| Author |
Message |
    
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 6345
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 - 07:28 pm: | 
|
Op-Ed Contributor
Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM
January 8, 2008
Correction appended.
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.
The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11132
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 04:18 pm: |
|
a very thought-provoking article. |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2529
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 04:40 pm: |
|
Another perspective: http://www.racialicious.com/2008/01/09/gloria-steinem-pitting-race-against-gende r/ |
Urban_scribe
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Urban_scribe
Post Number: 625
Registered: 05-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 04:50 pm: |
|
Gloria Steinem lost major points with me when, years ago, Ed Bradley (RIP) asked her why did she think White women were the primary beneficiaries of Affirmative Action. Considering her feminism and being White, I expected her response to knock him out of his chair. Instead, Steinem choked. IIRC, her answer, full of uhs and uhms, amounted to women are also a minority group and that's who AAction laws are designed to represent, if not vindicate. At any rate, I thought her answer was disingenuous. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11139
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Whew!That article by Jenifer Fang took a lot of words to say that Gloria would be right except that she was wrong. Such subtefuge.  |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2534
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 09:15 am: |
|
Ed Bradley (RIP)
Yes, Urban_scribe, I sure miss him  |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11144
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Gloria Steinem lost a little of her credibility when it was discovered that she kept her marriage a secret for years. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9819
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 03:04 pm: |
|
Where the hell were Steinem's lamentations about how put upon Hillary is when her HUSBAND was attempting to lay wood to every piece of pune he could stick his dyck and cigars into? |
|
Email This Page