 
|
| |
Nov/Dec 2004: Somebody Please Explain These Pre- and Post Election Days
by Pat McGann
On the overcast morning following the presidential election here in the United States, I crossed an intersection with two young African American men walking in front of me, all of us headed toward the Prince Georges Plaza Metro Station. They looked dressed for school, backpacks loading them down. Just when they reached the far side of the street, they turned around because it seemed someone was yelling about coming after somebody. I couldn't say exactly where the voice was coming from but thought it was one of the cars on the opposite side of the street.
Once the light changed to green, a wine-red SUV immediately spun over and pulled into a parking lot driveway very near where the two young men were standing, although they were now split, one standing on the sidewalk after the driveway, the other before the driveway. There seemed to be a standoff of some sort, mainly between the African American youth in the SUV and the one standing before the driveway, neither of them moving, each holding their positions, both staring at each other.
By this point I had started crossing the street, but stopped at the median and stayed there, standing at the side of some shrubbery to observe, my heart pounding harder than usual. At the very least, I thought I could run to the fire station just on the other side of the street. No one spoke, no one moved. Until the driver of the SUV put his vehicle into reverse, backed up, and took off down the road. I wasn't sure what I had seen, whether there was any need to worry, whether anything had actually happened.
I believe this story of the two young men seems is linked to the pre-election poll we posted a poll on the MCSR website about five or six weeks ago, although I am struggling to grasp how. The poll read, "Which presidential candidate represents a healthier, more positive masculinity?" The choices were: George Bush, John Kerry, Ralph Nader, and None of the above. I find myself befuddled by the results. Not only did over 2600 people respond – a number that far and away exceeds the total participants of any previous poll (the next closest response is 963) – but also Bush was chosen over Kerry 52% to 44%. 2.6% of the poll participants chose "None of the above," while 1.4% chose Ralph Nader. Given the tilt in the direction of President Bush, I would have expected a different response to an earlier poll topic: "Will abstinence education decrease sexual violence?" There were 537 respondents. 63.1% said no, 18.8% said yes, 12.7% said maybe, and 5.4% said unsure. What explains the numerical difference between 537 respondents and 2,646? Did our poll become part of a battleground website? Was the poll a recipient of a Repuplican blog? Did conservatives actually go to the trouble to organize a response? Or do our normal website constituents come down in favor of President Bush? For a while I thought one person might be responding numerous times, but this seems unlikely since once you vote, you are not automatically given the choice to respond again.
Immediately after the topic was posted, Senator Kerry held a comfortable lead, until one three-hour period where the Bush numbers suddenly increased dramatically, and from that point on, it was touch and go, Bush sometimes leading, and then Kerry, flip-flopping back and forth, until the end when in the final few hours Bush surged comfortably beyond Kerry's numbers. As was the case in the popular vote, Nader never had a chance. If I had made a prediction about the results, they would have been dramatically different, following patterns I had seen before on our website poll. Bush, the most conservative choice, would have had some people pick him but still would have been significantly lower in numbers than Kerry. I even thought there might be a chance that "None of the above" would top the list as the most chosen answer since so many Kerry supporters were described as voting against Bush rather than for Senator Kerry. Okay, I even thought that the Nader numbers might surpass the Bush numbers, or at least equal them.
I guess that in the end both stories – the two young African American men and the presidential candidates' poll on our website – befuddle me. I can't account for actions or outcomes with explanations that make sense to me. Were the results of our poll meaningful in any way related to Men Can Stop Rape's work? Do our constituents see President Bush as a masculine role model who represents a commitment to healthy choices, nonviolence, and gender equity? And, switching stories, did anything actually happen among the three young men I saw on my walk to the metro? Was there a real threat or did I imagine it? Did the tensions among them completely dissipated after the SUV driver left or would they resurface later? What would make a difference in their lives? What do they require to feel safe? Where will they turn if they need help? How will the present administration meet their needs? Where will they find examples of men who are committed to nonviolence, respect, and healthy choices, where will they find them? Will the phrase, "W stands for Women," come to mean anything to these young men? Does it mean anything to any of us? Where will counterstories to traditional masculinity for these two men come from during the next four years? For all of us?
EMAIL PAT MCGANN YOUR RESPONSES TO "SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN..."
Other articles from Check-In Archive, 2004 - 2005:
Check-In Archive, 2004 - 2006
THE RIPPLE EFFECT OF RAPE: A STORY FOR MEN
AUG./SEPT. 2005 CHECK-IN: PASSING AND MASCULINITY: A COMPOSITION TEACHER AT A CATTLE ROUNDUP
Nov/Dec 2004: Somebody Please Explain These Pre- and Post Election Days
Sept./Oct. 2004: Fatherhood and the Year of the Counterstory
"The Swan" is Truly Ugly
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
