>Okay, I’m sure you guys have heard about Geraldine Ferraro’s comments about Sen. Barack Obama’s success. Well, if you haven’t, I’ll paraphrase it. Ferraro, who ran as Walter Mondale’s partner for the vice-presidency in 1984, said Sen. Obama’s campaign was only successful because he is black.
Now, she’s saying she’s a victim of the so-called reverse racism:
“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, ‘Let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world,’ you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?” (Source)
Well, at least she’s admitting the same thing happened to her in 1984:
“…I said, Let me also say in 1984 — and if I have said it once, I have said it 20, 60, 100 times — in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president…” (Source)
I must say, at least Ferraro is not talking out the side of her mouth with that aspect. However, what bugs me about this (and other comments) is the hypocrisy many white female (leaders and lay people) continue to display when it comes to discrimination.
Why do white women, particularly self-proclaimed feminists, refuse to acknowledge their lack of understanding of racism? Why do these women continue to perpetuate the subconscious resentment they have towards people of color when they ‘make it big?’
It was a slap in the face when black men got the right to vote before white women. Now, it’s a slap in the face that Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign is more successful and appealing to a broad spectrum of Americans.
The basic problem with Ferraro’s statement is that it perpetuates the same white supremacist notion that Sen. Obama’s race is the only thing that makes him popular. It bolsters the argument that black Americans can only succeed because of their race and not because of their intelligence, hard work and dedication. Due to the wave of affirmative and action and diversity in the workplace, the naysayers argue, employers (the American public, in the case of the election) are only eager to hire minorities just to meet a quota (and to feel good about themselves).
These women only cry foul when “their” women are being “attacked” (in Sen. Clinton’s case, by the media). However, these women never speak out for women of color who are being discriminated against for their gender and their race. They have not cried foul about the Dunbar Village case. They have not cried foul for the Meagan Williams case in West Virginia. They have not cried foul for the numerous immigrant women and children who continue to live in poverty and squalor. They have not cried foul for the contempt and disregard BET displays against black American women. Where were they when Anita Hill accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for sexual harassment?
When will these pseudo, opportunistic “feminists” wake up and be consistent when it comes to fighting for sexism against all women? When will these “feminists” stop their politics of exclusion and embrace the cause of equality for all women?
(Edit: sorry if this entry is convoluted. I’m at work and I’m blogging in a rush!)