One interesting thing I've noticed in this campaign is an odd double-standard.

[Liberal Veteran]

It probably says more about our society than anything else, but I've noticed in the campaigns that it seems that mentioning you are a woman (with or without an adjective like strong, tough, competent) and even saying stuff to rally the women behind you is more socially and politically acceptable than mentioning one's skin color or trying to rally people of color.

It strikes me as odd that if Hillary says she's faced certain challenges in our society because she is a woman we see that as "speaking from personal experiences" and yet if Obama does the same thing, we hear about "the race card".

Why is that?

[frogcycle]

1. because there is a double standard

next question

[Adelante]

2. Yep, a sad state of affairs nt

[0007]

3. They'd good at it.

[TahitiNut]

4. Perhaps because Mayella Ewell is playing the part of Poor Nell??

:eyes:

[cliffordu]

8. LOL!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[napi21]

5. Did it ever occur to you that a black woman has a double whammy?

I don't want to put either candidate down. BOTH have had to endure social biases. In both blacks & women, things HAVE gotten better over time, but they are still there for sure.

[Bad Thoughts]

6. They can apply their respective "cards" differently

It seems that Clinton can talk positively about gender, but Obama can only talk about race reactively. It's as if it is an offensive move for Clinton, defensive for Obama, perhaps reflecting society's relative comfort with women in public life, while racial minorities can only struggle against inequality they confront.


I hate the term race card, I think it's an idiotic reduction of what it means to talk about race. Moreover, it is even misused--it should refer to playing a "trump card", not just mention of race or gender.

[gateley]

11. Well said! I think you're right.

When women began demanding equality, it was pretty much viewed as strong and right.

When blacks began demanding equality, it was pretty much viewed as aggressive and wrong.

We've got a long way to go.

[cornermouse]

14. Constitutional amendment historic perspective.

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870. History

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
---------------------
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920. History

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
----------------------

The ERA was never passed.

[Liberal Veteran]

18. On the flip side of that, there was "separate but equal" and "Jim Crow"

[cornermouse]

19. It took 50 years.

That's half of a century. And like I said, the ERA for women was never passed.

[Bad Thoughts]

22. Comparison does not lead anywhere

Setting out when specific rights were introduced to the constitution says little about the experiences of women or of minorities in this country. True, African-American men were given the vote before women, but for entirely political reasons (to overwhelm white voters in the southern states). Once Reconstruction ended, state and local governments found it easy to truncate those rights, until the Sixties.

Any sensitive perspective, though, would not set women against minorities. Rather, the experiences should be compared in order to learn more about struggles against hierarchical society. Indeed, for much of the nineteenth century, suffrage and abolition movements were nearly identical in membership.

[cornermouse]

23. I did not write the OP.

I merely responded.

[Bad Thoughts]

25. However, I am responding specifically to you ...

... and your use of history in this debate.

[cornermouse]

26. I think the use of constitutional amendments as a reference

for subjects of racism vs. sexism is valid. You don't. We can't even agree on a basic fact. Given that, why bother any further?

[Bad Thoughts]

28. Really?

I have not denied the validity of your facts. Constitutional amendments are not, though, the end all and be all of historical experiences in this country. Being granted the vote, constitutionally, was not the end of feminism or black liberation. And what I have pointed out is that these constitutional amendments came within certain contexts that gave them more or less validity, made them more or less assailable, more or less capable of being abridged. I won't say that African-Americans have had a more difficult history than women. Like I said, judging one versus the other is absurd. However, it must be recognized that the fifteenth amendment was not entirely progress for many African Americans. It was, instead, another way that the negation of their citizenship was constructed.

[Straight Shooter]

20. "When women began demanding equality, it was pretty much viewed as strong and right."

That's why women are given equal pay for equal work.

Oh. Wait a minute. Never mind.

[panader0]

7. Half of our population is female, one tenth is black,

and half of them are female.

[ginchinchili]

9. Maybe because he wants to get elected president.

Besides, how do you think it would strike most people to hear Obama, the millionaire, Harvard grad wax pitifully about his hardships.

[sandnsea]

10. Or women can talk about pride in the first woman President

But African Americans are racist if they dare say color has anything to do with their vote.

Oh yes, this campaign has been quite eye-opening, and I already knew what kind of hidden racists a lot of white people were.

[anigbrowl]

12. Because the electorate is about 10% black vs 50% female

...and women's rights (especially in politics) have been an issue longer than race-related rights. That's all, I think.

[McCamy Taylor]

13. Please cite links. "John Edwards is a loser" does not back that up.

Lawrence O'Donnell did not call for Edwards to get out because he was preventing the first woman from being elected. And that was published in a liberal journal from a liberal author.

Maybe you are thinking of more conservative publications. In the left wing press that I am used to reading, the opposite is true. Women are assumed to be closer to equality than African-Americans. Maybe in the conservative world, where women are treated with less equality and where Blacks do not count at all, your argument would hold true.

[judasdisney]

15. Obama TRANSCENDS race. Clinton USES gender.

For that reason alone, only one candidate is Presidential.

[Evergreen Emerald]

27. Obama used race to win SC and is trying it again with NC.

I disagree with your premise

[barack the house]

16. Let alone the double standard about flag pins. It's embarassing to watch on its own.

[kwenu]

21. I never thought about that. Does Hillary wear a flag pin?

[merh]

29. no, hillary doesn't wear a flag pin

and she wasn't wearing on on her lapel the night of the debate and neither were the moderators.

The double standards are there.

[DB1]

17. I don't know, she has a glass ceiling, he has to walk on glass. It sucks.

[JVS]

24. 52 >12

[krkaufman]

30. Yeah, I was a bit startled at Sen. Clinton's PA victory speech ...

... where she was obviously campaigning for votes strictly on the basis of gender, talking about how wonderful it is for women to be able to point to Hillary as an object lesson in what a woman can accomplish.

But, admittedly, I may have missed Obama's having directing similar words to the African American or, generally, racial minority communities.