Elephant-Donkey

DonkeyDude won the Face Off.

sallyjames vs DonkeyDude

Face Offs: 3
Wins: 2
Losses: 1
Ties: 0
Los Angeles, CA
All Face Offs

Votes

Face Offs: 30
Wins: 22
Losses: 6
Ties: 2
Los Angeles, CA
All Face Offs

Votes

For the Democrats to nominate a woman would represent a more significant change than to nominate a black man.

sallyjames said 04/18, 12:32 AM
A recent CBS poll found that gender, not race, may be the bigger obstacle for American voters.

39% of those who responded to the poll believe a female candidate "faces more obstacles in presidential politics today," compared to 33% who believed a black candidate did. Meanwhile, 42% of voters believed Clinton has been "judged more harshly" because of her gender (compared to 27% who said the same thing about Obama and race). And 45% of those surveyed believed that most people they knew would refuse to vote for a woman candidate (compared to 33% who believed most people they know would refuse to vote for a black candidate).

Nearly 1/5 of those surveyed (including 16% of women) said they would "prefer to vote for a man" than a woman, compared to just five percent who said they???d prefer to vote for a white candidate. Despite all that, just ten percent believed that sexism was "a bigger problem" than racism in America.

These poll results reflect the fact that gender has become a bigger issue in modern America than race. Despite the relative numbers of women and black voters, it looks like we are closer to having a black male president than a female president. Amazing.

DonkeyDude said 04/18, 12:53 AM
I agree that the stats you quoted in that poll (with which I am somewhat familiar) suggest your conclusion. However, you must keep in mind a couple confounding factors:

- It is entirely possible (indeed, highly probable) that more women responded to this poll than minorities, in which case the results are partially reflections of their own feelings of victimhood.

- The results of this poll just might be tainted by the fact that even though Hillary is not mentioned specifically, most respondents would have her in mind when answering because she's the current option, and she has a high negative rating with many people. I.e., they might actually be okay with a woman as president, just not this particular woman.

The point you put forth was that it would be a bigger change to nominate a woman than a black man, but I fail to see how you've convinced us of that. You kind of made my point for me, actually: how would it be a bigger change to nominate someone from a pool that comprises roughly half the population than someone from a pool that comprises roughly 10%?

sallyjames said 04/18, 01:20 AM
You might be right to some extent with respect to the poll results. However, the fact remains that there are deep-rooted stereotypes of women as well as blacks, but people are more open and forthcoming about their animosity toward women.

One need look no farther than the two Democrat's campaigns to see my point. Clinton has had to deal with a relentless barrage of gender-tinged wisecracks and outright insults on the campaign trail. At one rally, hecklers yelled to her to iron their shirts. Rush Limbaugh told listeners in one of his shows, "Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?" Clinton has been taunted in some online websites with fake ads for toilet brushes labeled, "First Cleaning Lady" and a Clinton nutcracker that cracked nuts between her legs. Women's hairdos, outfits and even cleavage are fodder for discussion. I haven't heard any analogous stories for Barack.

Because more people are openly discriminatory towards women than minorities, it would be a greater break from the norm to elect a woman than a black man.

DonkeyDude said 04/18, 01:42 AM
Again, you help me make my point. True, more people are open and honest (even to themselves) about their gender-based biases than their racial-based biases. That is another reason why your poll numbers don't work. It is hard to measure the degree of racial bias at play in this election.

The problem with these kinds of binary questions is that you take a generalization - women have a tough road - and apply it to a specific person. Yes, women have a difficult road and face challenges that men do not. Just as minorities have their own unique challenges. But to take those generalizations and ascribe them to a particular person - in this case, a rich, well connected, and powerful person - is a red herring.

So what, because women have it hard, Hillary does too? Even though she has amassed more wealth and more power than millions of (white or black) men? I just don't think it's fair to say that that represents such a change.

sallyjames said 04/18, 04:10 AM
You have completely missed my point. I am in no way trying to say that Hillary deserves more pity for her "tough road" because she is a woman. I am talking about the effect on America of either a white female president or a black male president. Which one would be more of a change from the white male presidents that we have had since forever? Which one would represent more of an adjustment?

If more people are predisposed to believe that a woman could never be/should never be/ would not make a good president than are predisposed to believe that a black man could never be /should never be/would not make a good president, THEN electing a female president is a bigger change from the status quo.

I am not saying that women have had it so bad in life - just that more people hold the notion, based on sex stereotypes, that a woman president is much more far fetched than a black male president. I have heard guys say numerous times, "I would NEVER vote for a woman. EVER. Just because she is a woman." Now, maybe there are some southern dudes that say the same thing about a black man - but those same guys would still probably pick the black guy over the white woman for president any

DonkeyDude said 04/18, 01:29 PM
Your point is really made in the last paragraph of your last argument: that many guys would never vote for any woman, but they (southerners aside) would be open to voting for a black man. Your point is conclusory (notwithstanding the statistics you cited in the beginning, which I think I effectively undercut), and you ignore reality in a couple ways:

1) Almost all men in this country have had heavy exposure to numerous women, many of whom have undoubtedly earned their respect. Stereotypes are best broken down by encountering enough people to realize that stereotypes usually don't hold water. On the other hand, most white people's impressions of blacks come from mainstream media, which generally depicts negative images of them. Thus, blacks are more subject to prejudice.

2) The Bradley Effect. Most white men would have an easier time acknowledging their prejudices against women than blacks. Blacks are more protected in that sense, because racism is seen as worse than sexism (due to slavery, etc). I guarantee you that more than just "some southern dudes" would not vote for a black man, but wouldn't openly say that to a pollster.

Thanks for a good debate!

Comments

Add Your Comment

So Sally, what is the debate you are introducing? these are just the outcomes of the polls.

CRISP | 04/18/08

Report Offensive Comment

Well, PEACE&LOVE, look to the title for my point: "For the Democrats to nominate a woman would represent a more significant change than to nominate a black man." And then look at my last paragraph after the poll results: "These poll results reflect the fact that gender has become a bigger issue in modern America than race." I will try to make my point more clear: a female president would be a bigger adjustment/more shocking change for America than a black male president.

sallyjames | 04/18/08

Report Offensive Comment

at least it was close, donkeydude...

sallyjames | 04/19/08

Report Offensive Comment