I have been told today (not at DU, but in person) that I need to stop being so sensitive and toughen up with respect to my reactions to Sarah Palin. Apparently it is my fault I find it inappropriate when a woman resorts to playing the sex kitten in order to hide the fact that she hasn't a clue what is going on in this world.

As a woman I am way beyond appalled when flirtatious folksy behavior is cited as holding one's own in a debate. If Joe Biden had winked at the American people and spoken to us in such a manner he'd be tarred and feathered in the press this morning as a condescending prick.

I take comfort that the man in my life was equally offended. His comment, once he picked his jaw up off the ground, was "Does this brainless twit really think I'm going to vote with a beer in one hand and my dick in the other?"

Exceeding low expectations is not success. It's an indication of how our political discourse has sunk below basement level and how positively bankrupt the Republican party has become in terms of ability and talent.

I am simply aghast.

1. Energize the conservative "base" of the GOP. i.e. Pander, pander, pander

Palin is a right-wing spokesmodel who can generate rallies with thousands of people when McCain can't get 50 to whoop it up for him at the county line saloon. Do not expect to see terribly many future campaign appearances where McCain is solo or more than three steps away from her.

2. Transform the 60 days of general campaigning into matters of image rather than issue. i.e. Distract, distract, distract

Her nomination is a diversionary tactic that utilizes a) Palin v. Clinton to overshadow McCain v. Obama and b) attacks against the media for the deliberate sexist mistreatment of a female candidate. Her presence on the ticket is to keep the discourse shallow and prevent people from truly examining the GOP platform around the water cooler.

I don't know about you, but I've heard more about porcine makeovers than Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailouts. THAT's why they whine even though they don't have a trough to piss in. It bumps something else off the teleprompter in the newsroom.

Brilliant if it weren't so damned dangerous and stupid. Here's to making it backfire on them spectacularly!

I am going to bring something up that has long been considered a sacred cow and essentially off limits. I may insult or offend some people and for that I truly apologize. I mean absolutely no disrespect to veterans and do not suggest that prisoners of war are unfit for positions of responsibility once they regain their freedom. However, if the McCain campaign insists on bringing up his experience as a POW I feel it is a fair topic of discussion and exploration.

I am not a trained psychologist. My preparation for pastoral care and counseling is as a generalist. I must be familiar with personality theory, recognize the signs of pervasive and progressive mental anguish and instability and have basic diagnostic skills that signal me when it is appropriate to refer for specialized care and treatment of mental disorder and disease. I certainly welcome the input of those who are better trained and more experienced than I.

Now that I have dispensed with the disclaimers I will share my concern. Five years of torture and captivity constitutes severe mental and physical trauma. The strongest, healthiest bodies and minds cannot fail to be affected by the experience. Considering what I have had shared with me by a range of hurting individuals who have suffered varying degrees of abuse, trauma and hardship in their lives I find it difficult to accept that McCain would emerge from his experience virtually unscathed.
I confess I am unfamiliar with his biography beyond the rudiments disclosed in his speeches and discussed by the pundits. Has he availed himself of psychological care?

My personal opinion that GWB is afflicted with Narcissistic Personality Disorder or perhaps Antisocial Personality Disorder has made me extremely sensitive to the mental health of the man or woman leading our country. I do not believe a psychological profile is part of the physical examination released to the public which is a pity in my opinion.

Should the long-term mental and emotional repercussions of five years of captivity and torture that occurred decades ago be considered when evaluating fitness as president of the United States? It seems silly to bring it up now after a thirty-year career in the legislature, but in my opinion, the stakes are higher when you are considering the Chief Executive rather than one man in 535.

I think it counter-productive and extremely ill-advised for the Obama/Biden to use it as an overt campaign tactic, but should it be a topic of discussion among we the people?

Forget the far right-wing, forget the willfully ignorant and forget the habitual Republicans-for-life. You have better things to do with your time and you won't get anywhere anyway.

I promise you the following approach has worked every single time I have used it. Even with people who consider themselves regular voters but fairly apolitical because they have become cynical. This approach works particularly well when the presidential election has come up as a subject of conversation organically rather than you initiating it. When you encounter someone who does not know whom they will vote for or is leaning but hasn't committed, here's what has worked for me time and time again.

The Don'ts:

Do not provide a list of reasons why McCain is a bad choice.
Do not provide a list of reasons why Palin is a bad choice.
Do not tell the person why you support Obama.
Do not tell the person why you support the Democratic platform.

The Dos:

Ask the person whom they are learning towards.
Ask the person what issues are most important to him or her.
Ask the person what issue(s) is preventing them from wholehearted support for Obama.

I promise you the answer to the last question will be a Republican/right-wing spun meme perpetuated by the media.

Respond with, "oh, well then you'll be relieved to know....." or some such. Let me give you an example.

I was spending the afternoon with a friend when the topic came around to politics. We were discussing whether or not all the political talk was appropriate at church. I asked her for her opinion of the candidates and she said she despised McCain but could not support Obama. "Oh, what is preventing you from supporting him."

His support of Partial Birth Abortion.

"Oh, well then you'll be relieved to know that such a thing doesn't even exist." I went on to explain what a D&X is, how rare and tragic it is and how the GOP made up the phrase. I urged her to Google it and learn for herself.

I got an email three hours later that she was voting for Obama.

Try it sometime. You'll be glad you did.

Remember that the protests at the Dem Convention in 1968 didn't exactly hurt Nixon's bid for the White House.

I don't approve of violence (especially as a first tactic), obviously, but protest and disruption have been part of our Americain heritage and often the only way we could get people to sit up and take notice.

Where would African Americans be today if the civil rights movement forty years ago hadn't marched, protested, and yes, occasionally scuffled?

Women did not obtain the right to vote by sitting around the dining room table and politely asking their fathers, brothers and husbands if they could please have that privilege.

Many factors influenced popular opinion on Vietnam, but protests showed people disaffected by the war that they were not alone in their condemnation.

Would we have a customary 40-hour work week, vacation time, and kids in school instead of a factory if workers had approached management with a "pretty please?"

Some of you may not approve of the disruptive methods of public protests when they interrupt while someone is speaking, but don't jump to conclusions and fear the results. I truly believe this damages McCain and the Republicans beating war drums far more than it will affect the Obama/Biden ticket.

My extended family has an email group that I rarely participate on because our religious and political views are so different. After last night I felt I had to say something or I was going to explode. This is what I sent to my relatives.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello everyone,

....I promise this is the first and last I will say about politics as I know we have very different views. I realize that some of you cannot in good conscience vote for a progressive. I am not asking you to vote for Obama / Biden although I believe with every ounce of my being that our country and the world would become a far better place for everyone under their administration. I will not bore you with the research that has helped form my opinion.

All I ask, indeed beg of you, is that if you intend to vote, please do so after much research and deliberation. Do not rely on a single source of information such as one television station or one newspaper. If someone disparages either candidate, look up the information for yourself to see if it has some merit.

I must be honest and tell you that not only do I disagree with the policy direction espoused by the McCain / Palin ticket, but they truly do frighten me. I question their judgment, their values and their ethics. The profligate and record deficit spending while cutting services worthy people depend upon and the beating of war drums by the GOP at the national level runs counter to everything my Christian upbringing taught me was right and good.

Please be assured my depth of feeling against a McCain / Palin administration is not solely because of their party affiliation. I am working for the re-election of a Republican for the sherriff of my county. He has done an amazing and splendid job for the last four years and is head and shoulders above the Democrat running for the position.

If you find yourself questioning whether McCain and Palin are truly prepared to lead our country further into the complexities of the 21st century, but could also not cast a vote for Obama and Biden with a clear conscience, perhaps you could consider Bob Barr. http://www.bobbarr2008.com/home/skip/?s=06...

As I said, this is the first and last political comments I will make and I promise I will also be good at Thanksgiving.

My God bless us and keep us and hold us in the palm of his hand.

Much love,

May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word. -- Paul's Second Letter to the Thessalonians 2:16-17

There is just no adequate way to describe what I am feeling this morning. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, I am currently in the throes of a surreal experience similar to what I felt during the events of September 11. This just cannot be my country or the world I inhabit.

My brain is having difficulty accepting that anyone could sincerely approve of the platform and tactics of the Republican party with integrity. Good, honest, hard-working people who consider themselves Christians and patriots are willfully engaging in this master-slave social contract.

I can absolutely believe and accept the reality that wealthy, power mad oppressors will stop at nothing to gain and maintain their riches and their authority. But I literally weep at the thought of the oppressed who allow themselves to be lead like sheep to the slaughter...taking the rest of us with them.

I sit her stunned and amazed that this is even a political contest in our nation. I can usually be fairly objective, detach myself from my perspective momentarily and try to see things from an opponent's perspective. I absolutely cannot do that at this time. That McCain and Palin would be considered a viable team to lead our nation and set an example to the global community is beyond appalling, it is simply unthinkable.

I can usually respect someone with different political views. As Obama pointed out, whether you are pro-choice or anti-choice we can all agree that unwanted pregnancies should be reduced.

I have nothing but contempt and an abiding sadness for anyone who truly believes we will be better off with the GOP and their right-wing hijackers in control of our destiny. They have been manipulated and their weakness will be to the detriment of us all.

We absolutely must all do whatever we can within our respective powers to register new voters, educate independents and the apolitical, increase voter turnout and audit election returns. We all deserve a more compassionate, healthier and globally respected national community.

This is the ultimate test of my religious faith and denominational principles. As difficult as it may be, in keeping with Unitarian Universalist principles and belief in "the inherent dignity and worth of every person" and "justice, equity, and compassion in human relations," I also keep the man who is responsible in my prayers and thoughts, as well as his family.

I can hardly understand what would drive someone to violate the sanctity of a place dedicated to love and justice. This man committed a horrific crime that desecrated what many consider inviolate--a house of worship. He forever changed the lives of many families, including his own. But I don't need to understand his actions to recognize a human being in great anguish.

My compassion does not exonerate him, nor does it lessen my shock at his acts or my sadness for TVUUC. I can barely begin to imagine the horror they endured and many will continue to endure in the days, months and years ahead.

The fear of violence against a UU church has been present for quite awhile. We have seen arson, vandalism and theft in our denomination because of our liberal beliefs. I have entertained the notion of someone interrupting one of our services when I am in the pulpit and it is not a comfortable feeling. We issued press releases when we unanimously and proudly became a Welcoming Congregation for the GLBT community, but proverbially sighed with relief when we were not subject to any public hatred as a result. However, I would not be surprised if I were met with verbal or physical resistance whenever one of my sermons relevant to GLBT issues are announced.

I do hold talk radio, Fox News, the likes of Coulter and Savage partly responsible. I also uphold their right to free speech. This is one of the reasons why my faith is so important to me and why I am called to preach in contrast to the Prosperity Theology packing the megachurches. Liberalism must have a voice and that voice must come from each and every one of us. Lies may be loud, but the truth is ultimately stronger.

I have compassion for anyone subjected to neoconservative and religious right wing propaganda. I feel deeply for anyone without the fortitude to face the reality of life with integrity and diligence. I am concerned for anyone unable to discern the truth and must engage in cognitive dissonance to function however crudely. They need our help, not our scorn.

Please don't hate or the conservatives have accomplished their goal. Adkisson came into the world the same way we all did. He was somebody's baby. He too has loved, felt pain and unfortunately was overcome by hatred. Consider what you can do to make sure the contagion of hatred does not infect you and anyone you meet. Tell the truth and find the capacity for compassion and forgiveness. They're the best weapons we've got.

Peace

The conversation was going quite smoothly when the bride asked my race. I thought I misunderstood her at first, but she wanted to make sure I was white because this would be an issue with some of her relatives. Scrape my naive chin off the floor. I am way too used to people preferring a male member of the clergy preside at their wedding, but this is the first time I have encountered this. Ee gads! I think I'm going to be sick.

What the hell difference should race, gender, ethnicity, etc. make as to who solemnizes your union? I would think their beliefs about marriage and personality compatibility would be the most important issues. Sorry, but I cannot believe that someone who is not a racist would make accommodations to the few family members who are. Am I off base on this?

Okay, I've stayed out of the game for months since my support has been utterly irrelevant. I live in Florida and my preferences are all long gone from the race. I felt very little enthusiasm or investment in whether Obama or Clinton got the nomination. Both were at the dead bottom of my prioritized list of democratic hopefuls. Hence....whoever.

I've been observing their race with detached amusement, bemusement and at times, disgust. The fervor of their supporters here has been a wonder to behold. I have gotten a lot of information about both candidates, observed their behavior and the behavior of those who advocate for them and work directly for them. I have analyzed the pitiful media coverage but avoided polls.

I can say with utter sincerity that no candidate has a monopoly on educated, insightful, respectful advocates. And no candidate has a monopoly on hero-worshipping, non-critical thinking, attack dogs. I have seen both types of people support both candidates. But mostly the dialogue has consisted of democrats who simply want to see the next President of the United States represent their interests and actually support and defend the Constitution to which they pledge their oath of office.

I am not a Superdelegate. I am not voting in an upcoming primary. I am not anyone whose endorsement carries any weight whatsoever, so committing myself at this point is meaningless. But for the sake of clarity and honesty on this forum I can no longer post as a neutral party.

I can now state without reservation that I believe Obama, of the two, to be by far the better representative of the democratic party in the bid for President of the United States. Clinton now generates in me the shudder factor I feel when I contemplate a McCain presidency. If Clinton wins the nomination, I will vote Democrat in the general election. But I would be disengenuous if I did not admit I will do so with a heavy feeling in my heart.

I realize Obama's willingness to engage in dialogue with the other side of the aisle and his desire for bi-partisan cooperation is viewed as weakness by some. Personally, I find this more realistic and far healthier for our country and our future. Negotiation is not appeasement or conciliation. It is how things get done and marks true progress.

I find Clinton's belligerent language as of late utterly distasteful and is primarily what pushed me over the edge. Stating we will "obliterate" a nation in the event they do something astoundingly unlikely perpetuates the culture of a violent nation. Acknowledging that all options are on the table and can be evaluated when the time comes is not the same thing as boldly stating which option will be utilized, it being the most extreme.

No candidate will ever perfectly match my character and policy preferences unless I decide to run myself. Not bloody likely! Therefore I have always known I would have to support someone I did not agree with on some issues and in some manners of approach. Obama is not perfect and I do have some reservations. But as the choice has come down to two the evaluation becomes a bit easier.

Senator Barack Obama has my full support. I truly hope he wins the nomination and in a way that does not damage him for the campaign against McCain.

Sociology, Psychology, Political Science, Ethics, Journalism...you name it.

As someone who had both Obama and Clinton at the bottom of her preferred list of candidates at the start of this election cycle, I have found the discourse over the last several months amusing, depressing, frustrating and often downright bizarre. But mostly fascinating.

The interpretations and judgments depending upon the personal candidate of choice make for interesting reading when a single incident is being analyzed. Apparently due to his performance last night Obama just ran away with the nomination and ended his political career in one fell swoop. Clinton was unable to maintain her composure and the epitome of aplomb.

While pretty much everyone is in agreement the moderators couldn't muster up any insightful questions, they favored Obama, Clinton and McCain all at the same time.

So I'm going to guess the only winners last night were pundits and academics. Clearly the audience and electorate were dismissed as imbeciles and irrelevant ones at that.

But it's not hatred I feel. When I hate its how I interpret others' motives. Instead I am:

afraid, agitated, alarmed, anxious, bewildered, bitter, concerned, disappointed, discouraged, disgusted, dismayed, exasperated, frightened, furious, helpless, hurt, irate, overwhelmed, resentful, skeptical, suspicious, upset, worried

That's what I feel.

I need to be able to choose my own dreams, goals and values.
I need to be able to celebrate and mourn.
I need integrity and the opportunity to express myself creatively.
I need community with the affirmation and acceptance community provides and the responsibility inherent in being a contribution to community life.
I need to play.
I need fulfilling work to contribute to the well being of my family, friends, community and nation.
I need the basic physical necessities of life.

Those needs aren't being met, or are barely being met, which is why I feel everything listed above.

I suspect a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in the Congress will not meet all those needs. But I can guarantee a Republican in the White House and Republican majority in the Congress will ensure none are. Pardon me if I couldn't care less whether Obama, Clinton or some surprise nominee represents the Democratic party in the general election. All the squabbling seems rather insignifant under the weight off all these emotions right about now.

I suspect the percentage is higher on DU, but even here I see some inaccurate perceptions about the democratic nature of the party nominating process.

I see accusations of breaking rules, changing rules, etc. when it seems the individual really doesn't know what the rules are. Instead he or she is making assumptions based on democratic expectations related to elections, not nominations.

In truth, very few people (and I'm including active party members, not just registered voters) understand the intricacies of our convoluted and confusing primary and caucus system for determining the party's nominee. I don't understand it all! Goodness, just trying to figure out Texas gives me a migraine.

Our party nomination process is so complex many of us forget that it's not constitutionally mandated that we have the right to even participate. Instead it is a tool of the parties themselves. American citizens, registered voters in particular, are ostensibly included in the process via the primaries and caucuses, but ultimately the polling place is little more than, well, a poll.

When we pull the lever, touch the screen or circle in the dot for a specific individual we are not even voting for that person. We're telling a slate of delegates to the convention whom we prefer. Some are committed yes, but some are not. And then there's the whole Superdelegate issue. Party nominations are not democratic and never have been.

The head nod the voters (or at least those in the early primary states) have been getting at the conventions within popular memory affirm the perception that we the people are actually the decision-makers rather than giving the party an idea of who may have the best chance against the opponent in the general election.

I know most of us probably are aware of this, but I think it deserves repeating for anyone else interested who may not realize it. The party can ultimately select just about anyone at the convention they feel can get the job done in November. And the job is simply to beat the nominee in the other party.

History buffs please help me out here. Haven't convention surprises havened before? I'm thinking late 19th century-ish, early 20th. I don't know why, but I have it in my head that someone who wasn't even running was brought in as a compromise nominee at the 11th hour. What am I half/pseudo-remembering?

It doesn't sit well with our contemporary take on participation in the democratic process, but I'm pretty sure that putting up another candidate (even one who has not been campaigning)for the nomination at the convention is not changing or breaking any rules.

Heck, when it comes down to it, we don't even vote for the president in the general election. And sadly I just encountered some high school seniors who took a semester of American government this past fall and they had no clue.

The only point I'm trying to make here (and I am NOT advocating any particular candidate or application of the rules) is that I see an awful lot of people up in arms about changing rules mid-stream when they may be getting wrapped around the axle for nothing. Or at least over the wrong issue.

Does anyone know a good website with a really user-friendly explanation of how the nominating process works and what may be allowed to happen at the convention? Not what should or should not transpire, but what is permissible under the party rules.

Thanks!

What an incredible language considering it's astounding vocabulary and the ability to choose a word that exactly conveys the connotation appropriate to the meaning you wish to express. The richness of the figures of speech, metaphors and colloquialisms. Now don't get me wrong, I am hardly an English elitist. I have studied French, Spanish and Russian and am struggling in vain to become fluent in Spanish. Language in general fascinates me and I think everyone should strive to know at least two with some degree of fluency.

But such a vivid and enriching language has its dangers as well, particularly since language is dynamic and evolves with usage. The rate at which language changes may have slowed down a bit with the advent of the printing press, though one can argue the internet may be countering that trend. Slang, regional expressions and topical/historical references can and do get "lost in the translation" within the English language itself. Sadly, ignorance of the context of figures of speech and the etymology of single vocabulary words can lead to painful misunderstandings.

On the one hand it is gratifying to see people willing to stand up to what they consider racism and call others out on it. If only we had more widespread examples of that courage with respect to policies and actions as well as speech. On the other hand, it is a reminder that falsly identifying expressions as racist does not serve the cause of eliminating racism but rather reclaims the language as racist by creating a growing list of benign expressions rendered malignant out of ignorance.

"If it's brown, flush it down" refers to water conservation and has never had anything to do with racism.
"the pot calling the kettle black" refers to the soot on cookware from a time when cooking was done over an open flame.
"niggardly" means stingy and comes from the Dutch language.

I joked about it in another thread, but I am completely serious when I tell you that I once heard someone gasp and take another to task for being a racist when all he said was he had a "black cloud hanging over his day." I cannot remember what the precise expression was now, but within the last couple of months I recall a bit of a debate here over the derivation and meaning of a phrase that jumped out at a handful of people as racist but was in fact historically rooted in clearly non-racist origins.

This is not to say that the English language does not possess hurtful and malicious turns of phrase. It most certainly does. However, my fear is that any expression that is remotely homophonic with an offensive word, or a rich expression that happens to include a color in it, be it red, yellow, brown or black, will be reinterpreted as malignant thereby furthering the dissimination of racism rather than focusing on the institutional environments and policies that perpetuate the dehumanization of all of us.

If an expression makes you cringe, all you have to do is ask what the individual meant by it. You may be surprised by what you learn. Sometimes a kettle is just a kettle.

Cheers

I am dead serious.

There are legal definitions, sociological definitions, pseudo-scientific definitions of the term. It is related to, but not necessarily equivalent to discrimination, bigotry and prejudice and bias. It results in condescension, isolation, oppression and violence.

Racism is a personal belief in the superiority of one race over others, it is the belief that members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race. The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular racial group, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief. The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: "the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others.

But most importantly in my opinion, racism is less a matter of private bigotry than institutional and systemic constructs. And we who live within the institution have a damned hard time identifying it when we see it. It is an insidious invisible evil. A statement attributed to philosopher George Santayana. "We cannot know who first discovered water but we can be sure that it was not the fish."

We're inside the fish tank folks! Very few of us have the true ability to hold our breaths long enough to leap from the tank and reflect on its contents. Despite my progressive and hopefully non-discriminatory views I still have trouble shaking the notion that Asians are better in math and that African Americans are better in sports. Despite knowing that the Asians doing so well are working their asses off for their education like everyone else who succeeds and they don't represent all Asians. Despite knowing that professional sports is so dominated by African Americans because their economic circumstances and the cycle of education in their communities encourages atheletics as a viable means out of the dangers of that cycle.

Let me give you an example of institutional racism that may very well still be perpetuated today.

Many of us may have worked for, or currently work for, companies with a seniority policy when it comes to layoffs. You may wonder what that has to do with racism. I mean it’s only fair those who have worked for the company longest keep their jobs when times get tight, right? Besides making poor business sense—I won’t get into why you keep the most productive rather than the longest employed—in a given point in time it could indeed be racist. Consider a company that recently began hiring minorities, but then hits a rough spot in the business cycle. What happens? The minorities are the first to go, never to rise to positions of leadership and once again you have a white dominated business.

I look at my County Commissioners and City Council and have to wonder where black power operates in our community. Having listened to arguments for and against the renaming of on short, but central road to Martin Luther King Blvd., watching the proposal defeated and the subsequent loss of the alternative proposal to rename the City Auditorium after Dr. Martin Luther King, I cannot interpret the results as anything but institutional racism.

For those of us who are familiar with America before, during and after the Civil Rights movement we must guard against a terrible tendency to assume integration is racial justice when it consitutes assimilation. It is not!

To quote, Obama:

"For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. ....We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change."

In the larger context, saying someone's grandmother was a "typical white woman," strikes me as a rather petty string to wrap around the axle. My white grandmother was probably born a decade after Obama's and I'll say it with absolutely no reservations. She WAS a typical white woman...in her time and place. She was not significantly different from her neighbors and larger civic community.

I realize these have been a lot of words, but they shall be my last ones on the subject.

Obama is racist.
I am racist.
You are racist.

Now let's go bring our troops home, train some teachers, build some schools, repair some bridges......

Edited to add: I am in no way calling out individuals as bigots. Please take a moment to read the post in its entirety and understand I am calling out our society as a racist institution. As such, many of us may be engaging in racist attitudes, language and actions without even realizing it. When that is absolutely the last thing we would ever intend! Therefore, I do not find it particularly surprising or alarming when individuals utter remarks, either intentional or unintentional, that highlight the stereotypes such a system engenders. It's indicative of the problem, but not necessarily either a symptom or the disease.