Group Discussions

Sexism vs. Racism in Politics?

• 
  In case you haven't heard about it, here's what happened, according to CNN: In her first interview with Daily Breeze, published late last week, Ferraro said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
  
  
  
  In another interview with The Daily Breeze, she stated that: "Sexism is a bigger problem... It's OK to be sexist in some people's minds. It's not OK to be racist."
  
  
  
  What do you think?

  Flag as inappropriate Posted by Lylah M. Alphonse on 13th March 2008
• 
  Ok, I read through both articles. Personally, I don't think it's "OK" to be either sexist OR racist. I'm in an industry (computer aided drafting) that is primarily male employees. I am guessing at least 75%-80% of the few hundred CAD employees in my company are men (and mostly over the age of 30). I interviewed with over 10 companies graduating with a 3.96 GPA, top of my class, and only ONE company called me back. I do believe sexism played a key part of that. The other companies I interviewed at had no other females in their CAD departments so I feel they judged me on that and took male students in the middle of our class instead.
  
  
  
  Maybe Obama IS getting a little more fire because he's different, but with any election, you need to look at which candidate you feel would be best for the job. I can't stand discrimination against gender, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. None of that stuff matters.

  Flag as inappropriate Posted by Marcia on 13th March 2008
• 
  Well, I have to get a word in about this because I am all of the above - a biracial women. I'm half black and white (like Obama), but a woman like Hillary and have suffered sexist and racist attitudes, remarks, behaviors my whole life in the workplace and out and I'm just as stumped about the whole thing - including what to make of Geraldine Ferraro's intentions behind her statement.
  
  
  
  In as much, I am hot off my email send button with my white Aunt in California who is my mother's sister about the Geraldine Ferraro comment. She is a staunch Hillary supporter and I support Barack (not b/c he's biracial like me, but like you said Marcia b/c he has proven himself to be the best person for the job.)
  
  
  
  My aunt on the other hand, has continuously supported Hillary's publlic faux paux's and blunders in her negative campaigning using race and readiness, and my aunt let Geraldine slide on this comment believing that she was unfairly misquoted. After a back and forth exhange that I thought would never end, she revealed her support of Hillary was based on the fact that she is a product of the women's rights movement (from the 60s) and feels this election's candidate is representative of a women's right of passage and she feels their time has come. She stands on the fact that she has seen her share of sexism - therefore she completely understood Geraldine's statement and didn't see any cause for real concern. She also protected Hillary's negative campaigning against Obama in that she is more interested in winning for women and therefore that goal supercedes the need to call Hillary out on racist politics. So, I asked her if she was sure this was the woman she wanted representing her generation? A woman who if elected President would represent to younger women that is was okay to play dirty politics by using any means necessary to get what you want?
  
  
  
  So I guess the question is: Is it better to be considered a cat-clawing, back-biting, corporate climber than it is to be a sexist or a racist? Hmmmmmm
  
  
  
  My aunt and I are not finished debating, but have agreed that we may have to agree to disagree in order to keep peace amongst partylines. But I still do ask my fellow women to consider which is best and most representatives of what we want to leave as our legacy.

  Flag as inappropriate Posted by caramelsugarberry38 on 13th March 2008
• 
  This debate seems to be going on and on and on. I turned on NPR today, as I was driving home, and there was a debate going on between a man and a woman. I only caught the tail end of the debate, but the woman was an author of a book about sexism. Her point was similar to Ferraro's, that some people still think that it's okay to poke fun of Hillary Clinton for being a woman, and that is sexism.
  
  
  
  It's no secret that I'm an Obama supporter, but that's not because he's a man. I don't like Hillary's brand of politics. However, I do find the continuous jokes about her being on her period, or being the wicked witch of the west, are extremely offensive. I was watching The View a couple of weeks ago, and Joy mentioned that she used to work for Rush Limbaugh and that he wants Hillary Clinton to win the nomination. She pointed out that this had nothing to do with politics, but with the fact that he could be funnier on his radio show if she won. That got me thinking...There is some amount of social acceptability about sexist humor. I don't think that I want to compare sexism to racism, because I think it's comparing apples to oranges. But, I do think that there is a sort of tongue in cheek humor that is still socially acceptable when it comes to sexist jokes that is not the same case for racist jokes. I don't think we should elect Hillary Clinton over it, but I also don't think I'll be smiling next time someone jokingly says that a woman's place is in the kitchen...

  Flag as inappropriate Posted by mamajama on 26th March 2008