E-mail
Print
Gender vs. race
An unimportant argument
By Chris Walker
The fact that the two front-runners in a major political party are neither the gender-norm nor the racial-norm for a presidential election should be celebrated.
It’s astonishing that this debate is even being brought up. Yet recently, and with all the attention of the presidential election focused on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the media in America has posed the following question: Is race or is gender more important in selecting the next presidential nominee?
Barack Obama, an African-American, would be the first non-white nominee of either of the two major parties – and the first non-white president should he win the election in November. This would be a huge milestone, over 50 years after the start of the Civil Rights Movement, indicative of a shift in attitudes regarding race in America.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton could very well be the first woman to headline a presidential ticket between the two major political parties (although Geraldine Ferraro was a vice presidential nominee for the Democrats in 1984), and as such the first female president should she win the national election. A win for her could show that gender inequality, though still prevalent, is on a decline.
The debate for the most part has been silenced by the candidates themselves due to the negativity rising from it. Centering on whether it’s more important for a black person or a woman to win the presidency, the Democratic Party, their supporters and the media have created havoc for the candidates.
However, with Obama and Clinton having very similar viewpoints (ignoring for the moment their disagreements on the means of achieving their goals), people begin to wonder: Which IS more important, race or gender?
Two friends of mine that I talked to about this earlier last year had opposite viewpoints: one supported Clinton because she would be the first woman president and the other supported Obama because he would be the first black president. I told them both they were wrong – it’s not about gender or race, but rather their policies, their electability and how the public perceives them.
Clinton and Obama have similar viewpoints, and have both proven that they are capable of winning the early primary states. They are both perceived positively among liberals and most independents.
I am personally more supportive of Barack Obama, but this is not because he is black or because a woman is not electable (a belief that is frankly hooey). I support him more because I believe independents are more likely to support him over supporting Hillary. That is my own belief; others may disagree with me, and that’s okay.
What’s not okay is subjecting this election to an argument of race vs. gender. Both are important: It is important to begin a transition towards a gender-neutral society as well as a racially neutral one.
The playing field in America should not favor anyone on the basis of race or gender – the fact that the two front-runners in a major political party are neither the gender-norm nor the racial-norm for a presidential election should be celebrated and not be used as the basis for pointless arguments.
> Comments