| [ USA ] in KIDS 글 쓴 이(By): 구르미 (구르미) 날 짜 (Date): 2008년 1월 11일 금요일 오후 05시 55분 22초 제 목(Title): Re: NYTimes Op-ed: Women are never .. I don't know if it's my reading comprehension, but I didn't read it like that. I thought she was saying that the pundits/media were looking at the result of the Iowa caucuses and saying that she's not a front-runner because she is a woman. -- In her first paragraph, she dipicts a woman with a resume of Obama. She asks if that woman is good enough to be a US Senator let alone POTUS. She says the answer of "no" means the severity of gender problem and hence Hillary lost in Iowa. I don't see anywhere the putdits/media were saying that she's not a frount-runner because she is a woman. It's Gloria who is saying that. If you find any such specific case mentioned in her article or any case of actual media saying that, let me know. --- Sure, the article did pushed some gender cards: she did write "and she's a woman" at the end. But I can also argue that a significant portion of your argument was playing a race card. What I am saying is that those cards will get played by those in the politics to suit their needs. --- I mentioned historic and current race problems to point out the weaknesses of her argument. Choosing the POTUS between a woman and a black should be an exciting experience. I am simply saying pitting against each other is a really bad idea, which is exactly what she is doing despite her explicit denial. I said pushing a gender card may be an excellant idea when played right, which was what happened in NH. I think it was a good thing and a very healthy challenge that Obama will have to face as far as gender issues are concerned. On the other hand, Obama camp tries to rise above the race issue and rather talk about hope, unity, and optimism. His transcending attitude is essential part of his strength that his opponents lack. --- I guess I don't have much of an expectation from the people involved in the politics. Maybe that's why I didn't think the article deserved to be labeled "the most disappointing article I've read". To me, it was just an op-ed piece, just one person's opinion (with or without an honest intention). That's why I was curious. Thanks for sharing your passion. ---- Gloria Steinem is an iconic figure in feminist movement. I expected much better than that, especially because I am all for gender equality. No matter what a candidate's gender/race may be, there are many questions to be asked to choose a leader of a nation. Many women voted for Obama because they found Hillary's answers to those questions not agreeable, not because she is a woman. Questions about Iraq war stance and close relationship with special interest group are quite pertinent ones. When you brush away those questions with "What worries me" lists, it is either disingenuous or narrow-minded pursuit of feminism to me. I believe her article is a great disservice to the cause. I have a feeling that she has a hidden agenda other than gender. |