Curious about your thoughts

[RazBerryBeret]

a subject I've discussed a lot lately with friends and family:

what do you feel is more prevalent in today's America: Racism or Sexism?

16 votes, 6 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Racism
	14 (88%)
	Sexism
	2 (13%)
	6 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[MineralMan]

1. It's not a comparative thing.

Both exist. Both are bad. We need to eliminate both of them.

[Rex]

2. Agree, trying to make it a competition is silly.

Both are very prevalent in our society.

[RazBerryBeret]

8. silly is a dumb word.

Talking about it is not making it a competition. it is very relevant in our current political/election cycle.

[Rex]

9. Your poll makes it into a competition.

Maybe you didn't notice.

[RazBerryBeret]

15. interesting

I thought I was asking a question to gauge a general consensus on a liberal-base discussion board, from a wide geographical variety of respondents. if that's a competition for you, ok . Are all polls competitions? is there always a winner and a loser, that was really not my intention.

[Rex]

16. Well now you know.

[Boomerproud]

10. My thoughts as well.

Sexism is more complex because I have always thought it has its start in religion (a woman brought sin into the world) and also has its roots in social role playing. Racism is about power and privilege and even though laws have been enacted to give the aggrieved persons legal recourse, it certainly hasn't changed some people's hearts.

[RazBerryBeret]

17. thank you for the thoughtful response. n/t

[Squinch]

3. Silly poll. Both of them are prevalent. What is the point of this?

[RazBerryBeret]

12. just asking a question

which is very apropos of our current election cycle. will it be more influenced by sexism or racism.

[seabeyond]

13. Who got the vote first? Who got the Presidency first. Privilege of white as we walk in the world. Nt

[Squinch]

23. "Which will influence the current election cycle more" is an entirely different question from

"which is more prevalent in our society."

People of color and women tend to support the same candidates. This "poll" smacks of an effort to divide them via some kind of misery contest.

I am suspicious.

[RazBerryBeret]

24. Dear God

legitimate question.
be suspicious all you want...

but what exactly are you suspicious of?

[LWolf]

4. Other.

They are both prevalent, so trying to rank them is pointless. It's not a competition. It's an indictment.

[seabeyond]

5. Racism is overt, sexism not as much, but prevelant. A dead black man is pretty profound.

Women and girls losing their lives because we are losing our rights is much more quiet. Death at the hands of men are more acceptable as Gfs, wives, and to be pursuers.

I am not in a competition. For sure.

[edhopper]

6. We have a man running for President

who embodies both rather strongly and equal;y.

[RazBerryBeret]

18. yes we do

and it is a scary thing.
I'm generally fascinated by reasoning to vote for him or against him. Especially friends who I thought I knew well!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

7. Other: Zero-sum thinking. nt

[MohRokTah]

11. Both are at about the same levels. eom

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. both. it's not a competition.

these things manifest differently, but both are omnipresent.

[athena]

19. At least (most) people today see that racism is a problem.

Sexism seems to be just fine with most people, even on DU. Just look at all the posts that say that women's complaints about sexism have "gotten old". You can make an outrageously sexist statement, and people will defend it as being the truth, while criticizing feminists who complain as being thin-skinned or not having a sense of humor. The same is not true of racism.

In my opinion, racism is more acute, but sexism runs deeper. One day, people will be treated equally regardless of their skin color. Black people will no longer be killed by cops for the crime of being Black. That day, society will still expect that women do most of the cooking, cleaning, and child care in the home, as if women were naturally born as second-class citizens whose purpose on Earth is to serve as men's maids. Large numbers of people will still believe that women should be forced against their will to go through pregnancy and give birth because a woman's bodily integrity is less important than the pain that might be felt by a fetus that might be male. Women will still be underrepresented in government and the top echelons of corporations. People will still blame women for their own underrepresentation in the sciences by saying, as Larry Summers did, that they just choose not to work as hard. Women who dare to speak their minds in business meetings will still lose out on promotions for being "aggressive" and having a "strong personality". Female politicians will still be criticized for being "shrill", "loud", "angry", and "entitled". And the worst part of it is that almost no one will see a problem with any of this.

It's really counterproductive to try to argue that either sexism or racism is more important. We must join forces to fight both at the same time. A person who can recognize sexism is more likely to be able to recognize racism, and vice versa. This is not a contest.

[seabeyond]

20. Excellent post. Nt

[RazBerryBeret]

21. this was seriously not to prove a "winner"

or prove which is more important. That's why I used the word prevalent.

I just find it interesting talking to friends and even strangers about this election. Trump embodies both, Clinton brings out one. I would imagine it is different depending on what area of the country you live in, I live in Ohio but work in NY. noticeable difference between the two. Working in a very corporate business, sexism is very noticeable, as you stated.

We are all Humans, just very sad that we are so divided.
Thanks for replying in a thoughtful manner, appreciated.

[Squinch]

25. And yet it is structured so that the responder must pick a "winner." Perhaps the problem is

not with those reading your poll, but with your poll.

[athena]

27. OK, I understand, but I still think it's too hard to choose one over the other.

Even if you go just by frequency, it's impossible to say how frequently each one happens. If you're a white woman, you'll naturally tend to notice sexism more, whereas if you're a Black, Asian, or Hispanic man, you'll tend to notice racism more.

For example, as a woman who has been hurt by sexism, I inevitably notice sexism more. I've had to change my career twice because of sexism. There are two giant billboards that I see every day on my way to work that declare that fetuses "feel pain" (as if pregnant women don't). But every time I see a car stopped on the highway, at least nine times out of ten, the driver is Black. I also notice that the neighborhood where I live is wealthy and overwhelmingly white, whereas the neighborhood where I work is poor and overwhelmingly Black; this suggests a great deal of racism that is segregating the population. It's impossible to compare.

[chknltl]

31. Excellent post. I would add two words to one of your sentences:

Even though it is your opinion, I suspect you may agree to the addition of the words: 'or gender'.

"One day, people will be treated equally regardless of their skin color" 'or gender'.

This imo, is humanity's greatest goal: Unconditional equality.

[athena]

32. I was trying to say in that sentence

that although racism is more acute, sexism runs deeper, and that racism will be history before sexism is. The reason I think this is that it seems much easier for most people to accept that a Black man and a White man are intrinsically the same than to accept that men and women are intrinsically the same. (I could be wrong. My opinion is inevitably shaped by the fact that I'm a white woman, so that I'm much more sensitive to sexism than I am to racism.)

I agree with you that one day, hopefully not too far in the future, people will be treated equally regardless of their skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, or weight. Unconditional equality: how beautiful that sounds!

[chknltl]

35. Half the planet might agree with you

Historically and multiculturaly women have indeed been treated as the lesser species.

Has it always been so? Personally i doubt it. I doubt that we could have survived this long without a hell of a lot of dependence on each other but i have no facts to base this on.

I just know that unconditional equality is a darn fine goal for humanity to have.

[smirkymonkey]

36. +1000

[SheriffBob]

22. Thhe reason for them-why?

I think lack of a conscience is the reason. There's a lot of sociopaths out there in the jungle.

[chknltl]

26. I believe that if you are one you are likely to not believe in other forms of equality..

IMO deep in their core values both racists and sexists do not believe in equality. For this reason I see racism and sexism as two sides of the same coin.

[Rex]

28. I agree with that. Birds of a feather.

[athena]

29. It's great to finally be able to agree with a Bernie supporter on something!

[chknltl]

34. We agree here so far but maybe not further.

In my particular spiritual paradigm, full equality worldwide is one of humanity's most important goals.

Economic equality is not discussed so far but it should be equally valid to the discussion because it is arguably at the core of much of humanity's deepest current miseries. Those with economic abilities far exceeding the abilities of the majority of this world's citizenship are the bullies, they cow into submission and even murder any of us for profit.

Hundreds of thousands just in Iraq are recently dead for this reason is a good recent example. Note, I place no blame on politicians here, that blame goes solely on the shoulders of those who caused that war because they expected to profit from it. This war plan for profiting the economically over-privileged is a recurring theme throughout human history.

How is economic inequality, as I just laid out, so very different than either racism or sexism in their bigger scheme of things.-(note the period instead of a question mark). The horrors and nightmares, imo are just not that different.

Call it my spiritual paradigm or call it what you will but I believe that for humanity to survive in a greater universe to come we first must learn to treat one another as equal. It is this desire to see the human race taking baby steps down the loooong road to that envisioned equality that prompts my support for Senator Sanders.

[athena]

37. You shouldn't assume to know what others believe

based on the mere fact that they don't support the same candidate as you. You just made a pretty offensive assumption that anyone who supports Hillary must not believe in economic equality. That shows that you have not bothered to listen to progressives who do not happen to support your candidate.

The first step toward achieving equality is listening and empathizing. It is not lecturing.

[chknltl]

38. Nor should you.

You brought up agreeing with a Sanders supporter. I pointed out my feelings about economic equality based on my honest feelings-feelings I have had long before coming to DU-feelings that Senator Sanders has spoken to long before he threw his hat in the ring. As you might recall most of Senator Sanders's campaign was based on economic inequality.

I watched all of each of the debates. I do not recall Senator Clinton's discussions being as strong around economic equality as was Senator Sanders's. I've further reasons for skepticism that a President Clinton will do as well as a President Sanders when it comes specifically to economic changes that narrow inequalities but the primaries are over, Senator Clinton is the nominee. DU is no longer the place for such debate anyway.

I do find it interesting though, now that you've made the bruha over this, just how many other fellow DUer's made a case for economic equality in this thread prior to mine. Was it not that important regardless of whom one supported?

My feelings about equality are not about to change, nor will my perspective on how economic royalists see the rest of us. My sense of how our government has drifted to oligarchy since President Carter's time is not likely to change either. Perhaps if you find me that offensive you might just want to bid me a nice day and hit the ignore button.

[seabeyond]

39. I personally believe Clintons position is more strong. She addressed the unlevel playing field those

oppressed have to navigate, while Sanders plans ignored the unlevel playing field, showing us how his policies would not be better for economic equality that Clinton's policies. That is actuality, Clinton's economic plans were more progressive.

So, I disagree that conversation has not been had and that HRC people are not concerned with economic inequality.

[chknltl]

40. You are someone I'd rather not be in disagreement with.

In the case of economic inequality and which candidate's proposals were best to handle it, I am forced into this: I disagree with you.

The primaries are over, Senator HR Clinton is our nominee. As far as DU is concerned this is no longer the place to go over our disagreements from the primaries.

If despite my personal skepticisms i somehow survive being purged from DU and I am proven wrong you Seabeyond and anyone else I've offended will get a full apology from me. An apology offered up for a crime i have never truly committed. While i confess that i have thought some DUers could not give a poop about equality, economic or otherwise I have never to my knowledge had the nerve even to have actually accused anyone of this.

OTOH should (for examples) we get led into a war with Iran or a (further) rekindling of the Cold War between us and Russia or even a deepening of the inequality between those few haves and the rest of us.... we shall revisit this discussion about economic equality and where money should be going that isn't.

[athena]

41. Clearly, it doesn't pay to compliment a Bernie supporter.

You will only be attacked in return. And you will have false statements made in the title of posts in response to your posts, apparently in the hope that most people only read the titles. I've noticed that this is a pattern with Bernie supporters.

So much for unity, civility, and trying to move on after a difficult primary. I should have known. This sub-discussion was never really about equality but rather about feeling superior to others because of one's choice of candidate.

[chknltl]

43. No compliments were paid, only agreements and disagreements

You interpreted my saying 'possibly' to meaning 'definately'...Your choice.

I do not feel any superiority, never did, that sorta negates equality but again, YOUR interpretations are your own.

[Act_of_Reparation]

30. Doesn't matter.

Both exist. Both are prevalent. Both need to be fixed.

[uponit7771]

33. Other: Racism is deep, sexism is wide...

[Brickbat]

42. Neither. The entire system is built on both.