As much as it shouldn't, race and sex do matter.

My girlfriends and I were sitting around at a baby shower one Sunday, passing the folded diaper napkins looking for the one with the little mustard `poo' when one of my white girlfriends openly said to a mixed group of women, "Well, maybe this baby will grow up when a woman is president.  Wouldn't that be nice?"

One of my other white girlfriends chimed in, "Oh, I know!  But she's not doing all that hot at the moment."  Then she looked around the room at the rest of us, looking for support.  She didn't get it.  Instead, she got a smirk, a sigh, and one of us declaring, "Well, personally I'm pulling for Obama."

There were a few awkward seconds. The three white ladies in the room declared that they also liked Obama but just were more familiar with Hillary, which was perfectly valid,  and the rest of us pretended to be caught up in our game of diaper poo.  But the look of betrayal on my girlfriend's face was evident.  Here were women she'd been hanging out with for years.  Our kids went to school together, we were all educated, feminist, liberal women of a similar economic background and yet for the first time in our book club, girl scout cookie selling, mommy group traveling years we were divided right down racial lines.  

There have been more than a few posts in the blogosphere declaring that race shouldn't be an issue.  That Hillary being a woman shouldn't be a point of support for feminists, but it is.  It shouldn't be, but it certainly doesn't help to pretend these things don't matter and it certainly won't help anything by either refusing to acknowledge them or talk about them for the sake of the ever-elusive `democratic solidarity'.  

As much as it might seem from someone looking at all of us together as a group that we are, aside from our skin color, a fairly homogeneous crowd, the dynamics of this heated election is proving that we're a long way away from that.

Why aren't Black women overwhelmingly supporting Hillary Clinton, someone who many of us admire?

I like Hillary Clinton.  She is strong, well spoken, fights for social justice, and although I don't agree with her on everything, if she were running against pretty much anyone else in this election I'd be strolling down the street in her t-shirt.  I know that many of my black girlfriends feel the same way.  We've even openly discussed how tragic it was that we `had' to vote against her.  Even though we haven't gone much deeper than that regarding our support of Obama, we all know why we suddenly feel the way we do.

In an election where the two candidates are, frankly, evenly matched, when it comes down to the cold hard choice of who you'd prefer to see in power, black women are overwhelmingly choosing the candidate they identify with more and who would be a more powerful force of change against the current administration. And it's not the woman.

Bloggers want to know why we think he'll bring greater change than Hillary?  Here it is.

Yes, both white women and black women have been objectified and oppressed, but in very different ways.  White women have been subordinated with the promise in sharing power.  Affirmative Action solidified this, benefiting them more than any other group.  Black women have been oppressed through outright rejection.  There is frankly, a lot of anger there.  There is the underlying bitterness that white women have traditionally sided with or excused the transgressions of their spouses and sons.  For many of us, far too many white women have historically been able to share in the benefits of this oppression.  This isn't an intentional thing, obviously, but it's hard to ignore the notions of "Billary" and belittling, sexist slurs against Senator Clinton, which certainly aren't fair, but have a small degree of historical relevance attached to them nonetheless.

Unlike a lot of white women who look at Hillary as a close representation of self, a lot of black women look at her as no more closely resembling themselves than her husband.   It's painful to admit and acknowledge that in a culture where you are black and a woman,  the identity which tends to cling to you more is your race.  We are female, yes, but a lot of us can't identity with Senator Clinton regardless of our lifestyles.    

I know what some people will say.  This is terrible.  It's separatist.  It's reverse racism.  Well, you can certainly say this but I think that's off the mark.  Most of the Black women I know do want institutional transformation in this country.  We do want eventual community with white people - men and women - but in our struggle for change we recognize that we need someone who will be a reliable force for that change and Obama, even though he is a man, appears to hold more promise in the equality of minorities on the whole to many of us - including women.  

My mother had this to say when I told her I was journaling about my feelings regarding this;

   "Hillary is nice, but you know she's been living in their house too long.  She'll fight but she doesn't have much to lose, does she?   She's used to sharing in the power.  Obama has already fought the hardest battle that is to have gotten as far as he has.  I bet he wakes up every day afraid someone is going to try to kill him."

The fact that he has gotten this far as a black man in a country that jails more black men than it sends to college is quite a feat.  His race should not be ignored.  It should be celebrated for the hurdles he has overcome.  His ability to reach out to all people, even people who have regarded him as less than human, in spite of these hurdles also should be joyfully acknowledged.  

Comparing the struggles of white women to that of a black man in this country is naive. Look at how many black men have served in the senate compared to white women, how many have become CEO's and heads of state.  Those numbers are strikingly different.

It is a divisive topic among my black and white girlfriends, but my black girlfriends and I see Obama's struggle more closely tied to our own experiences than Hillary's.  We're seeing a chance at the sort of equality many of us don't think Hillary can accomplish, even though we don't doubt that she would try to the best of her ability.  And although many women and other disadvantaged groups are out of the trenches of poverty, there's no such promise for young black men.  And we have sons and husbands who we love as well.  

I got the diaper with the poo, and a nice gift basket with some scented bath gel in it.  We hugged before we said our goodbyes, a little bit more in tuned to the world around us then we were before we got there.



Display:


People often act against their own interests... (2.00 / 1)

Especially when LOTS of skillful advertising and psychological manipulation is involved.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:18:13 AM EST

I'm sorry (2.00 / 1)

But is this comment essentially telling me I don't know any better?  Unlike what you see in those movies about the brave white woman that goes into the ghetto and saves the group of poor black kids the truth is that we're pretty darn aware of who is really looking out for our own interests, thanks.  Hillary Swank's character is an exception, not a rule.


Obama 2008!
by lollydee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:23:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

On health insurance the difference will be huge (2.00 / 1)

Huge..

Thousands of dollars a year for poor women, who would get health insurance basically for free under Clinton there will be a premium cap which means that nobody will have to pay more than 5-10%. Under Obama's failed model, if he eliminates risk based pricing as he has recently started saying he would, without a mandate, prices for insurance will go way up. They have to.

See

http://www.economist.com/research/Econom ics/alphabetic.cfm?LETTER=A

Adverse selection

When you do business with people you would be better off avoiding. This is one of two main sorts of market failure often associated with insurance. The other is moral hazard. Adverse selection can be a problem when there is asymmetric information between the seller of insurance and the buyer; in particular, insurance will often not be profitable when buyers have better information about their risk of claiming than does the seller. Ideally, insurance premiums should be set according to the risk of a randomly selected person in the insured slice of the population (55-year-old male smokers, say). In practice, this means the average risk of that group. When there is adverse selection, people who know they have a higher risk of claiming than the average of the group will buy the insurance, whereas those who have a below-average risk may decide it is too expensive to be worth buying. In this case, premiums set according to the average risk will not be sufficient to cover the claims that eventually arise, because among the people who have bought the policy more will have above-average risk than below-average risk. Putting up the premium will not solve this problem, for as the premium rises the insurance policy will become unattractive to more of the people who know they have a lower risk of claiming. One way to reduce adverse selection is to make the purchase of insurance compulsory, so that those for whom insurance priced for average risk is unattractive are not able to opt out.

also see

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/Advers eSelection/

What I am saying is that poor women will be hurt tremendously by this.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:36:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On health insurance the difference will be hug (none / 0)

Any plan that requires all Americans get health insurance is just a talking point because of a lack of enforcement.  If you set up a mandate that is unaffordable, then you are putting people in the position of having to break the law with no recourse, no option.

Until Hillary can propose a way to actually enforce a mandate of this magnitude, I'm inclined to be skeptical.  

Also, as per my own interest, I'm not a poor woman.   I actually like that Barack Obama's health plan is built on choices and that it will not restrict us to just national health care or private health care.  


Obama 2008!
by lollydee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:44:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm sorry (2.00 / 1)

Oh, yes, if you support Obama  you must be duped.  Funny how the educational demographic most easily duped are those with post-graduate degrees.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:51:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As much as it shouldn't, race and sex do matt (2.00 / 1)

I'm a white woman for Obama.  

Most women are for Obama now:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107407/Obama- Surge-Fairly-BroadBased.aspx


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:22:31 AM EST

You might want to read this: (none / 0)

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0 081275

Barack Obama Inc.:
The birth of a Washington machine


"I recall a remark made by Studs Terkel in 1980, about the liberal Republican John Anderson, who was running as an independent against Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter: "People are so tired of dealing with two-foot midgets, you give them someone two foot four and they start proclaiming him a giant." In the unstinting and unanimous adulation of Barack Obama today, one wonders if a similar dynamic might be at work. If so, his is less a midgetry of character than one dictated by changing context. Gone are the days when, as in the 1970s, the U.S. Senate could comfortably house such men as Fred Harris (from Oklahoma, of all places), who called for the breakup of the oil, steel, and auto industries; as Wisconsin's William Proxmire, who replaced Joe McCarthy in 1957 and survived into the 1980s, a crusader against big banks who neither spent nor raised campaign money; as South Dakota's George McGovern, who favored huge cuts in defense spending and a guaranteed income for all Americans; as Frank Church of Idaho, who led important investigations into CIA and FBI abuses.

Today, money has all but wrung such dissent from the Senate. Campaigns have grown increasingly costly; in 2004 it took an average of more than $7 million to run for a Senate seat. As Carl Wagner, a Democratic political strategist who first came to Washington in 1970, remarked to me, the Senate today is a fundamentally different institution than it was then. "Senators were creatures of their states and reflected the cultures of their states," he said. "Today they are creatures of the people who pay for their multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns. Representative democracy has largely been taken off the table. It's reminiscent of the 1880s and 1890s, when senators were chosen by state legislatures who were owned by the railroads and the banks." Accordingly, as corporate money has grown increasingly important to candidates, we have seen the rise of the smothering K Street culture and the revolving door that feeds it--not just lobbyists themselves but an entire interconnected world of campaign consultants, public-relations agencies, pollsters, and media strategists.

All of this has forged a political culture that is intrinsically hostile to reform. On condition of anonymity, one Washington lobbyist I spoke with was willing to point out the obvious: that big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn't see him as a "player." The lobbyist added: "What's the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?"


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:43:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ALL THAT (2.00 / 1)

is why I support Obama. because America learned from Lamont, and that needs rewarding. Next Stop, someone better than Obama. But for now, for here, I'm hopeful and unsatisfied.


*&=4eva
by BlogSurrogate57 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:22:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This Campaign has been about Invisible Issues (none / 0)

Obama, by his skin color AND culture, is inherently more trustable about addressing a lot of black problems. He hasn't needed to campaign about them, and he won't be campaigning about them (no matter what he intends to do while in office).

Likewise, white women believe in Hillary, because they can see that she has gone through some of the trivialization that they themselves have experienced. She doesn't need to say a word, doesn't need to explain how exactly she will remove trivialization. Because of her background, because of who she is.

I find the Invisible Campaign Issues to be rather interesting.


*&=4eva
by BlogSurrogate57 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:25:50 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.