Sexism vs. Racism

[Aceflyer]

Sexism and racism are, quite obviously to me at least, equally bad. But even in 2008, it seems that, for some at least, sexism is more acceptable than racism ^{[1] [2]}.

 

Personally, I find this rather disturbing. Thoughts?

[Aileron]

Its one of the byproducts of the 60s. One of the outcomes was that there were stereotypes generated about the political parties. The Democrats has the reputation of being the party of women, minorities, and the working class. For a long time up to including the present day, if you were black you voted Democrat no questions asked. If you were a worker, you voted Democrat, and if a Republican proposes something it must be bad because a Republican proposed it.

 

The result of this is that the Democrats have these groups in their pocket, giving the party an incentive to complain about racial problems and to create racial problems, but no actual incentive to solve racial problems. Instead they cater to southerners, because southern conservatives are the group which is flexible enough to switch party lines and ends up deciding the elections. As long as the Democrats can count on having the minority vote and the Republicans can count on not having the minority vote, nobody is going to try.

 

 

 

As for sexism vs. racism, lets face the truth: skin color is only skin deep, while the difference between the genders is greater than that. The reason sexism survives more is because it actually has a small amount of fact to support it.

[Aceflyer]

Its one of the byproducts of the 60s. One of the outcomes was that there were stereotypes generated about the political parties. The Democrats has the reputation of being the party of women, minorities, and the working class. For a long time up to including the present day, if you were black you voted Democrat no questions asked. If you were a worker, you voted Democrat, and if a Republican proposes something it must be bad because a Republican proposed it.

 

The result of this is that the Democrats have these groups in their pocket, giving the party an incentive to complain about racial problems and to create racial problems, but no actual incentive to solve racial problems. Instead they cater to southerners, because southern conservatives are the group which is flexible enough to switch party lines and ends up deciding the elections. As long as the Democrats can count on having the minority vote and the Republicans can count on not having the minority vote, nobody is going to try.

 

^^ Uh-huh. Er, I'm a bit lost?

 

As for sexism vs. racism, lets face the truth: skin color is only skin deep, while the difference between the genders is greater than that. The reason sexism survives more is because it actually has a small amount of fact to support it.

 

The amount of scientific fact that is purported to support sexism is pretty much equal to the amount of scientific fact that would support racism if similar reasoning were applied. Race isn't merely skin deep; there are actually clinically significant biological differences between members of different races, as illustrated by this example ^[1].

 

More importantly, no scientific fact actually supports racism or sexism. Unless one wishes to argue that biological differences warrant discrimination, in which case, why not discriminate against, say, people with back hair, or people with lactose intolerance? Or even people who are exceptionally tall, or people who have exceptionally large feet? They're biologically different as well.

[NBVegita]

Here's the problem I have with this:

 

Sexism is considered more prevalent because clinton did not win the nomination. Had Obama not won the nomination racism would be considered more prevalent. The same will happen in the fall. If McCain wins it will simply be because America is too racist to have a black president, not that the people actually liked McCain more. Yet why would it not be ageism if McCain loses?

 

Not to say that there is not sexism or racism, but no matter how you cut the pie in this, sexism or racism was going to be called. !@#$%^&*ed if you do, !@#$%^&*ed if you don't.

[»Lynx]

Aileron:

Hrmm, I really doubt that racism being considered a more taboo thing than sexism is really anything to do with the Democrats and Republicans - although that may have altered some very specific people in America, it doesn't really affect any audience other than that - and ergo that argument, although partially valid, shouldn't really be considered in the larger scheme of things. I'll put it like this: We, as humans, simply follow the crowd, and general views of the majority. If we see somebody wearing something different, then we will attack them - as humans in general are very conservative creatures. Although it's 'morally' wrong to attack somebody because they're wearing really tight jeans, or a stupid hat - it's obviously not deemed as bad as shouting a derogatory term to somebody because they're skin colour is a different colour, as skin colour isn't a choice. This is due to our conservative values - change has a very high chance of failure, and so when a new en!@#$%^&*y is added into any equation, we will attack it to see whether it is either a good thing, or a bad thing. It's not been that long, relatively speaking, since black people first started coming to America, England - or wherever 'en m!@#$%^&*', and let's face it, they didn't exactly get a red-carpet welcome.

 

Although racism is a very broad term, it is still happening daily even now in the media, however - it is no longer printed so frankly, it's just a little more diluted. I'll use this example: If you are from the UK, and read any of the !@#$%^&*-rag blue-collar newspapers like 'The Sun' - then you will see a lot of diluted racism by writers who shouldn't be trusted with a pen - ever. However, it won't be in-your-face racism - it will be slightly diluted. It will be general complaints of immigration, and some pseudo-artistic drawing of 'all the English' leaving for Australia, while the Polish 'criminals' all come into England. This, therefore, makes racism a much more 'persistent' issue - as it can continue happening - all of the time.

 

Sexism, on the other hand - is different. Generally, we're always around women. They give birth to us, they may bring us up into adults - we have relationships with them, marry them, and whatever else.. (In most cases, anyway). Therefore, there's not much change - at all. However, the reason that sexism may have initially occurred, is due to men simply being a more powerful en!@#$%^&*y (not trying to be sexist here.. ) - but we can generally over-power women. Due to this, men, in general, in many countries (and it's still happening now) - hold a higher 'social' status than women. Again, (in the UK) - it's not been that long since women could even vote. And it's still quite a conformity that women are housewife's, looking after the 'cave' while the 'powerful' male goes out and brings back the meat.

 

Although these are quite grotesque analogies, you can generally get the drift of where I'm coming from. I mean, I could get all end-game and say that we're all white sheep, and ridicule the 'baa baa black sheep' - but that would be going a little too far. I think that on a longer enough time-scale, racism, sexism and whatever-ism will eventually fade into history, however, I'm sure that it will be covered by social differences. School kids always need the leaders of the group, and if there's leaders of the groups, there has to be an outcast... This is where racism and 'bullying' of all sorts occurs.

 

I'm not trying to say that we - as humans, are racist narcissistic pricks naturally per se, but I am saying that if we weren't as bright as we are, things would be much worse. I think that racism and sexism generally gets lost as you 'broaden your horizons' however, this isn't a generally easy thing to do... I mean - picture yourself, then picture yourself walking into a room. If there were five crowds in that room, and one crowd were all dressed like you, doing the things you enjoy doing - are you going to go for that crowd, or are you going to go for the crowd doing something that you do not enjoy doing (whether you know you don't enjoy whatever, or not)...

 

Aceflyer:

Look at the broader traits of the problem at hand here. People are attacking a difference - whether it be skin or boobies, we're attacking it. Whether we're attacking it by calling it derogatory names, or we're attacking it by telling it to wash the dishes isn't relevant. Due to this, scientific evidence of racism or sexism being as bad is going to be extremely hard to come by. Also, a clinical difference isn't of any impact in this conversation at all, this is merely an opinion which you've gathered in your study - and anything of which is still generally an opinion. Unless you've got two respectively identical humans, but one being black, and the other white - you will never have any true fair test to see what the differences are between them. The same goes for female/male differences. (This is also an impossible test)...

 

I think the best way to solve these little questions in life is to pick up a history book, and look at human behaviour. Then, through trial and error - come to your own conclusion. Although it may be some pseudo-Freudian analysis of mindless dribble, at least you will have your own view, which you will no doubt be used to attack some poor !@#$%^&* anyway - which leads us right back to square one.

 

Just my humble opinion,

 

-Lynx

[AstroProdigy]

Personally I think racism is more prevalent. I know Hillary Clinton lost the nomination, but it wasn't because of sexism as she'd like to have you believe. Obama is much more likable than Hillary Clinton and her poor Senate record came back to bite her in the !@#$%^&*. If anything it was racism that didn't allow Obama to wrap up the nomination in New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, etc. People in West Virginia even came out and said "I'm not voting for Obama because he's a black Muslim". That being said Obama also got a boost because he's black, but those people voted for him because he's black and NOT because Hillary is a woman. The fact is Hillary was trying to make this a race about gender and she paid for it when people rejected that kind of campaign. Obama tried in every way he could to avoid being the "black candidate," but his luck ran out and the comments of his pastor were broadcast to America 24/7 in an odd media orgy.

 

If Obama doesn't win in November do you really think it has anything to do with McCain? McCain runs a shoddy campaign and makes media sound byte nightmares that would easily sink Obama if he did the same. The base social conservatives hate him and would only vote for him as their "lesser of 2 evils" (reminiscent of the way Kerry was the lesser of two evils and that lack of excitement lost him the race) while at the same time the Democrats have a massive advantage in party identification because of 8 years of Bush. All indicators say McCain should have absolutely no chance and if he were running against someone like Edwards, a white male, he'd be way down in the polls.

 

I just love how mainstream journalists keep scratching their heads wondering how a charismatic Democrat in an election year when Republicans are way down can't be trouncing an old, unexciting Republican. Maybe they haven't realized that the civil rights movement didn't just erase all racist sentiments for those born before it and that it took a gradual transition in later generations for it not to matter significantly. Why do you think Obama is way ahead with young voters as a charismatic candidate in a time when Republicans are down for the count whereas McCain is trouncing Obama with those middle aged older white voters for "mysterious" reasons. I do think racism will fade away, though, as the voting patterns based on age show, but do we really want to elect another markets do no wrong bomb bomb bomb Iran Republican while we wait for racism to stop being a major force?

[Aceflyer]

This topic isn't just about sexism and racism in the context of Clinton and Obama. This is about sexism and racism in general.

 

That being said, misconceptions about Obama's religion (his middle name probably didn't help) were probably not insignificant in influencing some voters either.

[AstroProdigy]

From a logical point of view an us versus them mentality is important in deteriorating relations between two groups. It's impossible to do it with women since they are part of every subset of our society and can't be removed. African Americans can, however, be separated because there's no necessity for them not to be. In fact they are separated into poor inner city areas and unless that changes things won't get better. Sexism is more acceptable in terms of public statements and action because there isn't as much of a stigma on it, but the hidden aspects of racism that show themselves in policy decisions are worse and threaten to be self sustaining. Also, women are over 50% of the population whereas African Americans are a minority of less than 13% so while women can themselves make things better African Americans are dependent on the goodwill of the white majority.

[SeVeR]

With sexism we've had 2 million years to adapt to sexist comments. Racism only materialised in the last millenia and only got serious a few hundred years ago. Only in the last hundred years has our society redefined our moral code for racism. Sexism has clear cut boundaries because it has been around for so long; you can say something and be fairly confident it will be taken in the jocular. Racism is not clear cut, and thus people make more mistakes. Racism is also more prolific because it is easier. Men need women, and usually spend their child-hood growing up alongside girls. To be sexist would be to hurt your chances of scoring with chicks, and would alienate ALOT of people. Racism is easier.

[NBVegita]

Astro you quite elagently avoided that McCain has 31 years of political experience and Obama has 11.

 

Yes it is a rediculous thought to think that a man with nearly 3 times the political experience as his rival has any chance to win.

 

Not saying that I think McCain will win, but he hits home with the older generations as Obama does with the younger.

 

It's not such a stretch to think that McCain has a chance, specially with the political situation in america today, no matter if he was running against a black, white, male or female.

[Incomplete]

IMO racism is more acceptable than sexism.

[»Lynx]

they're as bad as eachother, and are simply a mix of poor understanding of differences and fear.

 

-lynx

[Aceflyer]

Astro you quite elagently avoided that McCain has 31 years of political experience and Obama has 11.

 

Yes it is a rediculous thought to think that a man with nearly 3 times the political experience as his rival has any chance to win.

 

Not saying that I think McCain will win, but he hits home with the older generations as Obama does with the younger.

 

It's not such a stretch to think that McCain has a chance, specially with the political situation in america today, no matter if he was running against a black, white, male or female.

 

Indeed, NBV has summed it up nicely IMHO. McCain inherently appeals to many older folks the same reason Obama appeals to many African-Americans: because he's one of them.

 

they're as bad as eachother, and are simply a mix of poor understanding of differences and fear.

 

-lynx

 

Agreed Lynx.

[FMBI]

Astro you quite elagently avoided that McCain has 31 years of political experience and Obama has 11.

 

Yes it is a rediculous thought to think that a man with nearly 3 times the political experience as his rival has any chance to win.

 

Not saying that I think McCain will win, but he hits home with the older generations as Obama does with the younger.

 

It's not such a stretch to think that McCain has a chance, specially with the political situation in america today, no matter if he was running against a black, white, male or female.

 

Indeed, NBV has summed it up nicely IMHO. McCain inherently appeals to many older folks the same reason Obama appeals to many African-Americans: because he's one of them.

 

they're as bad as eachother, and are simply a mix of poor understanding of differences and fear.

 

-lynx

 

Agreed Lynx.

 

I disagree on both sections. McCain is unlikely to achieve full potential on the elderly demographic, because firstly, a lot of seniors are more liberal (not only because of "handouts," though that is a factor) and secondly, some of the seniors who are more conservative (such as my grandparents) won't vote for him because of his anti-evangelical stance and "liberal" social positions. Basically, he falls between the cracks.

 

Also, racism and sexism are not identical. Racism tends to completely dehumanize a race (though, to skip a debate, the most serious racism has almost always been against blacks, even Indians and Yakuts got more respect than them in many cases), whereas western sexism is merely based on the presumption of male superiority. Also, sexism has eroded much faster than racism - in 20 years, we'll probably have total gender equality, while blacks will still face what I like to call "Subspace discrimination" (where casual joking and insults can cause that "nonexistent" unconscious racism to develop).

[Aceflyer]

I disagree on both sections. McCain is unlikely to achieve full potential on the elderly demographic, because firstly, a lot of seniors are more liberal (not only because of "handouts," though that is a factor) and secondly, some of the seniors who are more conservative (such as my grandparents) won't vote for him because of his anti-evangelical stance and "liberal" social positions. Basically, he falls between the cracks.

 

But don't you think at least some older folks will prefer to vote for an old 'experienced' fellow like McCain rather than a (comparatively) young 'upstart' like Obama? I don't think anyone is arguing that all older folks will vote for McCain, merely that his age will be an appealing factor for many older voters. Similarly, Obama's race will be an appealing factor for many African-Americans, but not all African-Americans will vote for Obama.

 

Also, racism and sexism are not identical. Racism tends to completely dehumanize a race (though, to skip a debate, the most serious racism has almost always been against blacks, even Indians and Yakuts got more respect than them in many cases), whereas western sexism is merely based on the presumption of male superiority. Also, sexism has eroded much faster than racism - in 20 years, we'll probably have total gender equality, while blacks will still face what I like to call "Subspace discrimination" (where casual joking and insults can cause that "nonexistent" unconscious racism to develop).

 

Actually, racism can also be "merely based on the presumption" of the superiority of one race over another race.

 

In fact, in the US at least, it is easy to identify remnants of obvious, overt, and sanctioned sexism ^[1]; it is pretty much impossible to identify any remnants of obvious, overt, and sanctioned racism.

 

Women have become an integral part of the armed forces, but they are excluded from most combat jobs.

 

Just imagine the outcry if anything even remotely similar to that policy existed for, say, African-Americans.

[FMBI]

There is a valid reason in the armed forces. Women make up less than 20% of all branches, and most of those are placed in the Air Force and Navy. While there is some residual discrimination against women in the military, it is mostly based on two pieces of logic - first, there are so few women that they need to put them where they're most needed, not just ship them off to the front - second, women actually do fall short of men in long-term endurance. While I'm an advocate of giving women full license to defend themselves in case of an attack, I don't see how your average woman can run six miles with a fifty pound pack, then engage in an hour-long firefight. Obviously, there are a lot of men who can't do that, either, but at least with a man you're more likely to have that strength, and you're using up manpower from the "majority population" of the military. In that sense, it's actually reverse sexism, because men are expected to take higher casualty rates and more difficult jobs.

 

Actually, racism can also be "merely based on the presumption" of the superiority of one race over another race.

 

It was quite obvious that I meant a slight feeling of superiority, as when a man extrapolates the above-mentioned physical advantage over women into a feeling of overall superiority. However, in racism, this is generally not a feeling of mere "superiority," it (historically, at least) surfaced in a complete stripping away of that group's respect and recognition.

 

Another problem with your analysis is that, historically, when women and men were in unusual situations (such as during WW1 and WW2, "on the prairie," etc, they learned to cooperate and look upon each other as equals. However, contrary to most "historically accurate" films, this was rarely the case with blacks - they remained inferior, even when it was proven that they were just as good.

 

 

Finally, the elderly are highly unlikely to vote for someone with more "experience" unless it can be proven that his experience is actually worth something. McCain has made more than a dozen serious foreign policy "slips," though the media has generally skimmed over them or pretended they weren't an issue. They are an issue, because either McCain has no idea what he's talking about (which, honestly, I suspect is true to some extent) or else he's suffering from early stages of dementia - I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my great grandmother running the world's most powerful country, and I'm sure that most of my older relatives wouldn't want someone their age to take that kind of responsibility on either.

[Aceflyer]

There is a valid reason in the armed forces. Women make up less than 20% of all branches, and most of those are placed in the Air Force and Navy.

 

That's not a valid reason. The fact that there are more men in the US armed forces than there are women does not justify discriminatory policies against women in the armed forces.

 

While there is some residual discrimination against women in the military, it is mostly based on two pieces of logic - first, there are so few women that they need to put them where they're most needed, not just ship them off to the front

 

Placing specific soldiers where they are most needed is something that is easily and routinely done in the military, and does not require discriminatory policies against all female soldiers in general. There are also few people of Middle Eastern descent in the US armed forces, for example, and I'm sure they are placed where they are most needed. However, there are no discriminatory policies against all soldiers of Middle Eastern descent in general.

 

- second, women actually do fall short of men in long-term endurance.

 

Uhuh. So you're going to ignore variations between individuals and discriminate against all female soldiers just because they're female? Frankly that sounds stupid.

 

Make no mistake, I'm not attempting to argue that women should be subjected to lower physical/endurance standards than their male counterparts. All soldiers - male or female - should be subjected to the same criteria for fitness and endurance. Sure, it might well turn out that more men than women meet the criteria. But women who meet the criteria should receive the same rights and privileges as their male colleagues.

 

While I'm an advocate of giving women full license to defend themselves in case of an attack, I don't see how your average woman can run six miles with a fifty pound pack, then engage in an hour-long firefight. Obviously, there are a lot of men who can't do that, either, but at least with a man you're more likely to have that strength, and you're using up manpower from the "majority population" of the military. In that sense, it's actually reverse sexism, because men are expected to take higher casualty rates and more difficult jobs.

 

Again, probably more men than women can do that. But there are definitely women who can do that, and those women should be allowed to do that if they want to.

 

It was quite obvious that I meant a slight feeling of superiority, as when a man extrapolates the above-mentioned physical advantage over women into a feeling of overall superiority. However, in racism, this is generally not a feeling of mere "superiority," it (historically, at least) surfaced in a complete stripping away of that group's respect and recognition.

 

Actually, sexism can get pretty dehumanizing, too. In world history, women have been barred from attaining higher education, barred from voting, barred from holding office, forced to conform to restrictive dress codes, given away in marriage by men to men against their will, barred from joining the military, barred from owning property, forced to be subservient to their spouses (e.g. husbands could legally rape their wives), etc. just for being female. I dunno, but this sounds quite dehumanizing to me.

 

I do agree that racism has, historically, often seemed worse than sexism, but I would contest any claim that racism is more severe than sexism overall.

 

Another problem with your analysis is that, historically, when women and men were in unusual situations (such as during WW1 and WW2, "on the prairie," etc, they learned to cooperate and look upon each other as equals. However, contrary to most "historically accurate" films, this was rarely the case with blacks - they remained inferior, even when it was proven that they were just as good.

 

Unusual situations are irrelevant in our analysis here. The fact that people often come together, set differences aside, and work together in times of duress is not relevant to our general discussion about sexism in modern society.

 

Finally, the elderly are highly unlikely to vote for someone with more "experience" unless it can be proven that his experience is actually worth something. McCain has made more than a dozen serious foreign policy "slips," though the media has generally skimmed over them or pretended they weren't an issue. They are an issue, because either McCain has no idea what he's talking about (which, honestly, I suspect is true to some extent) or else he's suffering from early stages of dementia - I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my great grandmother running the world's most powerful country, and I'm sure that most of my older relatives wouldn't want someone their age to take that kind of responsibility on either.

 

Make no mistake, I do not support McCain. And I agree that in light of McCain's record, his experience isn't worth much. But I stand by my previous !@#$%^&*ertions. I personally know quite a few elderly folks who prefer an experienced old candidate to an enthusiastic young candidate.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Aceflyer

[FMBI]

There is a valid reason in the armed forces. Women make up less than 20% of all branches, and most of those are placed in the Air Force and Navy.

 

That's not a valid reason. The fact that there are more men in the US armed forces than there are women does not justify discriminatory policies against women in the armed forces.

 

Actually, it does. If 10% of the Army's getting 25% of the casualties (which tends to happen, whether the minority is determined by ethnicity, gender, or any other factor which definitely sets them apart), then you're going to have a huge backlash. Also, while I am not opposed to women having the opportunity to fight in the front lines, I see no need for the already voracious recruiters to encourage women to go risk their necks in extremely deadly situations, which they would most !@#$%^&*uredly do as soon as they saw the opportunity for "fresh blood."

 

While there is some residual discrimination against women in the military, it is mostly based on two pieces of logic - first, there are so few women that they need to put them where they're most needed, not just ship them off to the front

 

Placing specific soldiers where they are most needed is something that is easily and routinely done in the military, and does not require discriminatory policies against all female soldiers in general. There are also few people of Middle Eastern descent in the US armed forces, for example, and I'm sure they are placed where they are most needed. However, there are no discriminatory policies against all soldiers of Middle Eastern descent in general.

 

 

You miss my point entirely. Women are generally "more useful" in situations other than the front lines. The average woman would be less useful than the average man in the front lines. Women, simply by being a minority, are more fitted to perform special tasks. The Russians used this to their advantage in WW2 by recruiting large numbers of women for support roles and as snipers. That makes sense. Sending a woman off to "do a man's job," to use a derogatory term, just so they can do it, is pointless in many cases.

 

- second, women actually do fall short of men in long-term endurance.

 

Uhuh. So you're going to ignore variations between individuals and discriminate against all female soldiers just because they're female? Frankly that sounds stupid.

 

Make no mistake, I'm not attempting to argue that women should be subjected to lower physical/endurance standards than their male counterparts. All soldiers - male or female - should be subjected to the same criteria for fitness and endurance. Sure, it might well turn out that more men than women meet the criteria. But women who meet the criteria should receive the same rights and privileges as their male colleagues.

 

I never said they shouldn't, actually. If you can do the job, then by all means, go do it. But, while I'm for the potential to do that, in most cases, it just isn't gonna happen. And I'd rather know that every person in the military is "doing what they do best," whether they're a gal in the marines or a guy repairing ships in Virginia, than to think that a sudden demographic shift is displacing troops and encouraging military leaders to make stupid choices, such as to increase the number of combat engagements just because they suddenly have a new group of fighters, whether those fighters are ready or not.

 

While I'm an advocate of giving women full license to defend themselves in case of an attack, I don't see how your average woman can run six miles with a fifty pound pack, then engage in an hour-long firefight. Obviously, there are a lot of men who can't do that, either, but at least with a man you're more likely to have that strength, and you're using up manpower from the "majority population" of the military. In that sense, it's actually reverse sexism, because men are expected to take higher casualty rates and more difficult jobs.

 

Again, probably more men than women can do that. But there are definitely women who can do that, and those women should be allowed to do that if they want to.

 

Again, if they can, good luck to them.

 

It was quite obvious that I meant a slight feeling of superiority, as when a man extrapolates the above-mentioned physical advantage over women into a feeling of overall superiority. However, in racism, this is generally not a feeling of mere "superiority," it (historically, at least) surfaced in a complete stripping away of that group's respect and recognition.

 

Actually, sexism can get pretty dehumanizing, too. In world history, women have been barred from attaining higher education, barred from voting, barred from holding office, forced to conform to restrictive dress codes, given away in marriage by men to men against their will, barred from joining the military, barred from owning property, forced to be subservient to their spouses (e.g. husbands could legally rape their wives), etc. just for being female. I dunno, but this sounds quite dehumanizing to me.

 

I do agree that racism has, historically, often seemed worse than sexism, but I would contest any claim that racism is more severe than sexism overall.

 

I said western sexism. Eastern / Arab sexism is an entirely different matter, based on the idea that women are sexual loose cannons who will get into bed with any man they can find, and thus they need to be protected. That is dehumanizing, yes, but I did not mention it in the original post, so I regard that post as a null statement.

 

Another problem with your analysis is that, historically, when women and men were in unusual situations (such as during WW1 and WW2, "on the prairie," etc, they learned to cooperate and look upon each other as equals. However, contrary to most "historically accurate" films, this was rarely the case with blacks - they remained inferior, even when it was proven that they were just as good.

 

Unusual situations are irrelevant in our analysis here. The fact that people often come together, set differences aside, and work together in times of duress is not relevant to our general discussion about sexism in modern society.

 

It is not irrelevant, as it demonstrates the true depth of your feeling. If you're willing to overlook the stereotypes and work together in special situations, then it's a good bet your bigotry doesn't cut to the bone. If, however, you are unwilling to work with someone under any cir!@#$%^&*stances, it's probably a lot more serious.

 

Finally, the elderly are highly unlikely to vote for someone with more "experience" unless it can be proven that his experience is actually worth something. McCain has made more than a dozen serious foreign policy "slips," though the media has generally skimmed over them or pretended they weren't an issue. They are an issue, because either McCain has no idea what he's talking about (which, honestly, I suspect is true to some extent) or else he's suffering from early stages of dementia - I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my great grandmother running the world's most powerful country, and I'm sure that most of my older relatives wouldn't want someone their age to take that kind of responsibility on either.

 

Make no mistake, I do not support McCain. And I agree that in light of McCain's record, his experience isn't worth much. But I stand by my previous !@#$%^&*ertions. I personally know quite a few elderly folks who prefer an experienced old candidate to an enthusiastic young candidate.

 

Meh, I disagree, but we'll leave that one stand.

 

My ultimate opinion is that, while men and women are equal, there are certain physical variations built in which, most obviously in the case of sexual organs, tend to complement each other. I get very angry when this is expanded to say "Men are stronger, so women suck," as it has so often been throughout history, but it remains true nonetheless. Also, in this case (unlike the twisted Arab vision of "saving" women), women may need some protection, at least until Iraq finishes up. Both candidates plan to expand the military by up to 100,000 new recruits, and it's a good bet that most of them won't be in for desk jobs. They'll be encouraging people to join the meat grinder of front-line infantry life in a very demoralizing war. This will be very difficult without the addition of women (I'm sure you already know all about the moral waiver issue, so I'll skip it), but I don't see twisted patriotism as a reason for women to subject themselves to a very difficult military experience, especially seeing as how the US seems likely to continue ignoring the majority of psychological illness cases.

 

Could this sound sexist? I suppose so, in my case, but I don't believe men should be going either, so it isn't quite as arrogant as it sounds. Both men and women have a hard time in the military, but as men join expecting to take on the more physically stressful jobs, it seems slightly disingenuous to me to suddenly announce a new wave of anti-sexism, just in time to get more females killed.

[NBVegita]

Don't have time to read it all but:

 

some of the seniors who are more conservative (such as my grandparents) won't vote for him because of his anti-evangelical stance and "liberal" social positions.

 

If McCain is too liberal on social posistions, they'll vote for someone even more liberal?

 

I don't get how being more liberal would win the conservative vote.

 

McCain would be viewed as the lesser of two evils.

 

There is a valid reason in the armed forces. Women make up less than 20% of all branches, and most of those are placed in the Air Force and Navy. While there is some residual discrimination against women in the military, it is mostly based on two pieces of logic - first, there are so few women that they need to put them where they're most needed, not just ship them off to the front - second, women actually do fall short of men in long-term endurance. While I'm an advocate of giving women full license to defend themselves in case of an attack, I don't see how your average woman can run six miles with a fifty pound pack, then engage in an hour-long firefight. Obviously, there are a lot of men who can't do that, either, but at least with a man you're more likely to have that strength, and you're using up manpower from the "majority population" of the military. In that sense, it's actually reverse sexism, because men are expected to take higher casualty rates and more difficult jobs.

 

I agree.

 

Again, probably more men than women can do that. But there are definitely women who can do that, and those women should be allowed to do that if they want to.

 

I agree.

[FMBI]

Not true. My grandparents are leaning towards Ron Paul or not voting.

 

For all the buzz about Hillary's supporters deserting Obama, I honestly think McCain's going to be the one taking the biggest hit from apathy.

 

But alas, this is off-topic, so eh.

[Aileron]

Um, Astro, Obama didn't lose Pennsylvania out of racism. Obama lost Pennsylvania because he insulted Pennsylvanians on what became national television. I mean, that was the dumbest political move seen from anyone so far in this race, and it is nothing short of a miracle that he survived that statement. Generally when you insult someone, that person doesn't like you for it and when you insult a group of people, those people are disinclined to vote for you. If I were running McCain's campaign, I'd run an ad campaign based upon that video clip.

 

You know, Ann Coulter defines "racist" as "Anyone who disagrees with a liberal". That's the second time I've seen you use that definition this week Astro.

 

(Edit) Too long, sorry. Read the long version in blue if you want to, but here's the short one:

 

Ace, you are wrong because the standards for men in the combat branches are so high that women can't reach them. If women could reach the standards, it would be because the standards were lax and need to be raised more. For reference, the military also has minimum weight requirements that discriminates against small men, as well as requirements against virtually any condition which places somebody less than perfect health. There just is too much at stake if the other guy happens to be bigger, stronger, and faster than our guy.

 

 

Ace, your beliefs about women in the military are very PC, but they fall short of reality. The standards for men in the military are so high that women cannot within health reach them. For instance, the body fat requirement for a man in his early 20s for the Army is 22%. Women can't reach that level because their bodies store more fat for childbirth, and their limit for the same age I think is 36%. Any woman who manages to make the man's level is anorexic, and any man who has more body fat than 22% is too out of shape for combat.

 

Its an unavoidable fact. A stronger soldier can carry heavier weapons, thicker armor, and more equipment than a weaker one. If you match up a soldier with better weapons and armor against a soldier with inferior weapons and armor, probability favors the one with better equipment. Technology can make equipment more weight efficient, but between two technologically equivalent foes the arms cycle will eventually put weapons and armor as heavy as the infantryman whose using them can handle.

 

If a woman can outperform a man, that means the man can be further conditioned. If the man can be further conditioned, then there is a chance that a man on the enemy side will be further conditioned himself, and when faced off the poorly conditioned man will have a disadvantage. Generally for infantry you want men in 100% good condition trained to the absolute physical limit. Anything less is a potential problem.

 

The only exception is when you want to win by numbers, in which case you want everyone including the slop. But, in the age of fully automatic machine guns numbers aren't that helpful.

 

I'll admit at the moment we have a technological edge. Hence some basic equipment is light enough to be used by a woman and still effective. However, if we let women into the infantry now, we won't be able to kick them out if we face a technological opponent who has good enough body armor to stop a carbine round, because then we'll need a bigger weapon and the women won't be able to carry it.

 

I'd be careful about the Navy too. For instance, women can't be on submarines, because in combat a sub is subject to a lot of explosions from depth charges and torpedoes which could cause pipes to leak, and in those cases the nearest crew member is required to place a brace on that leak. Thus, the lives of everyone on the ship are dependent upon the crew member's beefy biceps to overcome the pressure of the ocean. Not a woman's forte. For other reasons, ask somebody who actually served on a submarine rather than assume straight out that they are clinging to some tradition.

 

As for discrimination in the rest of the military? Hey, the military is an organization devoted to combat. They will discriminate against people who aren't in the combat branches and don't have to apologize for it. Its actually worse for able bodied men who are in the military and have never been in a combat branch than it is for women.

[Aceflyer]

I never said they shouldn't, actually. If you can do the job, then by all means, go do it. But, while I'm for the potential to do that, in most cases, it just isn't gonna happen. And I'd rather know that every person in the military is "doing what they do best," whether they're a gal in the marines or a guy repairing ships in Virginia, than to think that a sudden demographic shift is displacing troops and encouraging military leaders to make stupid choices, such as to increase the number of combat engagements just because they suddenly have a new group of fighters, whether those fighters are ready or not.

 

I agree. I have never thought that there should be a sudden troop-displacing demographic shift or that recruiters should encourage women to fight on the front lines. I merely believe that female soldiers should have the opportunity to fight on the front lines if they so wish.

 

(Not that it really matters in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars these days, where there really aren't clearly defined front lines and many women have seen and participated in direct combat against enemy forces, but I just think the policies barring women from the front lines should be removed as a matter of principle.)

 

I said western sexism. Eastern / Arab sexism is an entirely different matter, based on the idea that women are sexual loose cannons who will get into bed with any man they can find, and thus they need to be protected. That is dehumanizing, yes, but I did not mention it in the original post, so I regard that post as a null statement.

 

Mmm, indeed. Yes, if we confine our discussion to Western racism and sexism, then I agree that, historically, racism has been worse than sexism. Globally though, it would be harder to tell.

 

Meh, I disagree, but we'll leave that one stand.

 

Heh, alright.

 

Could this sound sexist? I suppose so, in my case, but I don't believe men should be going either, so it isn't quite as arrogant as it sounds. Both men and women have a hard time in the military, but as men join expecting to take on the more physically stressful jobs, it seems slightly disingenuous to me to suddenly announce a new wave of anti-sexism, just in time to get more females killed.

 

I also agree that neither men or women should be going. I guess what we differ on is that I believe that women shouldn't be treated differently from men, while you appear to believe that women should be more protected or treated more gently than men.

[Bak]

just because there are sex differences doesn't justify discrimination. In the armed forces, for example, the average man would make a better soldier than an average woman. however, there are some women that make exceptional soldiers so there's no reason to ban them from it. Additionally, there's some men who suck at soldiers. There's a continuum on both, but the average is shifted. This explains why only 20% of the armed forces are women; we shouldn't try to achieve a 50/50 distribution. Same thing with gays... some people think that if we allow open gays in the military all the flamboyant stereotypical gay guys will sign up and ruin unit cohesion. But the gays who will join aren't going to be like that, just like girls like paris hilton don't sign up either... we shouldn't strive for an equal distribution, just equal opportunity.

 

As for racism vs sexism, I think sexism is more tolerated, but less severe. Few cultures have tried to kill off all women, whereas racial cleansing has been relatively widespread.

[Aceflyer]

Ace, you are wrong because the standards for men in the combat branches are so high that women can't reach them. If women could reach the standards, it would be because the standards were lax and need to be raised more.

 

Might I have some actual proof that no single woman in the US could even possibly be at least as qualified as the least qualified man serving in the combat branches?

 

Ace, your beliefs about women in the military are very PC, but they fall short of reality. The standards for men in the military are so high that women cannot within health reach them. For instance, the body fat requirement for a man in his early 20s for the Army is 22%. Women can't reach that level because their bodies store more fat for childbirth, and their limit for the same age I think is 36%. Any woman who manages to make the man's level is anorexic, and any man who has more body fat than 22% is too out of shape for combat.

 

I think we need to be looking at what is ultimately important: strength, endurance, and so forth. Body fat is merely used as an indicator of physical fitness, and due to biological differences between men and women, a man and a woman who have the same strength, endurance, and so forth may very well have different body fat percentages. In the end, what is important is not body fat percentage, but strength and endurance, and so forth. And I am confident there are women in the US who would at least outperform, in terms of strength, endurance, etc., the least qualified man serving in the combat branches.

 

Again, as I've stated before, probably more men than women would be qualified to serve in the combat branches. But there are women who can do it, and it is my belief that those women should be allowed to serve in the combat branches if they want to.

[Aileron]

Ace, Finland, if one is a man, one shouldn't have fears about joining the military. This topic is rapidly coming close to home because I plan on signing up for the Army next week, hopefully as a commissioned officer. The optimistic plan is that next week I go into Basic, three months from now I go into OCS, six months from now I go to Afghanistan, and six months and a week from now I come back home after the tattered remnants of Al Queda signs an unconditional surrender to spare themselves from the continuing !@#$%^&*-kicking I'm going to do to them. It'll be so bad that they are going to wish they had been lucky enough to be sent to Gitmo. !@#$%^&*, that sucks. I think I'll leave being funny to the NCOs.

 

To sum it up: I am annoyed how you people feel perfectly fine telling the Army how to run the Army when its the Army's !@#$%^&* on the line and not yours.

 

Women certainly don't belong in the Special Forces, as most men aren't strong enough for it. As for the non-elite combat branches, our military is still of the small numbers/high quality style, so the men in the combat divisions still need to be in tip-top shape. Women biologically can't make the bar.

 

If you feel like changing something, the only thing critically wrong with the Army is that Lieutenant Generals outrank Major Generals. Those !@#$%^&*les are confusing.