Ferraro Speaking Freely - The Opinionator - Opinion - New York Times Blog

Ferraro Speaking Freely - The Opinionator - Opinion - New York Times Blog: Comment on the second comment.

Owen Scott III dissects and clarifies what I've come to think of as the affirmative action fallacy. He is clear and convincing. His arguments are as thoughtful as Ms. ferraro's statement was thoughtless. I expect that no one on the other side is listening.

…if you have been the target of racial prejudice or the anger of women who see all men as their oppressors, you don’t just understand, you feel the thrust of Ms. Ferraro’s tactics (much as women who have been sexually assaulted feel the thrust of a lawyer’s comments aimed at justifying a man who overrode the protests of an attractively dressed woman who said ‘No’ to a sexual come-on after she invited the man in for a nightcap).

"Here is what Ms. Ferraro’s comment appear to argue: (1) that Sen. Obama has few or no outstanding qualifications to be President; (2) that Sen. Obama’s black supporters vote for him only because he is black; (3) that Sen. Obama’s non-black supporters are only motivated by trying to show that they are not racists; (4) that Sen. Obama’s supporters of all colors dislike Sen. Clinton solely because she is a woman; (5) that white men and all women are being discriminated against by black men and their accomplices in the media; and, that (6) all women are being discriminated against by black men, guilty white people who want to assuage their misplaced guilt, and their accomplices in the media. All of this appears to me to appeal to target groups of potential Clinton voters: (a) persons who feel that blacks get unfair advantages in American society and (b) persons who feel that discrimination against women is a more destructive force in our society than racism. The main (a) target group is white workers who are disappointed by their jobs and income and are prejudiced against blacks ; while, the (b) target group is women who view men and paternalism as the source of their disappointments and frustration and feel entitled to some recompense. The message gains additional traction with members of group (b) who are prejudiced against black men.

…if you don’t think Sen. Obama has any obvious strengths, you will tend to seek an explanation of why so many people vote for him. This may lead you to believe people vote for him because he is black or because of being bleeding heart liberals. Additionally, if you support Sen. Clinton and see her as a positive female leader, you are likely to wonder why so many people don’t like her. This predisposes you to believe it’s sheer misogyny. So far, none of this means you are a racist. … neither are you the actual target of Ms. Ferraro’s comments because you already like Sen. Clinton and do not understand the appeal of Sen. Obama. You’re just trying to understand why your candidate isn’t doing better at the polls and gets criticized in the media and by right-wing bigots (whom you have no problem identifying accurately). Because you do not have prejudice that Ms. Ferraro is trying to ignite, you don’t find her comments offensive.

…To me, those of you who are not racists but who justify Ms. Ferraro’s comments are the unwitting accomplices of an insidious and destructive tactic that goes against the heart of the progressive mission of justice and fair opportunity for all. Much of the discussion of this issue salts the wounds on both sides. Just as it offends you when Obama supporters toss out insults about Sen. Clinton and her illustrious husband, it does not help your cause when you reciprocate with sarcastic zingers involving Kool-aid and an empty suit. I’m also afraid that some of the people who have commented here really are members of Ms. Ferraro’s target voting groups. "

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/ferraro-speaking-freely/