women are never front-runners

[niyad]

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 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).
. . . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?_r=5&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login

[SteppingRazor]

1. I'd say no, they couldn't be president, but not just because of gender.

It's one thing to be black in America.
It's one thing to be a woman in America.

But if you're a black woman in America, you are fucking screwed.

[niyad]

4. why do yo think women cannot be president in this "great" land?

[Bucky]

19. Their collar bones are too wide, so they have trouble lifting that big veto stamp all day long

Also, it looks silly when they prance around on the decks of aircraft carriers with a fake codpeice on. Only a man could do that and still look presidential.

[Hydra]

2. What democracy?

Up until recently, they couldn't even be figureheads.

[jgraz]

3. Neither are corporate toadies.

Oh wait... yes they are. Like the way Hillary was before she screwed the pooch.

[Sulawesi]

5. Why do I get the feeling that some are trying to pit different disenfranchised

groups against each other. An electoral victory for a black man would be a great thing for racial tensions in this country. Why does it have to be bad, and sexist, because he has to beat Hillary to make it happen?

[Bad Thoughts]

7. Amen!

In a field with one remaining "white male," people are crying about discrimination? Honestly, I'm dancing in the street!

[suston96]

8. It's a tough choice to have both a first black and a first woman....

How Americans handle this will say a lot about them. And a suggestion....

Don't look to the blogs to make a judgment. Way too polluted with hate groups.

Don't look to the media, either. Where too look?

I dunno. Deep inside your own soul?

[Bucky]

20. May I suggest assessing the candidates based on their actual qualifications instead?

[suston96]

22. "May I suggest assessing the candidates based on their actual qualifications instead?"

Sure suggest it. But when the leading candidate among the Democrats is soaring based on nothing more than his Martin Luther King imitation why would discussing qualifications matter?

Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have been discussing their qualifications and they are - well, where they are - which is nowhere.

[niyad]

9. take a look at your history. the suffrage movement had to wait, women have always

had to wait for everyone else.

[Bad Thoughts]

12. Come on, now

Even if black men received the vote before women in the Constitution, they were still systematically disenfranchised until the 1960s.

[niyad]

13. the point is, they were IN the constitution, which, to this day, women are NOT

[Bad Thoughts]

24. Would white women change places with black men ...

... in the 1870s? 1880s? 1890s? 1900s? 1910s? 1920s? 1930s? 1940s? 1950s? 1960s?

Steinem made an unfortunate comparison. It should be forgotten, and we should celebrate that we will, one way or other, overcome the deficits of history.

[demnan]

6. We will have our time

But not this time.

This is really very true in the working world as well. The problem is that women these days seem to accept it. It isn't even hip anymore to be a feminist. I think things will turn around for us, though.

[niyad]

10. we have been waiting since even before abigail instructed john to "remember the ladies"

after all these centuries, I am tired of waiting.

born feminist, will die that way

[ShortnFiery]

11. Gloria Steinem, once the outsider, has been schmoozing with the Democratic Establishment

power brokers for far too long.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Elvis has left the building, i.e., Gloria has jumped the shark - lost true perspective. :(

[sandnsea]

14. *sigh* This is pure shit

and an embarrassment to every woman who stands on her own two feet. Hillary was the front runner all last year. She made choices that destroyed her campaign. Nothing sexist about it.

This is the kind of shit that sends people running from the Democratic Party.

[niyad]

16. and you don't think the kind of coverage she has gotten has anything to do with it--

the "cackle", etc? the speedup of her voice to make it sound different? yes, she has made some very bad choices, but that deoesn't take away from the fact that this is, and remains, an extremely sexist society, with a very sexcist msm.

[sandnsea]

23. Laughing in the face of confrontation

was a political choice. If she hadn't chosen to attack Obama, and called it the "fun part", she'd be the nominee right now. CNN has dang near annointed her. MSNBC has Abrams out there shilling for her now. They're repeating her talking points all day long. Schuster and Maddow are supporting Edwards and going after Obama. There has been very little sexism against her, except perhaps on Foxnews which I don't watch or count.

[killbotfactory]

15. Here, I fixed the analogy for her

THE woman in question, the third black Senator since the reconstruction and the only black Senator currently serving, became a civil rights 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, while spending a decade teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

[ZombieHorde]

17. I don't think that being a woman is as big of a disadvantage

as being gay and perhaps Atheist or Muslim.

[hughee99]

18. It seems like just yesterday I was wondering when someone would post

and article about how women have historically been more oppressed than blacks in an attempt to prop up Hillary.

Oh wait, it was just yesterday I suggested you would see this exact story.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3982944&mesg_id=3983048

So the comparison is between a black man and a black woman here? I didn't think there was a black woman in the race. I'm not denying that both are factors, but how can you declare gender more restricting than race when comparing a black man to a theoretical black woman? Wouldn't you have to compare two people of similar backgrounds, one a black man and the other a white woman to determine which is "more restricting". (I'll just pass on commenting on how she refers to gender as the MOST restricting force in american life, as opposed to, say, poverty)

In the spirit of full disclosure, I was only able to read your post. I refuse to sign up for the NYT so I haven't read the full article.

[niyad]

21. you really didn't understand whose resume that "theoretical" black woman's was?

I suggest you figure that out first.

[hughee99]

25. I assumed she was talking about

Carol Moseley Braun, but I wasn't sure, I'm not that intimately versed on her background. I was eventually able to find the article (on their website no less http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html) without having to register and I read it in full. The point of the article isn't Carol Moseley Braun, though, it's an attempt to make the case for how it is more difficult for Hillary because she's a woman than it is for Obama because he's black. Don't be fooled when she says she's "not advocating a competition for who has it toughest" because that's what she does for much of the article.

[annie1]

26. "in an attempt to prop up hillary". wonder dismissive bullcrap from denialists.

[hughee99]

27. So, here's an article from a Hillary supporter

it just happens to comes out on the day of the NH primary while Hillary's numbers have been falling and just after the "hecklers" the other day brought the sexism issue even more to the forefront.

What exactly am I denying, other than the assertion that it's harder for women then african americans in politics?