Thursday, February 11, 2016

One Dimension

I am not politically unaware.  If fact, I was a political science major and used to be heavily involved with local and state politics.  I eventually withdrew from the political circus when the ‘up close and personal view’ became too disillusioning.  So, while I still remain very interested in politics, work on and support causes dear to my heart and never fail to vote, I have become much more of an observer of the political election process. And I rarely write about politics until something gets my goat.  Which is now.

Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright decided to reprimand all women who do not plan to vote for Hillary Clinton. Ms. Albright going so far as to say there was a “special place in hell” for women who do not support other women.  

Gloria Steinem  has since apologized for inferring that young female voters are only “boy crazy” but the message was still that she still believes that Clinton is the best choice for female voters.  Because apparently being female is the most important agenda political concern? (unless that woman is Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorini, I presume)  If you're only argument is that your candidate has the same genitals or sexuality as me, then you have already lost the argument.

Personally I am pretty tired of the ‘one issue fits all’ mentality. I am particularly tired of people who reduce entire populations down into base stereotypes and one dimensional characterizations.  

  • I once knew a woman who said something I thought was pretty gay offensive.  Her response?  “Well, I have another gay friend who did not find it offensive.”  Oh that’s right, because every gay person thinks and feels exactly the same way on “gay issues”.

  • I once got into a discussion with a blogger because she emphatically stated that “southern black poor people don’t vote in their own best interest.”  What?  First of all the blogger is a wealthy, educated white woman living in California.  What the hell would she know about poor black people in the south? And why would she assume that every poor black person has the same ‘best interest’?  I politely suggested to her that perhaps some poor black folks actually voted based on their own individual values rather than their economics.  That perhaps there were still a few people in the world, rich and poor, who care about other things over their own financial situations.  And further, what is important to one person might be different than what’s important to someone else.  It’s not rocket science.  It’s treating people as individuals rather than homogeneous labels.


People seem to think I should support any gay (or pro-gay) candidate just because I am gay.  Any female candidate just because I am a woman.  Any progressive candidate just because I am socially progressive.  But I don’t.  Those things are only a part of the things I care about politically.  I  would love it if a candidate embraced every plank in my personal platform, but that rarely happens.  And so I have to choose based on my own personal priorities, and sorry, being gay or female does not top my list.  

I would be happy to discuss who I will be voting for, and why, with anyone who is interested.  I would be happy to hear how other candidates are the best fit for your particular set of principles and priorities. But please stop telling me how to vote if you know nothing about me except for some demographics.  I am not a statistic.  I am more than my genitals or sexuality.  I am more than one dimension.


14 comments:

  1. Bravo! Or is it, Brava! ::wink:: I agree 100%, 8. Everything is reduced to statistics and demographics and numbers. That just doesn't work for real people.

    That being said, my partner and I had to have a talk with her brother about the difference of values between Democrats and Republicans. He was working with a bunch of red-neck yahoos who were bashing the president all the time. Mark started saying nasty stuff about the president and how he was going to vote for the republican candidate. Now, ordinarily, how you want to vote is your business, but this man is illiterate and has about a 3rd grade level (at best) of education. He lives on SSI and other government support. We pointed out to him that democrats believe in supporting people with disabilities and republicans are aiming to take away social service programs. Talk about voting against your best interests.

    My biggest issue in all of this, though, is the incredible waste of financial resources in an election cycle that lasts for over a year. We desperately need election reform. Campaigning should be limited to three months before the election. There should be spending caps for all candidates to level the field somewhat. I don't care if you get your funds in $27 increments or $10,000 increments (well, I do care, actually) but in the end, too much money is being spent on the process.

    And, while I'm blathering on, I also think that the best thing that could happen for our political system is to break the two party stranglehold. If we had senators and representatives of other parties in Congress, they would all have to work together to push their agendas. We NEED the Greens, the Libertarians, the Socialists to remove the bloc majorities. Let's see those idiot teabaggers try to get others to vote with them.

    Ok. Is that enough? Yes, I think it is. Stepping off my soapbox now...
    xoxoxoxox

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't agree with you more on our two party system and campaign finance reform. We have allowed corporations and special interests to buy candidates and then seem surprise when candidates are beholden to them.

      I would debate with you the broad brush description of Democrats' and Republicans' support of social services as. for example, there is a wide difference between Republicans such as Ted Cruz and Olympia Snowe (so sorry she retired) on these issues. But I get your point. Sadly I think our media does not do its job in presenting all sides of an issue, or a candidate, so our electorate is often rather ill informed.

      Delete
  2. I think the Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright debacle is a good illustration of how destructive anger weakens a person's moral ground (re: your comment on my blog this morning). Those two are good people who both could have made interesting and compelling arguments for supporting Hillary Clinton, but in their anger and frustration they blew it by attacking young women (for crying out loud!) and dumbing down their argument instead. I am ashamed of them for sinking so low - they are both capable of more. At least Steinem apologized. I'm sure that wasn't an easy thing to do. But still, the harm she has done has had the opposite effect of what she hoped to accomplish. That makes me sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It makes me sad too. I have a great deal of respect for both these women and I have certainly benefited from the trail they blazed. I just don't understand it.

      Delete
  3. Yes, so much this! It's too bad that both Steinem and Albright didn't make intelligent well founded arguments, because we might have listened to them then. Now, they won't be taken seriously by the women of my generation or the one after ever again, I fear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is sad that Steinem lost so much credibility but basically calling an entire generation of young women "boy crazy" was just too insulting to ignore. Sadder yet that civil ddebate seems to be reduced to stereotypes and insults these days.

      Delete
  4. I heard this from someone a month or so ago and I have been freely using it to illustrate a point that you've touched on: Just because you have a vagina doesn't mean you have to vote for a vagina."

    Trust me when I say it makes my cohorts stop and think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I may have to steal that line. It reminds me of the question: "Is this toy for a girl or a boy?" Answer: "Do you use your genitals to play with it? If not it's for a girl or a boy."

      So yes, I do hope that people will think beyond their genitalia when voting.

      Delete
  5. There was a similar perception for Blacks to support Obama, just because. . I needed more. I still need more. The cycle too long, media too myopic and biased, electorate ill-informed; some by design and some by laziness. Steinem and Albright shame on them for trying to shame women. What they did is potentially more harmful than any woman not supporting Mrs. Clinton.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, presumed Black support for Obama is a great example! I wish every voter wanted more. I wish there was an easy, reliable place for people to get unbiased info on the policies, platforms and performance of each candidate. Plus a fix for everything e said.

      . . . you can say I'm a dreamer . . .

      Delete
  6. Like you I hate labels and stereotypes. I hate that people assume I am a Red Sox/Patriots fan just because I live in Boston. I think Steinem said exactly what she was feeling. And I think you should keep writing about politics.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I really want a woman as president. I mean I REALLY want that. But I am voting in the primary for a man whose positions match my own. And I don't belief that makes me anti-woman or not a feminist. Should he not win the primary, Clinton gets my vote. But again, not because someone is telling me I "should."

    ReplyDelete