"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde		 Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Friday, February 08, 2008

There is neither patent nor copyright on suffering
Posted by Jill | 7:44 AM
Yesterday Randi Rhodes had a caller that made me want to stick an icepick in my forehead. Given that Randi has been known to descent into screaming at far lesser offenders, her patience with this woman was inexplicable.

The woman's premise was that because black people got the vote before women did, that a woman should be elected president before a black man.

When I was in high school in Westfield, New Jersey in the early 1970's, there was a certain breed of white, middle to upper-middle class woman that either ran or went to "consciousness raising" groups. Most of these women either had husbands with good jobs, or ex-husbands with good jobs along with generous support payments. These were not the waitresses at the Lido Diner out on Route 22; these were women in big early 20th century center-hall colonials who never once worried how to pay the bills. And these were the women who gave the National Organization for Women a bad name.

Between the New York State chapter of NOW issuing a statement that Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama was "the greatest betrayal" and Gloria Steinem's preposterous claim in a recent New York Times op-ed piece that "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life", it is evident, over thirty years after the women's movement started, that the movement is still about the concerns of white middle class women.

That we have two "firsts" running on the Democratic side made all this "Who suffered more" nonsense inevitable. But just as we saw with the schism between black Americans and Jewish Americans in the aftermath of the Crown Heights riots of 1991, we're now seeing identity politics deteriorate once again into a question of relative degrees of group suffering.

I don't know what this thing is that we have in America about ranking everything by degree. Perhaps it's our obsession with team sports and standings. But one of the reasons we are unable to even mention possible differences between men and women and between races, is because we have this need to rank everything. And since white guys decide the relative merits of assets and liabilities, the things that white guys do well will always rank higher than the things at which other groups might excel.

But when this unfortunate tendency of ours makes an affluent white woman like Gloria Steinem, or like Randi Rhodes' caller, claim that white women like her are more beleaguered than people whose sons are pulled over by police more often than white men, who are steered towards specific neighborhoods when they buy a house, and who are overrepresented in America's prisons, the notion that women somehow have a patent on suffering becomes ridiculous.

After the Crown Hights riots, I found myself thinking of Michael Schwerner, James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman -- two Jewish guys and a black guy -- civil rights workers who had worked together in common cause until they were murdered by bigots in Mississippi in 1964. And I wondered what on earth had brought us to this point, where we had this argument about which was worse: slavery or the Holocaust -- as if bragging rights to suffering was at stake, instead of slavery and the Holocaust being more alike than different. And so today, as we have the first viable black candidate and the first viable woman candidate running for president, we have callers like Randi Rhodes' caller yesterday trying to find some way to justify voting for their candidate by trying to create exclusive rights to suffering.

Many young progressive women are finding themselves in a conundrum about whom to support. To vote for Hillary Clinton may seem somehow inconsistent with progressivism, while voting for Barack Obama may seem inconsistent with feminism.

I have a suggestion: Why not take a look at their policy differences, however small they may be. Then decide which of those differences are most important -- yes, rank them if you must -- and make your decision that way? After all, isn't what we want a society free of gender and racial bias? Then why not start here?
4 comments
Bookmark and Share
4 Comments:
Blogger Jayhawk said...
Outstanding piece; not only in the premise, but in the presentation. Simply brilliant.
2/8/08, 12:37 PM  
Blogger Batocchio said...
Sadly, there are some rather nasty attacks flying around, even if they come from a sincere place. I agree about the Suffering Olympics. The point is to support one another, and alleviate suffering, not to cite one's suffering as a way of discounting another person's. (That's as opposed to conservatives, who generally just discount all other people.)

All the sturm ung drang may be moot, anyway, since it may be a joint ticket.
2/8/08, 2:47 PM  
Blogger K said...
I would be so happy if it did wind up being a joint ticket.
2/9/08, 10:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I have one word for NOW: Later.

I totally understand where Jill is coming from having grown up in the 70's a couple of towns over from her.

I grew lower-middle class. I can't think of a thing that NOW has done for me. And now I get nasty-grams from them telling me what I traitor to my gender I am if I don't vote for Hillary.
2/9/08, 2:43 PM  
Post a Comment
<< Home