The Carpetbagger Report has a good response to the Lorrie Moore op-ed, and actually found the statistics. Steve M., the guest poster, makes a few excellent points I missed:
So, yes, one out of every nine boys drops out, which is appalling in what’s supposed to be the greatest country in the world — but if “only” one out every eleven girls drops out, it’s not as if we have that problem all sorted out, is it?
and:
...yes, the black dropout rate is noticeably higher than the white dropout rate, but the Hispanic dropout rate is twice as high as the black rate. Doesn’t that mean we should have all abandoned our support of Clinton and Obama and rallied behind Bill Richardson?
(And isn't the highest drop-out demographic pregnant teens? Are we allowed to vote for Clinton if she gets knocked up?) And finally:
We can parse this all day, but as I read it, blacks have crumbs, women have a somewhat larger supply of crumbs, and white men still run most of everything. So why pit blacks and women against each other?
Why indeed.
Monday, January 14, 2008
More On Moore
New Times Op-Ed Inadvertantly Supports Steinem Op-Ed
Yesterday's New York Times featured an op-ed by novelist Lorrie Moore titled "Last Year's Role Model," the basic thesis of which is: "The political moment for feminine role models, arguably, has passed us by."
Um, yeah...first of all, Lorrie, "feminine" is different than "female," so I'm not really sure what you think you're saying there. From the context it seems you mean "female," in which case...false. Or rather, what the fuck is that supposed to even mean? It would be one thing if Moore were trying to say that political interest in female role models has waned--which anyway would be contradicted by the recent increase in female political role models such as Rice and Polosi, whatever you might think of them. But based on her subsequent argument, she seems to be saying that female political role models are actually unnecessary-- that they are, in fact, totes lame.
The first big piece of evidence for this is that boys of color are suffering more academically. This is clearly true, but...shit, let me just bullet-point all the problems with this argument:
•Um, I think women still maybe have any other problems in society, like, at all. Yknow, one or two.
•Moore argues that the American educational system was "designed by and for white girls." Wanna back that up with any evidence, or maybe explain it in some way? Some sub-points:
•Actually, that merits its own bullet. BLACK GIRLS EXIST.
•It is kind of a leap to assume that having a black President will encourage all boys of color to study harder--and asserting that this is true undermines the notion that it is the design of the educational system that puts boys at a disadvantage. So all they need to do is apply themselves, and then the system's cool?
Then there's a bunch of general "blacks have it worse than chicks" stuff: "The sexes have always lived together, but the races have not." Which is true--so then why have we not had a female President? Why is the Senate still a mere 16% female? (An improvement from my childhood--and Lisa Simpson's--when it was 2%, but come on, we're half the fucking population.) Also, she likens Clinton's failed health plan to Guiliani's moronic placement of the Crisis Command Center in the WTC, against all sane council he received. Which totally makes sense, cuz Hillary's health care plan totally killed a bunch of people.
This piece is a perfect complement to Steinem's, for two reasons. One, it supports her main point that to a lot of people, sexism is sooooo not a big deal. Two, it's the exact same stupid thing Steinem was doing--falsely and detrimentally casting this election in terms of Race vs. Gender, and making up nonsense for the sake of touting the candidate of one's choice. Steinem likes Clinton. Moore likes Obama. All's fair in love and politics!
Oh, and also: black girls exist.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Call Me Aunt Tom?
I used to love Hillary Clinton. Loved her like Michael Moore loved her. When she ran for Senate, I was thrilled. I was pink with pride over having the best pair o' Senators in the nation: Chuck and Hill.
But President Hillary Clinton? Not so much.
So, when did the switch happen? I'm not sure. But I find I do not trust her on domestic issues like gay marriage and civil liberties. Except that I of course DO trust her on the subject of reproductive rights, which I only realized JUST NOW, and that's obviously not a small thing for me and I'm suddenly forgetting the other things I don't trust her on so what gives? Michelle Obama has said that her husband doesn't poll well among African Americans because black people have internalized racist ideas about who our leaders should be. Is that what I'm doing? Why do I find myself pulled towards both Obama and Edwards? In 2004, I called Edwards a mimbo! I started a Facebook group about Obama's lack of experience! Do I really think Clinton's Supreme Court nominees would be any less liberal than Obama's? Don't I trust her most to follow through on issues regarding contraceptives and sex-ed, while Obama and Edwards could well get away with lip-service?
So now I fear that I've just internalized the idea that Presidents are Men. I know liking Obama over Clinton is the hip thing to do, but when all we really care about is beating the Republicans, it's hard to sort things out. All I know is, I saw this post on Hillary's possibly floundering campaign, felt myself cheered by it, and now all of a sudden I can't quite remember why. Good thing I live in a state where primaries don't matter!
Posts
