"Women are never front-runners"
Jan. 8th, 2008 03:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
browngirlOK, politics. I'm Black. I'm female. And I've been thinking a lot about how these two aspects of my existence affect my politics and whom I'm voting for, whether and how they should, whether and how they shouldn't. It's uncomfortable thought, but it's necessary.
So, a friend of mine posted a link to Gloria Steinem's Op-Ed piece in the NYT today, and, well. Consider this the web equivalent of my cutting it out of the newspaper and pasting it into my diary. Go read the article online, though, not least since one of the comments contains a lovely snark about Mitt Romney.
Op-Ed Contributor
Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM
Published: January 8, 2008
THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.
Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?
If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.
That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).
If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.
What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.
What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.
This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”
Correction: An earlier version of this Op-Ed stated that Senator Edward Kennedy had endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. He has not made an endorsement in the 2008 presidential race.
Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center.
So, a friend of mine posted a link to Gloria Steinem's Op-Ed piece in the NYT today, and, well. Consider this the web equivalent of my cutting it out of the newspaper and pasting it into my diary. Go read the article online, though, not least since one of the comments contains a lovely snark about Mitt Romney.
Op-Ed Contributor
Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM
Published: January 8, 2008
THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.
Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?
If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.
That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).
If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.
What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.
What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.
This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”
Correction: An earlier version of this Op-Ed stated that Senator Edward Kennedy had endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. He has not made an endorsement in the 2008 presidential race.
Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-08 08:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 04:22 am (UTC)Thank you again for linking to this, you know. I'm glad I've pasted it into my diary.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-08 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 04:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-08 09:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-08 11:22 pm (UTC)(I've heard a few too many blonde jokes :)
no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 04:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 04:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 02:14 am (UTC)You never hear people saying "I'm not a misogynist, some of my best friends are women!" Racism and sexism are different because while both involve biases based on stereotypes (which may or may not apply to an individual), racism leans towards hate whereas sexim leans towards liking too much in one area. Or rather, you see racism more in the "black and hispanic people commit crimes" manner and sexism more in the "I love my wife but she can't manage the bills." Both lead to the (wrong) conclusion that anyone who's not both white and male not being a capable president.
And this is why I don't like Ms. Steinem:
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.
....
We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”
With all due respect Ms. Steinem, fuck that noise. Supporting her because she's a woman better be with well wishes. Voting for her *because* she's a woman is the same as voting for someone because they're white and male. I support her cause, but if I vote for anyone it's because I think they're a good president. Granted, shaking things up because you're not white/male/protestant might be part of what makes someone a good president to elect for the next 4 years.
You, Ms. Steinem, are no better than all the white males who won't vote for Mrs. Clinton.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 04:20 am (UTC)Yeah, I know what you mean. It's just a more veiled version of the infamous "clean" comment.
You never hear people saying "I'm not a misogynist, some of my best friends are women!"
Heh, actually I have heard that, from guys who really didn't sound like they thought women were actually human, no less. But I see your point; it's kind of amazing in its awfulness, the varied ways humans find to squash each other.
Granted, shaking things up because you're not white/male/protestant might be part of what makes someone a good president to elect for the next 4 years.
I see why you objected to the Op-ed piece, too, but this was kind of what I read Ms. Steinem as saying with her closing statement, rather than that being the female candidate was the reason to vote for a particular one. OTOH, even being able to have this debate (nationally speaking, I mean) is progress.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-12 03:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 04:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 01:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 12:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 01:33 pm (UTC)We came to the conclusion that the first woman president would come from the Republicans because the only way our country could handle the radicalness of a woman was if she came from the conservative camp.
This does sound pretty likely. And is giving me nightmarish visions of Ann Coulter running for president.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 01:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 12:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 01:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 01:39 pm (UTC)I was sorry to hear this Huckabee fellow was doing so well. :(