The (now) classic comedy shot of a black woman being interviewed: “Are you going to vote for Obama because you’re black or for Clinton because you’re a woman?” There are politics (which is to say, issues) at hand, and many many people will vote their conscience, many people will look at the issues and vote for the person who stands for what they believe in. But for others (hopefully fewer in number), it will come down to this: are you more racist or more misogynist. This was driven home rather forcefully when a gentleman was interviewed by NPR:
It’d be weird for a woman or a black to run the United States, I think a lot of things would change. Probably the male chauvinistic side of me is going to vote for the man just because…uh…I’m going to be honest, you know. Probably…probably won’t be McCain. […] Love thy neighbor as thyself, that’s a big part of Martinsville, too: there’s a church on every corner. [starts at 6:11]
And that just pisses me off. I wish we lived in a place where it didn’t matter and that the best person would win. But what do you all think? Will the country be less racist or less patriarchal? My vote is with Obama (obviously this is not something that we’ll be able to know by the results, but I’d like to know what you think). And I can’t help but think that part of it is because religion still helps reinforce the “weirdness” of having women in power, much less than it reinforces the “weirdness” of having “a black” in power.
More on the subject:
- Use of loaded language when discussing the candidates
- Why Obama doesn’t play the race card
- A Feminist’s Questionnaire for Democratic Candidates
13 responses so far ↓
1 Ben // May 6, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I think the US is equally racist and sexist. As for me, I’d be pleased as punch with either Democratic candidate over McCain. Who do I think has a better chance of pulling of the win? Obama.
2 Zach Alexander // May 6, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I’m probably biased because I’m rooting for Obama, but — I think he’d be more significant for race than Hillary would be for gender, largely because I think racism has been less dealt with than sexism (though I’m open to hearing from people who think differently).
And among all the plausible first women presidents (e.g. Kathleen Sibelius and other female governors and senators), she doesn’t strike me as the best woman for the job.
Electing a female — pretty much any qualified female — will probably improve women’s status within the power structure, in part because it’ll help people get more used to women being bosses, etc. But a second aspect of “feminism” (I find the term problematic because of this very dichotomy) that seems at least as important is fostering values that challenge that power structure, and which for whatever natural and cultural reasons are loosely (though only loosely) associated with femininity.
And on that score, well, Hillary seems like a terrible choice. She doesn’t listen, she’s prideful, she’s perpetually in fight mode, she thinks in short term, etc.
Which I think is part of why you find some women supporting Obama, and a steelworker praising Hillary’s “testicular fortitude.”
3 xJane // May 6, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I also think Obama has a better chance of winning, all other things (like race & gender) being equal. And, speaking of “feminine” values, it may be that Obama embodies them better.
4 Elise // May 6, 2008 at 8:48 pm
If I have to look inside myself for a bias toward either candidate, it’s Hillary - but not because she’s a woman. Because she’s old. I feel like Obama would be more energetic, more charismatic, and more in touch with issues that are important to my generation. I know that the wisdom that comes with age is a good thing, but sometimes it also just makes people stubborn and more concerned with getting their way than doing what is right….
5 aerin // May 7, 2008 at 11:51 am
I hope I’m not saying too much, but I actually live in Indiana. One thing about this state that I’ve found (I’ve lived in different states over my life) is that people speak off the cuff here.
It’s my belief that people will say things here - be honest about things than in other places. A person in another state might believe something, they might say, well, I’m not a chau_vinist or rac_ist(because they’re very aware it’s not pc to discriminate against women), but in practice they would never go to a female doctor, lawyer of color, etc. They would flip out if their child wanted to marry a person of color, or go to school in a “bad” section of town.
I’m not saying it’s right. I’m not saying I agree with it.
Just that sometimes, having those beliefs up front helps change them (that’s my opinion). So, here in Indiana, I’m fighting for change - no matter who wins the election.
AND - with that said, Indiana is so Republican (hasn’t gone Democrat since 1964), that if Condi Rice or Libby Dole was a serious contender, they would have many supporters (IMO). Among this very conservative church going crowd. Because the myth that the Republicans are more religious and more Christian goes over well here. sigh.
6 xJane // May 8, 2008 at 7:11 am
Thank you, aerin, and welcome! I think that’s exactly what struck me: this gentleman was honest about his motivations. I think a lot of people, when they go to the polls will make choices based on whether they’re racist or sexist. I think that’s wrong, but I think it plays a major role in this election. And that makes me angry, because I wish we lived in a place where it didn’t matter.
7 Zach // May 8, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Jane, yes! (re your comment #3 above)
8 wren // May 9, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I brought up religion and gender and voting on my blog.
9 xJane // May 12, 2008 at 2:32 pm
“Ego frottage”, I think that is the perfect phrase. It sounds just slightly more high-class than “circle jerk”.
10 Zach Alexander » Hillary’s gender // May 12, 2008 at 3:42 pm
[…] was with some trepidation that I suggested on one of xJane’s posts that Obama actually embodies certain desirable “feminine” qualities more than Clinton […]
11 Quin // May 15, 2008 at 10:15 am
What annoys me is the media’s failure to challenge this. I heard a reporter the other day say something along the lines of “naturally the heavily black population will lean towards Obama.” And why is that the “natural” conclusion?? Self-oriented voting, where candidates are picked based on their resemblance to the voter’s physical appearance, is even scarier than those who simply toe the party line. At least that has something to do with the issues . . .
12 xJane abroad // May 15, 2008 at 11:51 am
lol! what does “heavily black” mean?
13 This just in: Feminists can be men, too! | Mind on Fire // May 15, 2008 at 4:16 pm
[…] just came out in support of Obama, who is *gasp* a man, for those of you who weren’t sure. I don’t know about all you vaginas (since it’s obviously what we think with) out […]
Leave a Comment