2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Listening today, I was struck by the online comments criticizing Hillary for not acting "like past candidates" (all white males) in her response to losing the nomination. While everyone talks about welcoming diversity of women and blacks into the upper reaches of the party, it seems that pundits at least have forgotten what has been emphasized over and over in diversity training in schools and workplaces: diversity means differing ways of expressing oneself, not just different points of view! Are we serious about expanding the process to really include those who 1)weren't raised to follow unspoken white male interaction rules and 2)don't ascribe to those rules (the stiff upper lip, the bow out with what white males call dignified action)? Or is the underlying message: you can join us at the top, but ONLY IF you act like a white male?? From what I see so far, it is the latter.
Cathy M.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context