I am on a YahooGroup where there was a message (and furious storm of responses) posted on the fourth of July. It had something to do with the U.S. and why we’ve only had a WASP male president. In the post was the following list:
Dems top 4:
Clinton – Female
Obama – African-American
Richardson – Hispanic
Edwards – WASP
Guliani – Catholic
Romney – Mormon
McCain – WASP
Thompson – WASP
So here’s the deal. Stereotyping is easy, and common, and convenient. It helps us, as humans, put people in various buckets so we can make assumptions about them. None of us like it, but we all do it.
Even though we all do it, I think we all try and not do it much, and especially not publicly. But it was really interesting to see this publicly. WOW. Aside from that, here’s what’s been on my mind since the 4th (when I first say this):
Can you compare all of these non-like stereotypes in one grouping like this? Isn’t comparing a Catholic to a Female to an African-American kind of weird? It just seems weird to me.
If you are going to stereotype like this, should you show all of the different races OR all of the different religions? So that way you can compare apples-to-apples?
And, how come Richardson is the token “hispanic” and not the governer of New Mexico, who was one of Clinton’s heavies?
How come Romney is the “mormon” and not the governer of some state out east?
And Billary, I mean, Hillary is the token “female” with no mention about having the distinct honor of being the wife of an impeached US president (how *cool* is that, to get an impeached president back in the white house).
Discrimination. Geesh. We’re all dumb. But there’s a lot of depth. Want to know the latest thing I was discriminated against?
No kidding … for having an MBA.