A Confusing Time to Be a Black Woman?

January 22, 2008 3:56 AM

n an interesting instance of "going meta," CNN.com is currently running a story about an earlier story it ran. The first story focused on the "tough choices" black women voters face in South Carolina, given that the two Democratic frontrunners are a white woman and a black man. The second article called attention to readers' anger over the first article's implication that black women vote based not on a candidate's qualifications but on the candidates skin color and reproductive organs. While it's refreshing to see CNN.com post what is essentially critical user-created content, that doesn't change the fact that the original story was fucking retarded.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

For [black] women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?

No other voting bloc in the country faces this choice.

Honestly, I'm saddened to see that Bill Richardson is out of the race. And, frankly, I think the fact that he was never a serious candidate despite being the most objectively qualified person in the race says something about the sorry state of our electorate. I mean, when a man that's served as a governor, in the U.S. House of Representatives, as Secretary of Energy, and as a U.N ambassador can't compete with a first- and second-term senators, people really have their priorities all tangled up. I don't know if I would have ultimately voted for Mr. Richardson for president, but I think he should have been a much more viable candidate.

Still, my support and respect for Mr. Richardson is completely unrelated to the fact the he is, like me, Hispanic. If any of the other candidates had Mr. Richardson's credentials, then I would have given them the same serious consideration I would have given Mr. Richardson. And if a presidential race ever comes down to a Hispanic woman against a white man, I'm not going to be sitting there thinking "Well, see, now I'm really confused. On the one hand, the woman speaks Spanish, just like me. But, on the other hand, the man's got a cock, just like me. God, this is a fucking difficult decision." No reasonable person would decide who to vote for based on such incidental attributes.

It's probably true that women are more cognizant of the issues that affect women than men. But it does not follow that a woman would best address those issues. Similarly, black people might be more aware of the issues facing black people than, say, white people. But it does not follow that a black man would best represent black people as a whole. More importantly, it is surely not the case that each black woman cares about gender or race issues more than other problems our country's facing. Indeed, the article points out that black women, like many other people across the nation, are most concerned with health care, education, and the economy than race or gender.

In other words, lots of Democrats in America are facing the exact same decision as the black women in the article: whether to support Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. To assume that anyone is making their decision based on whether the candidate is of the same race or gender as the voter is to call the voters irrational at best and racist or sexist at worse.

And if you're someone that thinks that either one of those factors really matters, then you're either a complete idiot or a raging bigot.

5 Comments

lily said:

On the other hand, there are people that vote who don't know and don't care about the issues, and some of them will--actually--vote based on superficial issues like race or gender, the same way some people vote based on who they'd like to have a beer with. I think it's disgusting and lame and stupid, but it doesn't mean it doesn't or won't happen, because it sure as shit will. So for the black women who exist that will vote based on who they'd rather have a beer with, yeah, they do have a choice to make. It's just not really that interesting a choice.

January 22, 2008 10:15 AM

Elle Woods said:

For what it's worth I heard CNN was scorned for the article. It goes right along with the (housewives) who are all pissed at Oprah for endorsing a black candidate over a female candidate. (That said, I did not like her decision to endorse anyone after she had been so adament to not even interview politicians previously).

In an ideal world people would know about the candidates and actually care, however even I, have not been watching the debates so I cannot really scorn others for being issue voters. In my defense, my state's primary do not count towards the democratic nomination and I just did not care to vote republican, so I've kinda had a "whatever, I guess I'll just be voting for whatever democrat the country nominates" attitude.

January 22, 2008 7:48 PM

Anonymouse said:

You're Hispanic?

As for Richardson, he really was the most qualified candidate . . . on paper. That's his problem though, he's amazing on paper, then you watch him and you decide that the most boring person on earth, after taking a sedative, is more exciting the Bill Richardson. I love the guy, he's a Jumbo after all, but he's not going to win in the mass-media culture. It's kind of sad.

January 22, 2008 8:39 PM

Constance said:

It was dark when I woke. This is a ray of sunhsnie.

November 23, 2011 12:22 PM

xjruadisty said:

zm4oGP kwieiynwbvew

November 24, 2011 5:33 AM

Leave a comment

Name

Email Address

URL

Remember personal info?

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)

Captcha:

Type the characters you see in the picture above.