Thursday, November 04, 2004

Wily's post reminds me of what I've read in "After Whiteness": that the erosion of white privilege will result in the consolidation of power and privilege around matters of sex and gender expressed within a religious framework. He cites the growing Promise Keepers movement and how it shifted strategy from being a white christian men's movement to becoming a multiracial coalition of Christian men exhorted to be better men by becoming better husbands so that women can submit more willingly. Ad nauseam. And why not? In Demonic Males, the author suggests that since men are by nature violent/rapists, it will serve women well to submit. (i'm still on the Derrick Jensen track).

Anyway, so now there's talk that Kerry lost because he didn't use strong moral rhetoric the way Bush did. He didn't appeal to people's need for moral certainty and reassurance in this time of terror. He could have made a strong stand against the immorality of the war in Iraq, immorality of environmental exploitation, immorality of corporate criminals, etc., (as immoral as the pro-choice, pro-gay folks are painted to be). But why should he pander to people's fears? He believed that the American people (who are they?) can still be persuaded by reason and evidence. He thought he could still appeal to their sense of hope and compassion. He was wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Ok. I'm trying to not be angry and sad...but why shouldn't I be? Let the emotions ride. Let them speak. Let them rant.

Comments: Post a Comment
links to this post

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?