Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Hillary Clinton and Sexism...



Gloria Steinem wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times and Hilary, Barack, Racism and Sexism and it's very interesting... and necessary for me to share it with you here.


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?


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.


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.


I think that perceptions of competencies are indeed skewed and that gender is one of the most exclusionary factors. As the photo above shows... some lovely fellows attending a Clinton rally felt the need to remind her that women's proper place was to iron their shirts. Can we even begin to start imagining the outcry that would come if it had been a racist sign at an Obama campaign. Which is not to say that Obama has it 'easier' per se... but well... I'll defer to Steinem:





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.

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.


And these are relevant worries. If Clinton's campaign does anything, it will necessarily highlight a lot of ingrained biases that our society likes to refuse that it has.

1 comment:

Jeff in Buenos Aires said...

Contrast the U.S. election to the recent presidential election in Argentina where the top 2 candidates were both women.

That sounds like a great advancement for women but, despite that, Argentina is still an extremely sexist country where women fetch coffee for their bosses and sexual harassment is rampant. It's baffling.