Woof, woof woof.

OK, I cannot remain silent on the subject of race and gender in the current election. After hearing on NPR that we need to be extra sensitive about the subjects and not talk about them, I had to say something, even though I am sure there is not really a lack of discussion, just nothing substantive in the mainstream where facts are checked and research vetted. Opinions are like assholes (or something like that) and there are way too many of those in the blogs.

I must say to begin with that there needs to be a clear line drawn between stereotyping and bigotry. The latter being a strong, typically very negative, bias based on general precepts in contrast to the former, which is the development of basic categorical distinctions. To understand that there are clear and demonstrable tendencies, whether among a group of people or a group of rocks, is about as human as it gets. It is a key tool we use to organize the overwhelming amount of sensory data we perceive into a coherent sense of reality, and is physiologically rooted in the workings of a brain, especially a mammalian brain. This is our heritage and, in my mind, how as a group of animals (both as humans and mammals) we have developed learned adaptive behavior into such a successful survival strategy. The better able you are to pick out the important bits of information because you are intimately familiar with the general surroundings the better able you are to get food and keep from being food.

Being able to recognize differences and use them to better understand things does not make someone a bigot. Stereotypes are a starting point for understanding individuals. They are the foundations by which we recognize the differences that make something or someone an individual. It is when they are misused or overused to make value judgments that people fall into bigotry. Stereotyping helps provide a basic framework within which to understanding variation. There in lies the kernel of meaningful and informed discussion.

Is there a difference between how women and men think? It seems to me that there is mounting evidence, both physiologically and statistically to suggest that there are some less than insubstantial differences. I for sure know that there are different cocktails of brain chemicals floating around in the skulls of men and women. There is no denying the differing effects of various hormones etc. on mood and perception. Everyone has experienced the sensation that on a bad day things seem more threatening or annoying than normal. To a large extent that can be attributed to differences in brain chemistry resulting from things as mundane a lack of sleep or going a little to long without food. By examining a large enough population certain differences appear between men and women. Sexual dimorphism relates to gross anatomical differences such as height, muscle mass, hairiness, but can be extended to finer physiologies like the brain. How much overlap in behavior is there, how strong are tendencies, to what degree do individual circumstances control or affect these differences? I cannot say, but somebody with more expertise than me probably can and has. Or maybe not as the subject is very politically taboo.

When considering social groupings, which is basically all race boils down to (although there are some genetic consistencies among groups normally considered races), this becomes a much more difficult question. The taboo is immensely strong in American society because of the history of slavery and genocide we try to repress. Race is a very imprecise concept that everybody understands the meaning of. Although others may perceive someone as belonging to a certain group, race, or ethnicity it is actually more important how individuals considers themselves. Someone’s mannerisms and general outlook are greatly affected by the group they identify themselves with, most often on an unconscious level, although there are always posers demonstrating pretentious and exaggerated behaviors in an effort to fit in.

I don’t want to go too far off on a tangent, but it bears saying that recognizing members of our group and their behaviors is basic to humans. It feels safer if you are confident that certain stimuli in recognizable circumstances will elicit regular and predictable behaviors. Being unsure of the unfamiliar is frightening. It is a basic and instinctual group dynamic that fosters cohesion. Here stereotypes of one's own group allow for fine distinctions of individuals within the group to better predict their behavior, which, at least theoretically, should make it easier for everyone to get along. Conversely, interacting with someone whose behavior is less familiar or totally unfamiliar because they are outside the group and don't conform to any stereotypes is stressful as their reactions will be less predictable.

Lets get over ourselves. I don’t judge Hillary Clinton to be good or competent or bad and incompetent because she is a woman any more than I judge Barack Obama based on his race. I am not even sure if it is important to them that they be considered in those terms. Hillary definitely holds herself out as a woman and mother and identifies with those images, I cannot say if it is disingenuous political expediency to garner votes, but it certainly should not be a topic I cannot talk about. Obama seems less tied to a racial identity, but I do not know how he has presented himself in past elections. I say lets understand what it is to them to be categorized in such a manner and how they fit and don’t fit the stereotypes. Why do they or don’t they identify themselves this way. Fuck people’s sensibilities, we should be talking about these things. I have a pretty strong opinion about McCain being a warrior and think we should be able to discuss that as freely as what it means for Hillary to be a woman or Obama to be black.

Oh, did I mention that it is my considered opinion that getting elected is all about how you are perceived and not the substance of your policies. A vote is a very visceral and immediate decision made at the instant it is transformed from the insubstantial (a want to support a candidate you like) to the substantial (a physically cast ballot that will irrevocably be counted). I like to think it is an informed and considered action, but I truly believe that in most cases it is all about how you feel about the candidate as a person at the time you are casting your vote. Let it not go unsaid that the idea of “The Other” being an outsider who is not part of the group and therefore is not trustworthy, if for no other reason than you are less able to judge their likely behavior because you are unfamiliar with them, is instinctually ingrained in everyone. Although in many instances it is tempered to a large part by rationality, it is still what we are about and why stereotypes are an important part of the way we think. Who the candidates think they are and how different groups of people across the country relate to that is a crucially important discussion to have. There are plenty of other equally important aspects to who they are that can and should be discussed. My point is that these two are big ones that are in most instances purposefully not part of the conversation.

The unfortunate truth is that there are all too many people who are truly bigoted or simply to ignorant to discuss this in civil terms, making it difficult to have a meaningful discussion without getting either dragged down or drowned out by the din of ugliness and the clamor of the self-righteous incredulous that such a conversation could even be initiated no matter how high-minded its inception. I am fond of saying that I do not concern myself with good and bad, it is hard enough to just figure out what is and isn’t. Hillary is a woman and Barack is black, but what does that mean? I offer no substance here, simply a call to action. Speak Ubu, speak!