Michelle Tucker is a political junkie, in a world full of them. She moved to Milwaukee from the south, and is still often surprised that it's OK to be a Democrat here; she's also quite in love with Russ Feingold (and Al Harris). Besides her political addiction, Michelle is a full-time student pursuing her Masters in Political Science, and is currently researching the influence of religion on American politics.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
What’s in a name?
My fellow political blogger Ted recently wrote an interesting piece comparing the Democratic nomination battle to the Kentucky Derby. The comparison has incited some controversy, and it’s made me think of a few things- namely how we, as a society, define sexism and racism.
I grew up the daughter of a feminist, a card carrying member of the National Organization of Women. What that experience taught me is not that women are better than men (as so many are want to assume of the feminists), or that women hate men (does the term feminazis mean anything?), but that feminism is about equality. It’s about freedom of choice, freedom of life, freedom to be and do anything we want, not just as women but as people. There’s the crux of it for me: women and men ought to have equal considerations and opportunities, with no regard of gender.
In the same vein, I think that race and sexual orientation and religion ought to not be relevant. Why is it relevant that someone is gay or black or Mormon or Muslim or Hispanic or transexual? What bearing does that have on anything- in society, in the working world, or in politics?
Because of my propensity to accept people for who they are rather than dismiss them with easy labels, this political race has been interesting for me as a spectator. That such diversity has existed from the beginning has been fascinating, but, in all honesty, society’s (and the media’s) reactions to these differences has been disheartening. Why was Romney the Mormon candidate? Why is there discussion about Obama’s non-existent Muslim influences? Why does it matter at all that a woman is competing with a black man? Is that all we see when we look at these candidates? Is that all we see in the people we meet on a daily basis? Do we just look at them and label so as to dismiss them and go on about our day? And if we do label this way, what does that say about us? That we’re ignorant? Superficial? Short-sighted? Racist? Sexist?
Which brings me back to Ted’s blog. In using the Kentucky Derby as a reference, Ted employs some terms for Clinton and Obama that some find offensive. I readily admit to being one of them. If we look at a strong female candidate and call her a tough filly what are we focusing on? To me it seems like we are using her gender as a point of diminishment, as a way to make her an animal, as a way to subtly ridicule her. Is Clinton only in the race because she’s tough and a woman? Is her whole character and campaign about gender? Is anyone just about being man or woman, black or white? Beyond that is the issue, for me, of labeling. Calling a woman a filly, a dame, a broad, a chic or any other “girl” label makes her less than the sum of her character. It makes her about a word. It makes her smaller, diminishes her accomplishments. Clinton is a woman, yes, but she is also about more than that, and to say that she’s one tough filly is offensive not because political correctness is important but because it says to the world at large that she is irrelevant because she’s a woman.
In the same vein, calling Obama “Slim and Brown” makes him about the color of his skin. I find this offensive for the same reason. Not only is his race referenced here, but Ted makes it clear that Obama is “brown”- a term people in both the white and black communities use to segregate those with differences. Here Obama is not just labeled by his race, but set aside from both the African American community (haven’t we heard those criticisms of Obama as “not black enough”?) and from whites as well. Is he only about being slim and brown, then? Are his accomplishments, like Clinton’s, only about the color of his skin, about his physical appearance? I have to insist, again, that labeling this way is not a slight to political correctness but an offense in our efforts as a society to be accepting of all people, to move beyond labels and differences and toward a more equal society.
Ted’s insistence that “political correctness has gone too far when it censors all references to our differences” implies that it is our differences that are note-worthy. I have to disagree. I think that focusing on our differences is what leads to segregation, discrimination and hate. Maybe it’s awfully liberal of me, or even naive of me, to expect that we, as educated adults, could get beyond school yard taunts and over-focus on what makes us different, but I feel very strongly that it is precisely the kind of language Ted uses that, at best, leads to sexism and racism (though, quite honestly, I have to say that I think they are already blatantly racist and sexist). Perhaps Ted didn’t mean them this way and I suspect he didn’t because from Ted’s other blogs I’ve never gotten the impression that he’s particularly sexist or racist, but the effect is the same, and the effect is this: it’s divisive, hurtful, and, well, rude.
I have to fall back on the greatest civil rights speech ever because this is what I believe we need, what we ought to be striving for when we give up stupid labels and blatant ignorance:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink