The Obama Phenomenon and the 2008 Presidential Campaign

[Holbytla]

Religion is just another reason for people to hate people. People are incredibly adept at finding reasons to hate other people. Actually it doesn't take any effort at all. You just have to be different. Religion, color of skin, style of dress, education, whatever. All just circumstance and lame excuses.

Swap black and white, Jew and Palestinian, fat guy with a Hawaiin shirt and a slim GQ clad guy and things would still be the same only in reverse.

As long as there are Jews there will be Jew haters. As long as there are Christians there will be Christian haters.
As long as there are people breathing air there is going to be people who hate someone because of something.No matter what label is put on that something, it can be boiled down to people hating people because they are different. Pretty silly stuff in the end.

I don't need to know any specifics of why people are intolerant of other people. No need to be taught the injustices of who did what to who and when. Frankly I don't care. It is just the ever revolving wheel of hate that people seem so willing to keep spinning and spinning and spinning.

Take a giant step back and look at this planet from say Jupiter. Can you imagine what it looks like from there? Far removed from everything it must look tragically silly.

[anthriel]

vison, what an amazing and moving post.

[yovargas]

Thank you, Holby. Thank you.

[Primula Baggins]

Take a giant step back and look at this planet from say Jupiter. Can you imagine what it looks like from there? Far removed from everything it must look tragically silly.

The speck seen through the outermost ring is Earth.

I don't know what to say in response to vison's posts but that they are true, and that ingrained racism is probably the model for the doctrine of original sin.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, Obama continues to march inexoribly towards the nomination. Since his Pennsylvania loss, he has gained seven super-delegates, to four for Clinton. Even if he loses in Indiana - prompted renewed speculation about his "inability to close the deal" all that will do is drag things out a little longer (in the delegate calculations that I did the other day, I had Clinton winning Indiana by a small margin). Despite facing -- as Jn rightly pointed out before the discussion got sidetracked -- very different criteria than any White candidate would (and not just with the Rev. Wright situation), he is going to not only be the Democratic candidate, but also the next President of the United States. For the first time, I can say that I truly feel that that is true.

And I don't think any of realize just what a landmark event that is going to turn out to be.

[samwarg]

I hope and pray you are right, Voronwë. I worry about his safety, knowing that this world is so full of hate. Sam

[Primula Baggins]

I do, too, Sam.

It's good to see you here, by the way.

[Faramond]

If I want to address any of the sidetrack stuff, where should I put it?

[halplm]

VtF, you feel that he will be the president, because you want to feel it.

I personally don't think there's any way he wins... but then, that's probably just because that's what I want to see too...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Faramond, go ahead and post it here. I look forward to reading your comments.

[Cerin]

It will also be a landmark event if Clinton becomes President.

[Primula Baggins]

Yes, it certainly will.

[WampusCat]

My paper's editorial board took a straw poll of our department before talking about whom to endorse in the Democratic primary. The result: 2 for Clinton, 2 for Obama and 2 undecided. It was an interesting discussion, to say the least.

[yovargas]

It will also be a landmark event if Clinton becomes President.

A bazillion years ago (it feels like) I made the statement (which I'm no longer sure I entirely agree with) that given the opportunity to vote for a black person or a woman, I'd vote for the "minority" person regardless of whether I cared for their politics because I think it'd be so culturally beneficial to have a minority person in the White House that it'd outweigh almost any other concerns I have. (Considering that I almost certainly would never vote for Hilary, I guess that's not true). Anyways, nel made a response way back saying she thought the benefits of having a woman as a potential role model in the White House were greater than the potential benefits of having a black role model in the White House. I always meant to respond to that saying why I disagreed but never got around to it. Certainly it'd be nice to have such a prominent figure be a strong, intelligent woman to counter the Barbie-lovin' world's view of women. But IMO that the past couple pages of conversation happened illustrates well how much deeper, darker, and pervasive the racial, black v. white issues are in this country. Elly is not alone in having those sorts of thoughts upon seeing a wealthy black person - I have also had those "involuntary and momentary" reactions and then gotten angry at myself for it. In my experience that sort of thinking is VASTLY more pervasive against blacks than it is against woman and worse still, I think it has ingrained itself far more deeply within many blacks themselves. See, for example, Wright's awful "black kids learn different" speech. So while it may no longer me a primary factor for me, I would be more than delighted to have a black man show this country and the world that blacks are no longer doomed to powerless and poverty and that intelligence and success are by no means only part of "white culture".

[nerdanel]

Warning: this is an unmitigated, unapologetic rant that was highly satisfying to write. Hope it's as good for you as it was for me - though I make no representations with respect to the logic or coherency of the following.

In general, it's extremely unproductive to play "who's got it worse," and I regret having played into that in the first place. I'm fairly certain I was responding to someone who said that it was "more important" to have a black leader than a female leader, and when confronted with that sort of (IMO unproductive) comment, I react in one of two ways. First, I propose - not intending to be tongue-in-cheek - that we resolve this dilemma by seriously encouraging and selecting women of color to be leaders. When I talk to other WOC, one of the things that we frequently note is infuriating is that these discussions always elect between "a minority or a woman." What about those of us who are both? When will our existence, our need to be visibly represented, seriously be discussed? Second, I will reactively make the case that it is "more important" to have a female leader. I do this in part to play devil's advocate, in part because it is outrageous when anyone (but especially a man) dares to downplay the significance of 50 percent of the country having been unrepresented for over 200 years, and also because on a personal level I am first and foremost a woman before I am a racial minority.

I shall not attempt to argue that sexism is "worse than" racism. But I will vigorously dispute any attempt to contend that it is less pervasive, less insidious, and especially "less important."

I suspect that you, yov, would be more interested in countering the "Barbie-lovin' world's view of women" if you were a woman. In any event, this is a priority for me.

While we are sharing the "involuntary and momentary" reactions we have had: I recently encountered a woman who is an incredibly accomplished, high-profile attorney in an area of law that is intensely male-dominated, where female attorneys are still sometimes assumed to be secretaries. In any event, I heard this woman's voice before I saw her or realized who she was. Her voice was high-pitched, friendly, soft-spoken, and chatty. I assumed - unconsciously and just from hearing her voice - that she was a secretary. Ten seconds later, I saw and recognized her, and my first (again instinctive) reaction was, "But how can she have that chatty feminine voice and be as accomplished as she is?" Now a full minute into my internalized sexist thinking, the feminist filters caught up, and I was properly ashamed. While I was still chewing on my first set of sexist assumptions, my mind had moved on to unconsciously judging this woman's physique and casual attire, and I was busy evaluating (while wearing jeans myself, irony of ironies!) whether her appearance was insufficiently polished in view of her accomplishments when I AGAIN caught myself - I would never have evaluated a male attorney in such a fashion. And then I went down to the Feminist Bureau and turned in my membership card. My privileges have been revoked for six months.

The double standards, discrimination, and biases to which we as women are subject are especially insidious because they are often justified on the basis of alleged 'differences between the sexes.' We can at least intellectually accept that a white (man) and a black (man) are equal to each other and the only difference is the shade of their skin. But many people cannot even accept the notion that men and women are anything other than 'separate but equal,' (even discrimination against us is subject to a lower constitutional standard than against racial minorities) because of supposed fundamental differences between the sexes.

Yes. We of course have the assumptions that men are more rational, more competent at making and managing money, better decision-makers (in the business realm), more capable of understanding science and technology, better managers, more qualified to pick up the phone in the White House at 3 AM. We have the accompanying assumptions that first assign certain traits as female and then undervalue them. We continue with the assumptions that every woman able to do so will want to have biological children in the context of a heterosexual relationship and will be the one within her partnership to subjugate her career to procreation - and the devastating effect that those assumptions can have on whether to hire qualified female candidates at the outset. We continue with the necessity for women to present the most authoritative (i.e. masculine) image she can - in terms of height (I'd be a millionnaire given a dollar for every time I was told that heels would make me taller and therefore more credible in the workplace), voice (see my assumptions above), demeanor - but not too much! - that would make her an uppity bitch. We continue with the harsh reality that even as we try to make ourselves imitation men where necessary and hold onto our female nature where we can, we are STILL automatically at a disadvantage in many aspects of the professional, political, religious, etc. worlds because the default is male and we will never be as good at being men as men are. The only way to alter this reality is to alter the default - to have a seriously massive influx of female religious leaders, judges, CEOs, corporate directors, and politicians at every level, especially President. Until this default, this chokehold that men have on most positions of power and influence is altered, 50 percent of the population will confront insidious, pervasive assumptions about their bona fides - and will internalize many of those assumptions about their capabilities and credentials.

We continue without devoting too much time to the view that women's bodies are public domain - freely to be cat-called, ogled, stared rudely at, commented on loudly, and even groped nonconsensually with some frequency - but of course those of us who don't appreciate this behavior are ungrateful bitches who don't know how to appreciate a compliment (and are probably man-hating lesbians besides.) Let's not spend any time on rape and sexual assault, since no one gives a damn about those. (No, really. And this is NOT rhetoric. If men feared rape in the way that we as women must do, I guarantee you that the incidence of rape would be just shy of zero, as no effort would be spared to end it.) Why are these things relevant here? Because, again, they are about *power* - both in reality and in perception. The reality is that women are perceived in our society to be weak, powerless, the betas to men's alphas, in need of the protection and caring of a man and fair game for anything if she doesn't have a protector (or have him with her.) The decisionmakers, the breadwinners, the executives - these people are men - and these perceptions and beliefs affect women's realities at every level.

You want to talk about painful history in this country? No analogy or equivalence to African-American history is implied. But it is an outrage if we remember and regret African-American history to the exclusion of (remembering and regretting) women's history in this country - if for no other reason than focusing on African-American history without women's history will tell the story of only half the blacks in this country - the male half, the comparatively advantaged half. Remember: African-American women as well as white women:
Were denied the right to vote (for two reasons!)
Were not permitted to own property (if married)
Were not permitted to sue (if married; the husband had to bring the suit on his wife's behalf)
Were not permitted to form contracts (if married)
Were denied access to educational opportunities, including being fully barred from some of the finest institutions in this country from day one
Were denied access to equal employment based on perceptions of physical and mental weakness, inferiority, or inadequate training
Were denied (are denied!) access to equal pay in many cases
Were (and are!) denied the right to serve fully according to their physical capacity in the armed forces
Were expected to endure pervasive sexual harassment on the job, with no legal recourse until relatively recently

And this is just the infrastructure of the matter; I could go on if I didn't have a time constraint - notice that this history doesn't even address the other unique handicaps that women face, including disgustingly high risk of domestic or sexual violence. Just as whites have generally given (and continue to give) African-Americans one hell of a "legacy" to recover from, men have given (and continue to give) women one hell of a "legacy" to confront. I don't want to argue over which is worse. But I will not accept handwaving away one while focusing on the other.

I would be more than delighted to have a woman (particularly a black or other woman of color) show this country and the world that women are no longer doomed to powerlessness, higher rates of poverty and inability to support themselves, and that intelligence and success (particularly along management, decision-making, and financial lines) are by no means only the province of men. But you know what? Since this is not likely to happen in this election (or for a good while to come), I think I'd settle for men (and women - vison's "But not in the same way or to the same degree" earlier today almost provoked a similar response from me) not downplaying the import of a female Presidency nor minimizing the significance of discrimination against women while focusing on discrimination against racial minorities.

And, perhaps more than anything else, I want people to stop talking about a "black person or a woman" as though the two categories are mutually exclusive. (Yes, I realize that that happens in an election context because we are dealing with a black man and white woman - but the "black or a woman" thing happens in any number of conversations re: who to elect, appoint, or to "place in a minority slot.")

[yovargas]

I suspect that you, yov, would be more interested in countering the "Barbie-lovin' world's view of women" if you were a woman.

Considering my views on gay rights, don't be so sure.

ps - you rock. Hard.

[Holbytla]

"Barbie-lovin' world's view of women"

What is it with all the Barbie hate? Barbies are people too.

[River]

Oh it was good. It was good like vison before you. I confess to the similar thought-traps you and vison have flitted through.

One of the problems with gender is the differences aren't just skin deep and some of them really are wired in. And then there are the differences that really are the products of social conditioning. It's hard, very hard, to tease these things apart and a lot of people don't even try. This results in some rather hideously harmful generalizations ala the ones Wright made in his recent speech on education.

[Jnyusa]

Well, women are better at things requiring fine motor skills, such as brain surgery.

It just occurred to me that the ideal President of the United States would be Diana Ross. She's Black, she's Female, and she's Jewish. And she could sing at her own inaugural ball.

[Primula Baggins]

Great heavens to Murgatroyd how I love this board.

Brilliantly ranted as always, nel.