Racism vs Sexism

Check out this snippet from an article in the Nation where a reporter is in Ohio talking to voters about who they're likely to vote for:

begin-
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, this man said, he'd not only vote for but work for McCain, "and I hate McCain."

"Why not Obama?"

"He's too inexperienced."

"And why else?" a woman down the bar asked.

"Because he's black."

"Thank you!" she replied.

More talk, a little heat, and the man exclaimed, "I'm not going to vote for the n****r!"

Some in the bar seemed tensed; they were "undecided." The man goaded them; that's not what they had discussed the other day. He laughed. Another man from across the bar said he knew whom he wasn't voting for: "the n****r."
-end

I don't know how reading that affected any of you but I can't decide if I feel more disgusted, angry, or just plain discouraged by that exchange. As a supporter of Obama I hate to see people so blinded by their ignorance that they can't see the good such a remarkable man can do. As an objective observer I wince at the irony* that these people are dismissing a man who, if they just gave a chance, could conquer their preconceived notions about race. On the other hand I've known enough people who consider their black friends "one of the good ones" to know that's not likely true. Which is why it's a bit odd that every time I hear of something this blatantly racist in this country I'm still surprised. I've seen it, I know it exists. But it's an affect of the generation I'm from that we've grown up freer from it than our parents, and when I see it it still feels like a shock. What's egregious in the above exchange is that these people are comfortable enough in their bigotry that they talk this way in front of someone who they know is a reporter, let alone a stranger. It's not even about the words they used, it's about how nonchalant they were about their prejudice.

The topic I want to bring from this, as the title of the post implies, isn't that racism is bad, or that Obama will have to fight this kind of ignorance, or that Ohio is a shitty place to live, true as all those are. My point is that while these remarks aren't common about Obama out in the open, they're universally decried when they are. However, the same reaction doesn't seem to surface when people express reservations about Clinton due to her being a woman. I don't think it would be socially unacceptable for someone to say "well I'm just not sure how comfortable I would be with a woman leading the country." Sure it's sort of a misogynistic thing to say, but I think most people would be at most mildly offended by it. On the other hand replace "woman" in that sentence with "black man" and in most social circles you'd be asked kindly to leave the first time, and not so kindly the second. In essence the two kinds of bigotry seem the same, and it would be logical that they are treated with the same reaction, but they're not. I feel that they should be, but everyone may not agree with me there.

I'm not quite on the "the media is unfair to hillary!" band-wagon, but there is something to be said when it's more socially acceptable to be misogynistic than racist in a campaign. After all, Chris Matthews wasn't apologizing for nothing. And in media in general, racism is unacceptable, but the same rules don't always apply to sexism. It's true that sexism is much harder to define boundaries for than racism. Still, so is the fact that misogynism is possibly more acceptable in both a serious context and in a joking context.

I'm not arguing that politics be color or gender-blind. Barack's heritage and Hillay's sex are very important to who they are. Barack grew up in the waning days of socially acceptable racism, found inspiration in key black leaders, and learned his faith in black churches. Hillary struggled against glass ceilings in politics and in the law practice. Both of them are stronger for what they fought against. I however don't mean to compare the adversity of one to the other. When evaluating them as candidates though what matters isn't who they are on the surface or even what they've done. It even matters little who they are. What matters is what they will do for the country. Who they are and what they've done are important insofar as they are predictors of what they will do for the country. Their race and their gender, they are not.

* I know I'm using the word ironic incorrectly, but the colloquial meaning overtook the literal meaning long ago. Give it up english majors.


EDIT - I wrote this post before the Ohio primary and didn't think it was very good. However since I can't type much lately I decided I'll post it just so the people who still check in once in a while have something to read :)