Wednesday, March 26, 2008

"The Hidden -ism?"

Identity Politics

Steinem’s argument that we should elect the candidate from the more disadvantaged demographic pulls us back into the race and gender wars.


But if Steinem is right that the electorate is not beyond identity politics, she’s wrong about who is the most disadvantaged. These exit poll results make it appear that when voters choose a candidate based on their race or gender, they’re voting against the black and not the woman. It looks as if racism lives on, even as sexism is disappearing.

I had to repost this here, because I have been really disturbed by the number of assertions I've seen that women have it harder in America than racial minorities, and that this means when we have to choose between working against sexism and working against racism, sexism is more pressing.

Basically? When in conflict, help women first because we haven't made as much progress for them, and the blacks can wait.

This is an indication to the contrary. Among voters who cared about the sex of their candidate, they cared because they wanted a woman. Among voters who cared about the race of their candidate, they cared because they didn't want a black person.

I agree with Gifford on this one. While we shouldn't be making decisions at all based on the sex or race of the candidate, the fact that the decisions are happening in this particular way suggests that the feminists who are claiming sexism is more pressing an issue than racism aren't just being divisive. They're wrong.

No comments: