How’s this for a title and opening for an article:
Gender or race: White male voters face tough choices in S.C.
For these men, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?
The howls of outrage that framing an article in such terms would cause is easy (and rather fun) to imagine. If ever there were two things that should not have have an impact on whom a person votes for, it should be the genetic characteristics of skin colour and gender. Dare I suggest that ideology and honesty might trump those two non-factors every time?
And yet this article will most likely pass without the slightest murmur from a great many people.
Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C.
But if it is reasonable for black women in South Carolina to vote on the basis that someone is black or female, presumably they cannot object if other people decide to vote for candidates on the basis they are white or male. After all, it does appear that framing the choice on whom to support on the basis of racism or sexism is perfectly acceptable to the mainstream media. And there I was mistakenly thinking that those things were the cardinal politically incorrect sins of our day! Who knew?
Dare I suggest that ideology and honesty might trump those two non-factors every time?
Well I suppose it might if you could distinguish the candidates using such a metric.
Once the state of victim hood is admitted into the equation then it will be acceptable for a black female to vote on the bases gender and race and to shout it proudly from the rooftops. As it would also be acceptable for many people if a white female voted for a candidate based on said candidate’s gender. This type of behaviour is rewarded with whoops and cheers from the Oprah posse.
But perhaps victim is too loaded a word. Defender, warrior, restorer of balance and equality – call it what you will. It all boils down to the same thing – idiocy.
In the same vein – do you think Hillary’s handlers are pushing Bill into the limelight more and more of late in order to assure nervous males that there’s still a man navigating the route from the passenger seat so to speak?
Andy stole my line.
I would love, LOVE, to claim that people actually vote the issues but, hey, a major news outlet has just told them it’s ok to not use their brains when deciding on our new leader. Huzzah.
And yet this article will most likely pass without the slightest murmur from a great many people.
This black American woman is mumuring. (And freaking FURIOUS at the ego-heavy, ideology-free lot of them.)
The people getting paid for “journalism” are mostly hopeless non-entities. Best get your news from the internet, where at least some of the sites have very sensible commentary(e.g.-this one). CNN- a sad of shit.
The people getting paid for “journalism” are mostly hopeless non-entities. Best get your news from the internet, where at least some of the sites have very sensible commentary(e.g.-this one). CNN- a sad sack of shit.
The amount of twists and turns that the Americans get themselves into thanks to political correctness over race is something that I, as a non-American, will never comprehend.
Such a pity for them that Condi isn’t running…
Now THAT would be a spectacle to behold.
Well the site was immediately inundated with letters requesting that CNN cut out this sort of crap, so while there are many reasons to dispair of “the Americans” I’m sure, thankfully this might not be one of them.
Voila:
Readers Angry about CNN Race vs. Gender story
Walter:
That, and the fact that Willy is so much more charming than his wife (a small feat, I might add). It’s funny you should mention Opra, as I just remembered catching myself wondering what must have been her thinking when choosing whom to endorse. Anyway, I am sure that if Obama was not black, we would have never heard of him. The same could be said for Hilary, was she not married to Bill, but I am not so sure on that one.
Similar hypocrisy exists in UK; we have a Minister for Women and we have a Black Police Association, both of them claiming to combat discrimination.
Call me naive about this, but I would happily say publically that anyone who admits they intend to vote in an election based on the candidate’s ethnicity, sex (gender is a gramatical term; nouns have gender, living creatures have sex) or any other factor unrelated to policy, ideology or integrity is not fit to be allowed a vote.
Some living creatures only have gender:-) Back on topic now.
Alisa,
You made me laugh. Yes, it truly is the mystery of our age. How the hell does anyone rate someone with the anti-charisma of Hillary Clinton? She’s just awful. She is almost the only person I see on telly who makes me want to reflexively defenestrate the set. Bill I can understand because he’s a charming individual and a good speaker but his missus? I can’t even see her without Paul’s comment coming to mind, “it takes a village…”. Thanks Mr Marks, I may be billing you for a new TV!
Yes, Paul’s comment is a classic in its own class:-) As to Hilary, she has great appeal to (not the most sophisticated) feminists. See, it’s women who are supposed to be charming, and men are supposed to be serious and taking care of business, and providers. In some respects, the Clintons are the reverse stereotype, in line with the (grossly simplified) feminist ideal.
CRL-Ideology free? I think not. They have an ideology all right, the ideology of victim-hood.
I would also, from my possibly blinkered perspective from Asia, contend that many American voters will, if given a chance, vote across tribal lines. It may be a tribe based on race, gender, or religion, but it is present and thus a factor nonetheless.
For many black voters, the fact that they never had a black democrat as their party’s candidate doesn’t mean that they won’t turn out in droves to vote for a brother in the main event, no matter how inexperienced or shallow he is, simply due to black pride.
It’ll take a great deal of effort to get rid of that sort of attitude. Good luck with that!
In any event, white males and black females will find that they’ve got it all comfortably covered.
With Hillary.
She’s black, isn’t she? She says she is – so black females can happily vote for her. And white males – she’s white, and male too!!! Just ask her.
Indeed she’s anything anybody wants her to be – just ask her – if they’ll only VOTE FOR HER!!!
“…And if YOU DON’T LIKE MY PRINCIPLES, Sir – I have others…”
>> And yet this article will most likely pass without the slightest murmur from a great many people
Time to eat some crow?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/emails.race.gender/index.html
Erm – but they don’t consider Obama a “brother.” Jesse Jackson had massive black support during the primary in 1988. Since then, being black hasn’t been enough to qualify you. Neither Sharpton nor Obama set black voters on fire the way Jackson did. In fact, black Dems prefer Clinton 3-to-1 over Obama. Any “turning out” they do for Obama during the general election will likely be the same kind of “turning out” they do for any Democrat. I think it’s fair to say your comment is out of date. As is CNN’s article, actually. Americans stopped considering race and gender as top factor a really long time ago, it’s just that the media failed to notice.
The dilemma would appear to exist only in the writers head.
I cant find one quote in it that says
“He black, and I’m black. I’m voting Black”
On the contrary, everybody seemed to be considering their own best interest.
The article is a complete waste of space.
I think you rather missed my point then. I fully expected some people to protest (and indeed my article was designed to help that process along)… but the truth of the matter is the Democratic party is a party of ‘identity politics’ (which is not to say the Republicans are not) and thus to expect the supporters of such a party to not vote on the basis of their identity would be… strange. But when CNN offers an open goal like that, well it would be churlish not to kick the ball into the back of the net.
I would go further in fact and say that racism and sexism are integral to identity politics, but some racisms and sexisms are favoured whereas some are not (hence lunatic hispanic fascists are respectable when they talk of La Raza whereas lunatic white fascists are not).
The ‘great many people’ of which I speak, those on the far left’ (oh how I hate that term but I cannot think of another) will indeed remain silent… or if they do not, they will simply say, “oh but our racism and sexism isn’t racism or sexism”.
What about the sexist Latino male? Has anyone stopped to consider his plight?
I’m sorry, but that’s a redundant descriptor there…
Such a pity for them that Condi isn’t running…
—–
Now THAT would be a spectacle to behold.
—-
Indeed.
Unfortunately, she’d rather run the NFL. If even a tenth of what the lefties say about the Bush Administration are true, Mr. Goodell had best watch out… 😉
Halp! I have no idea what any of that means!!!
This should help.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46644
Some of the Onion’s best stuff is based on reality.
Speaking of… The majestic Harry Hutton has “done” Condi to perfection:
http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/2005/04/condi-2008-love-poem.html
How about if the lovely Condi runs against the somewhat un-feminine Hillary?
Race or Gender: Black male voters face tough choices in S.C.
(Dear God, please forgive me for that….)
I will not pay Nick.
Still back to the posting:
The Clinton News Network is part of a much wider thing – something that dominates many institutions in the United States and beyond.
The definition of “diversity”.
In the “old days” (as recently as the 1970’s in Britain) “diversity” in a college politics department (and so on) meant “diversity of opinion” – people with different points of view.
Now “diversity” means things like race, sex, sexuality, disabled (differently abled)……. and so on.
So a college department or a network newsroom can be filled by people who all have the same basic (LEFTIST) set of political opinions and social attitudes and be called “diverse” or “an example of diversity”.
The idea that someone could not hold the basic poltical opinions that both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama share, does not really enter the thoughts of the C.N.N. people (anyone who does not share these basic opinions is a space monster as far as they are concerned). So voting choices have to be on race, sex and so on.
Democrat voters can be either racist or sexist. If you vote Republican, you can be both racist AND sexist. The perfect candidate to unite both parties would have NO race OR sex, or known age. Thankfully, there is such a being- Michael Jackson! America, the land with everything!
Reading the comment by nick g. (on President Michael Jackson) may give me nightmares tonight.
However, I suppose it would be better than President Hillary Clinton.
Well, well, well, looks like 80% of black voters went for Obama. So who was it that said that voters no longer vote along tribal lines? There are some, but they are sadly in the minority, at least in South Carolina.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080127051452AAOMxg5
oust oust