fishin' wrote:blatham wrote:Bah! To vote for a woman president because she will be the first woman president is obviously not sexist in the same sense as voting against a woman because she is a woman, so let's not pretend a complete lack of difference here.
Why isn't it the same?
If you are voting (or not) for someone and the over-riding criteria for your decision is the person's sex then it's sexist. Claiming that it's "not the same" is just a way of rationalizing a justification for being sexist.
fishin
It's the difference between Jackie Robinson and any black kid playing pro ball today. What makes them the same is obvious, but what makes them different is of clear social importance.
Back then, there was a very sound reason to BE "racist" - in one sense you suggest that word. There were no blacks playing pro ball and (from a consideration of social justice/equality) there ought to have been blacks in pro ball. Anyone setting actively to the task of placing a black there might be termed racist, but to use the term in that way is to reverse its meaning.
Which is why I brought up the "strange fruit" metaphor. When 98% of men swinging from oak trees were black, what is gained if you use the term "racist" to describe noting race in that statistical breakdown I just mentioned? And what is lost?