No one wants to talk about it, but apparently some people might not vote for Obama because he is black (a phenomenon I could indeed feel when I recently visited my home state Ohio). At this point, addressing the topic of race is sort of like having to argue against the Earth being 10,000 years old: it's stupid and boring. But, if you can still stomach trying to understand U.S. dunderheads, this column in the Philadelphia Inquirer analyzes the role Obama's father's darker skin could play in November.
The sad reality in the U.S. is that many citizens (and, in particular, union members) are still not capable of looking past appearances. And so we could miss out on the opportunity to employ on our behalf one of the century's most promising leaders. But, in America, there is always more sad reality where that came from...
Let's take that turkey Sarah Palin. If we stress the limits of our imaginations and pretend for a moment that she did have enough experience to be in the Whitehouse, we would nonetheless have to acknowledge that that she is a woman. And being a woman in American politics is still deemed less favorable than being a man (another stupid and boring topic, but also perhaps a secret weapon to the Obama campaign) .
Being that this is ScienceBlogs, I would like to remind readers of the study published in January this year in Trends in Ecology and Evolution that showed that, following the introduction of double-blind peer review (where reviewers do not receive the names of manuscript's authors and thus can not discern their gender) at the journal Behavioral Ecology, there was a significant increase in female first-authored papers, a pattern not observed in a very similar journal that provides reviewers with author information. And this study deals with scientists for goodness sake. Let's talk about the American public.
If we could instate a double-blind ballot ticket, the McCain/Palin ticket might be rejected based on content alone. But given the candidates names are disclosed, U.S. voters will have to look at a ticket with the names of candidates and decide whether to elect someone whose father did not recently descend from European ancestry (like many U.S. citizens) or whether to vote for a woman (also like many [ok, half of] U.S. citizens).
And at that moment the U.S. voter will be faced with one of the most important questions of this decade: Oh Lord, against whom shall I discriminate?
Against whom will you discriminate this fall?
- Log in to post comments
Hey, don't forget glasses. What's the last time we had a president who regularly made speeches while wearing glasses? Truman? Roosevelt? It's a no-no, for some reason.
As I had was planning to vote for Obama before I'd ever heard of Palin I don't see how I'm being sexist.
I will discrimate against conservatives.
tomS
The stupidest one. I don't care what color or sex they are, I have had enough with stupid, nasty, greedy people running things.
I know Palin is as dumb and in curious as a rock. I know Obama is smart and wonders about everything.
I am a fifty year old working woman with a daughter close to Palin's oldest female child.
Every year I keep having to reject this idea that electing government officers is about voting against someone as opposed to voting for someone. When I vote for John McCain in November, it will not be a result of my having chosen to discriminate against a black man versus a white woman, but rather that this candidate best represented my position on those issues that I expect to be important for the next 4-8 years.
By the way, is it really that surprising that scientists are sexist? Really?
I agree with you, Nathan, that we should be voting FOR someone rather than voting AGAINST his/her opponent. But I also suspect that the same ignorant population that might discriminate against Obama because he is black can't be too pleased about having a woman on the alternative ticket...
I will discriminate against rich, greedy, white, ignorant Republicans (they're stupid and boring).
McCain is the PRESIDENTIAL candidate. Obama is the PRESIDENTIAL candidate. Palin is the VP nominee. I'm with you on the discrimination against blacks and women, but please don't "frame" this election as "Obama vs. Palin." Because it's NOT! And that's just what the Rove Squad wants you to do.
I will be discriminating against former NAVY PILOTS in this upcoming election.
> The sad reality in the U.S. is that many citizens (and, in particular, union members) are still not capable of looking past appearances.
Huh? Where do you get this information about union members?
The only data you present shows that scientists, not union members, can't get past appearances.
Glasses make a woman appear more serious to those who might otherwise think she's too flighty.
The information about union members is presented in the column I referenced at The Philadelphia Inquirer.
But, since Palin seems to hate women (not just anti-choice, but was mayor of a town that *charged women for rape kits after they were sexually assaulted*), a vote for Palin is really a vote against women. So, really, for the conservatives, McCain/Palin is a win/win combination.
The problem with Sarah Palin has not a thing to do with her gender but a lot to do with her being an ignorant fundamentalist christian nutter.
thanksss
Thank you For Much
I like That
Well, this very nice and wonderful.
The problem with Sarah Palin has not a thing to do with her gender but a lot to do with her being an ignorant fundamentalist christian nutter.