Gloria Steinem in the NYT: "Women Are Never Front-Runners"

[mcscajun]

In the current climate at DU (and elsewhere) I thought an opinion by one of the elders of the feminist movement was of sufficient interest to post here.

January 8, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor

Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM

-snip-

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).

-snip-

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.

-snip-

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 Media Center.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html

[terisan]

1. Thanks.

[aquart]

2. I don't know about the "no masculinity to prove."

Seems to me that women candidates will always have to run that gauntlet.

[PATRICK]

3. More than that

Frontrunner is in front of nothing until votes are cast. Once declared "in front" there usually is no place to go but down, even if you win(ask Gore). The same media that confers the status is the same to take you down- if you are a Democrat just(exactly like) like the gushing about a celeb marriage in the Enquirer followed close by breathless attetnion to the crack-up.

There is also the "Bill barrier" which she adhered to. With the real competition she was up against(she would have beaten almost any male except the exciting speakers we have now) she needed to take an impossible risk, shed the money advantages, the caution- and Bill and really throw herself into her constituency. Such a course is near impossible to contemplate but I think she would have remained competitive and fought for the first time to shatter the media barrier against her, sexism and all.

This year is not primarily about sexism nor in her persecution ais it anything but a matter of opportunity. That is a major distraction. It is ALL about GOP power and every divided group suffers in any wedge way possible. Up with blacks, down with women? Who profits from this madness?

[Little Star]

20. Up with blacks, down with women? Good question. n/t

[Captain_Nemo]

4. Excellent and so true. The vehemence against Hillary, even on DU, is

indicative of something so much more than just voting for Iraq. The hate goes deep.

[DURHAM D]

5. She nailed it with -

"some men regressing to childhood when dealing with powerful women". Shall we start a list?

[DURHAM D]

6. This is posted where it will soon be lost.

Shouldn't it be posted in GD-P?

[mcscajun]

14. Well, it's made it to the Greatest Page, so I'd imagine it isn't exactly lost.

But just in case, I posted a link to this discussion over in GD-P. :hi:

[Voltaire99]

7. I've lost all respect for Steinem.

Gloria, baby, you haven't come a long way.

If the founder of MS. (and author of the brilliant screed "If Men Could Menstruate") can now blithely support the blood-stained wretch who eagerly endorsed invading Iraq and since has helped give Bush a free hand vis-a-vis Iran, whose Reaganist policies license corporations to act as unregulated goliaths exporting American jobs, and whose every counsel to Americans is they dare hope for no better than her parched right wing ideology with its sops and comforts to religious extremists, and you can do all this in the name of combating sexism then you're really blinded by your gender politics.

Once upon a time, forty years ago, Steinem was a potent force in the culture; the years have not treated her well. She is, like many a Boomer, now a narrow-minded, entitled fool. Retirement beckons you lot, yo!

[wisteria]

9. Wow, what vitral. Boomers are still a major force in this country

and are young enough to still take on a little snot like yourself.

[Alcibiades]

23. Vitriol

And I had thought we were the illiterate slackers!

[eridani]

8. Gloria Steinem now thinks that shilling for AquaDots and Blackwater is feminist?

Funny, I'm from her generation and never thought of feminism that way.

[wisteria]

10. This is a wonderful op-ed. Thanks for posting it.

I have come to realize too late that my misplaced angry directed at Senator Clinton was wrong. We may have now lost a chance for a long time to raise a woman to a positon of real leadership and respect. How many little girls now a days even dream of being president?

[emilyg]

11. If they do - they better stay away from DU.

[Cardboardurinal]

12. um...

I am not sure what planet Steinem is looking at, but how many female senators are there? How many blacks? For her to say that black men are better equipped to get to powers of positions shows that her perspective is fallacious at best. Women are better represented at all levels of government than ANY ethnic minority in the United States, that is a fact.
Her support of Hillary seems to be based on gender and nothing else, and correct me if I am wrong, isn't that against what feminism is about?

[Hissyspit]

13. Welcome to DU, Cardboardurinal!

:patriot:

:toast:

[MrsBrady]

17. did you read the whole article?

more from the article....

"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."

Generally, women are judged by different standards than men. I've seen it all my life, I've seen it in my own life.
It's hard to see this when you are male. Even good men are guilty of this, sometimes, because...well, they are not women.

If you don't see that, I don't know what else to tell you.

[bonito]

15. AIPAC should never be a front runner in US politics

That is what Hillary represents in this election.

[Teaser]

16. Fair points. don't agree, but fair points.

.

[robbedvoter]

18. All fair points especially in light of the troglodyte so call progressive EU comments

I am not going as far as to support Hillary, but glad Steinem does.

[Little Star]

19. Some want us to sit down and shut up!!! It is too important for that.

I'm not ready to make nice. Tell'em Gloria!!!

[SharonAnn]

21. Amen, sister. I'm not ready to make nice, either.

[Emillereid]

22. Shame on you Gloria - Clinton may technically be a woman but she

is still a warmonger. I believe the only reason she gets the support she is getting is because so many are nostalgic for Bill.

[Alcibiades]

24. Smash the patriarchy, but work for the CIA on the side

Ms. Steinem is the phony people accuse John Edwards of being. Another multimillionaire establishment Democrat supports Senator Clinton! There's a news flash. The feminist critics of Ms. Steinem back when it was still called "women's liberation" were right about her.

I was raised by a feminist, and don't have an issue with powerful women. What I do have an issue with is that she's a Clinton, and she's a DLC centrist. In the one year when we could nominate just about anybody, why do we have to settle for someone as conservative as Senator Clinton? I'd love to see a woman president, but not Senator Clinton.

Where's Bella Abzug when you need her?

[flpoljunkie]

25. Notice the appended correction online today. Ted Kennedy has not endorsed Hillay or any other Dem.

Correction: January 9, 2008

An Op-Ed article yesterday about Hillary Rodham Clinton misstated Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s position on the presidential race. He has not endorsed Mrs. Clinton or any candidate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html

(I wonder why they did not catch this before it was printed. We all know that Kennedy has not endorsed any Democrat, but the NYT doesn't?)