Honestly, at this juncture in history, I don’t think it is. It may be a foolish criterion, but racist I don’t see. It would only be racist–which is defined as the belief in the inherent superiority or inferiority of certain races–if you were doing it because you hated white people, or because you were condescendingly voting for the black man because “the darkies need one of their own to calm them down” or some other stupid garbage like that.
I think that’s pretty much true for women who vote for Senator Clinton too, by the way. It isn’t sexist–defined as the belief in the inherent superiority or inferiority of one of the sexes–to think “we’ve never had a woman before and it would be great if we did.”
{ 29 comments }
So, then, is is sexist for a man not to vote for a woman because she’s a woman? No hate need apply, but maybe they just think those choices are better decided by a man? Or that, in a contest between a man and a woman they’d favor the man simply because he’s a man? That’s not sexist?
Well, let’s see. I said sexism is defined as the belief in the inherent superiority or inferiority of either of the sexes. So, using that as a definition, how would you answer your own question?
Is he black? I thought he was white and Arab.
I hope that’s a joke.
I’d say you’ve answered your own question in the negative. Short of doing eeny-meeny-miney-moe when it comes to picking a person only by their outward appearance you must decide one is superior of the other because of that appearance.
As you didn’t say it’s okay to choose a black man or a woman by the eeny-meeny-miney-moe process, it would be sexist.
And, yes, I’d say picking a woman over a man simply because we’ve never had a woman is sexist. You’re saying the woman is more qualified simply because she happens to be a woman.
I don’t see how it’s possible at all to choose someone based on their appearance and it not be a racist/sexist. You’re saying someone is more qualified than another simply based upon their appearance. That is the very definition of racism/sexism.
“It isn’t sexist–defined as the belief in the inherent superiority or inferiority of one of the sexes–to think “we’ve never had a woman before and it would be great if we did.—
That’s sexism. You’re choosing the woman not because she’s a woman, but because she isn’t a man. Believing that woman or man is superior isn’t the question. You excluded the man from consideration simply because he’s a man. Because his genitalia is on the outside rather than the inside.
If that isn’t sexism I don’t know what is.
Not really. If no black person or woman has ever gotten the job, then thinking one should finally get a shot isn’t based on any idea that women or blacks are inherently inferior.
But I’ll give you this: anyone voting for either of them *solely* for such a reason is being sexist or racist. Although less so than the reverse I’d say, because the situation is not exactly equal on both sides.
“If no black person or woman has ever gotten the job, then thinking one should finally get a shot isn’t based on any idea that women or blacks are inherently inferior.”
Then you’re arguing for affirmative action. Which is fine. But it is a racist/sexist policy. You’re arguing they should get a job because they’re of color or female – not because they’re qualified.
At some point I’d like to think we would appoint someone to a position because they’re the most qualified. Not because someone of their shade of skin or gynecological makeup never did it before.
Personally I’d like to see a Jew as president. I’m not sure why there hasn’t been one yet (Joe Lieberman came pretty close).
Scott Kirwin’s last blog post..Countering the Worshippers of Death
My beef about Senator Obama is partly based on sizing him up as a man who just isn’t american enough for my tastes. I regard him essentially as a foreigner in a way I never could regard most other african Americans.
Sure, I would like to see a female president, or a black president, or an oriental president, or whatever. But they damned well better have a lot more going for them than affirmative action or RWF (ruling while female). On that score alone, I think Senator Clinton would make a better president. And chances are, I could vote for her.
As for Obama, he’s far too slick for my tastes, and contradictory as well, judging by information that has surfaced about his behind meetings with Canadian officials over NAFTA and the reassurances he is said to have given them. I don’t like sneaks of any kind.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Don’t y’all get it? It’s only sexism or racism if a conservative white man says “you know, I prefer a white guy” if a black guy say “you know, I prefer a black guy” it isn’t and you’re all just a bunch of worthless racists for even thinking so.
I differ, but that’s because my definition of racism / sexism is different.
I define it as judging an individual by the qualities one imputes to the group.
Or to play on someone else’s words, racism is judging a man by the color of his skin rather than the content of his character.
In that sense, if you vote for Obama because he’s black because of how you feel about blacks in general rather than how you feel about Obama as an individual – that’s racist.
“If no black person or woman has ever gotten the job, then thinking one should finally get a shot isn’t based on any idea that women or blacks are inherently inferior.”
Quite right; it is not.
It is, however, very much based on the droolingly infantile idea that selection criteria for the most powerful office of executive authority in the world today should, for some inexplicable reason, be at all subject to juvenile playground rules about “turns” rather than adult real-world standards of actual merit.
Affirmative Action? No, I’d say not; Affirmative Action implies quotas and a whole lot of other things that aren’t in play here.
What you’re saying is that Greeks were being racist in 1984 when they voted in droves for Michael Dukakis (the song of Greek immigrants) and that Irish Catholics were being racist when they voted for John F. Kennedy because he was one of them.
Wanting to see “one of your own” or a group you sympathize with do well, especially when they’ve never won before, is in no way the same thing as wanting across-the-board rules based on race and sex.
I rooted for the Boston Red Sox a few years ago in the World Series. Why, because I think Boston is superior to New York? No, it was just time for a team that had been frustrated for almost a century to win one, and I was thrilled that they did. (Ironically, a few years later I was booing them, because I sympathized with the Cubbies for the same reason. ;-)
Seriously: “A woman has never gotten the job. Let’s factor that in.” How does that equate to “men are innately inferior to women?”
“What you’re saying is that Greeks were being racist in 1984 when they voted in droves for Michael Dukakis (the song of Greek immigrants) and that Irish Catholics were being racist when they voted for John F. Kennedy because he was one of them.”
That’s exactly what I’m saying. They voted for their man not because he was most qualified, but because he was their man.
That’s racism, sexism, or whatever -ism you want to call it.
Now, being the bigot I am, I happen to agree with the Bible that, for example, the man is the head of the household. Men and women are not equal. God created woman to be man’s helpmate. Not the other way around. Also, I think men a more qualified for positions of power simply because they are men and that only a women should hold such power if a man won’t stand up (see Deborah in the Tahakh).
So, I’m not saying I’m not what someone would call a sexist. I’d say I am and I have no problem with it. It simply seems to me that you’re trying to put forth a sexist/racist position and saying it isn’t.
And voting someone executive Constitutional power isn’t exactly the same as rooting for the underdog in a baseball game. If you think it is I’d kindly ask you to refrain from voting this year. Or ever again.
I think you’ve made a huge logical leap and find your arguments unpersuasive. And too bad for you, I’ll still vote. ;-)
Dean defined racism as the belief in the inherent superiority or inferiority of certain races. That’s one definition. Discrimination based on race is another.
Voting for someone based on the color of his skin — and thereby voting against someone else based on the color of his skin — is discrimination based on race, and therefore racism.
So we may never, under any circumstances, take race into consideration for any purpose whatsoever in who we vote for without being racist?
Methinks some of you are watering down the use of the word more than a tad.
If Obama wins the Presidency, I am quite sure he will do so with about 90% of the black vote. And I am quite sure that there will be enormous celebrations in black communities all over the United States should that happen. And I rather suspect that very, very few will be saying, “finally the inferior white people have been defeated and a person of true goodness because he’s black has won.”
You’ve watered down the word “racist” to the point where it just means “any form of tribal pride or loyalty equals hate.” Isn’t that a bit much?
Basically, I agree with Dean, although I think one could hate white people without believing that they are inferior, and that would be bigoted.
Yeah, fair enough.
I’m quite certain that should Obama win, a lot of people will be crying with joy because they see it as proof that America really has overcome its horrible racial past and any child can really grow up to be President of the United States.
I’m having a hard time finding “racism” in that, although clearly it’s a form of discrimination. Discrimination is not in and of itself a bad thing. If I can’t discriminate fruit juice from drain cleanser, I surely won’t live long, but it doesn’t mean I consider one inferior to the other.
“You’ve watered down the word “racist†to the point where it just means “any form of tribal pride or loyalty equals hate.†Isn’t that a bit much?”
That would be a bit much. I think a more accurate restatement is this:
“You’ve watered down the word “racist†to the point where it just means “any form of tribal pride or loyalty.â€
I think that is still a bit much, but a much more understandable bit much. I would say that tribal pride or loyalty is the virtue from which the vice of racism springs. Many vices have a virtue from which they spring.
Yours,
Wince
Wince and Nod’s last blog post..An Old Comment Thread…
Taking turns is handicapping for the weaker and less competent.
Fine for a pick-up game of stickball or the line for the waterslide.
Drooling idiocy when it comes to electing a POTUS.
But, hey, even if you’re acting like someone who can’t even qualify for the Special-Olympics, at least you’re not engaging in any of that icky-squicky racist stuff. Or sexist.
Also, the idea that electing a non-white man or a what-ever-style woman will cause magical sprinkles of sweet reason and blessed rhyme to shower down from Phantom Tollbooth heaven and stop any of the identity politics guilt-tripping emotional manipulation people is ludicrous rose-colored-glasses of the worst kind.
Elect Obama or Hillary and the femelitists or other identity politics carpetbaggers will just demand more and more and more as a result
Because one does not get rid of the dane by paying the danegelt.
Doing so, merely increases the danegelt demanded of you the next time.
Blacks will overwhelmingly support Obama for the same irrational but generally harmless reason people root so strongly for sports teams.
I don’t think the decision to vote for Hillary just because she’s a woman needs to be sexist in order to be stupid. Same goes for Barack and racism. There is such a thing as plain old dumb, no -ism attached.
I think this argument gives the race short shrift, in any case–both candidates have constructed messages that have energized Democratic voters in a way Kerry and Edwards never did…and that was when the stakes were even higher and Dems were trying to keep Bush out of a second term. Neither of them has relied on identity politics as the main platform of their campaigns.
Willow’s last blog post..Faith and Leavetaking
Wince: Fair enough!
Dean Esmay’s last blog post..The Wages Of Freedom
I think voting (or not voting) on account of anyone because of his race (or sex) is inherently racist (or sexist) to a certain extent. I agree, however, that there’s a difference in kind, as well as degree, between voting for a black/woman because no black/woman has ever been President before, and voting for a white/male because one thinks no black/woman ever should be. But that exception only applies to the first for each.
Xrlq’s last blog post..Hillary for President?
A clarification on the feature question/comment by Dean Esay and the follow question by Kevin D. And if you’re at all wondering, NO, I didn’t pen the dictionary, I merely looked up the definitions of the words.
All the best,
steve
Racism is also defined as: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism…
Therefore it most certainly is racist to vote for someone based on his race alone. Sexism is also defined as: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination… Therefore a vote for a person solely based upon the gender is indeed sexism.
Dean Esmay, I am currently in a class at West Virginia University on race and ethnic tension. I believe voting based on color or gender just creates more barriers in our society.
In an office with such a high responsibility with other peoples lives, how can you justify voting this way. Sounds very careless. Almost like you would risk lives of others to give some one new a chance. Sure, if the someone new happens to be the best candidate I am all for it. This isn’t a sporting event we are voting for. I have no idea why you would compare the two things.
Comments on this entry are closed.