Sen. Clinton has been criticized for gender-baiting women voters by doing everything from crying to making jokes about ironing, while Sen. Obama has been known to change speech patterns when addressing black audiences and his surrogates have pointed the finger of racism at both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Is the use of the metaphorical gender and race cards a manipulative tactic of baiting minority voites? Or is it valid that the candidates rely on race and gender to earn votes?“I feel that any voter who allows herself or himself to be manipulated by the cheap tricks of dishonest candidates is incompetent and should not be allowed the privilege of voting. But as far as evaluation goes, no matter how much a person tries to cater to an audience, for me and any other intelligent individual a candidate’s integrity, policy and potential promise in the position should be of most concern. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., (paraphrased) a man should be judged not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character.” – Amber Denise Owens

“Sure it’s valid. We seem to reward a lack of refinement and get drowsy when a candidate tries to talk with any detail about the issues. This is why the front-runners are mostly excruciatingly vague in their speeches, and constantly pander to their audience. Whether that pandering is to a race, a gender or someone’s political history, this is the nature of primaries. Come the general election, we will have all new candidates under the same names, attempting to appear more ‘moderate’ because they do not trust in their base to get them in office.”
– David Queener

“Minority baiting is definitely a manipulative tactic for getting out the vote. The campaigns of presidential candidates shouldn’t be centered on race or gender; it’s simply detrimental to the entire election. Using race and gender cards as a tool for winning votes abuses the public sentiment that calls for an end to oppression. It exploits attempts to eliminate discrimination, prohibits debate and distorts the true concerns of minorities.”
– Meghan Dillie

“While it isn’t reprehensible to appeal to one’s personal experiences as a woman or member of a race, what can be hurtful during this national dialogue is a blatant appeal to victimhood in trying to garner votes. I believe both major Democratic candidates have crossed the metaphorical line into appealing to victimhood be it Clinton’s jokes about ironing or Obama’s finger pointing. I believe the real gender/race manipulation comes from the supporters who are so willing to cry “victim” on behalf of their candidites.”
– Matt Brown

Upcoming Debate:
Early feminist movements have been criticized for blindly advocating social change based only on issues of sex and gender, while ignoring issues of race and class – issues felt by women of color and women of other classes. Womanism, a term coined by author and poet, Alice Walker, was born from the necessity of including women of color and women of other classes in the struggle for social change. Now at it’s apex, can third wave feminism merge with womanism to be more inclusive of the issues facing women of color and women of other classes? Or have white feminists lost the trust of womanists to a barrier of race and class?

Voice your opinion! Write a response no longer than 125 words to:
theothersection@gmail.com

Author