Mediocrity and equality of opportunity

[wonky]

Note: While I use Palin as an example in this OP, I’m not interested in talking about Palin so much as what Palin represents. If you just want to talk about Palin, there’s lots of threads for that. I want to talk about sexism, feminism, all -isms, and what we expect or demand from people of certain groups.
When McCain picked Palin, I was dismayed to see someone I consider frankly mediocre chosen to run with him. Why, I thought, couldn’t he have chosen one of the supremely qualified women in the Republican party? Hillary Clinton cracked the glass ceiling for this? For her?

And I’ve seen lots of pundits and talking heads say the same or similar things.

But wait. Isn’t the whole point of achieving equality that it shouldn’t take an exceptional outlier to succeed? Isn’t the whole point that women or minorities shouldn’t have to be better than white men in order to compete? Mediocre white men have had a lot of success in politics; shouldn’t mediocre women and mediocre minorities also have a chance at success?

Outliers in every community have been able to find success in various enterprises. That doesn’t mean that those (or all) enterprises aren’t biased against them. Oprah Winfrey becoming a powerful media voice doesn’t mean that there’s no sexism or racism in America or in the media; it means that she’s exceptional. She’s unusual. She’s not ordinary.

Much of the commentary about Sarah Palin, this from her allies, is how ordinary she is. That she’s average.

While I’m not all that excited about electing anyone who’s “average,” it is telling that “average” men would have been more accepted. We demand that women and minorities be exceptional, not average, in order to reach the same success as average white men.

So, after a lot of thought, I think that though Palin was chosen because she’s a woman, it’s a big step forward for women’s equality that she is so average. (You can argue that she isn’t average, but the Republican talking points seem to want to associate her with “normal,” with “average,” instead of with “elite” or “exceptional.”) We can’t be equal until our normal, average, boring people have as many opportunities as some other group’s normal, average, boring person.

So, win or lose, Palin’s nomination is a net good.

Thoughts?

[Huerta88]

@jsgoddess

We demand that women and minorities be exceptional, not average, in order to reach the same success as average white men.

A common trope but not borne out always in practice.

Harriet Miers, J.C. Watts, Sheila Jackson Lee (“Was the Mars Rover able to photograph the flag planted by Neill Armstrong?”). Yeah, not so much.

[Algher]

Since you led with Palin, I will start with her as the case study .

1. I disagree with equating a Governorship with mediocrity, especially when someone has NOT been hand picked.
2. Governor Palin’s education IS below that of her opponents. However, her education puts her in the top third of the nation (only about a third of the nation has a college degree). Her running mate also only has a BS from the Naval Academy, keeping him in the top third as well (the ring knockers can argue about where the Academies should rank in terms of educational institutions).

Now, what is exceptional? If a Kennedy makes it to the top, that is great. If a Non-Kennedy (without a rich family and family network) makes it to the top - it is amazing and the American dream. This is an arguement of those who give extra “points” to low SES (or minority) applicants to college. They argue that excelling at Inner City High School shows MORE capability than sitting in the middle at High End Private School. To once again go back to Palin - she made it to the Governor’s seat without a machine behind her (she actually had to go against two machines to get in). One could reasonable argue that it took more for her to get there than for McCain (with his father’s high level) to get where he is.

Now we should add in the risk of ONLY electing / elevating the cream of the crop from the Ivy Leagues and largest states. Those people will not truly understand what others are going through and have gone through. They have never struggled to pay a mortgage, get their kid through school, served in the military, fought for a low-end job, etc. The more removed from the middle class the leaders are, the more the middle class gets forgotten in many ways.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@jsgoddess

But wait. Isn’t the whole point of achieving equality that it shouldn’t take an exceptional outlier to succeed? Isn’t the whole point that women or minorities shouldn’t have to be better than white men in order to compete? Mediocre white men have had a lot of success in politics; shouldn’t mediocre women and mediocre minorities also have a chance at success?

Sure this is the goal but usually it takes exceptional people to force their way in and crack those ceilings. Eventually more and more get in and eventually everyone gets in, even the mediocre ones that the other side enjoyed for so long.Generally this is a long process and one we are still seeing with women. Certainly we have come a long way to getting women into the workplace from what it was like 50-some years ago. Likewise with many other minorities. No doubt we have a ways to go with it yet too for true equality but it seems a path we are on and that is a good thing. It is never fast enough for most people but when moving a society to a new way of doing things such things will always take a few generations. There is a lot of inertia to overcome.

So, win or lose, Palin’s nomination is a net good.

I disagree. Just getting a woman in to say you got a woman in is not necessarily a net good. What if she is awful in the job? I think that would be a step backwards for women as a general opinion may form that she just proves women are not really ready for such a position (nevermind if that is a justifiable conclusion to draw, people may think that anyway if even in only a subconscious way).

Further, just nominating her may not be a net good if it is perceived she only got it because she is a woman with no other merit to recommend her. There is a general backlash against affirmative action selecting people based on skin color or sex and not merit.

[Grumman]

@jsgoddess

So, after a lot of thought, I think that though Palin was chosen because she’s a woman, it’s a big step forward for women’s equality that she is so average. (You can argue that she isn’t average, but the Republican talking points seem to want to associate her with “normal,” with “average,” instead of with “elite” or “exceptional.”) We can’t be equal until our normal, average, boring people have as many opportunities as some other group’s normal, average, boring person.

So, win or lose, Palin’s nomination is a net good.

Thoughts?

Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that someone without a Y chromosome was nominated VP outweighs the fact that someone who’s catastrophically unsuited for the job was nominated VP? Eight years under GWB weren’t enough, so you want another idiot from the religious right on standby in case McCain carks it?

[Phlosphr]

@Grumman

Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that someone without a Y chromosome was nominated VP outweighs the fact that someone who’s catastrophically unsuited for the job was nominated VP? Eight years under GWB weren’t enough, so you want another idiot from the religious right on standby in case McCain carks it?

I’d like to hear the OP answer this as well. The whole “…net good…” thing just does not compute. At all.

[wonky]

@Whack-a-Mole

I disagree. Just getting a woman in to say you got a woman in is not necessarily a net good. What if she is awful in the job?

What if an exceptional person is awful at the job? That would seem to be a bigger strike against a group than having Jane Average be awful.

What if Obama is elected and is then awful? It’s a risk any time you break from tradition.

To clarify the OP: “So, win or lose, Palin’s nomination is a net good for feminism.” Her positions are antithetical to feminism, but her person opens yet another door.

[Grumman]

@jsgoddess

What if an exceptional person is awful at the job? That would seem to be a bigger strike against a group than having Jane Average be awful.

The exceptional individual is far less likely to be awful. And if you’re talking about who should run for office, shouldn’t you be more concerned about what’s good for everyone, men and women, than what’s good for the feminist movement’s agenda? Even if it forced you to pick a man, wouldn’t that be worth it to ensure that someone competent was in power?

[wonky]

@Grumman

The exceptional individual is far less likely to be awful. And if you’re talking about who should run for office, shouldn’t you be more concerned about what’s good for everyone, men and women, than what’s good for the feminist movement’s agenda? Even if it forced you to pick a man, wouldn’t that be worth it to ensure that someone competent was in power?

I wasn’t aware that I had the option to pick who McCain has as a running mate.

[Phlosphr]

I and my siblings are the offspring of a lifelong feminist. She marched in the 60’s and 70’s, brought some of us along…and worked fulltime to boot. She is appalled with Palin, she thinks she was bullied into the position as a pawn, a figurehead.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see she is vastly unqualified. Mom is handily in Obama’s court, has been since the nom. She laughed at the PUMA folks as being hopelessly disconnected. What do people really need to understand to see Palin for who she is?

[wonky]

@Phlosphr

I and my siblings are the offspring of a lifelong feminist. She marched in the 60’s and 70’s, brought some of us along…and worked fulltime to boot. She is appalled with Palin, she thinks she was bullied into the position as a pawn, a figurehead.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see she is vastly unqualified. Mom is handily in Obama’s court, has been since the nom. She laughed at the PUMA folks as being hopelessly disconnected. What do people really need to understand to see Palin for who she is?

Again, if you just want to talk about Palin, there are plenty of threads for that.

I want to talk about expectations for people within certain groups, why we accept mediocrity from white males but not from women or minorities, and what equality means.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@jsgoddess

I want to talk about expectations for people within certain groups, why we accept mediocrity from white males but not from women or minorities, and what equality means.

Because when a woman (or other minority) is the first to break into such a notable position she really does need to be better than all the rest. She’s the first, all eyes will be on her and failure on her part could actually set feminism back insofar as people think they are ready to see a woman in that role.

Fair? Nope. Shitty deal for that woman? You bet.

[wonky]

@Algher

1. I disagree with equating a Governorship with mediocrity, especially when someone has NOT been hand picked.

I don’t know if we can say that being elected raises someone out of mediocrity. Is George W Bush mediocre? I’d say yes.

Now, what is exceptional? If a Kennedy makes it to the top, that is great. If a Non-Kennedy (without a rich family and family network) makes it to the top - it is amazing and the American dream. This is an arguement of those who give extra “points” to low SES (or minority) applicants to college. They argue that excelling at Inner City High School shows MORE capability than sitting in the middle at High End Private School. To once again go back to Palin - she made it to the Governor’s seat without a machine behind her (she actually had to go against two machines to get in). One could reasonable argue that it took more for her to get there than for McCain (with his father’s high level) to get where he is.

I consider her mediocre because she is more accomplished than the average person on the street, but compared with her peers in the Republican party, male and female, she is nothing remotely special.

Feminism is about gaining equality, which means that chuckleheads as well as geniuses benefit, and I think it’s unreasonable, perhaps even dangerous, for feminists to speak like only “worthy” women are allowed to succeed.

[wonky]

@Whack-a-Mole

She’s the first, all eyes will be on her and failure on her part could actually set feminism back insofar as people think they are ready to see a woman in that role.

But again, that’s the risk of breaking with any tradition, isn’t it? And if the Republicans lose badly (my hope), she’d get some of the blame for that, as well.

But I think her nomination can have unexpected and unlooked-for benefits for feminists. Not only has the religious right been forced to stifle its sexism, but many of the potentially polarizing gender/sexual issues are being hauled right to the front of the debate. I think thoughts follow speech, and being forced to say you support a woman in a role makes it more likely that you support a woman in a role.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@jsgoddess

But again, that’s the risk of breaking with any tradition, isn’t it? And if the Republicans lose badly (my hope), she’d get some of the blame for that, as well.

Maybe. If she tanks the election for the Reps it is because McCain poorly vetted her and made a snap choice. If her skeletons come out sufficient to kill the election for them McCain bears that responsibility. As mentioned there are certainly other (conservative) women who clearly have a better resume in government than Palin.

On the flip side Palin has certainly energized the conservatives. In so far as the future of women as VPOTUS/POTUS goes clearly she and Clinton showed America is likely ready for one. Both energized their parties, both showed there is a strong swell of support for the idea of a female candidate. I would expect if it does not happen this election we will be seeing more women reaching for the prize in near future elections (obviously if Obama/Biden win chances are it will be Obama/Biden in 2012 as well so after that if the Dems win).

[even_sven]

I think here mediocrity is a very planned thing. It makes her less of a threat than a drive, high-powered woman would be.

[msmith537]

@jsgoddess

Feminism is about gaining equality, which means that chuckleheads as well as geniuses benefit, and I think it’s unreasonable, perhaps even dangerous, for feminists to speak like only “worthy” women are allowed to succeed.

Sorry, but I don’t want my presidential candidates to be part of some social experiment. People should never be given positions they aren’t qualified for simply because they belong to some protected group. Advocating such a position promotes divisiveness and destroys your credibility.

Besides, I’m not sure if a candidate who advocates women staying at home to help with their man’s career as someone who is advancing feminism.

[China_Guy]

Having a woman on the tickets helps advance feminism. having a mediocre woman on the ticket makes the obvious case for pandering. Hire the best person for the job, not blatant pandering to the female vote with someone that is about a hair above the lowest possible bare minimum qualification imagieable. IMHO, that’s insulting to women and men that are a lot more qualified.

But, hey, an alcoholic cokehead and business failure can become President - is America a great country or what?

Jackie Robinson was a great baseball player by any standard. The way he withstood all the racist stuf that came down is a testimate to his integrity, honor and self control. He broke ground by being the best - not by being the weakest on the bench but a ‘diversity’ hire.