An interesting read on CNN has raised some questions for me. CNN published an article discussing black women having to choose between voting their race (Obama) or their gender (Clinton) in the upcoming Democratic primaries. CNN then posted a follow-up to the article, with reader reaction. One of the more interesting reactions was from a reader who basically said that he's a white man who is counting Edwards out, meaning that he too has the "plight" of choosing between race (Clinton) and gender (Obama) when he selects a presidential candidate.
My question is this: Do you think this line of reasoning will ever take hold among voters should Edwards drop out? Will the media think this aspect of the presidential race is even worth reporting? Or is the whole issue of voting race vs. gender oversimplified? While CNN attempts to shed light on a group of voters that will play a key role in who the next Democratic presidential candidate is, does the race vs. gender thing reinforce what appears to be an underlying idea that women and minorities can't look past surface characteristics?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/emails.race.gender/index.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think people are having a hard time finding a balance between ACKNOWLEDGING race and gender in the elections without boiling entire candidates down to "the chick and the black guy."
It's never good to be "colorblind" (or genderblind) and pretend that everyone is the same, but it's the lesser of two evils. I'd rather someone act like race and gender didn't matter than act as if a candidate has a genetic predisposition to be a bad leader because they have breasts or a mixed race background.
Interesting point. Also worth noting that CNN's original story was much more structured around the 'difficult choice' for Black Women between 'their race' and 'their gender.' As you noted, CNN is now using the strongly negative reaction to their original story as their new story.
While race and gender will certainly play a role in the elections, I think it is also possible that there it still room for the issues to play a large role in determining who many people vote for. Part of the reason for Bush's extremely low approval ratings and dissatisfactions among many with the Republican Party is their current status of important issues like the economy, the faltering wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. In other words, which candidate voters feel can provide the most tangible benefits to their life in the next four years may the determining factor.
Why is it that when the media report on Clinton and Obama they talk about race and gender, but when they talk about Edwards or Huckabee or any of the other Republicans they don't?
This is the privilege of unmarked masculinity and unmarked whiteness and it should be challenged. Someone does not just have "race" or "gender" because they are black or are a woman. If they do, then every white guy has race and gender too. If we don't challenge these categories, then whiteness and malehood remain in the center as standards of judgement and all others on the periphery and are felt to lack something. (for example, a "model minority" is one who is closer to white)
Post a Comment