Let’s get along with those who discriminate

Lately I’ve received several messages from people in the Church of the Brethren encouraging us to put relationship with others above our disagreement on issues. And, I agree. We shouldn’t shun anyone because they don’t agree with our doctrine. Love above the law, I say! But, I also disagree. What about the folks trying to shun people and put the way they see the law above love. Do we go along so that we can continue our good relationship? Do we say, yes, we want to be inclusive and we think Jesus calls us to love and accept this person, but you don’t agree, so in the interest of us being able to continue as church, we’ll accept that we have to exclude that other person? No! I say it loud and proud. But, then I hang my head when I realize that my own church has rejected people before, and I am still there. I’m trying to change it, but I am still there. It is that ever-present dilemma of when to stay and try to create new possibilities and when to give the whole thing over to the dark side. I guess I’m staying and bringing up my concerns as boldly as I can.

Carla

No Bravery in Dividing and Distracting by Race and Gender

by Audrey deCoursey

Now, of course I am glad about Obama’s win in South Carolina today. But that’s not what I’m here to write about.

What strikes me about the media analysis (spin?) of the election results is how completely they want to erase African-American female voters. On CNN, their break-downs of different categories of voters have been saying, “Women vote for Clinton for the same reason Blacks vote for Obama,” i.e. for pride in their identity. But where does that leave Black women? It seems that the title of the Black Women’s studies reader edited by Gloria Hull is still all too apt: when it comes to the simplistic binaries of many media commentators, “All the Women are White, All the Blacks are Men.” And who of us are brave enough to make a politics for all of us?

It occurs to me that emphasizing the identity politics at play in this primary season is another way to divide this election (and its voters) by generation more than by race or gender: identity politics have been the staple of the New Left of the 1960s and 70s; third wave feminism and queer rights movements have tried to transcend the identities of gender and sexuality in becoming fully human.  Continuing to contextualize the divisions in this election by racial and gender identities is a way of continuing to spin the election in the terms expected by the middle-aged generation Clinton is counting on for her support.

Obama, meanwhile, is trying to appeal to voters across race, gender, class, age, and education, by talking about change and the future, even as he is boxed into the tired categories his opponents wish to relegate him to.   Some media commentators’ insistence on comparing him to Jesse Jackson – who didn’t win and was not as strong a candidate as Obama is now – instead of comparing him to white candidates/presidents like John F. Kennedy, sends a pretty clear message about what limited frameworks they will use to consider candidates who are not straight, white males.  One would think that Obama’s wins in Iowa and  South Carolina, which represent very different racial diversities, would liberate election analysts from boxing the candidates into racial categories, but perhaps that’s too much hope for me to have in mainstream media?  (For a funny spoof of this media tendency, check out the Daily Show’s “Daily Show-Down” with Samantha Bee on January 18, 2008.)

Hillary Clinton? Sorry! Being a woman is not good enough.

by Audrey deCoursey

Caution 1: This may be outdated by the time you read this, once the Iowa Caucus results are revealed, but I’m writing anyway. I will presume that you, dear readers, can consider these musings in both th context they were written in as well as the context you are reading them in.

Caution 2: This may seem risky, to write about electoral politics on a religious-oriented blog site, but I’m writing anyway. I will presume that you, dear readers, know that I am representing only my own views here.

So: the 2008 presidential election primaries.

I have become a big fan of Barack Obama. I always liked him, ever since he ran for Senator in my home state of Illinois, but I wasn’t sure right away that I supported him for prez. But the more I studied up on the campaigns of the various candidates, the more I realized how good Obama would be for this nation. He is dignified, experienced, articulate, and so clever. I’ve got more of my thoughts on the matter of Obama’s greatness over on my own blog.

But what kind of a sticky situation does this leave me in as a feminist?

My octogenarian grandmother has been supporting Hillary Clinton, specifically because she sees that as part of her duty as a feminist. And I agree that I want to see a woman in office, just as much as I want to see a president of color run our country. But the difference for me seems to be one of perspective – particularly because of my age. I know that my grandma might not be around to see as many future presidents take office, so her chances of living under a female president might be slimmer than mine. 2008 might be her best chance to have that happen, while I am hoping (God willing) to live for several more generations of presidents in the future.

So I can afford to wait. I can afford to hold out for someone better. My grandma is entitled to her own choice and vote, out of her perspective, but I cannot operate out of the same logic, because my commitment to the state of the nation is different than hers.

I want a woman in office who will make women in office look good. I don’t want someone in office who will make people, on the right or the left, question her credentials, her authenticity, her competence, her independence, or her corporate connections. And I’m afraid that Clinton falls into the same mold some other pioneering female heads of state have come out of, one that I wish we would learn from. We’ve had the Margaret Thatchers who are even more conservative than most men. We’ve also had the Indira Gandhis and Benazir Bhuttos whose positions have been due largely to their connections to prominent male politicians (Gandhi’s father Jawalaharlal Nehru and Bhutto’s father and husband, respectively). Not only is Clinton the most conservative Democrat running, but she also owes much of her position to her prominent husband. Wouldn’t it be nicer to elect a woman who people love for her own sake, and not because of the men in her life?

I will agree with critics of this view, that we can’t just keep electing straight white men until the perfect woman or person of color or queer person comes along to run, that is, we can’t use the idea of perfection as an excuse to not settle for someone at least better than the hegemonic norm.

But I also see that we have a chance this year to elect someone who is both ground-breaking and is much closer to perfect than we have seen in a long time. And that’s why I’m praying for a spirit of hope to flood Iowa tomorrow night.

———————————————-

Any other thoughts about the elections this spring and this year? What is a Brethren feminist to make of all this primary mess? Post a comment and share your own insights.