest now.
I suspect that like most people in this country today if a candidate (or his supporters) presented being white or being male as a reason to support them if would turn many people of and would turn off most people who were not white or male. And yet we have Maya Angelou talking about Hillary Clinton and making a big deal of the fact that she is a woman. And lots of people talking about how inspiring it is for African-Americans that Barak Obama is running. I’m not sure why I should think anything other than that many of the supporters of both candidates are racists or sexist.
I really think we need to get beyond the point where gender or race matters. We need to get to the point where gender and race become non-issues. Why is it worth mentioning that a candidate is female but not that one is male? To some extent novelty is involved of course. But really isn’t bring up gender (or race) when it is or at least should be inconsequential actually perpetuating stereotypes? Should we really be expressing surprise that a woman or a racial minority is in such a position? I think not. There are few times indeed when race or gender really matters. Whenever we bring those attributes into a discussion when they should not really matter we perpetuate the exaggerated
importance of these really unimportant differences.
I don’t vote or not vote for a candidate because of their race or gender. I don’t see those things as important. Why do so many people think they are? Why should I care about the color of a candidate’s skin? Why should I care about their gender? And why do so many self-proclaimed liberals constantly bring up race and gender as reasons to vote for or against someone? Conservatives seem so much less racist and sexist to me than liberals. More and less are relative terms of course – both parties have some racist and sexist attributes BTW.
But the more explicit racism and sexism of the Democratic Party is one of those things that constantly turns me away from them.
It would sound absurd, because we as white males haven’t been repressed for centuries, and because we control so much of the world still.
I don’t think either of the candidates you’re referring to have used that as a reason to vote for them. The reason I’m voting for Obama has nothing to do with his race, and the reason I’m not voting for Hillary has nothing to do with her gender.
I think you’re missing the big point that African-Americans and women have both been repressed for a long time. It’s seen as a big step forward for those groups that they’re able to have someone run for President of the United States and have a decent shot at it.
Even decades after segregation is over, racism is still rampant in our country, African-Americans are much more likely to spend time in jail than their white counterparts, and so forth. And even after women were given the right to vote, and even after the feminist movement, there’s still a glass ceiling, and men still hold an overwhelming majority in leadership positions, both in business and in politics.
So the point is that, for both of these groups, having a candidate with a viable shot at the White House is sort of a milestone: we, the white males, formally agreed to stop trampling them a long time ago. But the point is that society’s perceptions have shifted enough that we’re willing to consider the notion of both a female and a black President. And, at least to me, that’s good news.
I hope you’re misinterpreting them, although it’s possible that some idiots in our group have actually suggested that you should vote for one of their candidates because of it. You shouldn’t take their race or gender into account when voting. I think (hope) it’s only being mentioned in a sort of meta-discussion about racism/sexism in America: the fact that we’re considering either of them indicates that we’re a little less racist/sexist than some of us had thought.
I agree, and think most of the world does, too. But I don’t think we’re ready to be race-blind and gender-blind. Right now, we need to be acutely aware of the fact that women and racial minorities are making far less money than white males, among other things. (And I strongly doubt it’s because white males are more efficient workers.) I think there’s still strong evidence of a lingering bias going on. Going race-blind and gender-blind would just sweep the racism under the carpet. We need to pay attention to gender and race, so we can say, “Why, in 250 years of elections, is this the first {woman, African-American} to actually have a shot at the Oval Office?”
Although I have to say, I think the point has been made. Hillary would be the first woman, and Obama would be the first African-American. That’s about all there is to it, so maybe the media can move on now.
Or, put differently, I don’t think commentators are talking about the candidates as much as the American people. They’re not saying, “Wow, look, a woman smart enough to be President!” They’re saying, “Wow, look, the American people are finally willing to consider a woman.”
The candidates are being very careful to avoid using race or gender as a reason to vote for them. Good for them. It is supporters who are saying it.
You’re probably right about the media wanting to make a play that Americans are now ready to elect a woman or a minority. I find it very very sad that it has taken so long as other countries have done so years ago. But since so many people are making a big thing about it maybe the media is wrong.
BTW I do not buy the idea that women are being held back in this country. I know that there are still some pay disparities but I don’t believe that they are as bad as is presented. And there is no way that I believe that discrimination is any real part of the shortage of women in public office. I believe that most of it is women making different choices than men.
And maybe Democrats are not more racist and the idea that they are stronger supporters of Affirmitive Action than Republicans is a myth. But I think not.
Perhaps worst of all, it’s constantly couched in phrases like, “Is America ready for a [insert minority here] President?,” leaving the implied possibility that we’re not. (And, of course, not liking Hillary or Obama for their politics doesn’t mean that someone isn’t ready for a female or black president.)
I think those two sentences are at odds with each other.
Although I suppose it’s sort of right. I don’t think women or African-Americans are being explicitly held back anymore. But it’s like a marathon, and when we fire the starting gun, we have police in riot gear who keep the women and African-Americans from starting. Ten minutes into the race, the mayor tells the police that it’s wrong to prevent them from starting the race, and they enter the race. They’re still ten minutes behind. An hour goes by, and no one’s holding back the women or blacks. But for some strange reason, none of them are in first place.
I think you’re right on the money here. I haven’t seen too many female candidates at all. (Although I did recently elect a female US Rep….)
Ahh, but that’s an argument for another time. 😉
I think that a lot of the pay dispariety is BECAUSE we are still to aware of gender and race. I think if we worked hard to make it a non-issue and as something we were not aware of most of the disparity would go away. That is one reason I think that most affermitive action programs make the problem worse not better.