I am not a “feminista.” I have never burned a bra. I have learned in this election cycle that it’s perfectly all right for the media to attack a person on the basis of gender while broadcast licenses would be pulled if the same attacks were leveled on the basis of race.
I find that deeply troubling.
In many previous posts I have tried to address the role the media have played in putting up guideposts on the road to the White House. In so doing, there has been no way to avoid a discussion of sexism and racism – in the context of media coverage.
A friend who also has paid close attention to this 21st Century dichotomy of equality emailed me the link to “A Letter From Feminists on the Election,” which appears in the 17 March 2008 issue of The Nation – you know, the magazine that cuts “through layers of obfuscation.”
A couple of days after the Democratic debate in Texas an even dozen of the top feminist leaders in the country met for a breakfast discussion with one aim, and I quote:
“We were there to hash out a split that threatened our friendship and the various movements with which we are affiliated.”
The split which threatens the work of these feminist leaders? Whether to vote for a black man or a woman?
I’m sorry, I thought, but these are not criteria for leadership, and they certainly do not address the all-important issues facing this country.
The letter addressed my beef with the media, as well as major setbacks by the Bush administration.
But, what about the issues?
When I decided Hillary Clinton is the best qualified and most capable candidate to be president, it did not enter my mind that I was supporting her because she’s a woman. When Barack Obama gave his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention and cemented his future in politics, I never saw him as an African-American. I see Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as highly capable, intelligent and altruistic individuals.
The media have stoked the race and gender controversies by bringing them – vis-à-vis the Democratic contenders - to the forefront of this campaign. That they have done so with out-of-context quotes and distortion of facts, subtle innuendos and blatant bias are just tricks of the craft. Such tricks are not modern-day phenomena; they are just coming at us 24/7. The media thrive on conflict, and what more lucrative chance to stir racism and sexism – simultaneously?
Further, to see the media’s self-examination of whether coverage has favored Obama is both hypocritical and sickening. Do they forget it’s on tape and on the record?
But, media bias and Bush administration setbacks are not the crux of this open letter, and I am bothered with its opening words, because they suggest you have to choose between a woman and a black man – rather than vote for the best qualified candidate.
Clearly, women are voting for Hillary because she’s a woman, and blacks are voting for Obama because he’s black. Apparently, we Americans haven’t moved beyond discrimination.
A resolution of sorts, this statement of intent in the letter’s penultimate paragraph redeems its message:
“If we could get over our fixation on a fantasy that many of us hoped to see realized in our lifetimes, maybe we could finally turn to the issues that each of them brings to the table.”
The issues are real, dear reader. Arguably more critical than at any other time in American history.
This is no time for fantasy.
THE LETTER: LINK
“DemWit” today: “R.I.P.”
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
dreams
A warm welcome to the naturally curious, the politically engaged and constant learners. I am a retired newspaper editor with a fickle foe, retinitis pigmentosa, or RP. While my sense of sight is waning, my "vision" is not, and, by God, I can still see my dreams!
simply ...
- B.J.
- South Carolina, United States
- constant learner
traffic reports
fair use notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of current issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
3 comments:
Great Post!!! I was extremely glad to go to the debate here at UT and I found myself seeing no gender or race. I was absorbed in the matters at hand. I too find Hilary to be the most qualified candidate. Even before she announced that she was running for president, I decided that if she did I would vote for her. Although I can't remember of hand the answers that she gave to some questions that solidified my decision, I realized that her responses were not just for the poor and not just for the rich but for the betterment of social structure of America. I do consider Obama to have some of these same ideals but his implementation of these ideals seem to have failure written all over them. That being said, I hope that if he wins the nomination many people will aid in his implementations because I want a democrat in the white house. Under these circumstances, I will vote for him.
In 2004, the Democratic Primary in the State of Hawaii recorded a grand total of 4,000 votes, which was about what was expected.
In 2008, the Democratic Primary in the State of Hawaii recorded a grand total of 37,000 votes, which was just a tad more than any rational observer could have predicted.
There are a dozen or more contributing factors in this singular election which contributed to more than 85% of the total going to Obama. It is bad science to simply take these numbers and seek to prove anything, or to answer the perceived concerns of those who fear that one or the other of the Democratic contenders could lose to McCain.
What is present however is an undeniable "surge" in participation. Frodo's fear is that that "surge" disappears. The "experience" factor of McCain is countered by the fact that the poor, old guy looks like he just emerged from a coffin. He is pale, he looks like everybody's great-grandfather, and he is easily tagged as George W. Bush, but with liver spots.
Despite the perception, real or imagined, about media bias, the participatory "surge" has little conceivable correlation. Our guiding principle should be to ask ourselves "From where cometh a "surge" based on experience?"
This coming election has been, is, and will be focused on likelihood of accomplishment. If you believe that interest rates will be frozen for five years, or that mandatory participation by every adult in America are likely events then your support is justified. There is, in Frodo's mind, clear evidence that significant numbers of people are stepping up because they don't think those approaches will be any more successful than they were the last time. There is an enthusiasm, if you will accept an umbrella term, which carries the smell of victory, whose absence means it comes down to the vote total in Florida, again.
I hear you on media and bias. Try to imagine the huge number of people who "correct" for this because they've been seeing it for decades.
There are a lot of people out there who are making decisions based on What The Candidate Says and Does. I honestly believe after 8 years of a really repressive presidency more people than you give credit for are hearing the candidates clear as a bell.
They are out in droves; I don't remember quite a turnout in a long long time. Why assume they do not see through the media blitz just as you do? Eowyn
Post a Comment