"This is a very serious decision and no one should be just voting because they are the same color or gender.

But I will say; women need to rise up. We have been walked on for too long. We were the last people in this country to be allowed to vote. It was always the white man who controlled us and then it was the white and black man.

Wake up Women!!!"

Uh, your last two paragraphs contradict the first one there.

Also, the victimhood sweepstakes is a really lousy way to make a point. Still, since this seems to be a common misconception held by Steinem, Jong, Pappas, and other feminist leaders of the Second Wave: (white) women were voting in this country well before black men. Yes, the fifteenth amendment (1865) passed before the nineteenth amendment (1920). But Jim Crow ensured that the vast majority of african-americans couldn't vote in this country until very, very recently (1965).

Ever heard of Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman? They were killed in Mississippi in 1964 for daring to believe that african-americans should be able to vote. Forty-four years earlier, white women were happily casting votes for Warren Harding and James Cox, and there was no backlash whatsoever.

Of course, this sort of argument ignores the awful double-bind in which women of color were trapped. But that's why this sort of calculus of despair (who has it worse) is such an unproductive road. It draws divisions between people who should be natural allies.

Wow. Who's sexist now? Some of y'all should really read over what you've written before you press publish. It's really not beooming.

At any rate, skylark:

"We had to wait until 50 years after African-American men got the vote until women finally got the vote."

De jure, maybe. De factor, this is not at all correct. It's also been explained several times around here already, so forgive me if I reprint from a comment I made earlier:

"Since this seems to be a common misconception held by Steinem, Jong, Pappas, and other feminist leaders of the Second Wave: (white) women were voting in this country well before black men. Yes, the fifteenth amendment (1865) passed before the nineteenth amendment (1920). But Jim Crow ensured that the vast majority of african-americans couldn't vote in this country until very, very recently (1965).

Ever heard of Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman? They were killed in Mississippi in 1964 for daring to believe that african-americans should be able to vote. Forty-four years earlier, white women were happily casting votes for Warren Harding and James Cox, and there was no backlash whatsoever.

Of course, this sort of argument ignores the awful double-bind in which women of color were trapped. But that's why this sort of calculus of despair (who has it worse) is such an unproductive road. It draws divisions between people who should be natural allies."''

"Excuse me Kate, but I did not see your reasoning for why you would vote for Obama. What policies of his do you agree with?"

Kate Michelman's original letter endorsing Sen. Obama (after Sen. Edwards left the race) is here:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/with_jre_out_mi.html

That's what I said. Note de jure and de facto. The fact remains, after 1920 women's right to vote was not at all in question. For the next 40-50 years, men and women suffered and even died to ensure the right to vote for African-Americans. So, it kinda puts the lie to that goofy line of argument.

Either way, the "women have it worse than black men" line of argument is tremendously reductive, and is hard to justify in any case. See also Tim Noah's piece on Gloria Steinem's first use of this calculus of despair.

http://www.slate.com/id/2181646