« The High Stakes of Veepstakes | Main | Tortured Stance On Human Rights »

Ruminating On Gender And Race (Again!)

28 May 2008 04:14 pm

[Ta-Nehisi]

I really said I was going to stop talking about this. But I just read through the convo over at TNR between Amanda Fortini and Michelle Cottle, as well as Isaac's response, and I just want to throw in a couple notes.

1.) Picking up on Isaac's great point about "excitement over a woman/black president," I think so much of this has to do with the candidate themselves. This whole notion of masses of people "excited about a black president,"in particular, ignores the fact that since 1984, we've had a black person at least declare for president every year. In 2004 we had two--a black man and a black woman. I don't recall there being much excitement around the notion of President Al Sharpton, amongst blacks or whites. It's true that there is a great deal of excitement now about electing a black president--but that's because the prospect is Barack Obama. Ditto for Hillary. This sort of reductionist thinking that focuses only on her gender--independent of much more mundane factors like ignoring caucus states--is myopic. It misses, and greatly diminishes, the power of the individual.

2.) If there is one thing that all this gender/race analysis has taught it's this simple lesson--There Are No Black. Women. Anywhere. Ever. There's been great handwringing over an alleged schism between younger and older feminists. But if that's a schism, I don't know what you call the chasm between black and white feminists. We all are very interested in how the campaign would have unfolded if Barack Obama had been a woman. But we could care less how it would have unfolded if Hillary had been black, mostly because the answer is much simpler--there would have been no campaign to begin with. She would, most likely, be hooked up with a black dude, and thus likely would never have been First Lady of Arkansas, much less of the United States, and much less a Senator from New York. An inability to even consider other worlds explains why every time I see some writer attempting to assess the interplay of race and gender, it's rarely someone who actually has to, you know, deal with race and gender. That of course includes yours truly.

Share This

Comments (28)

I am afraid, Ms Ta-Nehisi, that you must be too young to remember the wonderful Ms Shirley Chishom. To millions of us who'd never personally confronted the cloaks that ages of sexism and racism cast over our eyes, Shirley was a miracle. We could actually look at this fiery but level-headed black woman and imagine her in charge. And it looked pretty good. We were amazed.

It's a sign of how improverished out political coverage is, this ignoring what an important historical figure she was and how the current Dem situation reflects well on her.

This whole notion of masses of people "excited about a black president,"in particular, ignores the fact that since 1984, we've had a black person at least declare for president every year

I would respectfully disagree. We may have a black person declare every election, but this is the first time said person had much of a chance to be the nominee, much less win the General Election. This is certainly the first time when the Democratic candidate will be either a black person or (if the crack-pots win) a woman.

Obama and Clinton are galvizing people, that's for sure. But I think that the "excitement" has as much to do with the chances of winning as they do with the candidates themselves.

Ummm, what is the important difference between discussing whether Obama had been a women versus whether Clinton would be black? Aren't we discussing black women in both cases? Is Obama the magical black woman who doesn't face racial oppression while Clinton the black women does? Why would that be?

Are you asking about the counterfactual where Obama is a white woman? And if so, why are you using whiteness as the default position for womenhood? I am afraid you aren't making much sense here.

" Is Obama the magical black woman who doesn't face racial oppression while Clinton the black women does? Why would that be?"

No, he's basing it on Hillary being in the Senates, and being in position to run for President at all only because she was married to Bill Clinton.

Whether we live together in confidence and cohesion; with more faith and pride in ourselves and less self-doubt and hesitation; strong in the conviction that the destiny of Canada is to unite, not devide; sharing in cooperation, not in seperation or in conflict; respecting our past and welcoming our future.

Maybe someone should acquaint this Ta-Nehisi dude with our current Secretary of State. He might be in for the shock of a lifetime.

Picking up on Isaac's great point about "excitement over a woman/black president," I think so much of this has to do with the candidate themselves. This whole notion of masses of people "excited about a black president,"in particular, ignores the fact that since 1984, we've had a black person at least declare for president every year.

Well, this has to do with the candidate themselves to the extent that the candidate is not someone totally unelectable.

If there is one thing that all this gender/race analysis has taught it's this simple lesson--There Are No Black. Women. Anywhere. Ever.

Oh. Stop. Being. So. Absurd.

Oprah Winfrey, arguably the most powerful individual in the television industry, and certainly a huge political and cultural influence in contemporary American society, is a black woman. So is the current Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice.

I'm nerdy enough to remember when TNR first put Obama on their cover in 2003. The question back then was: Can black candidates win statewide elections?

There'd been scant evidence for the positive response up until then. Now, largely through the good offices of David Axelrod, we've seen black candidates make amazing headway in terms of statewide elections (Obama, Deval Patrick, Michael Steele). Female candidates, it seems to me, have had a much slower and a much longer period of ascent. Statehouses and the Senate were not as closed to women as they were to black candidates in the 80s and 90s.

I'm not sure what that all means, but it does strike me that both demographic groups have been fielding increasingly more viable candidates for these statewide positions. And I think that holding those positions (governor, senator) opens the door for a talented individual to contend credibly for the white house.

Folks that no black women anywhere crack was in reference to how gender is analyzed--i.e. that a lot of the gender analysis has mostly applied to white women. That's what the argument follows from. It wasn't meant to suggest that black women haven't achieved anything. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Thanks for reading. And of course, replying.

don't these responses prove your assertion?

You were clear. A very interesting post--and a topic I've been halfway thinking about, but you crystallized the issues v. well here.

There's been much discussion of black voters and female votes, and I've been waiting for someone to try to address those voters who are 'all of the above.'. Never really put my finger on the point that 'female voters' automatically excluded, far as the analysis I've seen, all black woman.

Thanks.

Mixner said:

Oprah Winfrey, arguably the most powerful individual in the television industry, and certainly a huge political and cultural influence in contemporary American society, is a black woman.

Entertainer.
So is the current Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice.

Political Appointee.

Entertainer.

Irrelevant.

Political Appointee.

Irrelevant.

Entertainer: Irrelevant
Political Appointee: Irrelevant

Elected Officeholder: Relevant

cmholm, how is that not anywhere? Or ever?

This is not that complicated. Women simply do not have the consensus that black people do. A significant chunk of those who retain prejudices against women in power are women. And it is largely privileged women who can worry about the larger justice issues of distribution of power, which easily explains the white/black feminist chasm. Black/white is an issue that totally dwarfs the male/female, so black and white feminists are in different universes.

Entertainer: Relevant.
Political Appointee: Relevant.
Elected Officeholder: Relevant.

nolaboyd, I grant your point. I was responding to Mixner's contention that black women are players at the national level, using Oprah and Ms. Rice as examples.

My response - in not so many words - was that those examples of amusements and hired hands aren't comparable to someone whos power was amassed with votes.

I'll grant that Ms. Winfrey has influence, but as an entertainer, I believe she's considerably more constrained in her ability to push her agenda, compared to - say - a Richard Mellon Scaife.

I was responding to Mixner's contention that black women are players at the national level, using Oprah and Ms. Rice as examples. My response - in not so many words - was that those examples of amusements and hired hands aren't comparable to someone whos power was amassed with votes.

And that response is utterly nonsensical. The amount of power a person possesses is not determined by whether they hold elected office. Oprah Winfrey and Condi Rice both have far more power than the vast majority of elected officials in the United States.

The author of the the contested statement now says he meant only that "a lot of the gender analysis has mostly applied to white women" not that there are no powerful black women.

"...but it does strike me that both demographic groups have been fielding increasingly more viable candidates for these statewide positions."

Did the candidates become "more viable," or did the electorate evolve? (Maybe there's no difference.) This is my quibble with part of the blogger's premise: while there wasn't that much excitement at the prospect of a President Sharpton or a President Moseley-Braun, there certainly was about a President Jackson in the '80s. And, as one commenter wrote, a President Chisholm in the '70s. The fact that they didn't succeed says less about their "viability" as individuals and more about the electorate back then.

Maybe that's why Hillary Clinton's supporters' version of feminist narrative at the end of this primary doesn't feel completely genuine. Clinton, after all, is a legacy. She rode in on the coat tails of white male power. That doesn't disqualify her, I just don't see her candidacy as the feminist narrative or a complete feminist narrative.

I'm wading into unfamiliar water, so I hope there is a point in this comment.

What is the correct feminist narrative? (Hint: There isn't one.) It makes no difference that she’s the wife of a former President. Could any female political spouse become a viable candidate for President? Laura Bush? Barbara Bush? Cindy McCain? Of course not. Gee, maybe Hillary brings something to the table, something that made New Yorkers elect her twice, and something that has made 17 million Americans vote for her in this primary. I'm sick of the attempts to strip Hillary's run of any historic significance, when her candidacy is just significant as Obama's. And I'm tired of the irrational demands from the media that she drop out, as though she's standing in the way of Obama making history--cries that grow louder whenever she wins a primary.

Furthermore, for some twisted reason it's considered perfectly acceptable for a bunch of drooling, cable TV slobs to debate whether or not she's a white bitch (CNN), or to say that she's like your first wife standing outside of a probate court (MSNBC), or to compare her to the Glenn Close character in Fatal Attraction. That's not journalism or political analysis. It's misogyny. And these comments reveal more about the fears, wishes and deficiencies of the people who make them than they do about their subject.

Which african american ran for pres in 1992?

"Entertainer: Relevant.
Political Appointee: Relevant.
Elected Officeholder: Relevant.

Posted by Mixner | May 28, 2008 10:06 PM"

Mixner: Not getting the point.

"What is the correct feminist narrative? (Hint: There isn't one.) It makes no difference that she’s the wife of a former President. Could any female political spouse become a viable candidate for President? Laura Bush? Barbara Bush? Cindy McCain? Of course not. Gee, maybe Hillary brings something to the table, something that made New Yorkers elect her twice, and something that has made 17 million Americans vote for her in this primary."

But how did she become well-known enough to actually win the Democratic primary in New York? After all, she beat out a New York feminist who sadly just didn't have the name recognition Clinton got for being married to a former president. Getting over that hump is beyond difficult and she did it by marrying a charismatic guy who became president and spent his free time cheating on her. In addition, when you spend a lot of your time as first lady attacking your husband's mistresses as lying skanks and then stand by his side as he proved time and again that he has no respect for either you or your daughter, then your feminist bona fides are just lacking. Getting attacked by chauvinist assholes doesn't make one a champion of feminism just as being yelled at by a racist like Bill O'Reilly doesn't make any random black person on his show the next Dr. King. There's a reason only a small subset of woman, and predominantly white and older at that, ended up backing her. There's a reason a lot of young women saw Clinton as someone they explicitly didn't want to see become the first female president.

Reality Man: Incapable of understanding the point.

Mixner, are Oprah and Rice running for president or going to run anytime soon? We are talking about the politics of presidential campaigns. When was the last time someone won a primary contest without holding any elected office beforehand? I can't really remember anybody like that for a while from both of the major parties. Oprah became prominent for a daytime talk show. Rice is a political appointee. Oprah is not the governor of Illinois and Rice is not a Senator from California. As such, the fact you can think of two (but only two) prominent women in American public life is neither here nor there with regard to this topic unless either one of them comes close to a real shot at winning a primary.

Hmm... I thought it was sort of obvious that he didn't mean there were literally no black women in politics since he referred to Carol Moseley Braun in the previous paragraph. The larger point (if you bother to read the next sentence) was that when people talk about the role of feminism in the presidential race, they ignore the black feminists who tend to support Obama. Ergo, there are (figuratively) no black women in the analysis of race and gender. Try looking at the context before taking every comment so literally.

Re: "But how did she become well-known enough to actually win the Democratic primary in New York?"

How did Ted Kennedy become well known enough to win his Senate seat in Massachusetts? What was his career before he was a Senator? When a man gains name recognition from being in a famous family, that's OK. If a woman has that same recognition, well, it disqualifies her.

And who said that getting attacked by chauvinists makes you a champion of feminist causes? My point is that any evaluation of her, or any other candidate, should be based on the issues. For some reason, though, this doesn't apply to Hillary. It doesn't matter if you don't like her. It's never OK, to make sexist comments. I don't know why this is so controversial.

Since race seems to be the only lens through which anybody can see anything, pretend it's race. Pretend that a bunch of female pundits on CNN, after a 35 point win for Obama, are debating whether or not Obama is a black d--k.
Vile isn't it? Well, it was just as vile when CNN debated whether or not Hillary was a white "B" the night of her Kentucky win.

Nobody is saying that all women should automatically vote for Hillary. I wouldn't vote for a woman who didn't share my views. I am saying that no matter how much you have been conditioned to dislike her, she should still be evaluated on the ISSUES.


Comments closed June 11, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.