We "need" a woman/black president = sexist/racist?

[Lightknight]

I keep hearing people say that we need a black or asian or female president, but those statements never sat well with me. Not because I think any race or gender is superior, but because I don't. We don't "need" any kind of anything for the president but whomever is the best choice at the time. I don't care if the president ends up being a white male every election for now until eternity as long as he is the best of the bunch. By contrast, I believe the same thing given any combination of race or gender. Isn't saying that we need a certain race or females to be president just as racist or sexist as someone saying that the president needs to be white or male? The attainment of the office of presidency by a minority or a female doesn't show us as a more advanced nation (though people constantly tell me otherwise), only the unsegregated fair opportunity to reach that position can show that. In other words, all races and genders should be able to seek after the presidency with impediment brought on by their physiological differences, But if we vote for a minority or a woman because they are those, then we have failed to seperate ourselves from our predecessors.

What are your thoughts? Do I make sense?

[Vigilante]

We NEED short wrinkled old white men!


PAUL FTW!

[historic salve]

We NEED short wrinkled old white men!
Yeah, McCain FTW.

[Lazarus]

I'm not even sure we need a President.

[shadowmaster]

I'm not even sure we need a President.

Only to object to congress.

Same in reverse.

Vote for gridlock!

[Lightknight]

Ah, so no real responses?

I just find that things have gone from one end of the spectrum of racism or sexism to the other. Feminism no longer just proves women as being equal to men, but in many cases believes that they're better. Minorities typically believe that they deserve a bigger break because of the color of their skin which is still racism altogether. The other day I was listening to a radio station that announced the special medal that was given to a woman medic (in the army of course) for performing her duties under fire. This is all fine and dandy, until you realize that she isn't getting her medal for what she did, but because she's a woman (men have been doing the same thing for centuries). Such awards are actually indications that women are not equal (in the goverment's mind) and that to perform a male's job is to do something extraordinary (or so they think). I don't understand why more people don't take offense to that. Is it just because it is no longer negative?

As for the treatment of minorities by the government, it seems to me that the government spends far too much time on the color of their skin. Take affirmative action, for example, if a black man and a white man apply for a job and are equally suited for it, then the black man should get the job. Heck, business actually need a certain percentage of certain minorities as per law. The fact is, there are plenty of brilliant minorities and women. If a business decides not to hire them then they are shooting themselves in the foot and their product will be inferior to those who haven't limited their hiring pool to just white males (amongst whom there are plenty of fools too). I think the government shouldn't punish a business for not hiring a certain group of people, but should rather encourage businesses that do (I believe public opinion of a racist or sexist company would harm them far more).

The other thing is all this money that is going to poor minorities because they're minorities. Does no one else see this as blatant racism? Or is it just overlooked because certain people are getting helped? We need to abolish such government funded programs that distinguish color. A poor white man is no less needy than a poor black man and vice versa. The funds should instead focus on just the poor (and some safeguards should be set in place to ensure the integrity of the selection process for beneficiaries). If the average black American is poorer than the average white one, then a larger percentage of the black American population should be helped than that of white Americans naturally (if the selection process is properly set up according to need).

Don't even get me started on the point that black Americans have to identify themselves as African Americans regardless of which generation American they are. *sigh*

[hamandcheese]

I think having a black/female president would have a lot of symbolism. I'm not much for symbolism, but I don't think it is racist.

[Charybdis]

I don't think the statement is racist/sexist per se, but I do think it's a stupid statement.

People who think like that don't usually have the tendency to assess the actual qualifications of a particular candidate who meets their superficial requirements as closely as they should. One should assess whether a candidate is the best candidate as far as experience, ideology, and personality go, no matter what their sex/race happens to be. Then, if your chosen candidate happens to be a female, or black, or pink with purple polka-dots, then great!

Choosing a candidate just because they fit some preconceived, superficial requirement is just the type of shallow thinking that has gotten us where were at in politics today.

[Lizard]

I think having a black/female president would have a lot of symbolism. I'm not much for symbolism, but I don't think it is racist.
:yeahthat:

I think it would be great if the US had a minority and/or female president. However, I would never let the gender/race be a determining factor. The most important factor is the platform. So I am not planning on voting for the Democratic nominee even though it is sure to be a black or a female (more likely a black), because I don't think the Democratic platform is best for the country.

So to say we need a minority president is a little too much in my opinion, but not necesarily sexist or racist.

[Lightknight]

I don't think the statement is racist/sexist per se, but I do think it's a stupid statement.

People who think like that don't usually have the tendency to assess the actual qualifications of a particular candidate who meets their superficial requirements as closely as they should. One should assess whether a candidate is the best candidate as far as experience, ideology, and personality go, no matter what their sex/race happens to be. Then, if your chosen candidate happens to be a female, or black, or pink with purple polka-dots, then great!

Choosing a candidate just because they fit some preconceived, superficial requirement is just the type of shallow thinking that has gotten us where were at in politics today.But isn't choosing one person over another because of race or gender essentially racism or sexism? Even if it is in favor of the minority?

I do agree that it is stupid, but I also think that racism and sexism is stupid. So that might be why.

To everyone else, please note that racism and sexist behavior do not need to be negative to be thus. Saying that black people love fried chicken isn't negative (I mean, I also love fried chicken), but it's totally racist. Saying that women can cook better is likewise positive, but sexist.

[Ryokan]

But isn't choosing one person over another because of race or gender essentially racism or sexism? Even if it is in favor of the minority?

I do agree that it is stupid, but I also think that racism and sexism is stupid. So that might be why.

To everyone else, please note that racism and sexist behavior do not need to be negative to be thus. Saying that black people love fried chicken isn't negative (I mean, I also love fried chicken), but it's totally racist. Saying that women can cook better is likewise positive, but sexist.

Yeah, its racist, but it also signals to people that we have moved on as a nation. That signaling has value, even if not enough to be determinative on its own.

[Abelard]

Being black in America is a formative experience, and it is a particular qualification. So is combat experience. That also is a formative experience, and is a particular qualification.

I think when people say we "need a black president" or a "combat veteran president" they are expressing a desire for a particular quality of character gained through life experience, and that is a perfectly valid criterion.

[Lightknight]

Yeah, its racist, but it also signals to people that we have moved on as a nation. That signaling has value, even if not enough to be determinative on its own.But who does it signal that to? The people who aren't educated enough to understand that just because a minority is in the whitehouse doesn't mean that the nation is over racist thoughts? This is another case of the ends justifying the means, you're saying that it is ok to be racist as long as it looks like the action is the opposite. Making a racist decisions can never truly symbolize anything along the lines of there being less racism. A black man voting for a black man just because the man is black is just as racist as a white man voting for a white man (or even a minority) because of the color of their skin.

Being black in America is a formative experience, and it is a particular qualification. So is combat experience. That also is a formative experience, and is a particular qualification.

I think when people say we "need a black president" or a "combat veteran president" they are expressing a desire for a particular quality of character gained through life experience, and that is a perfectly valid criterion.So then, you believe that it is ok to consider someone better based on the color of their skin or gender? I just want to be perfectly clear on what you believe. That a person can, without it being racist or sexist, go and vote for a man or woman because he is a minority or she is a female (or also a minority)? Or are you saying that this form of racism is legitimate and that there are real differences between genders (i.e. valid stereotypes that encompass all)?

[Abelard]

So then, you believe that it is ok to consider someone better based on the color of their skin or gender? I just want to be perfectly clear on what you believe. That a person can, without it being racist or sexist, go and vote for a man or woman because he is a minority or she is a female (or also a minority)? Or are you saying that this form of racism is legitimate and that there are real differences between genders (i.e. valid stereotypes that encompass all)?

Race and gender are legitimate differences. I think if we asked Sen. Obama and Sen. McClain how the lives of the Rev. Dr. MLK and Malcom X influence the way they make moral decisions we might get very different answers.

[Lightknight]

So, while I am not necessarily discrediting your statement, am I to understand that what you are saying is that there are legitimate differences between races and genders that makes one better at performing at certain tasks or whatnot than others? This is, I hope you understand, inherrently racist and sexist. Though, not necessarily wrong, just not pc.

[Seasanctuary]

Minorities and Women should be the most annoyed by affirmative action because it introduces doubt about whether a person would be in a given position by merit alone.

[Lightknight]

Agreed, it is inherrently racist and sexist. But it seems that people don't get as mad if it's positive (i.e. they benefit from it) racism or sexism. I think this is fairly obvious hypocrisy if only we step back and look at it.

As I said before though, businesses that lessen their hiring group to only a certain race or gender are removing options that can be superior to any candidates they would have recieved in that hiring cycle. For example, in sports it only took a few teams starting to hire black players, like Jackie Robinson, for all the teams to jump into it. The reason is simple, the available pool of athletes to hire increased and teams were able to hire more excellent players whereas they previously only had choices from whites. In the same way, a business will naturally be rewarded for hiring whoever is best regardless of color or gender whereas a business that does not will be punished naturally and by public defamation.

[shadowmaster]

Hillary is preparing for her place on Rushmore (see thumbnail).

First they need to find room for 2 more faces.

[Obscured Tiara]

I would definitely agree that race should not really be a deciding factor in anything. The only things that skin color and heritage tell about a person are their skin color and heritage, not anything to do with their ability to govern. Yes, Obama may have a different appreciation for MLK or Malcolm X, but how is that really relevant?
Women are a different issue though. Anyone who denies mental differences (though I’m not suggesting inferiority) has not been around the opposite sex for more than five minutes. Is it sexist to point out the obvious, that we are different? The Bible is also very clear that men and women were created differently and designed for different roles. So I propose the opposite of “needing” a woman president. The Bible teaches that men are supposed to be the heads of their households and of the church. I think that we can safely assume that this applies to leading nations as well. As a woman myself, I believe that we should encourage men in their God-ordained role as leaders.

[shadowmaster]

I would definitely agree that race should not really be a deciding factor in anything. The only things that skin color and heritage tell about a person are their skin color and heritage, not anything to do with their ability to govern. Yes, Obama may have a different appreciation for MLK or Malcolm X, but how is that really relevant?
Women are a different issue though. Anyone who denies mental differences (though I’m not suggesting inferiority) has not been around the opposite sex for more than five minutes. Is it sexist to point out the obvious, that we are different? The Bible is also very clear that men and women were created differently and designed for different roles. So I propose the opposite of “needing” a woman president. The Bible teaches that men are supposed to be the heads of their households and of the church. I think that we can safely assume that this applies to leading nations as well. As a woman myself, I believe that we should encourage men in their God-ordained role as leaders.
:thumb:

We need men!
We need old, experienced men.
Discrimination against old Euro-Americans must be ended.

[Zero Tolerance]

Topics like these show a lack of understanding of what racism is, and that is a reflection of American unwillingness to talk about race as a subject that still impacts us in a post-Civil Rights America.

If someone says, "we need a black/woman president," your response should be to ask the question, "why." Only once that conversation begins will we begin to understand one another without throwing around "sexist/racist" without knowing what those terms mean.



To address the topic, I don't find it offensive when people say those things (on the contrary, I do when people say, "BET? What if we made a 'WHITE Entertainment Television,'" because that just goes to show that they have no awareness whatsoever of racial dynamics in the US), because when we begin to see something different, will we really see signs that race is becoming LESS of a problem in the US. We're in the 21st century, and we've had our first black head coach win a superbowl, and a mixed man win the presidency. We still have not seen a woman become the head coach of a MEN's professional team (will we ever?), or become president (closer than you think).

Sexist? Racist? No, just striving for equality in all forms of life.

[Sheepdog]

But do you HAVE to have a black/woman in a position for the sake of having a black/woman there to say that it's now equal? Or is there a tacit admission in some of the posts in this thread that Obama is in fact an affirmative action candidate, who wouldn't be there in the first place except someone in his family tree happened to originate from Africa?

What we need a President with the right view of the world and noteworthy experience. Obama is at best "blah" on both counts, from what I see. Give me a minority with a good understanding and character, and I'll vote for him. To vote for a candidate because he's black doesn't do away with inequity, it just shifts inequity around a bit.

[Zero Tolerance]

But do you HAVE to have a black/woman in a position for the sake of having a black/woman there to say that it's now equal? Or is there a tacit admission in some of the posts in this thread that Obama is in fact an affirmative action candidate, who wouldn't be there in the first place except someone in his family tree happened to originate from Africa?

For the first question, yes. If there is $100 to give, and we're getting paid equally, then we would both receive $50. Looking at the composition of Capital Hill, and how the US is a supposed "melting pot," do you see 50/50 with race considered? No, you still the traditional "white, male, middle class" demographic from prior centuries, with a sprinkle of gender or color.

Obama is not an affirmative action candidate because the president is voted into office, not appointed. And you have a logical error in your sentence. You mean to say, "who wouldn't be there in the first place except someone in his family tree happened to originate from AMERICA." You have to be a natural-born citizen to run for president, and he needed an American birthright, not an African one, for this purpose.


What we need a President with the right view of the world and noteworthy experience. Obama is at best "blah" on both counts, from what I see. Give me a minority with a good understanding and character, and I'll vote for him. To vote for a candidate because he's black doesn't do away with inequity, it just shifts inequity around a bit.

I agree with the last sentence of this paragraph. For the sentence before that one. Colin Powell declined to run for office. Lastly, it should be noted that Obama is biracial, though he identifies himself as black. Yay for race politics.

[Darth Executor]

For the first question, yes. If there is $100 to give, and we're getting paid equally, then we would both receive $50. Looking at the composition of Capital Hill, and how the US is a supposed "melting pot," do you see 50/50 with race considered? No, you still the traditional "white, male, middle class" demographic from prior centuries, with a sprinkle of gender or color.


That does not mean there is inequity. It's possible (likely actually) that American black culture often frowns upon blacks who achieve success outside of gangs or the rap industry (in fact, Chris Rock had a good stand-up act about that).

There's also the issue of white metropolitan liberals keeping blacks on welfare so they just vote for them and don't pursue any real ambitions.

[Polrean]

If someone says, "we need a black/woman president," your response should be to ask the question, "why." Only once that conversation begins will we begin to understand one another without throwing around "sexist/racist" without knowing what those terms mean.

Why do we need a black/woman president?

Obama is biracial, though he identifies himself as black. Yay for race politics.
I'm biracial (half asain half white) and identify myself as culturally white. What if Obama started telling the media to call him white. :lol: I'd pee my pants, if he pulled a stunt like that. And you know what? It shouldn't matter if he did, because a policy of "equality" should be color blind, but people would still be crying anyway. That just goes to show that the race game being played by the media is simply to pull heartstrings.

[Gabby]

Question - Has there ever been a Native American in the Senate or elsewhere in the Federal Government?

[Zero Tolerance]

Question - Has there ever been a Native American in the Senate or elsewhere in the Federal Government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Native_American_politicians

For starters.