Racism vs Sexism

[audtatious]

Throughout this electoral process I have seen these two accusations thrown around at candidates.

During the DNC nomination process, Biden used the term "articulate" when describing Obama. This was associated by the Obamanites as part of the "racist code". This was not a shot across his bow, this was a direct shot into his ship.

Following the DNC nomination process, and with the selection of Biden for VP, some Hillary supporters have screamed "sexism" (PUMA's) for her not being asked to be the VP.

Lately, Obama made the "pig in lipstick" comment about McCain and this has caused further accusations of "Sexism" against Obama. This has been followed by the Obamanites claiming that Palin and gangs use of "Community Organizer" is part of the "racist code".

When is this going to end? While I do believe the media has gone off the deep end in attacking Palin after her selection as VP, I do not necessarily associate Obama himself being sexist. I also do not associate any comments on Obama from the McCain camp as being racist either as that would be the most stupid thing they could do.

Thoughts?

[HashiriyaS14]

This thread is win, and you are win for making it.

BOTH parties are using political correctness BS to try and frame the other guy as being discriminatory when, I believe, there's very little actual racism or sexism going on, both in the campaigns and within the American electorate.

Extremists on both sides are trying to create perceived racism and sexism where it doesn't really exist, and it disgusts me.

[audtatious]

I think the supporters of both sides are making it an issue. Honestly, the trend of the Obamanites to bring up racism allegations is THE most stupid accusation I have seen out there. The Sexism card is, IMO, far less explosive of an issue in compared to the race card.

[HashiriyaS14]

I think the supporters of both sides are making it an issue. Honestly, the trend of the Obamanites to bring up racism allegations is THE most stupid accusation I have seen out there. The Sexism card is, IMO, far less explosive of an issue in compared to the race card.

Yeah, it probably is, but at least so far it's been 100% the product of people unaffiliated with the campaign. The Obama campaign itself, and the man himself, have been *very* good about not "pulling the race card". He understands that to do so would severely undermine his credibility.

He DOES, however, need to go on record as "accepting Clinton's apology" for that comment earlier this summer. Obviously, WJC did not have racist intentions, the man has built his seminal career on racial equality.

I don't think that the McCain camp is racist anymore than I believe the Obama camp is sexist. Supports of both are implying the opposite, but both campaigns have largely kept their hands clean, IMO.

[audtatious]

I don't disagree. I for one wish the damn media and others would stop harping on digging dirt and dig into the issues instead. Taking focus off the issues by claiming racism and sexism is a waste of all our time. The first step in that direction is to get the Media to STFU.

[AZhitman]

Now, the NEXT issue (because I don't believe either campaign is actively sexist or racist) is whether the MEDIA is sexist or racist.

I would argue that it is, but I also think both camps contribute SOME "-ist" to the story.

We're seeing it in the phrases - "not your typical candidate" "well-spoken""rising above stereotypes"...about Obama

AND

"small town girl""hockey mom"the flak over the "pig" commentall the discussion of her kids...about Palin.

When we throw the ageism in the mix (frequently brought up about McCain), it's quite clear that the media perpetuates the negativity that most of us THINK and DISMISS, but not verbalize.

[96Qowner]

Damned good point. I think it's something everyone needs to think about. Most of us forget that we actually never talk to McCain or Obama or Biden or Palin. All we know is what the media tell us. Even when we see actual video clips and hear their actual words, it's been edited, and then it's thoroughly "summarized" for us, all nicely packaged to make it interesting so we'll watch the commercials. We listen to shouting heads, arguing over extremes, all "fairly" presented to us - one extreme for each side.

So, when we blame the opposition for what the media tells us about them, it doesn't hurt to pause a moment.

Now ... my experience from reading political forums, is that the left feels freer in expressing themselves in extreme language. This has been the case for the past 4 years, I think partly because the loudest bloggers on the left are younger and less respectful. You don't see (pardon my language) the right referring to Obama as a jigaboo porch monkey, but you see Palin described as a whore and trailer trash, etc, by the left. This language rarely makes its way into the mainstream press, but it's everywhere on the web.

Because of the reaction in the mainstream media to Obama and Palin, I started a thread about the Democratic Party and racism and sexism. I proposed that the Democrats are entirely too caught up in gender and race, and suggested that this election is revealing an unhealthy obsession with race and gender on their part.

But ... it could very well be the media. Are we interpreting the Democrats through the eyes of the media, or is it truly the Democrats that have this problem? Perhaps it's merely the media and their need to be promote controversy in exchange for eyes on the screen.

In any case, I'm really enjoying the way the credibility of the Democrats are being destroyed in the process.

[srellim234]

I think most damaging to America is the unspoken racism and sexism.

I believe there is a large segment of our population, male and female, who are just not going to pull the lever for a black (or half-black) man for the top job in the country. Those people exist in both genders. They'll never admit it publicly, but that's the way it is. They perceive blacks with the suspicion that deep down they are either reverse racists like Al Sharpton or they have the mentality of rioters burning and looting in their own neighborhoods. Black people quietly being profoundly productive in their everyday lives and contributing to the good of America don't get the quality media coverage they deserve.

Sexism runs the same way, but I think the numbers are less than the racism factor in the voting populace. I believe the # of women who wouldn't vote for a woman runs about as small as the # of blacks who wouldn't vote for a black. A lot of men would vote for a woman, but there are still an awful lot of men out there that don't like female managers and bosses in the workplace and their bias carries over to the voting booth.

Without commenting on the quality of any candidate in this election, I think there are more people who will not pull the lever for Obama due to racism than those who won't pull it for Palin due to sexism.

[96Qowner]

There is certainly a large portion of the electorate who vote for reasons having nothing to do with issues, etc. But that tendency is exaggerated when a candidate says "vote for me, I'm a Black man", or "vote for me, I'm a woman".

I don't ever recall a Republican candidate running on race or gender. I DO recall several Democratic candidates who did so.

So, are you sure it's better to "speak" of race and gender? Why?

[srellim234]

At least when racism and sexism are openly discussed it's out there. It's not our "dirty little hidden secret."

Open discussion contributes to changing biases over time.

[96Qowner]

That's the conventional wisdom, yes, but I think it may be worth reexamining.

When the media or candidates talk about our differences, I'm not so sure it's as constructive as we'd like to believe. When I hear that a candidate made his reputation advocating for a specific constituency, I tend to think that he drew a line somewhere - that he made his reputation in an "us vs them" capacity. If I'm not a member of that constituency, I feel like a "them". I didn't draw that line.

So, whether it's race or gender, or anything else, I prefer someone who doesn't point out that he's Black, or that she's a woman, etc. I prefer a candidate who doesn't make those distinctions. I wouldn't find a candidate who worked for men's causes, or for White's causes very attractive for the same reason. I don't like the approach Edwards took, either, where he played the class-envy card - two America's, us and them.

I think that's divisive, and so do a large portion of the electorate. I saw Dee Dee Meyers defending Sarah last night. She saw clear sexism in the way the media and the Democratic leftists have been characterizing Sarah. Sarah Palin has never advocated for women, yet she's treated differently precisely because she hasn't. Dee Dee Meyers, of all people.

Something is being revealed, and it's startling. I, frankly, am amazed at the crap coming out of the mouths of the more rabid lefties. I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around it. Democrats are truly starting to look like the reason they talk so much about sexism and racism is because that's how they view the world.

Did anyone notice how Sarah answered the sexism question? She doesn't think about it - it's not part of her world. Her family and her community weren't sexist. She took advantage of Title IX and was able to play competitive basketball in high school. It's simply not the way she sees the world. Should she be more sexist? Should she talk about it? Should she advocate for women?

Worth thinking about.