Why are gender and race mentioned so often in politics, even though they're supposed to be irrelevant in a progressive society?

Question

As an example, Hillary Clinton's gender was mentioned on every corner during the 2016 campaign and she was touted as the "first female candidate for President". Likewise Obama was consistently hailed as the "first black President". At the same time we are taught all the time that gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, etc, are supposed to be completely irrelevant and we should all treat each other equally.

What's the reason behind this conflict? What prevents politics from being completely neutral and not taking the person's physical characteristics into account?

Answer 1

The simplest answer is that your question is not correct in fact: you do not live in a “progressive” society.

are supposed to be completely irrelevant and we should

Should statements are usually indicative that whatever “ought” to be, isn’t.

What's the reason behind this conflict?

For hundreds of years within capitalism and protocapitalism there were immediate material rewards to the reproduction of “race” and “gender” as socially oppressive structures. These included latifundia slavery and the family as reproducer of wage labour, for example.

However long run processes of mechanisation and skill dilution, alongside struggle by workers and bourgeois who opposed these oppressions, have resulted in a situation where cultural lip service must be paid to the principle that all persons are created equal in liberal democratic states with high levels of mechanisation. The risk of missing out on a particularly skilled worker due to her race is too great to afford. The risk of union or media ire for discriminating too obviously against a woman for her gender is unaffordable. Moreover, with changes to the labour force, a household is now expected to supply 1.6 workers or more (both parents, one part time).

These changes can’t and don’t erase history or culture. And they don’t erase economic incentives towards racism such as the prison labour complex.

What prevents politics from being completely neutral and not taking the person's physical characteristics into account?

Because people aren’t neutral. People’s cultures aren’t neutral. Gender and race are deeply embedded categories and relationships that exist overtly and covertly and which are continuously reinforced (in old and new ways) by economic incentives.

“Oughts” don’t cause “is” without time, effort and energy. And the expenditure so far hasn’t overcome hundreds of years of economic and cultural reinforcement. Debate amongst scholars shows significant doubt that these relationships can be eliminated, as opposed to ameliorated, within a wage labour society.

Answer 2

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy covers the matter pretty well with this article. Gender and race are just a part of identity politics (which cover many aspects from age and religion to veteran status).

It seems identity politics come to offer protection for a specific constituency within the general population:

identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context. Members of that constituency assert or reclaim ways of understanding their distinctiveness that challenge dominant oppressive characterizations, with the goal of greater self-determination.

To have criteria such as gender and race not being mentioned in politics, people should not perceive that they have some insecurities based on these criteria. Not only that this does not seem to happen in "real world" (society as a whole), but it seems to happen in a much more simpler and controlled community like StackOverflow:

Too many people experience Stack Overflow as a hostile or elitist place, especially newer coders, women, people of color, and others in marginalized groups.

Answer 3

We all live in an historical context. History moves through stages that are often emerging out of their past. In the US past, politics was mostly just for men; indeed, white men. As these conditions change, they are "progressive," and they still seem unusual and even amazing in our historic context.

Answer 4

I don't think it's really a point of being neutral or not. In your examples about presidents or presidential candidates it's about something new.

In case of the female gender or African American background, large groups also fall into that category. It would be different with other things, like the first president to be born in Rhode Island. Sure, that's an interesting piece of trivia, but not a lot of people can relate to being from Rhode Island.

With regard to the current president (D. Trump), one of the things he was first at as president is not having served in the military or government before becoming president (of the U.S.). That's not bad per se, in fact has base might like it because it shows he's an outsider when it comes to government hierarchies (or establishment).