|
The Rush for Gold:
Race, Gender,
and the 2008
Oppression Olympics
Below the Belt: A
Biweekly Column
by NOW President Kim
Gandy, January 18, 2008
With "Super Tuesday" only a few weeks
away, it's hard to have a conversation that doesn't work its way around to the
2008 elections. The Bush administration, thankfully, is in its final days.
Voting registration and involvement among young people is on the rise. And
the two most electable candidates for the Democratic nomination are panning out
to be a woman and an African American.
With all this excitement, why is it that we seem unable to move beyond the
obvious -- for those of you who haven't noticed, Barack Obama is black and
Hillary Clinton is female.
As the leader of an organization that champions gender equality, promoting
diversity, and ending racism among our top priority issues, in a sense, I am
grateful we are finally talking openly about gender and race -– topics we
generally skirt, so to speak. Something about equality issues makes men
and majority populations feel threatened, so what about the rest of the issues
at stake?
With the primaries under way, I find myself combing through media to find
information and commentary about the issues I care about.
Don't get me wrong, I'm ecstatic about the idea of a female president in both my
and my daughters' lifetime. It's no secret that the U.S. ranks number 69
out of 128 countries when it comes to female political empowerment. "The
Time is NOW" is hardly just a catchy campaign slogan we came up with here at
headquarters.
And to think, just 50 years ago in my home state Louisiana, "for the purpose of
protecting the public health, morals and the peace and good order in the state
-– not because of race," everything from housing, to playgrounds, to restaurants
were segregated. That, juxtaposed with the reality that this country is
considering the election of its first African American president –- this is
truly a monumental occasion in U.S. history.
But I am concerned that personalities and identity politics are taking the place
of real discourse about the realities of our country and the course we should be
taking. My civic responsibility is to vote for the candidate I believe to
be best qualified to lead this country for at least the next four years.
And my vote, however gleeful I remain about the prospect of our 2008 candidates,
has more to do with issues and experience than race or gender.
As with so many issues, the media have again chosen to take the low road, adding
more heat than light. Race and gender are pitted against each other on TV
and in print like contenders on American Gladiators. It is not enough to
acknowledge that, when racism or misogyny occurs, both are bad and neither
should be tolerated. Instead, they're used to divide a nation in a
cut-throat battle about which is worse. It's like, as my colleague at
Feministing.com put it so eloquently, the oppression Olympics!
To be clear -– what if our leadership choices were between Karen Hughes,
Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas as frontrunners for the 44th president of
the United States? As the president of the National Organization for
Women, I would have to acknowledge the political breakthrough. But with
records like these three political figures, I'd be working like hell to ensure
none of them made it to the oval office!
Neither women nor African Americans are a monolithic population when it comes to
voting or anything else. The insinuation that women owe Hillary their
allegiance or blacks owe Barack not only leaves African American women, white
male Democrats, and any other minority within our voting electorate in an
impossible quandary, it is a disservice to the larger political debate about who
is the most qualified candidate with the strongest political agenda to lead our
country -– now. And while our willingness to finally engage the race and
gender conversations as a nation is encouraging, we're talking about electing
the person in charge of the most powerful nation in the world, not identity
politics.
Senator Clinton's experience, record, and stance on issues that impact freedom,
equality, opportunity and justice for women and girls won her my vote for the
upcoming presidential election. Her strong record of protecting and
advancing a woman's right to control her body and to plan her family as she sees
fit is impeccable. She has advocated for a safer and more secure future on
every issue that affects the economic status of women and girls. I am
comforted by her thirty five years of experience, her work promoting civil
rights and calling for an end to racism; her detailed, universal healthcare
policy; her commitment to end discrimination based on sexual orientation or
gender identity; her body of work dedicated to stopping violence against women;
and her determination to end the unconscionable war in Iraq. The fact that
Hillary's a woman –- and a role model for my daughters -– that's just an added
bonus.
Neither Senator Obama's race nor Senator Clinton's gender can alter the
collision course of this country -– only leadership and skill and determination
can do that. And while there is room to marvel at the contenders, there is
not space to vote for them based solely on their racial and gender identities.
Although our history is in dire need of a more diverse body of presidential
leaders, let their leadership and commitment to our issues and our future –- not
biological characteristics –- be the criteria we use to determine who is most
fit.
Recent Below
the Belt columns
Copyright 1995-2008, All rights reserved. Permission granted for
non-commercial use. National Organization for Women
(GAYPASG Note: This was printed from
http://www.now.org/news/note/011808.html)
|
