Sexism or racism, hmmmmm...

We are working on a question here in the Democratic primaries. One of the issues has to do with the battle between Senators Clinton and Obama for the Democratic Party Presidential Nomination. The issue has to do with negatives. It's the little voice in your ear that says "I'm not ready for this..."

So, which one are you not ready for? A female president or an African-American one? I think that too many people are asking themselves this question right now, and are coming up with a surprising answer- it's the woman that I am not ready for.

Surprising in terms of conventional wisdom- aren't we beyond this kind of thinking in 2008? But check your history books and you will discover that African American males were awarded the right to vote in 1865 (though it is true that those in the South did not get to exercise that right from 1876 to 1960something). Then you will note that women were permitted to vote in... 1922!!! This is not an accident, it took an extra 57 years for us to overcome the prejudice against women enough to allow them the vote. Is an additional 85 years enough time for some of us to find the willingness to elect one to the Presidency?

I am not saying that this is THE factor, by the way, just that it is A factor- for some of us. I like to think that I am not one of those who will vote from prejudice of either the racial or gender role variety.

Comments: 11

paul w. Feb 15, 2008, 6:34pm EST

Chris, I doubt that you or I are. But, you're right - I have personal anecdotal experience of both (sexism and racism) from the campaign calls I've been making the past several weeks. Campaigns don't usually give the callers guidance on how to deal with such comments - I think I handled them appropriately, but I am sure that some of the campaigns' phone-callers do not. That just compounds the problem.

BTW, I told at least one person that Sen. Clinton will appreciate his support, but that she does not think that voting against Sen. Obama because of his skin color (or his "Arab name") is a good reason. I may have lost a vote for Clinton, but hey, I had to retort - the guy did seem a little surprised.

reply to this comment

Chris W. Feb 15, 2008, 6:56pm EST

Paul- thank you for sharing a firsthand perspective.

It just occurred to me that McCain could face "agism"-he is 72 years old, right? Maybe that is actually a good reason to say no to him. It is a pretty tough job for a guy starting it at that age- I remember Reagan's problem with his memory in the second term.

reply to this comment

paul w. Feb 15, 2008, 7:40pm EST

Good point. I also have firsthand experience with Sen. McCain, and he does not show any signs of slowing down (physically or mentally). Tho a voter could always say that his brain could start significantly deteriorating during the four years, I suppose it would be a bit of ageism to vote against him just on that basis.

Thanks for posting this to "GATHER Discusses Tolerance," a group at nohate.gather.com. This will be featured there, and I invite everyone to join and participate.

reply to this comment

Chris W. Feb 15, 2008, 7:52pm EST

paul- good point back at you- & it occurs to me that I may be more prone to "ageism" than the other two aforementioned.

Or is it just because I'm a Democrat? hmm.

reply to this comment

Katie R. Feb 15, 2008, 8:34pm EST

I think most wont be too biased ... But I'm sure that many will.

reply to this comment

Kim J. Feb 16, 2008, 12:19am EST

I agree. I beleive that it's not as simple as "women don't trust other women". I think that it has to do with the very real fact that from the time we are born, we are taught not to trust other women...or men.

reply to this comment