Racism is four to twelve times worse than sexism

Every time I come to mydd I see at least one diary complaining about sexism.  Hillary is a woman, the argument goes. And Hillary lost. Ergo, Hillary must have lost because she's a woman.  While I would argue that there were several excellent reasons to oppose Hillary, I still agree that it's inevitable that any woman running for the presidency would have been faced with sexism.  However considering that Hillary was white and her main opponent was African American, the argument that she was the one discriminated against flies out the window.

A few facts below:

Blacks are 12% of America. Women are 50% of America.  And yet blacks are only 1% of the senate, and women are only 16% of the senate, which shows that both racism and sexism are huge barriers.  But while women have achieved 32% of proportional representation (i.e. 16/50), blacks have achieved only 8.3% of proportional representation (1/12).  What this means is that relative to their population, women have nearly FOUR TIMES as much political power as blacks.

Now lets look at wealth.  Women were only 12.75% of the people on Forbes 2004 ranking of the 400 richest Americans.  Since they are 50% of the population, that means they only achieved 25.5% (12.75/50) of their proportional representation among the economic elite.  By contrast blacks were only 0.25% of America's 400 richest, and since they're 12% of the population, they achieved only 2.08% of their proportional representation.  So when it comes to economic power, relative to their population, women have TWELVE TIMES the representation among well to do Americans as blacks have.

So while American women are dramatically underrepresented in positions of power and wealth compared to men, they are still nowhere near as oppressed as African Americans.  And I didn't even go into all the statistics showing women have longer lives and spend much less time in jail than blacks do.

So enough with all the whining about sexism.  Hillary had to deal with sexism, Obama had to deal with both racism and (because of his name) Islamophobia. McCain has to deal with ageism, and Kucinich had to deal with heightism.  Yet it's always Hillary and her supporters that monopolize the victim card, which is a pretty unattractive trait for a woman lucky enough to spend 8 years in the white house.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, racism, sexism (all tags)

Comments

106 Comments

Re: Racism is four to

Your numbers are correct, and I take your point.

But can't we agree that these are all societal ills that deserve our scorn?  It's a sad day indeed that the Democratic party is fighting amongst itself over which "ism" is the worst?  This is beyond childish, it's stupid.  I don't mean your diary, I mean this idiotic contest in general.

It's dumb when anybody does it.  

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-29 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is four to
HEAR, HEAR! Why is the OP bringing up this dead horse again? As an African-American male, I have found that those who practice racism usually are sexist as well.
NEXT!
by xodus1914 2008-06-29 08:50PM | 0 recs
Good point:

As an African-American male, I have found that those who practice racism usually are sexist as well.

Mojo for that.

by Swedie 2008-06-29 10:53PM | 0 recs
Why are you doing this?

Are you out to pick a fight, or what? You're only adding fuel to the "PUMA" flames by doing this. Both racism AND sexism are serious problems, and you're doing a disservice to efforts to fight BOTH by minimizing one to emphasize antoher.

by atdleft 2008-06-29 01:29PM | 0 recs
Haha, I love your sig. n/t

by sricki 2008-06-29 01:49PM | 0 recs
You know what pisses me off more than racism?

Is when people try to say that homophobia is worse than racism, or sexism is worse than homophobia. All are terrible terrible things and we need to stop all of them. Having some bullshit dick measuring contest between racism and sexism isn't going to help us stop those two things.

by zcflint05 2008-06-29 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: You know what pisses me off more than racism?

I was going to post my own comment but I couldn't possibly come up with anything better than your comparison to a bullshit dick measuring contest.

Ranking these ills simply does nothing for us.  

by candidate D 2008-06-29 02:19PM | 0 recs
Oh no...

not this conversation again...

by sricki 2008-06-29 01:48PM | 0 recs
"whining about sexism"

is a ReThug talking point, why mouth it here?

racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, we got 'em all, and they all hurt real live people.

absolutely bullshit diary, sorry.

by catchaz 2008-06-29 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is four to twelve times worse than sexi

Do you agree that sexism would affect more people since there are more women than there are blacks?

Wouldn't this make the degree of harm greater for sexism since it impacts 50% of the population?

by feelfree 2008-06-29 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is four to twelve times worse than sexi

But that assumes blacks are the only race affected by sexism.  In fact every race with the exception of whites (who are currently on top) experiences racism, and the total number of non-whites in the world exceeds the number of women.

by greenboy 2008-06-29 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is four to twelve times worse than sexi

I used the information you used to make my point. You didn't address other races in your numbers. And I didn't realize you meant the world when you quoted numbers from the U.S.

by feelfree 2008-06-29 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is four to twelve times worse than sexi

Oh, god, are you for real?  Sexism and racism are not about MATH.

by daria g 2008-06-29 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is four to twelve

No, I won't agree to that.  It's an overly simplistic approach as it ignores intensity and lethality.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-29 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is four to twelve times worse than sexi

Racism is not limited to African Americans.

So while the numbers you present are correct, you only address one race.

plus, this isn't a contest to see who is most oppressed.

[where are your Asian numbers? Hispanic? Native American? --Doing one that includes all minorities would win you major points in my book]

by alyssa chaos 2008-06-29 01:56PM | 0 recs
Please now do the math

on the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here because I think comparing the two is divisive and counter-productive.  

I just couldn't let your math based argument go unchallenged.  Comparing racism to sexism is impossible.  They are both horrific, they are both wrong, they are both prevalent and that's about all they have in common.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-06-29 02:01PM | 0 recs
You conveniently left out these stats....

The House of Representatives is approximately 9.2%  African American.......and since AA Americans are 12%, they are only 3% off
Women in the House are 15%.....and since they are 50% of the population.....oh well

When it comes to representation in Congress overall, AAs fare better...IF you want to make this a contest.

The bottom line is this.....sexism has hurt women and we can play the stats game over and over. It won't change your bitterness toward Hillary supporters. You have been cheering on the likes of Chris Matthews for a long time. Apparently you want to justify your support of a sexist media network and all the guys there that you admire.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-29 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: You conveniently left out these stats....

I also left out governors.  Only a couple blacks have served as governor of a state, but dozens of women have. I agree my review could have been more exhaustive, but I doubt it would change the overall picture.

by greenboy 2008-06-29 02:13PM | 0 recs
Do you watch "Curb Your Enthusiasm"?
On one episode, a character invited another character for dinner, and told the second character they were also inviting a "survivor" (meaning an elderly Jewish Holocaust survivor).  The second character, taking the reference incorrectly, said, I know a survivor, too, I'll bring him.  Well, the second character shows up with a former contestant on "Survivor".  
At dinner, the two "survivors" started fighting over who had it worse.
It was typical offensive, bad taste, absurdist, border line antisemitic-joke-that-only-a-Jew-could-t ell  Seinfeld/ David humor.
The point was how absurd arguments over competitive suffering could be.  Whether your ancestors were lynched, or raped, or marched out of Armenia, or forced on to the trail of tears, or thrown in ovens, etc etc etc, it's ALL bad and I think God thinks all the perpetrators equally sinned.  I don't think He says a racist lyncher is a bigger sinner than a raping sexist.  IMHO.
by kosnomore 2008-06-29 02:22PM | 0 recs
racism

Reverend Wright made racist statements. We're you upset with Wright?

by soyousay 2008-06-29 02:43PM | 0 recs
since you clearly do not know the definition...

of racism, i'll post one here:

While the term racism usually denotes race-based prejudice, violence, discrimination, or oppression, the term can also have varying and hotly contested definitions. Racialism is a related term, sometimes intended to avoid these negative meanings. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups. The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular racial group, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief. The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: "the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others."

it's incredibly sad that you are so ignorant of what constitutes racism...

by bored now 2008-06-29 03:04PM | 0 recs
You're ignorant IMO

I think you're the ignorant one. Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of racism.

Reverend Wright's generalization toward whites was racist.

FYI; "rich white people" was not meant to be a complement. BTW, the majority of white Americans are not rich.

Racism

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

If you want to discuss racism, be prepared to discuss Reverend Wright; MANY people believe he's racist.
----------------------------
Also

Reverend Wright believes in "Black Liberation Theology." He admits that he does. "Cone" was the creator of "Black Liberation Theology." According to Cone, if white people "that have all the power" want to become Christians, they have to give up their power. IMO, this Theology is based on racism.

 

by soyousay 2008-06-29 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: You're ignorant IMO

Actually the majority of white Americans are extremely rich, compared to the world population as a whole.  As long as whites and men as a group have more power than blacks and women, it is impossible to be racist against a white or sexist against a man.  Because racism and sexism can be defined as discriminating against members of a less powerful race or gender, respectively.  

by greenboy 2008-06-29 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: You're ignorant IMO

actually the majority of AMERICANS (note - no race here) are extremely rich compared to the world populate as a whole.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-29 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: You're ignorant IMO

Actually the majority of white Americans are extremely rich, compared to the world population as a whole.
Back that up with statistics/links.

As long as whites and men as a group have more power than blacks and women, it is impossible to be racist against a white or sexist against a man.Because racism and sexism can be defined as discriminating against members of a less powerful race or gender, respectively.
This is false. See below for the definition of "racism."

---

Racism

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

by soyousay 2008-06-29 04:06PM | 0 recs
feel free to show where wright said...

blacks are superior to whites.  i can't tell if you are truly this stupid or simply need to repeat racist frames in order to feel good about yourself.   if you have evidence that wright discriminates against whites, that'd be good, too -- although we all know that isn't true, given the fact that he had white christians in his congregation.

you seriously need to look deep into your heart.  the fact that you need to project racism upon wright (and others) should be deeply troubling.  there is something very askew in your world...

by bored now 2008-06-29 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: feel free to show where wright said...

feel free to show where wright said blacks are superior to whites.
Reverend Wright believes in "Black Liberation Theology." See the cone video above for more info on this theology.

i can't tell if you are truly this stupid
Insulting people that you disagree with is a lazy way to address an issue.
or simply need to repeat racist frames in order to feel good about yourself.
"frames" <---What the hell are you talking about?
if you have evidence that wright discriminates against whites, that'd be good, too
IMO, the belief of "Black Liberation Theology" DOES discriminate against whites.
you seriously need to look deep into your heart.
You don't know me. It's not your place to suggest moral values for me.
the fact that you need to project racism upon wright (and others) should be deeply troubling.
Only Reverend Wright and Cone since they both believe in "Black Liberation Theology." Did you watch the Cone video? Most likely not. Get back to me when/if you take the time to watch it.

by soyousay 2008-06-29 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: feel free to show where wright said...

Pure vile racism soyousay.  I never thought I'd see such hate on a liberal blog.  I'm stunned.

by Hill4Life 2008-06-29 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: feel free to show where wright said...

Who Reverend Wright? Yes, he's racist, IMO.

by soyousay 2008-06-29 07:05PM | 0 recs
The truth shall set you free.

Even the Wall Street Journal acknowledges Wright's "racial rants."

There is no doubt that Rev. Wright's inflammatory racial rants hurt Sen. Obama badly during the primaries. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12127093 4203350365.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

by soyousay 2008-06-29 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The truth shall set you free.

Racial.  NOT racist.  He made rants based on race.  Obama didn't want to make race the issue in the campaign, and Wright made it front and center.  

You are trying to defend a racist smear against Obama, and failing miserably.  Stop while your ahead.  I haven't seen racism on this blog until today.  You are engaging in pure racism.

by HardWorkingWhitePerson 2008-06-29 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The truth shall set you free.

Racial.  NOT racist.  He made rants based on race.
Yes he did and IMO, generalizing white people is racist.
Obama didn't want to make race the issue in the campaign, and Wright made it front and center.
...and that's one of the reasons Obama distanced himself from Rev. Wright.
You are trying to defend a racist smear against Obama, and failing miserably.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. Everyone wants to talk about racism unless it's about Rev. Wright.
Stop while your ahead.  I haven't seen racism on this blog until today.
You are a hypocrite, IMO.
You are engaging in pure racism.
Because I called out "Black Liberation Theology?" It's a racist theology IMO because it's extremely divisive. I'm going to call it the way I see it whether you like it or not. For you to point the finger at me and accuse me of racism suggests that you are fearful of an honest disscussion on the issue.

by soyousay 2008-06-29 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: feel free to show where wright said...

And yes,  I just watched that video.  I saw nothing racist about it.  For you to have found that racist means one of three things.  You're a racist,  you're being dishonest, or, you're high.  Do you hate Obama so much that you'll sink as low as using racism based smears?

That's is profoundly disgusting.

by Hill4Life 2008-06-29 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: feel free to show where wright said...

So you're Ok with reparations? A yes or no will do.

by soyousay 2008-06-29 07:42PM | 0 recs
I'll bite...

Even though I've been staying out of the rest of the thread...

I am a white male in favor of reparations.

However, this applies only if they are structural in nature.  I'm not talking about just writing a check and then washing our hands of the whole issue, while ignoring the structural racism that has existed in this country for centuries and still exists to this day.

And the reparations should not go only to blacks, though they should be a major beneficiary; other minorities are also justly deserving, like native Americans to pick a prominent example.

The "A More Perfect Union" address covered the subject with excellence.

by BishopRook 2008-06-29 08:17PM | 0 recs
I appreciate...

...you addressing this issue but I disagree with your stance. Here's the reason I disagree; reparations are basically unaffordable. I don't know whether you've noticed or not, but our economy isn't doing so good. Also, as you pointed out, if you give one group repartaions, another group will expect the same.

by soyousay 2008-06-29 08:29PM | 0 recs
i understand you can't prove your points...

which is the point of my comment.  i also understand your deep need to believe the crap that you believe.  it's sad.  it's really sad.

i wasn't being insulting.  i was trying to understand why you would make such ridiculous claims.  thankfully, your arguments exposed that.  like i said, it's just sad.

i couldn't care less if you think black liberation discriminates against whites.  you've already demonstrated a deep ignorance of this.  while i can't claim to be an expert in black liberation theology, i at least attended seminary.  i do know enough to understand that your interpretation is not only flawed, but seeks to pervert the rational of the theology wright and others raised.  but then, you seem to need to do that to justify to yourself that it's ok to have the views you have.

it's not.  racism is not acceptable in our society.  your need to project racism on the victims of racism is pathetic.

if you mean what you write, it is easy to conclude that you are racist.  you seem to think that it is socially acceptable to be racist, as long as you can project that on racism's victims.  that's disgusting.  you do not value what we in this country value, which is freedom and equality.  i'd seriously question whether you have any moral values at all...

by bored now 2008-06-30 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: racism

Actually Rev Wright is the opposite of a racist. He fights for black power.

by greenboy 2008-06-29 03:09PM | 0 recs
and expects whites to pay....

for their ancestors wrong doings which is ridiculous, IMO.

by soyousay 2008-06-29 03:39PM | 0 recs
another lie...

none of your "ridiculous" claims can be supported by fact.  i'm pretty sure you knew that...

by bored now 2008-06-29 05:49PM | 0 recs
I provided facts.

I provided the "Cone" video above. Did you listen to it? Wright believes in "Black Liberation Theology." Cone is the creator of this theology.

Stop accusing people of lying. You really need to research before making accusations.

by soyousay 2008-06-29 05:53PM | 0 recs
you didn't provide anything...

but an insight into your deeply disturbed values.  i'm not particularly convinced by your distant associations with your claims.  given the breadth of wright's sermons, if you can't prove it from a direct quote, you can't prove it at all.

you've made wildly ridiculous accusations and can't back them up.  but i'd expect that from someone who thinks like you...

by bored now 2008-06-29 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: you didn't provide anything...

Did you watch the video? Yes or no?

by soyousay 2008-06-29 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: you didn't provide anything...

since the video has nothing to do with barack, why would i?  to make you feel better about your extreme prejudice?  i won't do that.  i am shocked that anyone with your views would air them publicly.  you clearly have been following the white supremicist playbook...

by bored now 2008-06-30 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: you didn't provide anything...

This diary was about racism. NOT Barack. You have a one track mind.

Cone is a racist IMO; you refuse to watch the video, therefore you prefer to remain ignorant. Since you didn't watch the video and you don't know what you're talking about...shutup.

by soyousay 2008-07-01 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: you didn't provide anything...

if you really believed that, you wouldn't have made the idiotic attempt to relate it to wright and barack.  yes, you failed.  mostly because you simply don't know what you are talking about.  if we wanted a racist's view of racism, we'd be at red state...

by bored now 2008-07-04 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: racism

Bashing 'black liberation theology' usually comes from closet racists, and occasionally the uninformed Hannity/Rush sheep.  I've read up on black liberation theology extensively, and there is nothing racist about it.  For you to be pushing this meme that Wright is racist is about as racist as it gets.

Also, I'm white and think Rev Wright is a nutcase.  Please stop spreading racist right wing talking points here.  What your doing is saying Wright is a racist, and by extension Barack must be racist because he sat in a racist church.

Race baiting should be ban-worthy, soyousay.  That talking point is the most hate filled racist lie there is.  Shame on you for repeating, let alone believing it.

by Hill4Life 2008-06-29 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: racism

Bashing 'black liberation theology' usually comes from closet racists,and occasionally the uninformed Hannity/Rush sheep.
You're entitled to your opinion. That being said, I watched the cone video and thought that he's a divisive person. Cone has a very distorted viewpoint, he's blaming the ancestors of those who did wrong....and that's wrong in my opinion. He stated that he believes in reparations. Do you? How are we ever going to come together if we keep blaming each other and expecting payment for the past?
I've read up on black liberation theology extensively, and there is nothing racist about it.
I believe it is. It divides people, it doesn't unite people. Some of us happen to believe that everyone should be treated equally. "Black Liberation Theology" seperates people.
For you to be pushing this meme that Wright is racist is about as racist as it gets.
Wright is racist IMO. Wright DOES have issues, if he didn't, Obama wouldn't have thrown him under the bus.  The Wall Street Journal refers to Wright's rhetoric as a "racial rant." Apparently, I'm not the only one who has a problem with his rhetoric. For you to try to turn this around and call me a racist is ridiculous. I realize that if you admit that Wright is a racist, you must admit that Obama has poor judgement. I understand your dilemma.
Race baiting should be ban-worthy, soyousay.
You don't seem very upset about this diary which I didn't create...but speaking of race bating... Obama recently played that card.

by soyousay 2008-06-29 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is four to twelve times worse than sexi

How dare you??!!  When they are selling lynching nooses as jokes in the airports & people think it is no big deal we can talk again about who has it worse. Or when they make fun of a particular race for wearing professional clothing as though it is some big acceptable, laughable patronizing joke then we can reconvene. But for right now this diary has some nerve!!  And out of civility I just erased the beginning of my comment but I am beyond angry. No I am not a professional victim; I'm just angry at the awareness I had to realize during this primary about the joke that is my gender trying to do anything prof'l to the rest of the country, even the more progressive members. WTFever.  Seriously this diary needs to go.  I am livid right now.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-29 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is four to twelve times worse than sexi

Interesting. Maggie Thatcher in Britain had no trouble being taken seriously. Neither does Angela Merkel of Germany.

Perhaps the reason Hillary is a laughing stock is because she thought being a former first lady made her qualified to be commander and chief.  You can argue that is sexism but I guarantee that a man who tried to run for president based on his wife's resume would be receive far more ridicule than Hillary.  

by greenboy 2008-06-29 03:52PM | 0 recs
Might wanna try again.

Um, Hilary's Senate experience is 3 times what Obama's is.  Or are you claiming that 'community organizer' is a legitimate qualification for CinC?  

by KathleenM1 2008-06-29 04:08PM | 0 recs
2 terms = 1 term x 2

Not 3.  Math is hard.

by JJE 2008-06-29 04:11PM | 0 recs
What about the decade

Obama spent in the IL state senate. Or does this not count as experience?

by SocialDem 2008-06-29 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: What about the decade

senate job is a part time job.. and in that too.. he didnt do well given he pressed wrong buttons six times and voted "present" quiet a few times. whereas Hillary was there doing what she needed to do and express her votes to reflect her ideals. you definitely cannot compare 173 days of experience with atleast 6X365 days of experience.. can you?

by gladiatorsback 2008-06-29 05:51PM | 0 recs
You also fail to realize that a US

senate job is part time as well. It's not like they are in session 365 days a year. If you want to argue senate tenure you must concede that his state senate terms was experience as well. Also if you want to talk about bad votes you need not only look to Hillarys AUMF vote, and Kyl-Lieberman vote. But I really don't want to bring back old scars.

by SocialDem 2008-06-29 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: What about the decade

"he didnt do well given he pressed wrong buttons six times and voted "present" quiet a few times."

And also ask yourself, out of how many thousand votes?

by SocialDem 2008-06-29 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: What about the decade

so if you cannot press the correct button out of two buttons... then I dont know what that means.. how difficult is it to press correct button... even my 6 year old son can do it 100% correctly.. irrespective of how many times u ask him to repeat.. so there.. obama is worse than a 6 year old kid.. and he is voting on issues that concern real people.. my son is only pressing buttons for fun..

and yeah people make judgements you do not agree with.. so live with it.. atleast she is better than senator obama who conviniently ducked the vote altogether and went on to search for reasons..

by gladiatorsback 2008-06-29 06:36PM | 0 recs
Look, i'm not for a

fight but trying to give some perspective here.

"so if you cannot press the correct button out of two buttons... then I dont know what that means.. how difficult is it to press correct button... even my 6 year old son can do it 100% correctly.. irrespective of how many times u ask him to repeat.. so there.. obama is worse than a 6 year old kid.. and he is voting on issues that concern real people.. my son is only pressing buttons for fun.."

Classic fallacy but fun. I'm not arguing who had the most correct votes. But you seem to hold Obama to a higher standard in this regard than you do to Hillary. By your logic any politician who you perceive to vote the wrong way on an issue (without proper context of why I might add) that disqualifies them? So then by that logic would Hillary if held to the same standards you hold Obama be disqualified because of her Iraq vote? The obvious answer is NO. Because it all depends on who the person is that is taking those votes into consideration. Can I ask which "6" votes he got wrong?

by SocialDem 2008-06-29 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Look, i'm not for a

we are not talking about correct votes.. we are talking about his inability to press correct buttons to vote the way he wants to.. here is some context..

Obama said oops on 6 state Senate votes
He pushed the wrong button, he asserted at the time. Two of the admitted flubs were on hotly contested issues.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/ nation/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,1,7079399 .story

think about it this way.. obama will have nuclear weapon handles in his hands once he becomes president.. lol the russians will be darned worried that he has trigger in his hands.. not knowing which buttons to press :P

he will defnly need plenty of practice on nuclear triggers once he becomes president.. atleast lets hope practice teaches him to press right buttons :)

by gladiatorsback 2008-06-29 06:58PM | 0 recs
LOL

I am sorry but this is even more ridiculous than what I originally thought you were talking about.

by SocialDem 2008-06-29 07:04PM | 0 recs
err hit the 'post' too soon

You really can't be serious about this?

by SocialDem 2008-06-29 07:05PM | 0 recs
sure...

i know that it's popular to elect people who are as isolated from average americans as hillary has been for most of her adult life, but i actually like the fact that barack has real world experience helping people change their lives for the better.

i'm sure being in the east wing will teach you something, but there's a reason why barack represents the politics of the future instead of the politics of the past.  perhaps it's even the reason why he won the democratic nomination.  time for change...

by bored now 2008-06-29 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: sure...

what future.. the people whom obama claimed to represent are still living in slums of chicago with dilapidated buildings.. dont get me started.. Obama is phenomenally better than mccain and thats why he deserves my support.. that doesnt mean you can get away with lies.. the people whom he represented are still in rezko flats without power and electricity.. so much for community organising.. if thats the future of politics.. then it definitely stinks!

by gladiatorsback 2008-06-29 05:57PM | 0 recs
i'm sorry you hate poor people...

while i was specifically speaking to her point about barack's experience as an organizer, i can't believe that you support mayor daley's efforts to rid chicago of poor people while criticizing barack's agreement with progressives that affordable housing requires support.  that's truly pathetic...

by bored now 2008-06-29 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: i'm sorry you hate poor people...

huhhhh??? now you call me hater of poor.. talk about slogans which you believe should be stuck to anyone who doesnt agree with you.. geez..

neways what In meant was .. Obama had lot of chance to make a real impact by getting people affordable "good" housing.. not dilapidated house without power.. without roof.. basic amenities.. I believe housing is a fundamental right and government should do whatever it can to help people live in affordable houses.. however that doesnt mean you can cram 40 people into stinky shitholes without power or proper sanitation.. this is AMERICA.. most advanced and richest nation in the world.. dont subhumanize your fellow citizens.. they deserve same kind of houses you live in and blog in..

by gladiatorsback 2008-06-29 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: i'm sorry you hate poor people...

you're right, you don't agree with me.  i have no idea why you would support mayor daley's oblique attempt to cleanse chicago of the poor, or why you oppose obama's efforts (like other black politicians on the southside) to bring affordable housing to chicago.  clearly, you only want to whip barack with it.

i'd love to know all these opportunities that barack had to reverse daley's efforts.  any example would do.

and don't bs us.  you attacked barack for his work with southside pols to bring affordable housing to chicago.  you clearly object to their efforts.  you want to give a lofty slogan and then criticize those who are in the trenches working to bring affordable housing to the poor.  you are, afaict, full of it...

by bored now 2008-06-30 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: sure...

And now Hillary Clinton doesn't have real experience helping real people. Yeah she only has DECADES of experiencing bringing about major reform - ya' know no big deal @@

You know there is NO WAY IN HELL a man with her background would ever have their experience trivialized the way hers has been.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-29 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: sure...

i know that it's popular to elect people who are as isolated from average americans as hillary has been for most of her adult life

HRC is not and never has been isolated from "average" Americans. She connects with people who are average economically. That's why blue collar and pink collar workers overwhelmingly prefer her to Obama. And maybe that's one reason "elite" people overwhelmingly preferred Obama.  Clinton's close family was not professional. She went to public school like most "average" Americans. In contrast, most or all of Obama's close family are professionals and he went to an elite private school.

...barack has real world experience helping people change their lives for the better.

I would like to read about Barack's real world experience changing lives for the better and then a comparison with Clinton's real world experience changing lives for the better, and then an analysis of which candidate has the most experience producing real and lasting change.

he won the democratic nomination

Obama didn't win the Democratic nomination. Voting begins in August.

by Nancy Kallitechnis 2008-06-29 11:45PM | 0 recs
you've obviously never met hillary...

yes, her rhetoric and her reality are at odds.  i was speaking from the perspective of someone who has actually talked to hillary 8 times in the last 8 years.  i can't think of anyone more isolated from the real world whom i've met in the same period of time.

but then, i deal in the real world.  that may be the difference right there...

by bored now 2008-06-30 08:24AM | 0 recs
the real world

No, I've never met Hillary but I've seen hours of video appearances of Hillary, have read her biography, have talked with people who met her, and have watched a lot of the The Hillary I Know videos...

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p= F4DAC3EA3738244F

Considering that she actually lives in the real world and has experienced many aspects of it personally and from meeting with people worldwide I disagree Hillary is isolated from the real world.

by Nancy Kallitechnis 2008-06-30 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is four to twelve times worse than sexi

You need to hit your history books regarding Hillary Clinton's qualifications.  Regardless, even if your ridiculous assertion that she wasn't qualified was true - not sure why her gender was the root of the jokes. You know I'm not very keen on Obama's lack of qualifications however I never made reference to his race to mention it or dig at him.  One is irrelevant to the other.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-29 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is four to twelve times worse than sexi

Maggie Thatcher in Britain had no trouble being taken seriously.

After being elected Leader Thatcher recalled, "There was much male chauvinist hilarity-"Give us a kiss Maggie, etc." (The Path To Power, page 284.)

...she [Hillary Clinton] thought being a former first lady made her qualified to be commander and chief.  You can argue that is sexism but I guarantee that a man who tried to run for president based on his wife's resume would be receive far more ridicule than Hillary.

Apparently you don't realize that Hillary Clinton is well-qualified to be president because of her accomplishments, character and leadership ability:

In 1997 Hillary Clinton helped create the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was the largest expansion of health insurance coverage for children in the U.S. since Medicaid began in the 1960s.  By 2006 SCHIP provided health insurance for 6.6 million children.

Senator Clinton co-sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Clinton helped foster children find homes.  She initiated the Adoption and Safe Families Act which was signed into law in 1997. By 2002 the law had increased foster adoptions by 64% nationwide.

Hillary Rodham Clinton was a chief advisor to the President during an 8 years term which dramatically improved the lives of Americans with...

  • the longest economic expansion in U.S. history
  • the lowest poverty rates for single mothers, black Americans, and the aged
  • successful elimination of a massive deficit and creation of  record-high surpluses
  • the lowest unemployment since the early 1970s

http://www.allseasonsgallery.info/hrc/hr c.accomplishments.html

by Nancy Kallitechnis 2008-06-29 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is four to twelve times worse than sexi

Hillay helped with this, helped with that. It's one thing to jump on the band wagon of somebody else's initiatives, quite another to show leadership, and I have yet to see evidence that Hillary ever had and yet to see evidence of Hillary getting ANY important position without nepotism.  As for the Clinton admin, the most significant thing she did there was mess up health care reform so badly that according to David Broke, dems lost congress for the first time in decades, which of course led to Bush having unprecedented power when he got into office.  After the health care fiasco, Hillary was relegated to tradition first lady duties like writing books and traveling the world and kept out of policy.  As for the decline in black poverty, it's not hard to get those numbers down if you throw enough people in jail, as black incarceration rates were high during the Clinton years.  Are you denying that welfare reform created poverty?

by greenboy 2008-06-29 07:39PM | 0 recs
politics/leadership

The way politics works is that people get together in groups and get something done. FDR never accomplished any great things without other politicians' help.

It's one thing to jump on the band wagon of somebody else's initiatives, quite another to show leadership, and I have yet to see evidence that Hillary ever had...

You make a mistake in assuming it is not possible to be a leader by joining other's initiatives. Did Commander Eisenhower not lead the U.S. army to victory just because he did not initiate WWII? Was Bill Clinton not a leader in fighting violence just because the Violance Against Women Act he gave presidential approval to was created by Joe Biden's office? Was Clinton not a leader in getting rid of the debt and creating a surplus just because he had help doing so? Was Alice Paul not a leader of the women's suffrage campaign  just because she did not initiate the fight for women's right to vote? Leaders, for the most part, lead by working with others and jumping on the bandwagon.

One example of HRC initiating a project is her 2008 presidential campaign. You would find examples of HRC's other initiatives if you researched. For example, in 2003 Senator Clinton and Karen St. Hilaire founded the Northern Adirondack Trading Co-operative (NATC) to improve the economy in rural NY. By 2005 NATC had increased profits for local businesses by $500,000. The World Chamber of Commerce analyzed the Clinton/St. Hilaire plan and concluded that it was one of the most innovative projects in the world (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/19/1441 29/627). Perhaps you are an Obama supporter. Can you tell me something Obama founded and led that has been successful in the long-term?

...evidence of Hillary getting ANY important position without nepotism.

-president of Wellesley College student government
-first female partner at the Rose Law Firm
-first female Senator of NY (elected twice by the people, not relatives)

After the health care fiasco, Hillary was relegated to tradition first lady duties like writing books and traveling the world and kept out of policy.

No, after universal health care wasn't passed she became deeply involved with SCHIP which it is known could never have been passed without her work. The SCHIP legislation provided health care to millions of children. And that is just one example of government work HRC did when she was stationed in the Vice President's offices.

As for the decline in black poverty, it's not hard to get those numbers down if you throw enough people in jail, as black incarceration rates were high during the Clinton years.

Not only are you wrong but that quote is insulting to Black people to imply that Black poverty went down because Black's committed crimes and went to jail. Thus, I will mark your post as a troll post.

Are you denying that welfare reform created poverty?

I don't know much about the welfare aspect of the Clinton economic plan, but I do know that the overall plan created...
-record-low poverty rates
-the longest economic expansion in U.S. history
-the lowest unemployment since the early 1970s
-the lowest poverty rates for single mothers, Black Americans, and the aged

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Adm inistration#The_economy

by Nancy Kallitechnis 2008-06-29 10:45PM | 0 recs
Re: politics/leadership

I strongly disagree about nepotism not getting Hillary her senate seat.  Don't know about her position in the Rose law firm, but was her husband not a powerful governor at the time?  If the Clinton admin did so much to reduce poverty, how do you explain articles like this?:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jun199 9/welf-j02.shtml

In any event, a president's legacy is not defined by what happens during the years he was president, but rather, what happens after his presidency.  It's the long-term impact that matters.  

by greenboy 2008-06-30 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: politics/leadership

I strongly disagree about nepotism not getting Hillary her senate seat.

You have the right to disagree, but facts are facts.  Webster's defines nepotism as "favoritism based on kinship."  That means favoring one's own relatives. Since none or almost none of the voters hiring Clinton were her relatives, then she did not get hired (elected) because of nepotism.

Don't know about her position in the Rose law firm, but was her husband not a powerful governor at the time?

Yes, Bill was Governor of Arkansas when Hillary became a full-partner at the Rose Law Firm. However, to prove she got the promotion because of nepotism you would need to show that the hiring manager(s) were relatives of Clinton.

If the Clinton admin did so much to reduce poverty, how do you explain articles like this?: http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jun199 9/welf-j02.shtml

I agree that some people became poorer during the Clinton years but more people rose out of poverty, and so the net gain is positive, thus President Clinton reduced poverty. Also, most of the figures in the article you linked were from studies that ended in 1995-1996 and by that time Clinton was working on adjusting any problems that occurred in his economic policy.  As political analyst Mike Hersh says...

President Clinton signed a bad "welfare reform" bill in 1996, but Clinton vetoed a worse bill twice, winning concessions each time including - increased child care funding (by $4 billion), worker retraining, extensions for benefits, exceptions for "hard cases" and more.

Also...

15 million working families enjoyed tax relief under President Clinton's expanded Earned Income Tax Credit. Thanks to Clinton, the EITC lifted 4.3 million people out of poverty in 1998 alone.

1.5 million children benefited when Clinton more than doubled federal funding for child care.

Clinton increased funding for the Head Start program by 90 percent in FY 2000 so 880,000 children had a better chance to learn and grow.

Clinton increased the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour and demanded an increase to $6.15.

The poverty rate fell from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970).

The African-American poverty rate dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972).

The poverty rate for Hispanics fell to the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

In 1999, the homeownership rate was 66.8 percent -- the highest ever recorded. Minority homeownership rates were also the highest ever recorded.

Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years.

http://www.mikehersh.com/President_Clint on_Eight_Great_Years.shtml

In any event, a president's legacy is not defined by what happens during the years he was president, but rather, what happens after his presidency.  It's the long-term impact that matters.

No, a president is defined by what happens during and after her/his presidency. President Clinton helped people a lot during his presidency and he provided a cushion for them when Bush started reversing Clinton's policies. For example, if a person bought a house and saved $30,000 during Clinton's years then when the Bush administration policies started harming the economy that person had a cushion of homeownership and money in the bank that they could use to help them survive the negative Bush policies.

Clinton's eight years gave many people a jumpstart and that is a lasting contribution. There is no way that Clinton, or any other president, can dictate what the next president does.  Clinton did what he did, and he did a lot of good.

by Nancy Kallitechnis 2008-06-30 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: politics/leadership

The favoritism by kinship Hillary received was from her husband who used the enormous power of the white house (some people were even allegedly pardoned to win support for Hillary according to Christopher Hitchens), use his own personal popularity, media connections, fund-raising apparatus, and control over the part machinery to get Hillary elected (diverting resources from Gore's presidential run in the process, which was convenient because a Gore victory would have impeded Hillary's future plans to run for president).  True you can't inherit votes through family, but you can inherit all the resources you need to get those votes, or would you argue that George W. Bush is also a self-made man and didn't inherit political power from his dad?

Similar arguments can probably be made about Hillary's legal career, especially if it was in the law firm's best interest to have connections to the governor. I admire Bill Clinton for being a self-made man but I refuse to extend the same admiration to his wife or the current president who clearly aren't.

As for Bill's record on poverty, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I see strong evidence otherwise, but all of those accomplishments don't mean anything if his wife lost both houses of congress (according to David Broke), and a pointless romance with Monica allowed Bush to defeat Gore.  The most important part of any presidency is the strategic exit.  

by greenboy 2008-06-30 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: politics/leadership

True you can't inherit votes through family, but you can inherit all the resources you need to get those votes, or would you argue that George W. Bush is also a self-made man and didn't inherit political power from his dad?

I think everyone is partly self-made. You seem to automaticaly assume that people whose family connections/wealth/status, etc. help them win elections are by default worse leaders than those who did not have family help. I don't think so.  For example, Frankline Delano Roosevelt's fifth cousin, Theodore Roosevelt, was a U.S. President and Franklin married Theodore Roosevelt's niece, Eleanor, who had a close relationship with her uncle. FDR's relatives and wealth he inherited from his family helped him rise in politics. FDR is one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history and the fact that he received enormous help from his family doesn't make him less of a leader. Likewise, the fact that HRC has a relative who was a president doesn't make her less of a leader. I believe she can be as great a president as FDR or maybe greater.

Also, our country has a history of political dynasties as the Seattle Times Reports:

A full 45 percent of the members of the first Congress in 1789 had a relative who was also serving, according to Pedro Dal Bo, professor of economics at Brown University and co-author of a study on congressional dynasties. Two hundred years later, 10 percent of Congress has a close relative who has also served in the House or Senate.

The evidence is all around: the Gores, the Murkowskis, the Rockefellers, the Bakers, the Doles, the Dodds, the Tsongases, the Chafees. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is the daughter of former Rep. Thomas D'Alesandro Jr.
...
Stephen Hess, a historian at the Brookings Institution, is the author of the 1966 book "America's Political Dynasties," which notes that there have been 700 families with two or more members of Congress, and they account for 1,700 of the 10,000 men and women who have served in the House and Senate.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/na tionworld/2004164299_dynasty05.html


by Nancy Kallitechnis 2008-06-30 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: politics/leadership

"You seem to automaticaly assume that people whose family connections/wealth/status, etc. help them win elections are by default worse leaders than those who did not have family help. I don't think so."

Generally speaking, I think that's true.  Who do you think tend to better business people:  Those who build a billion dollar business or those who just inherited a billion dollars from their spouse or parent?

I also think if Hillary became president it would send a message to young girls that the way to become president is to marry one, which is pretty anti-feminist.

Also if I were a woman who became governor of a state with no help from my husband, and had plans to run for president, I'd be pretty pissed about having Hillary come along and steal my thunder as the first woman president, mostly because she married the right guy.

by greenboy 2008-06-30 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: politics/leadership

Who do you think tend to better business people:  Those who build a billion dollar business or those who just inherited a billion dollars from their spouse or parent?

I judge a business person on their ability to create profits and their ethical character.  I look at their accomplishements and their relatives are of no concern to me in judging their business ability.

...if I were a woman who became governor of a state with no help from my husband, and had plans to run for president, I'd be pretty pissed about having Hillary come along and steal my thunder as the first woman president, mostly because she married the right guy.

If I were that woman I would hold no grudge against an opponent male or female whose husband or any other family member gave them a boost in status.  I would judge my opponent based on her/his ability to lead and accomplishments.  If they are a better leader and have more accomplishments than me and they won a fair fight without corruption, bigotry, media and party favoritism then I would probably think that they deserved the job.

by Nancy Kallitechnis 2008-06-30 04:20PM | 0 recs
You let me know

next time a woman gets chained to a truck and dragged until she's dead.

by JJE 2008-06-29 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: You let me know

This conversation is DISGUSTING.

You let me know next time a man, of ANY race, is laughed at in the mainstream on a regular basis for dressing in a suit  as though it is somehow cute...@@

You let me know how women's rights compared to racial equality in this country. Hell watch the movie "The Color Purple" to see how it the tier system of equality worked itself out.

No - when a women is raped or beat for daring to be mouthy or a bitch it doesn't quite get the same media attention now does it...

by jrsygrl 2008-06-29 04:51PM | 0 recs
the point was

that the oppression olympics are stupid.  arguing over who has it worse is stupid.  but stupid is as stupid does.

by JJE 2008-06-29 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: the point was

The point is the diary is a stupid attempt to trivialize a very real issue which is apparently much worse then many seem to realize in this country.  I think the sentiment is in extremely poor taste; racism & sexism is wrong.  In many ways discrimination against women, for some reason, is given less consideration it seems which is disconcerting on many levels given what has been shown to be considered acceptable levels of discourse in the mainstream.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-29 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: You let me know

You seem to imply that racists inflict more physical/mortal harm against Black men then sexists inflict against females. Not true. In India, more than 6,000 ''bride burnings'' or other dowry deaths were reported in 1997. The women died because they did not bring what in-laws considered satisfactory dowries or, sometimes, because the grooms were not happy with brides chosen by their families.

The State Department, in its latest annual survey of human rights, published on Feb. 25, said about 10,000 cases of female infanticide were reported in India annually, not counting an unknown number of abortions to avoid giving birth to girls

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9406E1D71E38F93AA35750C0A9669C8B6 3&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=prin t

"Canadian novelist Margaret Atwood once asked a male friend why men feel threatened by women. He replied: "They are afraid women will laugh at them." She then asked a group of women why they felt threatened by men. They answered: "We're afraid of being killed" (Femicide: Sexist Terrorism against Women by Jane Caputi and Diana E.H. Russell, page 13)

by Nancy Kallitechnis 2008-06-29 05:33PM | 0 recs
Not really

My point was more about the foolishness of trying to compare ism A with ism B.  

Citing statistics about bride burnings in India in a conversation about racism and sexism in America is a great illustration of how silly the "I'm more oppressed" argument is, so I thank you for that.

by JJE 2008-06-29 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Not really

The diary winds up simply trivializing the issues that exist. There is no reason to even post this. Racism is horrible & still exists in this country. Something that has become very obvious however is that people in the mainstream seem to have no problem making statements against women that would NEVER be made against someone of a minority race. And the fact that so many seem to either not care or ridicule it when it occurs is troubling. The fact that ALL discrimination is not treated as equally outrageous is horrifying, disgusting and, as someone who has to walk out the door everyday and deal with that attitude, alarmingly eye opening. You get it now???

by jrsygrl 2008-06-29 06:50PM | 0 recs
i agree

Something that has become very obvious however is that people in the mainstream seem to have no problem making statements against women that would NEVER be made against someone of a minority race. And the fact that so many seem to either not care or ridicule it when it occurs is troubling.

I agree.  And the fact that people allow extreme sexism to happen without condemning it indicates they are sexist. After all, if they thought it was wrong then the natural thing would be to condemn it.

by Nancy Kallitechnis 2008-06-29 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: i agree

Or to automatically have at least the same filter one would have prior to saying something tasteless about another minority or oppressed group.  I don't get why there is this free for all pass when it comes to saying things that continue to demean and subjugate an entire class of people. And it takes a major effort for people to even identify at times what is wrong with the offensive item!  Our society is definitely conditioned with a different POV when it comes to gender discrimination; until this primary I either denied or honestly didn't realize how bad the chasm was.  As a professional woman it is frightening.  

by jrsygrl 2008-06-30 05:10AM | 0 recs
sexism

Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning when you talked about violence. Nevertheless, I believe it is productive to compare racism with sexism and to know whether women or Blacks are more oppressed by prejudice. The reason is because of limited resources.  For example, the government provides funding and other resources to help victims of prejudice and knowing which groups are more oppressed will help them in deciding which groups get what resources. As painful as it is, the decision has to be made otherwise no oppressed group would ever get any assistance if the government refused to make a decision about who needs the help more.

Citing statistics about bride burnings in India in a conversation about racism and sexism in America is a great illustration of how silly the "I'm more oppressed" argument is.

Sexism is treating females worse than males because of their gender.  There is no difference between sexism in America, India, Greece, or any other country, though there is a difference in they way sexism expresses itself in different countries.   For example, killing a baby because it is a girl is sexist because it treats females worse than males. Denying women the right to vote is sexist because it treats females worse than males.

by Nancy Kallitechnis 2008-06-29 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is four to twelve times

Lay off of the oppression olympics already, no one wins a medal in that contest. You got the real Olympics starting in a month, wait for that, it's a lot more fun.

by Skorri 2008-06-29 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is four to twelve times worse than sexi

Many of your %s (all of those less than 1) are off by a factor of 100.

by BlueEngineerInOhio 2008-06-29 04:25PM | 0 recs
3 measurements of equality

Racism is four to twelve times worse than sexism

You didn't provide evidence to prove that point. In my opinion, oppression can be measured in three main categories: political, economic and social. In the social realm Black men have some greater advantages than women. You such as that most priests are men, that our language uses "he" to describe a human being, and are more protected from sexual abuse. I'm not arguing for or against your hypothesis that race causes more oppression than gender in the U.S., but you have focused on politics and economy and virtually ignored the large social sphere. Also, you seem to be focused on the AA race but there are many racial minorities in the U.S and some racial minorities have advantages.  For example, Asians earn more than Whites.

Furthermore, as has been mentioned elsewhere on this diary, the amount of oppression increases with the number of people. For example if 10 people are oppressed by not being able to vote then that is worse oppression than 1 person not being able to vote.  Women's greater numbers than blacks increase the damage that sexism inflicts on society. Again, I'm not saying women are or are not more oppressed than Black men; I'm making a point that increased numbers means that the damage of oppression is greater all else being equal. And when I judge which group is most oppressed I base my judgement on the world.  Women are a gigantic group (3 billion) and in almost every region in the world women have less political, economic and social power than men.  Yet in many countries Blacks do not have less political, economic and social rights than other groups. A Black man can visit many countries and experience no prejudice, but as far as I know there is no country where a woman can go and experience no prejudice. Women are the most oppressed group in terms of numbers and degree of harm.

by Nancy Kallitechnis 2008-06-29 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is four to twelve times worse than sexi

ahhh another one of those poor obama.. people are being racist against him rant.. here is obama accusing republicans being racist..

"republicans will scare you by telling that i am black".. lol.. who is playing the race card again? nonsense.. stop crying wolf and support obama for what he stands.. not what his race is..

by gladiatorsback 2008-06-29 05:28PM | 0 recs
Stunned to find this wasn't an Onion piece

I was nearly through your piece, laughing, before it hit me: this isn't satire!  

I'm embarrassed for you, Greenboy.  And for all of you who posted here as if this were anything other than an unintentional gag.

Easily the silliest primary-related post of the year.

by Bo Gardiner 2008-06-29 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Stunned to find this wasn't an Onion piece

Where's the snark tag? Sheesh! He really had me going. I was trying to prove how hypocritical this dude is....pointing out racism when convenient and ignoring racism when convenient.

by soyousay 2008-06-29 06:24PM | 0 recs
I'm going to Rec this for one reason...

...balance.

There was a "sexism is worse than racism" diary up a month or so ago that hit the rec. list and was way more full of BS than this. It actually included such wonders as an experiment which showed that people noticed the color and team of a football jersey more often when both people were men, but noticed gender more when it was a woman wearing the football jersey. Anyone else remember that?

And hey, the diarist is actually quite restrained in his/her argument. Notice how he/she didn't even refer to extreme differences in things like homelessness, prison population, suicide rates, murder rates, rates of victimization by violence of all types, etc.?

I think the best thing we can take from this is to stop trying to pit racism against sexism as if this were a contest. Get that Clinton supporters? Are you finally, finally hearing that?

by Mystylplx 2008-06-29 07:03PM | 0 recs
OK

I was having a bit of a flashback.

Why don't we all just drop the "rehashing the primary" diaries and get on with the GE?

Obama/Clinton in 08!

by Mystylplx 2008-06-29 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm going to Rec this for one reason...

stop trying to pit racism against sexism as if this were a contest.

It's not a contest but it is productive to compare racism with sexism and to know whether women or Blacks are more oppressed by prejudice. The reason is because of limited resources.  For example, the government provides funding and other resources to help victims of prejudice and knowing which groups are more oppressed will help them in deciding which groups get what resources. As painful as it is, the decision has to be made otherwise no oppressed group would ever get any assistance if the government refused to make a decision about who needs the help more.

Also, worldwide sexism causes more damage than racism.  For example, a black man can visit many countries where there is no prejudice against blacks but there is no country a woman can go to (as far as I know) where there is no prejudice against women. Women are the most oppressed group in the world in terms of numbers and degree of harm.

by Nancy Kallitechnis 2008-06-30 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm going to Rec this for one reason...

In that case I will point you to the differences in murder rates, suicide rates, victimization by violence, rates of homelessness, poverty rates, etc.

If it is productive to compare racism and sexism then in the U.S. sexism loses that contest. Worldwide the situation might be different.

I still don't think it's a productive contest to have.

by Mystylplx 2008-07-06 07:46PM | 0 recs
comparison of prejudice

If it is productive to compare racism and sexism then in the U.S. sexism loses that contest.

I disagree. For example, blacks are an oppressed racial group in the United States and there is a history of slavery against African-Americans, yet slavery still exists and women and girls are the main victims. Also, in the current system of slavery females are harmed more than males because females are much more likely to be sex slaves. Benjamin Skinner, author of "A Crime So Monstrous," said, "There are more slaves today than at any point in human history." In an interview with Salon.com he cited a recent estimate that there are currently 27 million slaves in the world.
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/2 7/slavery/print.html

The US Department of State and the CIA estimate that each year about 50,000 women and children sex slaves are trafficked into the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slav ery#The_United_States
And the Polaris Project says "Victims of human trafficking in the United States also include U.S. citizens and residents trafficked within its borders."
http://www.polarisproject.org/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id= 60&Itemid=81
Sexual Slavery and other types of rape are a form of sexism. Peggy Reeves Sanday found that in societies where men do not dominate women there is virtually no rape. Rape is a form of male oppression against the female.

Also note that for thousands of years most non-black U.S. women's ancestors have been oppressed by men. So though African-Americans were oppressed by discrimination against their race for hundreds of years in the U.S., women in the U.S. have a much longer history of being oppressed by men. And women African-American slaves were raped more often than men and being raped is worse than working on a farm, as a carpenter, etc. So even among African-American slaves women seem to have been oppressed worse than men.

In politics both women and African-Americans are not represented adequately.

50.7% of population is female (2006 Census)
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/ 00000.html
16.3% of Congress is female (32% representation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_mem bers_of_the_United_States_Congress#Sex
16% of Senators are female (32% representation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_th e_United_States_Senate

12.8% of population is black
9.2% of Congress is black (72% representation)
1% of The Senate is black (8% representation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_mem bers_of_the_United_States_Congress#Race. 2Fethnicity

A brief look at the government based on Senate and Congress shows that in general blacks have achieved more representation than women. Neither blacks nor women are represented in the presidency but blacks have an advantage over women because some presidents have been part black and because the press and Democratic Party overwhelmingly preferred a black man over a woman with many more accomplishments and experience than him. So, based upon brief research blacks have gone farther politically than women in the U.S. This is evidence blacks are discriminated against less than women politically.

Economically, based on a brief look at income levels, women and blacks appear to earn about the same amount.  Looking at Wikipedia figures I calculated the average income for women to be approximately $28,000. This includes Hispanic, black, white, and Asian women. The average income of blacks (men and women) was approximately $28,000 also. Note that black men earn approximately $3,000 more than white women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Incom e_inequity_US.png

Other than political and economic equality, the third major category of equality is social equality. The social realm includes religion, the arts, education, customs, etc. Black men overwhelmingly dominate women in religion because churches, temples, etc. are almost always led by men. Women have more power than blacks in education, Women represent 36% of full-time faculty (71% representation) and blacks represent 5% (39% representation).
http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/03/facul ty-diversity.html
Female students also have made more academic progress than black students. The social realm is very complex so that there are some areas such as religion where black men dominate and another area such as education where women have more power. But when you look at extreme hate crimes involving murder and bodily harm women seem to be more victimized than black males. One form of hate crime is rape and rape against females by males is common. Even when men are raped as Catharine MacKinnon noted, they tend to be raped as women (penetrated). And yet attacks against people based on their skin color seem to be much less common. So females suffer from much more extreme social oppression than blacks. Females are frequently raped and enslaved for sex and society does almost nothing to prevent this abuse or punish the abusers. So, although I don't have all the facts based upon what I know socially sexism causes more harm to females than racism does to blacks. Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American presidential candidate, said she experienced more sexism than racism.

Therefore, based upon brief research blacks have slightly more political power than women (based on their numbers). Blacks have been able to achieve about the same economical achievements as women. And socially, in my opinion, sexism inflicts more damage to women than to blacks, especially extreme damage. So overall, U.S. women are more oppressed than U.S. blacks. Again, I would have to study this subject full-time for months to get a reasonably accurate view, but based on simple research I have made a conclusion.

by Nancy Kallitechnis 2008-07-13 10:54PM | 0 recs
The madness spreads...

You're reccing this to get EVEN, oh, AND "to stop trying to pit racism against sexism"?!

Are there any adults here?

by Bo Gardiner 2008-06-29 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The madness spreads...

Was this a reply to my comment? You have to click the 'reply to this' link beneath the comment you want to reply to for it to work right.

by Mystylplx 2008-06-29 07:38PM | 0 recs
And like I said above...

...I was having a flashback. It's an odd experience. It's like, for a moment, I was back in time two months.

I have returned to the present.

by Mystylplx 2008-06-29 07:49PM | 0 recs
dumb dumb dumb.......

diary.

by canadian gal 2008-06-29 08:17PM | 0 recs
Reading this argument yet one more time .....

was twenty to fourty times worse than not having read it.

by emsprater 2008-06-30 07:16AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads