Gloria Steinem on the appalling double standard

[KennedyGuy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
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.”

[Horse with no Name]

1. Stellar endorsement of Clinton. n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. Gloria: a breath of fresh air.

I hope more people come out and condemn the press. It is time to stop this bias crap.

[rodeodance]

10. yes and yes and yes

[Colobo]

3. Ms. Steinheim, President Obama will make your proud.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. I bet he would also. Meanwhile though she made some very pointed observations

And she made them very very well. The specifics she raised go much deeper than whether Obama or Clinton is better qualified to be President or will do a better job. I would like to see more people take the time to actually consider the implications of her observations, even if you disagree with her choice of candidate.

[saltpoint]

4. I would have no problem supporting Gloria Steinem for the presidency.

But we disagree on the choice in the current field.

[marylanddem]

5. Gloria, while I respect and admire your work on

behalf of women, you don't have much of a clue on this one.

[SIMPLYB1980]

6. K&R

[Cameron27]

7. I've been waiting for this,

thank you Gloria!

[elixir]

8. Eloquently put. So clear to us now.

[Cameron27]

19. I'll say more then,

beginning with MSNBC, the media has waged a biased, and many times sexist war, against our only Democratic woman running for POTUS.

I'll let Tom Watson say it more "eloquently:"

The Sexist Media Lynching of Hillary Clinton

http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2008/01/the-sexist-medi.html

[Alamom]

37. SBlue, this should be an OP . Please repost it ....

if you haven't already.

[zulchzulu]

9. "unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House"

Laura Bush has that too. What about Nancy Reagan?

As for more years in the Senate, that's true. But Barack has eight years as State Senator with legislation that he authored and got passed. He knew how to work together instead of mobilizing partisan gridlock.

Despite the notion that Steinham is not "playing the gender card", she actually IS. People who didn't vote for her in most cases didn't vote against her because she was a woman. They voted perhaps against her because she ran a negative campaign. Speaking of unprecedented, many political experts were confounded to find where ANY political candidate used their opponent's kindergarden paper as some kind of smear tactic.

Gloria, I love you for all you've done. But your endorsement is pretty transparent to me.

On edit: Steinham mentions that Ted Kennedy endorsed Hillary. Um...no he didn't. He hasn't endorsed anyone yet.

[dailykoff]

zulch, you the person!

:yourock:

[Colobo]

13. Of course she is, look at how she ends her piece.

[LeFleur1]

15. Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan?

Surely you are not comparing them to Hillary Clinton?

Laura, I must admit, has opened a book. Nancy was a friend of Sinatra and believed in astrology. I guess those backgrounds qualified them for President. Please.

[truebrit71]

16. Both were in the WH for as long as HRC...what other 8-yr on the job training...

...would Ms Steinem by referencing?

[Azathoth]

28. Bingo

:thumbsup:

[rodeodance]

11. and a big REC

[truebrit71]

12. Oh shut up and put your bunny ears on and fetch me a cocktail...

:eyes:

Maybe your candidate will stop playing the gender card by crying when things get tough...

[KennedyGuy]

20. there ya go gals..

don't forget the bunny tail..

[truebrit71]

25. ..and the fishnets....can't forget the fishnets...

:evilgrin:

[zabet]

32. Mr. Hefner!

Action slow in the grotto today?
:crazy:

[truebrit71]

34. Very much so...

...

[soleft]

14. No masculinity to prove? Gloria, give me a break

I found that statement offensive on so many levels. First, it implies that Edwards and Obama have to prove their masculinity. Secondly, I would think that some as immersed in gender awareness as Gloria would never say that a woman does not possess masculinity. I've probably read statements by her a dozen times talking about how human beings possess both the masculine and the feminine. And if Hillary's hawkish moves have not been attempts to prove her masculinity, then I don't know how else to explain them. There are some qualities that are feminine, there are some qualities that are masculine. Agression, violence, toughness, certain expressions of strength, are masculine qualities. We all have them. And unfortunately i think at times Hillary goes overboard trying to prove she possesses them.

Sorry, Gloria, you lost me in the first line.

[Azathoth]

17. "...on-the-job training in the White House..."

You know, if Hillary was a man claiming that his eight years being married to a female President was "on-the-job training" that qualified him to be President, Gloria Steinem would be livid -- no make that apoplectic.

I'm glad Ms. Steinem is supporting Hillary because "she'll make a great president and because she's a woman." I'm supporting Barack Obama becuase he'll make a great president. There is a difference.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Gloria Steinhem has long been a hero to me

Women today, and men also, ignore her at their own risk if they think the fight she has devoted her life to has already been won.

[MrsBrady]

21. I'm tired of this double standard on Hillary

I lean more towards Edwards and Kucinich...
But if this double standard crap doesn't stop, I'm gonna have to go for the "sister".

The race has just freaking started, and already they have her out? Are you freaking kidding?

I would be glad to have any of the Democrats running as president. If Hillary wins the nomination, I'll be more than happy to vote for her.

Some how she's seen as "loser" if she's coming in second or tied with Obama?
Since when would a male candidate be considered a "loser" (or irrelevant????) in such a close race.

I don't hear Edwards being talked about in this way.

Give me a break, this is driving me nuts.

[still_one]

22. She is divisive because of her vote on the IWR, and failure to admit she made a mistake

She is divisive because of her vote on the Kyle/Lieberman ammendment
She is divisive because of her vote for the patriot act

and she is divisive because of this:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jB8n288YSUL-mMk3_2p...

This is nothing to do with sexism, it has everything to do with her positions

[ProSense]

24. There is an error in the op-ed

posted here.

[zulchzulu]

26. Ted Kennedy did not endorse Hillary Clinton, as Steinham states

Ted hasn't endorsed anyone yet.

[ProSense]

27. Article corrected. n/t

[Armstead]

29. I'm breaking a gender barrier by saying "I don't support her, even tho she's a woman."

Has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. That's a point in her favor.

I just don't believe she should be president for a whole host of other reasons.

[tammywammy]

33. Agreed

That's what I think as well.

[crawfish]

30. Do we?

We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”

If I thought the former, I would have no problem with the latter. The simple fact she's a woman doesn't make her worthy to be president.

[youthere]

31. Apalling...perfect word for it.

It IS apalling. K&R

[Taverner]

35. She makes a very good point

I just don't like Clinton's record in the Senate that much, and I prefer the records of Edwards and Obama.

However, Clinton would make a fine President as well.

[tandem5]

36. kick