In politics, does race trump gender?

From politico is a story called "In politics, does race trump gender?". The abstract of the story is essentially that Roland Burris has had an easy time getting into the U.S. senate whilst Caroline Kennedy has had such a hard time, is proof that race trumps gender.

How come Roland Burris has had such an easy time getting to the U.S. Senate while Caroline Kennedy has had such a hard time?

Could it be that the race card trumps the gender card in U.S. politics?

Well, yes. It could be.

Source: Roger Simon, Politico In politics, does race trump gender?

Of course, I don't know how anyone who at least casually observes the modern zeitgeist can not have come to this conclusion a long time ago. The feeling of Barack Obama as a black man far outweighed that for Hillary Clinton as a white woman. Race and gender have political civil rights movements which advocate for them. For blacks it doesn't have a colloquial name but for women it's feminism.

Feminism is generally given less shrift than black civil rights because anyone with the brain power of a plum can identify that the pandered middle class women of the mid 20th century who started the movement were about as oppressed as my big toe. The blacks had far more genuine and repressive acts committed against them in the past whereas the egregious oppression against women I can think of would be the denial of suffrage and even that does not compare to slavery or the enforcement of the lower status of your entire race. Also, blacks are a genuine minority whereas women are a literal majority whose supposed oppressions are actually benefits that raise them above men, such as chivalry.

People who commit anti-pc acts against blacks suffer far more repercussions than those who do so against women. I hope I shouldn't need to belabour this point. Would an anti-black version of Tom Leykis be allowed to exist in our modern cultures? There are examples on both side but I think that the outrage at anti-black comments (real or imagined) is far larger than for anti-women comments.

So blacks have more advocacies for them and you don't need to look at Roland Burris to realise this. The point that is not mentioned in this article is that both groups have a "victim card" over white males. We have so many victim groups that we can judge the degree to which cards they play can act over the other victim groups. Enough of this rubbish already!.

Oh, and if anyone needs more proof that race trumps gender, may I present my final and definitive evidence.

Proof by star trek bitch!
B.T.W. the guy at the beginning should be at the end if you want to consider it from the perspective of the chronological making of the T.V. series. Is this a portent for the men's movement?

Posted under: Gender Issues, Politics, Feminism
Posted on: Thursday, January 15, 2009 1:21 AM
« The state of Mississippi fronts the next attack on evolution | Home | Animals »
Share this post: email it, bookmark It, digg It, kick It

Comments

  1. Posted by: Kiroku on 3/4/2009 11:37 AM
    Gravatar
    The "race card" can definately trumph the "gender card," and I doubt it's just in politics alone. Most of the time, I feel the only way the gender card works is when at least one(maybe two) of four variables occur:

    1) When the number of males in just about any situation either significantly out numbers that of women, or women can present themselves as the only one in a group of men

    2)a) When common victims are women (ie: Rape, sexual harassment, etc.)

    b) When maternity is involved (though this more targets the divorce courts, they are part of law. Hence it being "2b")

    3) When the race card cannot be played (as in, the battle is being fought against everyone of the same skin color)

    or

    4) When the race card can be played in addition to the gender card


    I feel it's a sad, but honest, truth that white men are condemned to be considered the worst. Honestly, neither black nor women have any clue in what they use as a sword and shield. No black person knows how it feels to be enslaved, and women have no clue the rights they actually have that gives them as much power as they do. In comparison to these two groups, white men would be the only ones closest to knowing both group claims. THEY are the ones that are nearly slaves to their society, and THEY are the ones with the lack of rights.

    It doesn't matter though, does it? It doesn't matter how many times a black person calls people "crackers" or "nigas," it just matters when a white person does it. It doesn't matter that a man has to pay the wife a lot of money while not even getting to see their kids when they are allowed to by law, either. How could that possibly stand up to greater issues like the wage gap? It's sick, simply sick. How could either claim to be for equality(more directed towards feminism) when they constantly snap at the opposing side more than the ones that they're trying to get equality from?


    Society has to be near it's end, or borderlines cataclysm.
  2. Posted by: Kiroku on 3/4/2009 11:40 AM
    Gravatar
    Correction, in the final paragraph I meant "his" and "he is," not "their" and "they are."

Post your comment




(this will save your form settings for the next time you comment)

Please add 4 and 4 and type the answer here:

The umbrella in particular is remembered as the symbol of the nineteenth century’s disturbing obsession with individualism. In Bellamy’s utopia, umbrellas have been replaced with retractable canopies so that everyone is protected from the rain equally.
“In the nineteenth century,” explains a character, “when it rained, the people of Boston put up three hundred thousand umbrellas over as many heads, and in the twentieth century they put up one umbrella over all the heads.”