"(My apologies to feminists, but we didn't fight a civil war over the place of women in American society.)"

My apologies to Mr. Noah, but America never fought a civil war over racial equality either. The Civil War was about federalism, and a culture clash between agrarian and industrialized societies. Slavery was a hot topic, but not casus belli.

The only reason discrimination against women hasn't incited fisticuffs is because it's so broadly tolerated. Chuckled at, even. Or worse, dismissed as nonexistent.

It's been generations since a black American was deemed three-fifths of a citizen, whereas even now, women's contributions are only valued at 70 cents to the dollar.

Clem, yes, thank you!!

I really don't think there is any meaningful answer to the question of whether its worse to be black or female in this country other than to say we can probably agree that black women have the most prejudices to overcome. Somehow, though, it's become both racist and sexist to support Clinton. The racist attack is easier to understand (not that I agree with it). The sexist attack ranges the spectrum from feminism has risen above identity politics and don't force me to blindly vote for a woman to Clinton would be able to do as much for women as a man can (e.g. Elizabeth Edwards, at least that one failed to take root).

How even a casual observer of this election can somehow argue that race is the only divisive cultural issue in this country is mystifying!

There was a lot to like in Obama's speech today. But I couldn't help but notice that he opened by basically making the assertion that racist attitudes are the only thing keeping us from achieving a union where all people are treated equal. Women did not obtain the right to vote in the US until 1920, but somehow that wasn't mentioned as one of the legacies of inequality that our country needs to overcome. And though I don't know the specific history as well, early voting requirements included owning property...disenfranchising the poor, something that continues to be a problem albeit less explicitly. I know that he was giving a speech specifically on race issues and as such I would expect him to concentrate on them. But by failing to mention the other issues (which incidentally effect the people voting in higher proportions for Clinton), I can't help but feel like there was a little bit more political calculation in his speech than people seem willing to admit.

I suppose what I've learned through this election so far is that I'm a hopeless cynic (or maybe I'm a hopeless idealist who hasn't seen anything equal to my ideals yet). Has Clinton tried plenty of dirty political ploys to garner votes? Definitely! But I can't help but feel that Obama has been somewhat deceptively manipulating voters as well...and yet he seems to be maintaining this aura of having risen above it all (similar to the double think associated with liberal McCain supporters who somehow believe he doesn't mean what he says or what he does). Personally I think that the whole lot of choices we have (Obama, Clinton, McCain) leave *a lot* to be desired. In general I'll probably vote for whomever has a D next to their name this fall b/c I'm probably a bit more closely aligned with the party platform issues...but am I the only one who isn't inspired by anyone right now?

You must be smart enough to know that this 70 cents to the dollar is just bogus and based on SOOO many factors that to imply it is due MAINLY to sex discrimination is a JOKE.

The primary factor is that employers like to pay as little as possibe. Study after study has shown that women are willing to work for less pay (due to many factors like needing a flex schedule so they can take care of the kids).

YES, there is still sex discrimination AND women are still being paid less, when valid studies are done that balance out other factors, BUT it isn't 70 cents to the dollar.

Why are women so weak to 'broadly tolerate' being treated like second class citizens? In other words who are you mad at, society in general or your sisters for being fools and putting up with discrimination?

The only way to push change is to change from within and NOT accept being treated as less than equal. Hopefully Obama will get this message out to the black community.

Thank you for clarifying that remark. I can't understand it's all right to decry racism but let's just forget the gender issue!!

Hillary is a low-down, dirty, same-old, same old politician, and Barack is a saint; the democrats would be insane to not nominate Barack!

I have no problems with your overall perspective on gender inequity, but your views on the Civil War strike me as quite misplaced. Federalism and a cultural clash? I don't buy it at all, but how do you divorce the CULTURAL importance of slavery from the South? One can't talk about the Antebellum South without talking about slavery. The South was a slave-based society. This is the pathetic reasoning propagated by reconstructionist-era Southerners. It may have IN PART been due to Federalism, but the issues that surrounded slavery were THE MAIN forces behind the move to Civil War.

Furthermore, debates over who has it worse only undermine liberal-minded activism.

Clem:

"(My apologies to feminists, but we didn't fight a civil war over the place of women in American society.)"

My apologies to Mr. Noah, but America never fought a civil war over racial equality either. The Civil War was about federalism, and a culture clash between agrarian and industrialized societies. Slavery was a hot topic, but not casus belli.

You just saved me a post.

I'm sorry to rain on your parade (and that of others in this thread) but although it's true that there were reasons the civil war was fought that had nothing to do with slavery, the civil war was WON because it was fought to end slavery. Subtract the sacrifices of the many Union volunteers inspired by anti-slavery beliefs (not to mention those of runaway slaves themselves) and there's no way the Union wins. And, indeed, the civil war never even happens at all unless the North elected a President whom the South knew (even as he tried to hedge the issue) was going to try to end slavery.

All of that said, the point being challenged here is that racism trumps sexism as a matter of social repression. With all due respect for Shirley Chisholm, this country does not have a record -- at any time in its history -- of women being lynched by cheering mobs, which happened AFTER the civil war right up to the 1960s. Women got the vote in 1920 and were never denied it on a systematic basis thereafter, as blacks were until the 1970s (and are, once again, today). Women HAVE been treated as chattel and their labor continues to be exploited today, but it is not possible to imagine a woman being treated as Rodney King was -- on videotape -- and the perpetrators walking away free. I also have it on the authority of one of Boston's leading feminist lawyers that job discrimination in Boston's various government positions is ALWAYS worse for women of color than for white women.

There's a reason for all of this. While women may be defined by historical roles that are oppressive, they have their origins in relations within the family unit. That's not to say that they're not bad, or even occasionally lethal. But they're not about the work marketplace as a whole. With blacks (and other minorities exploited for their cheap labor), the oppression has been about MONEY -- the maintenance of a pool of cheap and tame labor which both increases profits and also lowers the demands of majority-group workers.

When a husband offed his wife, that was repression, but society never endorsed it because it didn't benefit anybody -- including the husband. But when a mob lynched blacks trying to organize voter registrations in the South, that DID benefit the leaders of society because it ensured a system which favored all white people to at least some degree, and a few to a very large degree.

That's a HUGE difference. When I was in Georgia observing a voter registration drive in 1963, a policeman told me to be out of town by sundown or he'd kill me. The next time I was there, in 1977 in a town not far away, the sheriff was black. THAT is what lynch mobs and the KKK were about, and there is no counterpart to any of this in the battle against sexism. The glass ceiling exists, yes, but those who challenge it are repressed, not murdered.

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its peace and safety.

On the 4th of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. "

This is a direct quote from the DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES WHICH INDUCE AND JUSTIFY THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE FEDERAL UNION. You can read the entire thing at <link>

You may notice that nowhere in the document is anything citing "culture clash" or "agrarian vs. industrialism". Federalism is cited, but only as it applies to slavery and enforcement of the fugitive slave laws.

This is but one example. Should you do some simple research, you will find much the same language in the declarations of the other ten states of the Confederacy.

Who is the Independent candidate ?

Gender roles are so tied into religion that until it is seriously addressed via immigration standards, inclusional to secularized immigration that protect what has been fought in the US gender wise. An example, if I were to allow immigration of people who religiously believed in slavery and the subjugation of a race of people, how many generations would it take for that to become accepted? if the immigration is 90% with this belief system and practice. 80%? etc.

What if atheism and agnosticism was a balancing standard for immigrants who maintain the political and religious superiority of males over females. Would this help maintain gender rights in the US? Would women's rights increase or decrease with each voting base that is inclusional of them as equals.

It's complex because ethnicity has become tied to specific religiosity. I am not allowed to attack a religion without being perceived as attacking a race. It is reminiscent of religious proponents of slavery, attack what I say and attack god type of rhetoric. The fact is secularism is an important aspect of our society. What is being done to protect it? Have we been educated as a society well enough to identify when individual rights are abrogated because they are "individual" and not part of a collective agenda, which promotes itself at the expense of an "individual's" right to the pursuit of happiness.

I think the most discriminated female in the mix is the white female over 40. White women experience the greatest power in their early lives, and lose power as they age. As they become more sure of themselves and less tied to "duty" they are more likely to be ignored and their authority discounted. Men, have the least power in their youth, their power increases as they age. Weight, demeanor, make-up, physical appearance, upkeep consume energy, time and money from a woman's already 70 cents per share deal they have.

How did we get here. Religion is a factor of course, witch hunts had culled most of the independent herds of early Europe and America, instilling a sense of self-preservation into gender. Sacrifice by the male gender of those times, to gladly take on plagues, and sickness to keep women from assuming their historical to that time in history role as healers and herbalists. The strengths of the gender being rooted out and destroyed. What was it Sojourner Truth said "I am worse than a slave, because I am a slave of a slave". I disagree btw with the statement that black women have it doubly bad. Actually without black females and their alliance with early feminists women would never have had the ability to vote. Black women are allowed more freedom to personally express on their bodies, they are allowed a higher weight limit, they are allowed vocalization, they are allowed up the ranks without the beauty contests that white women have to contend with. A black woman's power increases within her community with age. She is empowered. She has enjoyed both sides of affirmative action, and has been able to say what she wants about what she sees around her without societal "shunning" which happens in other ethnic communities. She is allowed to be the power base, and voice. It is interesting to observe the trend begin to change. The same standards set for white females and other ethnic minorities is beginning to be set for black females. The increase of power as she ages is diminishing, and a lot of this is due to churches like Obama's, which encourage the traditional religious role of woman as submissive and secondary to that of male.

I guess women could look at Obama and say complex....he has not one clue the complexity. He has no way to identify because he isn't and never will be a woman, a mother, or a grandma, doing their best to survive and raise their's the best way they know how.

But he really doesn't care, personally I wish someone would pick up his grandma from the side of the road because it bugs the bejeezus out of me.

Yeah, right, I forgot. Obama's wife is submissive in keeping with her traditional role. A regular cupcake.

You make some interesting points here, but I'm not clear on how the fact that women of color are discriminated against more than white women supports them. Women of color are affected by two different forms of prejudice...so this is not at all surprising.

Also, while I agree that fear of violent retaliation from angry mobs is not a type of oppression that women have historically been subject to in *this* country, women remain constantly at higher risk of violence in their own homes even in the US. You're right that no woman was ever beaten on video tape when the perpetrators got away with it, but how many men beat or rape their wives and walk free. And you can argue that sometimes this is b/c the women don't press charges, but how often is a woman who does press charges retaliated against when either the charges don't stick or the perpetrator's sentence is completed.

My point here is *not* to argue that women have it worse than blacks. I just honestly don't believe it's a meaningful comparison to make in any way. I think that the impacts of the different forms of prejudice are generally quite different (though not in all contexts),
and those differences probably arise from the discriminations' historical roots.

I don't mean in any way to either pretend to be able to relate to being a black American or to diminish the atrocities that continued (and continue) after slavery was abolished. I only argue that the explosive and violent history you describe also does not "trump" the very real perils that women and historically faced as a disenfranchised segment of the population and the very real discrimination they continue to face.

For what it's worth, though I don't think he said it explicitly, I believe that this message of moving past playing the game of, "Who is more disadvantaged than whom?" is precisely what he was trying to say. As a society we cannot work out our differences if we're focused so narrowly on figuring out who the biggest victim is. And attempting to do so has the dangerous consequences of alienating people who see themselves as neither being the perpetrators of bigotry nor the beneficiaries of any particular racial/gender/class advantage. I think the corollary to this should be that we are all a little racist and we are all a little sexist (okay, fine, these words are so ambiguous that maybe they're not the best choice...but we all hold negative stereotypes deep down that make us fear those who are "other") and those in positions of power have played off of those prejudices and use them to manipulate society for their own ends. Arguing about who is more prejudiced and who has it worse distracts from the things we really can do like building coalitions around implementing policies that will level the playing field for everyone. I do personally believe that some of these policies need to address specific prejudices that have impacted certain groups in unique ways, e.g. ending a cycle of inferior public education in (now) inner city communities that began with explicit racial segregation and continues with locally funded school systems in largely segregated neighborhoods. But the overarching message has to be one of the common good for the country as a whole and not one of blaming people for past wrongs and leaving it at their whim to do something about it out of guilt. If nothing else, this is necessary b/c that message hasn't been working.

Look, what I was trying to say, perhaps badly, is that the racism which most blacks old enough to remember the 1960s or earlier experienced is qualitatively different from the sexism that women of that era or any since have experienced. That's not to defend sexism, of course, or even to minimize its horrors. It's simply true. The difference is this: sexism, even in its worst forms, is a repression undertaken by individual men against individual women, and without more than the tacit approval of society -- most often not even that. Racism, in its worst forms, was undertaken by the white society AS A WHOLE against blacks AS A WHOLE, with the open approval of white society to the extent that the laws were meaningless. Men beat or rape their wives and walk free all the time, but that's because the law places the burden of proof upon the victim to engage the state on her behalf. If she does this (not that I'm saying it's easy and not that I'm saying the state always responds), she has at least some chance of getting justice. Blacks were never in that position -- the state would NEVER take their side in any dispute, no matter how egregious the circumstances. All of that said, you're perfectly correct to note that it's not a very important point, because it leads to a game in which various forms of victimization compete for sympathy and the most politically powerful -- never women OR blacks -- wins. The classic example of this is the fact that the Bush administration's civil rights division has devoted MOST of its legal case work to defending white "victims" of affirmative action and religious "victims" of secular law.

At any rate, I seriously disagree with the notion, which another poster put forth and which I thought you were defending, that Obama is insensitive to sexism. The fact that he was chosen a spouse who is very much her own woman, and seems comfortable with her in that role (even as it has hurt him sometimes) tells me that there won't be a sexism problem in his administration.

I think it's great that Obama has a strong and independent spouse. I've heard someone who knew the couple while they were in Illinois say that in many ways she is a more compelling and dynamic person than he is (for whatever such hearsay might mean). But as a woman who has experienced against many different forms of sexism, I will say that I don't think that's enough. My father married a physician who was smarter than him (or at least a better med student when they met) and has raised two very successful daughters forging careers in heavily male-dominated fields. But does that mean he is sensitive to all instances of sexism and that he doesn't in many ways both inadvertently and in some ways directly propagate patriarchal attitudes? Of course not! Do I think he's sexist? No, but I also don't think that if he were in a position of government leadership that he would understand all the issues let alone be able to make relevant changes. My point is that its possible to have discriminatory attitudes and habits and not be openly sexist (at least not consciously). I know b/c I'm a woman, and I hold negative attitudes about women's abilities. It's not conscious of course, but I notice that I subject the work of women to a different level of scrutiny without even realizing it.

I think Obama, demonstrates the same kind of attitudes in dealing with Clinton. That makes him in this regard no worse than most people, but also not particularly better. But I don't see him trying to do anything to correct it...or generally even acknowledge sexism as an issue in our nation. As a woman, this worries me. I don't think he'll do anything deliberately sexist, but that's not what I'm concerned with. (For the record, I'm uneasy about Clinton for different reasons, but I do think that on this issue at least she'd be the better President. In general I want different candidates altogether, but there is no Santa Claus so I'll just wait until November to cast my vote against the other party's platform.)

"Why are women so weak to 'broadly tolerate' being treated like second class citizens?"

Are you implying that the men will always will always be on top as long as the women remain divided as they are?! (That myth went out with the Kinsey report.)

Joking aside, women and the rest of the world benefited from the American civil rights revolution. Martin Luther King's victory was a reminder to the rest of the world that Gandhi's victory was no flash in the pan. (Incidentally, to remind us it that it took Johnson's signature to bring King's dream to fruition is like saying that it took Emperor Hirohito's radio broadcast ordering his general's to surrender for the Allies to win World War II.) Ultimately, the producers, the workers at the base of the pyramid have the last word in bringing about change in their favor. (hint, hint). The failure of the Russian communist command economy was foretold by a worker's saying going the rounds in Russia, "We pretend to work, because they pretend to pay." Civil rights victories began with the demand side of the public transportation system in Selma withholding their patronage.

On another related topic, the greatest threat to our present economy is the neglect of the demand side of the economy, call it consumer confidence if you will, I call it impoverishment. Women have it in their power, if the next election fails to bring about the required changes, to organize and bring about all the changes they can reasonably demand. Most workers feel the squeeze of unfair treatment but have no idea what to do about it, or even what the real cause is. It is when the squeeze reaches the pockets of the intelligentsia that things begin to happen. One would think there are enough suitably educated women in the nation to bring about the changes they require, but they should give the next elections a chance first. At the same time you should remember that it was a woman, Margaret Thatcher who presided over the poll (head) tax which brought down the government. A woman is not always a woman's best friend, I should warn you.