Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Several themes coalesced over the two-day period. A prominent one was the oft repeated, "Did race trump gender?" Dr. Cynthia Neal-Spence, Associate Professor of Sociology at Spelman College, spoke about the dilemma of the black female. Asking, "Are we as a group more gender conscious or race conscious?" she then suggested "the media coverage had helped black women to choose sides." Despite Obama offering a post-racial approach, she sensed the same "tensions resurfacing that were in place during the suffragette movement." She also saw the media's analyzation as being "racialized."

However, Vojdik said, "Those in the media insisted on gendering her candidacy, taking her from the public sphere to the private construction of her identity as a wife and a mother." This was often accomplished through the use of specific language. She gave as examples the terms, "shrill, emasculating, castrating," with oft used analogies of Hillary as "the hectoring mother," or "the wife as ball-buster." Hillary was not male, but she "had failed as a female." On the other hand, Vojdik saw Sarah Palin as seeking to be elected because she was a woman in the "good wife and mother" mode. Projecting herself as stereotypically feminine, albeit a "pit bull with lipstick," she "appeals to the 80's concept of the superwoman." "But," Vojdik asked, "where are the supports for ordinary women?"

Although feminine for Sarah Palin is an asset, "feminine" attributes in general are considered a negative. "The process of gender," as phrased by Vojdik, is a methodology employed by the Republicans where they "feminize" a male candidate -- to his detriment.

And you know what? It wasn't just about skin color. It was always first and foremost about accepting an identity of racial supremacy. Even the Irish in America were "black" before they were "white." Don't believe it? Look it up.

Wow, no wonder white folks are bitter. Having to carry around all that self-deception willful ignorance all those years. And for what? A lousy seat at the front of the bus and a place at the front of the job queue that are no longer even guaranteed by law!

Once upon a time -- not so very long ago -- there was no such thing as whiteness or the white race, just as there was no such thing as blackness or the black race. Those unscientific distinctions and associated invidious stereotypes had to be invented. It so happens that they were invented by folks who invented their own identity of whiteness to establish their moral superiority to people being held in slavery.