This is topic Which is more likely to become President? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=025863

---

Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
 
Which do you feel is more likely to become President of the United States first: a Black American, a Hispanic American, or a female?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
A female....God help us all...
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
None of those are mutually exclusive.

But to answer your question -- I have no idea.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I'm gonna guess a woman - Hillary Clinton is going to make a serious run in the next election because the Democrats are going to lose this race.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
I'd say Hillary has a good shot, but Powell or Condi Rice could make a run in four years. I definitely don't see any Hispanics on the horizon.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Powell is dead in the water after misleading the UN......even if he believed it at the time.

Too bad, he would have had my vote...

Kwea
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Powell lost my vote after came around to the Republicans' back door.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Insanity Plea (Member # 2053) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm gonna guess a woman - Hillary Clinton is going to make a serious run in the next election because the Democrats are going to lose this race.

---

quote:

---

Powell lost my vote after came around to the Republicans' back door.

---

What in the world does that mean?
 

---

Posted by Azile (Member # 2312) on :
 
Latinos are now the largest minority in the U.S. and yet look at how few latinos there are in non-spanish television and entertainment. If they are biased against even in that industry then it's doubtful that there will be a Latin-American president anytime soon, particularly before a Black or women president.

Yeah, it's frustrating. Despite the apparent leaps in civil rights we made this past century, America still has a heck of a way to go.
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
Of course, that prompts the question how much is actual discrimination and how much is de facto segregation? Are hispanics not able to get work on mainstream programs, or do they prefer latin shows where everyone looks like them and sounds like them and they don't have to worry about being used as a token minority? I'd guess a bit of both.

Anybody see the Leonard Pitts column yesterday? He was talking about Cosby talking about race in public. Pitts question was why should the black community run around worrying about what racist white people think of them? You're never going to convince the bigots that you're as good as them so why bother trying. Just live the best you can. I thought he had a really great point.

So I vote for whoever stops trying to impress white america first and focuses on what they need to do to succeed.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Hillary Clinton didn't even make a good first lady. Remember how she was supposed to spearhead healthcare reform, and now we just have a system that is still incomplete and even more expensive to the end consumer?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Yes, but that wasn't her fault... Blame the Republican majority back there for killing it before it even had a chance.
Shame really. I could use some health care myself
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
There was no Republican majority when the health care plan died.

Note the date on this article, which is before the 1994 elections and talks about the demise of the plan.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Oh, and TMedina's remark about the back door is reminiscent of a particular form of racism that states that African-Americans who side with Republicans are Uncle Toms or house slaves (as Harry Belefonte put it).

Dagonee
Edit: I hope he didn't mean it that way.

[ July 13, 2004, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
I like Condoleeze Rice, and might even be willing to vote for her in the future (depending on who's running, etc). That would cover a couple of your demographics.

FG
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Fifty bucks on the male black Republican.
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 

quote:

---

a Black American, a Hispanic American, or a female

---

quote:

---

a Black American, a Hispanic American, or a female

---

quote:

---

So I vote for whoever stops trying to impress white america first and focuses on what they need to do to succeed.

---

How often, and in what ways of life, does doing what "they" need to succeed include impressing white America?

_____

I'm putting my money on
Barack Obama

[ July 13, 2004, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Since whites are still about 4/5 of the population, no one is going to get elected who alienates white Americans. So Jesse Jackson never had a prayer. A hypthetical black candidate such as, say, Colin Powell, would have to reassure white Americans that he would not be only a "black" president, biased against whites (the way Jackson is perceived as being). Thus at present, a black candidate would have a very uphill battle. The best chance for a black president would be for some white presidential candidate to name a black vice presidential running mate, and then after being elected, the white president would have to either die or be impeached, so the black vice president takes over. It would be interesting to see if either party would make the black former vice president their nominee for president in the next election.

A Hispanic candidate for president would not be too difficult for most white Americans to accept, since most white Americans feel that Hispanics are whites. As long as they are not fanatics about something--but then, fanatics need not apply in any case.

An Oriental candidate for president would be interesting. But it would probably make a difference whether he was Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or whatever. Orientals have earned a lot of respect in our society; they are generally regarded as the smartest and most artistically talented people among us, with the highest ideals for promoting education among their children. So long as the Oriental candidate does not turn out to be a sleeper agent for Communist China or North Korea.

A woman should have a reasonable chance at becoming president now, since half the electorate is comprised of women. But would men be as inclined to view a woman president as representing their interests, as women currently are inclined to accept a man as representing their interests? More men would probably oppose a woman presidential candidate than women would oppose a man presidential candidate, since women have been used to voting for men all along (since women's sufferage in 1920).
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 
I think I could see a divorced, lesbian, half-black, half-Latin woman being elected president before someone of Asian descent. Well, okay, so maybe I'm being a little hyperbolic...
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Well with that I attitude I certainly would never vote for you!

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 

quote:

---

A Hispanic candidate for president would not be too difficult for most white Americans to accept, since most white Americans feel that Hispanics are whites.

---

quote:

---

A hypthetical black candidate such as, say, Colin Powell, would have to reassure white Americans that he would not be only a "black" president, biased against whites (the way Jackson is perceived as being).

---

I disagree. Jesse Jackson's problem is his personality and ideas, not the color of his skin. Someone like Harold Ford of Tennessee would be a good bet, since he is young, bright, a mover and shaker, etc. And oh yeah, he's black. I don't think people will automatically assume that a black candidate will be against whites, such that he (or she) would have to convince them that he isn't against them.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
You're more optimistic than I am, Rohan. It's one reason a Republican black candidate may have a better chance getting elected: more people would probably start with the assumption you've outlined.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
 
Oh, and Dagonee, I am a HUGE fan of your posts, but it's "weirdness."

remember, I before E, except after C or when sounding like ay as in neighbor and weigh, and on weekends and holidays and all throughout May. or in the word "weird."
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Or their.
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 

quote:

---

Never underestimate the wierdness of politics: Ditka Ponders 'Da' Senate.

---

quote:

---

OK, so Tiny Ditka with one arm and both legs tied behind his back against the entire House of Representatives. Who wins?

---

quote:

---

An Oriental candidate for president would be interesting. But it would probably make a difference whether he was Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or whatever. Orientals have earned a lot of respect in our society; they are generally regarded as the smartest and most artistically talented people among us, with the highest ideals for promoting education among their children. So long as the Oriental candidate does not turn out to be a sleeper agent for Communist China or North Korea.

---

quote:

---

They are generally regarded as the . . . most artistically talented people among us.

---

quote:

---

Main Entry: which
Pronunciation: 'hwich, 'wich
Function: adjective
1 : being what one or ones out of a group -- used as an interrogative <which tie should I wear> <kept a record of which employees took their vacations in July>

---

quote:

---

Oriental describes cookware and rugs, but not people

---

Could someone explain to me why this is the case? Oriental just means "Eastern", and is the opposite of "Occidental". It describes what area some one/thing is from. "Asian" also describes what area some one/thing is from. They both refer to the same area. Why aren't the two words interchangable?
 

---

Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
 

quote:

---

I find it mildly interesting that an Asian-American didn't make this list.

---

quote:

---

remember, I before E, except after C or when sounding like ay as in neighbor and weigh, and on weekends and holidays and all throughout May. or in the word "weird."

quote:

---

Or their.

---

---

Is some places, I understand "their" is pronounced "like ay as in neighbor and weigh."


 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Powell's definitely out. shame. a little too eager to sign on with the "apparently" winning team.

*shakes head in disgust*

did he "pull a Malone" or did Malone "pull a Powell"?

fallow

[ July 14, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: fallow ]
 

---

Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
 
And in some places, "air" is pronounced "like ay as in neighbor and weigh."


 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Ah hurd dat.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Actually, my dislike of Powell comes from:

Before he joined the Republican party, there was some talk about him having a serious shot at elected office, possibly the Presidency.

About that time, the Republicans launched pre-emptive attacks on Powell with the intent of tossing the muck about.

Powell apparently squelched the rumors and asked to join the previously slandering Republicans - who then were apparently quite happy to welcome him.

And before you start asking for references and citations Dag - I didn't compile a list. It's my impression and perception of him and it's the reason why I wouldn't vote for him as a Presidential candidate.

As for Jesse Jackson...I do _not_ want a religious figure in this nation's highest office. Call it a quirk.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
 
I voted for Alan Keyes in the last Republican Primary.

I plan to vote for Dr. Rice in the next one.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
anyone want to start a pool? kinda crass, but could be fun.

fallow
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
I'd put serious coin on an "Americanized" asian.

eh?

fallow
 

---

Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
 

quote:

---

I voted for Alan Keyes in the last Republican Primary.

---

Me too. I knew Bush was going to win (this is Utah, you know), and even though I didn't know much about Keyes, he really impressed me, so I figured he deserved another vote.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Fallow, remember that the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the president must be native-born; he cannot be an immigrant, no matter how "Americanized." He could be the son (or she could be the daughter) of an immigrant, as long as the candidate is a U.S. citizen by birth.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Dkw, I live in the northern Detroit suburbs. There is a large Spanish community in Detroit. I do not know of anyone who considers them to be blacks, unless a few of them are black Cubans. Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are usually not black, and many Cubans are not black either. So if they are not black, they must be white. I imagine such perceptions may differ, depending upon the part of the country.

I remember back in the 1950's when segregation was still in blight in the South, there was the strongest stigma attached to marriage between whites and blacks even here in Michigan. But I do not remember any comparable stigma attached even then to a marriage between a white (Caucasian) and a Hispanic.

You see, white Americans are almost all of European descent, and Spain is a European country.

[ July 14, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 

---

Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
 
Weird. I've never heard that before. It seems to me that if anything, it's usually "whites" and "everybody else." No one in Arizona or Utah would consider a Mexican to be white.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Snarky, sometimes prejudices are stronger nearer to a large community of a minority. This seems to be true concerning Native Americans. Around the reservations or Indian nations, there is still a fair amount of prejudice among European-derived Americans against the Indians. But in most other parts of the country, if we have some trace of Indian blood in our ancestry, we brag about it.

An exception to this does seem to be the Hispanic community in Detroit. Even close around them, I don't think there is any appreciable prejudice against them, unless it is on the part of blacks. Blacks regard them as whites, for the most part.

Hispanic people are derived from Spain, although in the case of Mexicans, they are a mixture of Spanish and Central or South American Indian. But none of their ancestors ever came from Africa.

[ July 14, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Oh, I’ve never known anyone who considered Hispanics black. But I also don’t know anyone who thinks black and white are the only two options. In fact, there are few or no black people where I live. The options are white and “mexican” with mexican covering every vaguely Hispanic-looking person whether they come from Mexico or not.

And believe me, there is prejudice. Last fall when I was returning a call I dialed the wrong number. I asked for "Fernando" and got yelled at for thinking that "some mexican" lived at the house I called. The language and tone used made me want to wash my ear out with soap.
 

---

Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
 
Ron,
There have been mentions in the Arnold camp that they would support an amendment that allows someone who was not born here to run. I think what was suggested was making someone be a citizen for 30 years. Of course he has not said that he would run if it was passed, just that it sounds like a good amendment. I guess being governer has gotten him interested in going further.

Personally, I don't see the amendment going through, but you never know. Though, even if the amendment goes through, he would not have a prayer in the republican primary. He is to liberal for republicans anywhere other than Cali.

[ July 14, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
 

---

Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
 
I was always under the impression that pretty much all Latinos were of mixed Spanish/Native American descent. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[ July 14, 2004, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Snarky ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Why does it matter why? My mother taught me it's rude not to call people what they want to be called. This applies to everyone, at all times, and no matter how often they change.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Oh, and I expect an African-American man will be president before a woman of any descent. However, it really depends on the individuals. If we got someone Thatcheresque, we might get a sister in the white house.

My niece plans to be president. What will we call her husband? The First Gentleman?
 

---

Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
 
Why does what matter, ak?
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Why people would rather be called Asians then Orientals.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The problem with saying "people" prefer it is that there's no single source you can go to and see what people prefer.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Find one person who prefers to be called Oriental. I thought there was a general consensus on this.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I know several whose response is *shrug*.

At least one who prefers it.

Besides, if you want people to change their behavior, a reason helps make them do so.

I'm just saying.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

I was always under the impression that pretty much all Latinos were of mixed Spanish/Native American descent. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

---

My understanding is that there is a range. At one extreme are those who have pure (or close to) Native American ancestry; at the other are those who can trace back most of their lineage to the conquistadores. And in many parts of Central and South America, the latter discriminate against the former.

Members of each group (and all the shades in between) may self-identify as Latino, or emphatically not do so. It can get pretty heated, even among those who have been in the U.S. for two or three generations. (The bickering back-and-forth between some of the writers at UCLA's La Raza was very educational. )

A whole bunch of relevant linkages.

[ July 14, 2004, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by Azile (Member # 2312) on :
 
Maybe the older generation likes it because they are use to it but the I am pretty confident all the Asians at my school prefer to be called Asian. The only people that I know who refer to Asians as Orientals are the elderly and those that are not around Asians very much. I have never been called Oriental in my life and of course, would not be offended at all if someone called me as such- but I definitely prefer to be called Asian.

Why? It's loosely like why African-Americans are so opposed to the "N" word. Years ago the N-word was just a label (like African American) but because often times, it was uttered in a slanderous way, it became a offending word. When I think Orientals, I think of "those damn Orientals" and of a period in the past where Asians were looked down upon. It's also rather dated.

Here's what I found at dictionary.com

quote:

---

n.

often Oriental Often Offensive. An Asian.

ori·ental·ly adv.

Usage Note: Asian is now strongly preferred in place of Oriental for persons native to Asia or descended from an Asian people. The usual objection to Orientalmeaning “eastern”is that it identifies Asian countries and peoples in terms of their location relative to Europe. However, this objection is not generally made of other Eurocentric terms such as Near and Middle Eastern. The real problem with Oriental is more likely its connotations stemming from an earlier era when Europeans viewed the regions east of the Mediterranean as exotic lands full of romance and intrigue, the home of despotic empires and inscrutable customs. At the least these associations can give Oriental a dated feel, and as a noun in contemporary contexts (as in the first Oriental to be elected from the district) it is now widely taken to be offensive. However, Oriental should not be thought of as an ethnic slur to be avoided in all situations. As with Asiatic, its use other than as an ethnonym, in phrases such as Oriental cuisine or Oriental medicine, is not usually considered objectionable.

---

 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I don't know. The one guy I knew that preferred it was my age, so not really the older generation.

I always say Asian anyway, which is how I knw he prefers "Oriental."

The reasoning I gave earlier I gleened from "Angry Asian Chick," a very strange web comic. She got the translation wrong in her comic, I extrapolated.

Thanks for the link - I'm glad to finally get some reasoning on it.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Ron,

More importantly... what is your assessment of the Laker's trade? Will this affect Florida's stance in the upcoming election at all?

(thanks for the remedial instruction on OUR constitution. I was using a puzzling self-description used by a 2nd generation Chinese friend, recently)

can you feel the Heat?

fallow
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
ak,

Do you seriously think that gender is more of an issue than minority status when it comes to electability in this country?

fallow
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
fallow, yes I do. I think that women's struggle to be afforded equal rights and equal standing with men is several decades behind African-American's struggle to be afforded equal standing with people of European descent. There are a lot of things people say about women routinely in our society that would never be said in any analogous way about people of color.

Douglas Hofstadter had a great essay he wrote in that vein that illustrated that. I wonder if I can find it on Google? It was purportedly by a writer called "William Satire". Ah, yes, here it is.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
ak,

Why do you feel that women's rights are decades behind?

fallow

edit: retracts ridiculously stratified comparisons of ideal presidential candidates

[ July 16, 2004, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: fallow ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
fallow, read the piece I linked to in my previous post. That should illustrate what I mean.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
I did.

Doug certainly had some time on his hands...

I'm more curious about YOUR opinion as espoused by your broadly self.

fallow
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
I think that piece illustrates it exactly. Women are routinely still subject to discrimination that would clearly be unacceptable to utter in public did it apply to blacks. I think society is still in the mode of thinking that's how it should be, a natural fact of being, rather than a convention of society which is contrary to reality.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
ak,

who is at fault for this lapse of recognition of reality?

fallow
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
ak

more to the point. why would you choose an invectious satire written by a man to defend your point? doesn't that undermine your... beliefs, opinions, fancies... whatever you call those ramblings around in that silly cute little head of yours?

fallow
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*taps foot*
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*pulls out nightvision goggles"

where did that lecturous/prancing AK get to?
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Ah, maybe because his writings are the first I ever read by a man who actually understands totally the whole thing. Maybe just because it's an excellent illustration of what I mean, and it doesn't matter which sex the person who has a good idea is.

Fault? Meh. I don't think it's anyone's fault, really. People are naturally reluctant to give up any position of privilege. People are reluctant to give up ideas that they have always had, even when they conflict with reality. They'd rather try to force reality into line with their dearly held ideas. That's just human nature. People whose ideas do accurately reflect reality gain an advantage thereby, and that advantage can gradually, by fits and starts, encourage the idea to gain ground. There's no going back.

Societies who fully utilize the talents and abilities of their entire population outperform hands down those who subjugate large percentages of their members and relegate them to positions in which there are no opportunities beyond manual labor. The biggest shortage in the world is always and forever for intelligence. Failing to fully employ the intelligence and contributions of a large section of society is a no-win strategy.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
There was at one time a rational reason born of psychological necessity for men to regard women as second-class people, much less important than men. Go back in time three hundred years, and you will find that one out of five women died in childbirth. This means that virtually every man was touched by the death of a woman he knew--mother, aunt, sister, wife--who died because a man had sex with her. Men had to diminish the psychological impact of this, otherwise it would have been hard to continue propagating the species. If a man really thinks to himself that when he is having sex with a woman he is likely killing her, he must either trivialize the life that is being put at risk, or else be unable to perform, out of sheer horror and guilt.

It is no accident that the increase in women's rights and the general cause of the equality of women has only come after medical science has made death in childbirth a relatively rare thing, and women's equality only is seen today in cultures for which this is true. Third World nations which are less advantaged medically tend still to regard women as chattel, something lower and less important than men.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
What sort of evidence do you have to support such a theory? I find it to be utter rubbish.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I don't know what I think about it, but it *seems* reasonable to me, at least on the surface. Would you mind elaborating on why you find it "utter rubbish", ak?

[ July 18, 2004, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Interesting.

That ascribes a certain tragic defense for male objectifying women.

I thought it was because women were responsible for the continued survival of the group, they were left to "safe" chores while the expendable men went out and did dangerous stuff like hunting.

Over time, men began to view women as property when there was a surplus and could thus be bartered to other tribes for useful resources or wagered like other goods as they were obviously inferior to men in all respects except for birthing ability and could even be recreational from time to time.

Just my rather cynical interpretation of history's funny quirks.

-Trevor

Edit: As women tend not to be as inherently physically powerful as men, they lost contests of strength that frequently determined who gave the orders. Which in turn made them lower than the weakest man.

Alternate theory 2.

[ July 17, 2004, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

After all, white is a mixture of all the colors of the rainbow, including black.

---

quote:

---

There was at one time a rational reason born of psychological necessity for men to regard women as second-class people, much less important than men. Go back in time three hundred years, and you will find that one out of five women died in childbirth. This means that virtually every man was touched by the death of a woman he knew--mother, aunt, sister, wife--who died because a man had sex with her. Men had to diminish the psychological impact of this, otherwise it would have been hard to continue propagating the species. If a man really thinks to himself that when he is having sex with a woman he is likely killing her, he must either trivialize the life that is being put at risk, or else be unable to perform, out of sheer horror and guilt.

---

Interesting theory. I have never heard or even conceived of such an idea before. But was death from childbirth really common enough to have this effect? What about all the men who died from their dangerous occupations or in wars? Seems to me that probably more men died then women. That seems to contradict the theory.

I think it had a lot more to do with how hard life was without modern conveniences and how separated the roles of men and women were. Men always had the advantage of strength in a brutal world.

Women bore and raised children and that in so many ways separated them from what men considered "the real world". Women required support and protection to be wives and mothers, therefore society molded them to be naive and dependent. They were seen much as children to be cherished or coddled, upbraided and punished--condescended to. No one took them seriously just as no one took a child seriously. That seems to make a lot more sense to me.

Again, the parallel with increasing equality and increasing modern conveniences.

I am glad that things have equalled out as they have. I feel that God blessed me with a good intellect, and I fear that would have been wasted in a previous age or that I would have lived a life of terrible frustration. I can't stand someone not taking me seriously because I am female.

Though I must admit, if women today acted like the women in the movies made in the 50's, 60's, or even the 70's, I would probably not take them seriously either. But is there any way to know if women of a past generation really acted like that or if that was just Hollywood?

[ July 18, 2004, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Yes, I know women of those generations, and I read their writings. There were no higher percentages of silly women in those days than now. Society did reward women who pretended or deliberately depicted themselves in a less than intelligent light, then as now. However, read Jane Austen or really almost any good writer through the ages to see that there were intelligent, wise, strong women in all times.

[ July 18, 2004, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Hmmm, if that is truly the case, ak, I'm pretty ticked off at Hollywood's unflattering portrayal of women. I remember watching a movie for my film class (can't remember what it was now) where some guy kills a girl's brother. Naturally, she is furious with him! Then he starts kissing her and she melts into his arms. All is forgotten because he is ravishing me! Oh, oh, do that some more! Grrrrrrrr.
 

---

Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
 

quote:

---

So if they are not black, they must be white.

---

Yes, it's entirely impossible that people could be discriminated against because their skin is a colour other than black. Here in Australia we have racism towards Asian and Aboriginal peoples. And now against Middle Eastern people as well. Of course, we could lump them all together as "blacks" but that'd fail to recognise cultural and ethnic differences. We could call all the Asian people "Orientals" too - after all, if it was good enough for 16th century explorers then it's good enough for citizens in 21st century multi-racial societies.

My apologies for the sarcasm but I just don't particularly like the labelling that has occurred at times in this thread. I'm sure those responsible don't see what they are saying as being offensive so don't think I'm attacking you guys. Stereotypes and labels are important because they inscribe the terms within which identity is formed and through which minority groups (or even majority groups such as black South Africans under apartheid or Amerindians in Bolivia today) are marginalised.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Beverly, you should be irritated at the portrayal. THere have been strong, smart, practical women in all ages, and there have been women who got a great deal of attention for playing/being dumb then just as there is now.

In fifty years, what if women of today are assumed to have been like Jessica Simpson? That's even a "reality" show!

---

So, men demeaned and triviliazed women because they were just so gosh darn sensitive they couldn't have sex with them if they didn't? How sweet of them! How very sensitive! How caring! So THAT'S why they conferred second-class status!

[ July 18, 2004, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Unfortunately, a reality show I have not seen. I don't know anything about her, so I can't get the jist of the example.

Though from what I do know of reality shows in general, I can imagine I wouldn't be an admirable example.
 

---

Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
 
Kinda crazy, huh, Kat?

How are ya, by the way?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*grin* I'm all right, EG. Had a great weekend and a good day today, so the world's okay. How are things for you?
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
ron,

Your theory is kind of lame. (I'll try to explain why if you like).

ak,

quote:

---

Ah, maybe because his writings are the first I ever read by a man who actually understands totally the whole thing

---

quote:

---

Societies who fully utilize the talents and abilities of their entire population outperform hands down those who subjugate large percentages of their members and relegate them to positions in which there are no opportunities beyond manual labor.

---

Nothing more curious than a woman who assume's the guise and mantle of masculine competition right down to 'splaining the best strategy for the home team.

fallow
 

---

Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
 
Not too bad, Kat. I have a chapter of my thesis due today so it was a weekend of staring at a computer screen. Otherwise - pretty peachy.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
kat,

You think future folks would look back on J.S. and her bubbly-boobly rebooblicanism and assume the womenfolk of the day were stoopid?

fallow
 

---