Sexism and racism are getting talked about quite a bit on our companion site Culture Kitchen. And they are getting A LOT of readers. Though my favorite discussion of race on the site right now isn't getting much attention. But I do recommend Margaret's diary down memory lane.

To me, any discussion of race or gender has to start from the realization that America was FOUNDED with racism and sexism included in its foundation. Too often excuses are made that ignore this: things like "slavery wasn't so bad," or "the Civil War wasn't about slavery," or "that is all in the past, things are equal now."

As long as people ask questions like "are we ready for a woman president" or "are we ready for a [fill in your favorite ethnic, religious or racial minority] president" we still have a long way to go. I like to point out that if we are still asking if we are ready for a woman president this long after Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, etc. have ALREADY had women presidents/prime ministers, we should be embarrassed.

About 10 years ago I was living in a great place in the Hollywood Hills. We had a dinner guest one night who identified himself as a "libertarian." Now I have known some pretty smart and well meaning libertarians. But this guy was basically a fool who used libertarianism as a way of blaming society for his own shortcomings.

When he heard I was a scientist he asked me, with some bitterness, how I felt being in a field where women and minorities were given an unfair advantage because of affirmative action.

Well, I have never felt anyone had an unfair advantage over me in science...I haven't really seen the system work that way at all and thought the guy was a fool for thinking so. What I said was that I feel fully confident that I can make it on my own merits and if I can't that I applaud anyone else who does. I have never felt reverse discrimination was even vaguely an issue. And I have only known one person who may have been given an unfair advantage because of her gender and race...but that is another story.

It was about then he identified himself as a libertarian in a way that suggested somehow that made him a superior being on this issue, so I couldn't help but yank his chain a little. I replied, "Oh, yeah, libertarian. Isn't that what they used to call anarchist?"

To give you an idea what he was like, rather than laughing and correcting me, he actually started to sputter in rage and blustered, "they aren't ANYTHING alike."

I smiled and said, "I know the differences."

And, again, to give you an idea of how mediocre this guy was, he let me get away with that and subsided in rage. My landlady, his friend but also a liberal and feminist, grinned at me like crazy.

He was an angry white man. He was, quite simply, mediocre but wanted people to blame for his failures, so women and minorities getting too much from society were to blame for his mediocrity. Personally, when I am mediocre, I blame myself.

This guy was actually an above average example of the angry white man. Most examples are far angrier and far less intelligent. And they are the main targets of the kind of propaganda Fox News puts out. There is a whole chunk of our society who isn't really all that skilled, smart or strong but aren't happy being mediocre. Rather than look into themselves for the problem, they blame the blacks, Asians, women and anyone else they can think of.

Back in the first Bush presidency, many were trying to blame Mexico and Japan for our economic woes. It couldn't be us, it had to be "them." Now we have an angry white man icon as President, a man who is so lacking in skill, intelligence or imagination that it boggles the mind, yet he is President and people look at Colin Powell, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton and ask "are we ready for a black/women president?" We apparently are ready for an idiot, dry drunk liar, but we're not quite sure about intelligent blacks or women.

Bottom line is that someone like Bush should be flipping burgers and I would vote for Teacher with 'Tude over Bush for pretty much any elected position in the world. But instead, Bush is our President and I'm willing to bet that the majority of those who are still enamored of him are angry white men who feel cheated by a society that, in their fantasy world, favors minorities and women over good-old-boys.

They completely ignore the fact that women aren't trusted with decisions over their own bodies, one in four women are victims of sexual abuse of some kind, and blacks suffer from increased mortality at all ages, just to name a few examples that blow their world view out of the water.

The angry white man is, in my eyes, something of a buffoon. It is hard to take seriously someone who is a member of the most favored group in the world but who is convinced that the world is unfair to them. It would be crazy if it didn't get people like Bush elected.

But there is another group who stands in the way of progress on equality, and I call them the "conveniently compassionate white men." I have largely been unaware of this group until the recent primary election that Brooklyn became obsessed with in 2006: the NY-11 Congressional race. The conveniently compassionate white man, who is, in essence, a comfortable, wealthy white liberal who is perfectly happy to give blacks and women equality...as long as it doesn't inconvenience him or his view of himself as an enlightened champion of all that is pure and good, was expected to decide the election.

The conveniently compassionate white guy is harder to criticize because, by and large, his heart is in the right place and he in general votes well. But when it comes down to it, he has faith that a white guy can do a better job than a minority or a women, and if you differ with him he will call you racist for reverse discrimination.

I know because I experienced this during the NY-11 race where my step-daughter was called racist because we supported a black candidate in a predominantly black district and we were EXPECTED by our neighborhood to back the wealthy white liberal candidate.

It was that EXPECTATION that as a white male liberal I would support the white male liberal candidate over the black male liberal or black woman moderate candidate that upset me. And the fact that my family and I were considered racist because I preferred the black male liberal over the white male liberal.

The bottom line is that we DO live in a racist and sexist society. Some members of Culture Kitchen have outlined in another thread the sexism they feel they face. And if you want to read what I think about the racism that I see right here in liberal Brooklyn, you can read my summation of the NY-11 primary.

If you don't admit a problem you can't solve it. One of the things that struck me when I wrote my summation of the NY-11 primary was how many people were just happy that I was willing to TALK about race. To me it is blatantly obvious that America has made great progress since the days when women couldn't vote and blacks were slaves. But it is also blatantly obvious to me that we continue to be a racist and sexist society. Let's admit that and then see if we can make progress. We can't really progress if we still show our kids textbooks that say slavery wasn't so bad and we accept the level of violence against women and economic disparities we tolerate in this society. Come on America. Admit the problem.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |