I admit it: I’m glued to CNN (and Newsweek and the NYTimes and all kinds of blogs) these days, snarfing up campaign coverage. I’m fascinated by the Hillary/Barack dynamic, and the reactions and punditry surrounding the Dem frontrunners. (Hey, and what happened to John Edwards, anyway? And sayonara to Bill Richardson; I actually sorta liked him.) And no, I haven’t decided whom to vote for, though it’s clear that because I live in Tennessee, not even one of the “big” Super Tuesday states, this whole Democratic nomination could well be decided before Feb. 5, when I finally have to decide.
Wanted to post this column (from the NYtimes Jan. 8) that has been making the rounds; got it from two of my friends yesterday. I think it’s well-done, provocative, and pretty much nails the race/gender issue. What do you think?
January 8, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM
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
That’s why the
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
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, though Senator Edward Kennedy is supporting Senator Clinton — 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.”
Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women’s
Responses to “Hillary and Barack. Race and gender.”
January 12th, 2008 at 5:41 am
My problem with Hillary is that she votes whichever way the wind blows. She has no integrity.
I would gladly vote for Obama, based on what I’ve seen of him so far, but I’m not sure he can get elected. Here’s the thing with Obama - most media personalities know that outright racist comments are poison. That means that Obama is somewhat insulated from the attacks of Republican pundits. John Edwards gets an expensive haircut, Republicans mock him, he’s out of the race. That stuff does happen to Obama - Republicans made fun of him when his wife said he didn’t pick up his socks - but it’s somewhat muted, because the nasties don’t want to step over the line into overt racism. But that’s only the PUBLIC response to Obama. There’s plenty of racism that isn’t voiced - take a look at the comments on CA stories and it’s easy to see that many, many people are perfectly willing to be racist when there’s a cloak of anonymity.
What I’m afraid of is that the Democrats will think he’s a lot more electable than he really is, give him the nomination, and come voting day, the racists will turn out in full force.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Thanks for posting this…and the NY Times story by Gloria Steinem. And for posting a good photo of Hillary and Barack.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
A couple of interesting opposing responses, from an e-mail string I’m a part of:
From K. — I would LOVE to see a woman president!!! But I really do not think this is the moment or the candidate for it to happen. When we go to the polls and elect a woman I want it to be a woman who has done it all on her own. Someone who has made her way through city, regional, state and national politics simply by virtue of her talent and dedication. With Hillary there will always be the feeling that she is sliding in on her husband’s coat tails. I know that she is smart. I know that she truly cares about America. But she brings so much baggage with her (hers and Bill’s) that I truly feel that she would be so divisive as to be rendered ineffective. Bush has brought this country to such an extreme low point in the world’s view. We need someone at the helm who shows that America is starting over. I really do think that Obama is that fresh start. Does he have the experience? Maybe not. But neither did Clinton. Neither did Reagan. Neither did Washington for that matter. I have found on a personal level that when I attempted something that I was too naive/inexperienced to know couldn’t be done, somehow I managed to do it, despite all of the people ‘in the know’ telling me it couldn’t happen. I followed my heart AND my head and got it done. I think Obama can do that for the U.S. right now. Is he perfect? No. Is Hillary bright and dedicated? Yes. But we have to consider how much our new president can bring together not only our own country’s factions, but the rest of the world. Can anyone in the rest of the world look at us as elitist and ethnocentric if we elect a Black man with the middle name of Hussein? I think not. I look forward to throwing my weight behind a woman running for high office. But I don’t think in my heart of hearts that this is the time for Hillary. We as women need to show that we are all about what is best for our country and our world. We need to show that we want to unite and make it a safer, more equalitarian place for EVERYONE, regardless of race, gender, religious belief, sexual orientation or nationality. I think Obama has the best shot at doing that. We can’t vote for a woman BECAUSE she is a woman. That is tantamount to the GOP voting for Romney BECAUSE he is a Republican. We are better than that.
I hope I have not offended anyone who is an avid Hillary supporter. I want a woman, no, I want a LOT of women in positions of power. I just don’t think that Hillary is THE woman for THIS job at THIS time.
k.
For P. — I think I have to speak up here.
First, let me say that when Nikki sent her email out to all of us, I responded to her - but not using ‘reply all’. But I have enjoyed the few responses that I have read so far - so I just wanted to come back and do likewise. Karen’s recent email seemed to be a perfect time…
I’m an avid Hillary supporter. Perhaps I wasn’t before Monday evening (avid that is - I was still definitely a supporter) - but when I saw the media replay that video clip of her ‘emotional’ moment about a million times - and after listening to the media (and even a fellow candidate) suggest that she might not be tough enough for the job, I became ready to support her all of the way.
The reasons listed in the previous email about why Hillary isn’t the right woman for the job simply don’t work for me. First, if every man that got somewhere because of something one else (a family name, a spouse, etc) was eliminated from positions - there’d also be few men in positions of influence. In my professional career, almost every woman that I know has been ‘accused’ at one time or another (even if only background chatter) of getting her job because of someone else. That diminishes all of the work that any woman anywhere has genuinely done: Hillary got her law degree, Hillary chose to take a more active role in the White House, Hillary got elected to the Senate, and even today and last week and the week before, Hillary gave all of the speeches, visited all of those towns in Iowa and New Hampshire and elsewhere. Saying that she got it on the coattails of Bill is simply an unfair statement - and undeserving. It diminishes everything that she has done - and everything that you and I do each and every day.
(And we can’t even compare what she has accomplished in her professional career to the accomplishes of Barack Obama. With that said, I am, at the end of all of this primary craziness, fully willing to support the Democratic candidate that gets nominated).
As for Hillary being polarizing? Hell yeah she is. But I know few women in power who aren’t, simply because of their gender alone. I know that I have been - I walk into a conference room, into a room full of men, and I’m divisive without opening my mouth. It’s niave to assume that is entirely due to her personality, and not due to her gender. (And on a side note, I emphathisize with her when she is called ‘cautious’ or ‘rigid’ or ‘cold’ - because I feel that after years of getting a bit beaten up on professionally, that those are simply learned and unfortunate defense mechanisms.)
So - I guess if you want to wait for the perfect female candidate to come along, then that is one’s choice. And having choices is great. To me, she is one of the hardest working politicians that we have had come along in awhile - and I respect that hard work. I think she has earned everything that she has gotten
- and the treatment she has been receiving during the primaries has only made me feel more strongly that the time IS now for a woman to be President.
It was
interesting on Wednesday and Thursday, to read all of the blogosphere folks and hear the media debate on how the polls could have been so wrong about NH - and to develop theories about the discrepancy. Some even when so far as to develop some rather intricate conspiracy theories (e.g., the Republicans tampered with the votes because they would rather run against Obama than Hillary) - even then, they were reluctant to acknowledge the possibility that the female vote at the last minute might have made the difference (anything but to suggest that Hillary actually deserved the win).
Personally, I think that if it doesn’t happen now, that it won’t happen in my lifetime. She’s got my full support, and I’m grateful for her efforts.