Hahaha! I love it! Speaking of Ms. Braun - were you there at the NOW conference this year in Detroit? I do believe there was a Jen there who was advertising feministing.com, during one of the breakout sections by the Young Fems.

I turned on the radio this morning and heard Hillary Clinton calling the media out for this "is it gonna be race or gender" theme . . . admittedly, I haven't been following the whole controversy too closely this weekend (needed a break), and it sounds like Clinton may have screwed up along the line as well. But still, it was nice to hear her come out and say, "We're both running as candidates, full stop."

So, as a white woman . . . if there were a white guy and a black woman running, would people be asking me whether I felt torn voting for a guy who's my same race versus a woman who's the same sex/gender? Somehow I can't see it.

I'm still wishing for a Clinton/Obama ticket, although more politically savvy friends are telling me this is probably not likely.

You know how some people say that if a minority woman doesn't blindly follow the men of her race then she's selling out? Steinem's article's a case of the flip side, some people saying that if a minority woman doesn't blindly follow the whites of her gender then she's selling out. *Both* of those attitudes suck. >:(

Meanwhile, I'm now wondering how this nonsense would be going if Condoleezza Rice was running for president too...

As adults and registered voters, we are entrusted to vote for whomever we please, for whatever reason we please. Some people choose to write in candidates in protest, and in recent times, 40-50% of eligible voters do not vote at all. If someone would like to vote for Obama for his ethnicity, Clinton for her gender, or Edwards for his $400 haircut, that is their business, and I do not believe the country will suffer, as the leading Democratic candidates* appear qualified to lead the country.

* I am a man of color. I also like to believe I am in favor of equal rights. I too face the dilemma of finding a candidate who represents me or what I believe in, though ultimately I I will not base my decision on physical traits. The most cursory readings on personality and policy appear to exclude the Republican Party completely. In 21 years of being eligible to vote, I have always voted Democrat, though Colin Powell would have been an example of a Republican I could vote for. Not that Hawaii's votes in national elections matter.

Steinem's article's a case of the flip side, some people saying that if a minority woman doesn't blindly follow the whites of her gender then she's selling out.

Other people have written here in the last week about this, but I just wanted to chime in and say that I read Steinam's article and had some problems with her analysis (particularly her older-feminists-versus-younger-feminists argument), but I don't see how she's turning it into a race-or-gender thing. In fact, she specifically argues against that:

I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.

She's not talking about African-American women and how they're voting, she's analyzing the media coverage of Obama's win in Iowa and Clinton's in New Hampshire. Am I missing something?

"Steinem's article's a case of the flip side, some people saying that if a minority woman doesn't blindly follow the whites of her gender then she's selling out. *Both* of those attitudes suck. >:("

Steinem's definitely not saying that women should vote for women. She's saying the opposite, in fact: that the fact that women in Iowa were viewed as "traitors" for not voting along gender lines, but that blacks were not, shows that gender is still a more essentialized force in public life than race, especially when it comes to modes of public expression.

To be honest, I think the race-vs-gender thing is a media fiction. Which is horrifying, but I think real people--actual non-pundit voters--are considering the candidates rather than the candidates' demographics. It's a shame we're being so misrepresented.

As for Steinem...I defended her on my blog, since I believe she had a valid point or two that got buried in the pro-Clintonism and general nonsense, but the more I think about it the more racist and ageist it is.

"What country does Gloria live in where race barriers are taken seriously?"

I got the impression that the only way this is anywhere near close to accurate is the way sexism is dismissed as "romantic" more often than racism is.

For example, when domestic violence isn't taken seriously doesn't that attitude end up dismissing more male-on-female violence than white-on-black violence thanks to same-race different-sex couples (including violent ones) outnumbering same-sex different-race couples (including violent ones)?

OTOH, there's tons of sexism and racism dismissed for reasons *other* than "but it's just a lover's spat" or "but it's a private family matter" too, so the domestic violence example doesn't prove sexism hurts worse than racism...

"After reading Steinem’s Op-Ed I felt invisible…as if black and woman can’t exist in the same body."

I had the exact same thought when I was reading the NYT article "Rights vs. Rights." If Douglas & Stanton were arguing over blacks voting versus women voting, that meant black women got the shaft either way! What they really should have said was "black men voting versus white women voting"...

This is exactly why gender studies should be on that list of general education requirements we have in college. Not only does it open people's eyes to gender discrimination, but most gender studies courses include intersections of race and class...before I took a gender studies course I'm ashamed to admit I focused more on my gender as a white woman than I ever did on issues of race. But after only a year of minoring in gender studies, I think so differently about things now...seriously, GenEd requirements, right now! ;)

I'm reminded of a scene in A League of Their Own. They're practicing and someone throws one of the balls off to the side of the diamond, where there's a small group of black women watching. One picks it up and throws it to the catcher, so hard that you can hear the smack on her glove (which she then takes off to shake her sore hand). The black woman that threw the ball nodded knowingly at the all-white female baseball team.

This really bothers me. Too many people, in and out of the media, seem to think that women and racial/ethnic minorities vote on the "which-candidate-looks-most-like-me" principle. It's pretty obvious that from the look of our past several presidents that minorities and women vote for White dudes all the time. It's not like women and minorities were staying home on election day until now.

In one of my classes last semester, I talked a little about feminism and what types of things we fight for in the United States. After going on for a few minutes, one of my classmates said "So you're a big Hillary supporter?" I replied, "In a perfect world, Dennis Kucinich would be my president. But I only like him because he's short, just like me."

Exactly, FEMily. I have no idea why the choice of a presidential candidate should be a question of identity categories and not say, uh, who you think would make the best president.

If feminists were expected to vote for their favorite candidate and not the most likely woman, I wouldn't have to answer so many goddamn questions about Hilary. If minorites and women were expected to vote for whoever they thought was the best choice, then there wouldn't be this perceived conflict between being black and female, since neither would be perceived as somehow necessarily meaning you would vote for a black person or a female.

I think that the fundamental issue with this is the call to quantify oppressions. Being black, being a woman, being a black woman one should not have to weigh which is more important, more oppressive and deconstruct their identity. The media, pollsters, and many campaign consultants just love breaking down the vote into monolithic groups: "the woman vote," "the black vote," "the young vote." Imagine their confusion when they realize many of these votes can intersect! They feel the need to inform voters of which box they should fit in by quantifying their oppressions or minority status. My recommendation is to vote for the candidate you trust to lead this nation, and whatever leads you to that decision is your prerogative. Some will vote based on record, platform, and funding history. More will vote based on sound bites, looks, and advertising. If you have the resources, inform yourself - don't let them inform you!

Also, this issue is even more complex when you are talking about a candidate of more than one minority status. The troubles they face (which I've seen highlighted in some previous posts) are called issues of legitimacy, specifically double or triple. For instance, Hillary Clinton faces issues of double legitimacy. She is white and a woman. Does she cater to her white constituents or her women constituents? (That's what candidates in her position are pressured to ask themselves). Same situation with Obama. For Moseley-Braun, she is dealing with issues of triple legitimacy. She has to appeal to the mainstream of white men (in her constituency and her colleagues), her black constituents and her women constituents. These candidates are often forced to be less and less radical, since they don't want to upset any one of their constituencies. This is also why people believe their electability to be slim, as they couldn't possibly find a way to appeal to all groups! (sarcastic on my part, not on much of the public's). It's a tricky world in politics!

annajcook, Steinem did say very briefly that race and gender are interdependent. But the overall impression left by her op-ed was that she was pitting gender against race. How else should one interpret, for example, her mindbogglingly simplistic assertion that black men had the right to vote 50 years before women did? Has she never heard of poll taxes?

At the same time I agree with your point and (what I think was) Steinem's point that gender seems in certain ways to be more essentialized than race in American culture. It seems to be more difficult for people to see how Clinton's gender is relevant to the coverage of her campaign than it is for them to see how Obama's race is relevant to his.

One factor which is perhaps even more essentialized than race or gender is class. The pundits are currently explaining Clinton's win in NH by ascribing it in part to poor, uneducated whites who are too racist to vote for a black man and therefore went for Clinton. Because, they assume, wealth and education make white people less racist. (And of course, this sort of analysis which reduces votes to pure identity politics immediately raises the question as to why Edwards didn't win NH, given that he's the only white man on the Democratic side.)

The bottom line with the media coverage in this election is that the pundits seem to have trouble believing that any marginalized group - be it blacks, women, black women, white women, or poor whites - could possibly vote based on anything other than identity. Those of us who fit into these groups are assumed to vote not based on our assessment of competence or potential, but based on how much a candidate looks like us. As a black woman I'm told I face a "dilemma" over whether I should vote my identity as a black person or my identity as a woman (almost verbatim quote from CNN). The idea that I might cast a vote based on, y'know, who I think would do a GOOD JOB is totally foreign to the msm. By contrast (middle-class) white men are presumed to be rational voters whose votes are strictly determined by the issues. It's a bit ridiculous.

Sidestepping this debate entirely -- it gives me a warm fuzzy inside whenever Elizabeth Cady Stanton is actually remembered outside of feminist circles.

diablaazul, just wanted to say thanks for your analysis!

I thought the point about the voting rights (which, from a constitutional standpoint is true, even though it wasn't a practical reality) was to make the point that when the nineteenth-century abolition and women's rights movements created a politically expedient hierarchy, women (regardless of race) lost out--because the word "men" made it into the constitution for the first time. But that's me reading my understanding of the historical background into the situation . . . I see how Steinam's statement seems to be glossing over a hell of a lot!

And I agree--if we're gonna keep talking about "race" and "gender" . . . where's the conversation about "class"? Cause, you know, who are the people who aren't rich going to vote for? I don't see the poor grad student demographic represented, let alone the people scraping by working at Wal-Mart and two other jobs ;).

There was an interesting debate this morning around this whole race/gender issue on Democracy Now! It was between Steinem and Melissa Harris-Lacewell. Check it out on DN's website if you didn't get a chance to hear it.

Amen! Amen! Amen! The Times article was enough to make me wish Condi was running. (Just joking!)

Eh fucking men.

First of all, they're being racist/sexist in their coverage by turning them into tokens, when both candidates want to talk about other shit. It's so patronizing. "Let's see which freak of political nature will win!"

Ugh.

Second. Nothing belittles two great movements like pitting them against eachother.

I agree, don't let them do it.