Gloria Steinem today in NYT: Women Are Never Front-Runners

[kpete]

Gloria Steinem today in the New York Times:
January 8, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM

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.

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

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[Horse with no Name]

2. No way I am going to argue with Steinham

She has earned her opinion legitimately.
I have to respectfully disagree though. I WISH I could make that leap and vote for a woman, but I can't vote for THIS woman.
She represents the status quo and I have had enough status quo.

[rodeodance]

5. just be careful of the Glitter-machine out there.

[Horse with no Name]

8. Glitter machine? What is that? n/t

[leveymg]

10. I will. "Achola Obama" could be the nominee. But, Hillary Clinton won't be . .

not because she's a woman, but because she's Hillary Clinton.

If America's ready for its first President who's an African-American (literally) male, it's just as ready to elect a woman, regardless of race.

This is special pleading by Gloria, who's arguing -- incorrectly, I believe -- that Hill's impending failure as a candidate is due to her gender rather than who Hillary is as an individual, and the policies and legacy she stands for.

[crispini]

20. Respectfully, have you considered that...

the reasons that Steinem cites may be the very reasons why you feel you can't vote for "this" woman? Admittedly, you and I have not had this discussion before, but every time I hear people say "yes, a woman, just not Hilary," it seems to me that their reasons dovetail right in with the woman in power argument that Steinem is going over, i.e. she's "cold," "bitchy," etc... which fits right in with what Steinem says here.

And you know me, so you know I'm not just hear to yank your tail on this, just interested. :hi:

[Horse with no Name]

26. Sure. I have considered it.

My 90+ year old Grandpa is voting for Clinton, and no way was I going to TRY to dissuade him from that. :)
I remember a time when I could have very easily voted for her, in fact, I used to believe she could be our first woman President when she was the First Lady.
I also saw her on CSPAN a few years back--during her first year as Junior Senator--speaking to the Senate about Healthcare and the Nursing shortage--thinking, I could vote for her easily.
However, knowledge and years have passed and I find that even though those early days I had of near-worship of the lady, that I cannot in good conscience vote for a DLC candidate. They are too similar to republicans and represent very little of what is important to ME.
I have no gender bias whatsoever. I could easily vote for Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, etc.
I will admit to idealogy bias if anything. I understand how far left I am. I see Clinton's stances as very republican. That bothers me greatly.
As far as being a bitch or bitchy? I have no problem with that--I have been known to be called the same on occasion.:evilgrin:

[Yael]

3. Hillary has been the front runner for 2 years now

Once people heard her MESSAGE, she fell out of grace.

[debbierlus]

18. BARACK HAS THE SAME DAMN MESSAGE

So, get off it.

He is popular because of a false PERCEPTION.

[Fleshdancer]

4. "Iron my shirt!"

Clinton isn't my first choice, but the sexism is pretty obvious at times:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080108/ap_po/clinton_laundry

SALEM, N.H. - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign stop was interrupted Monday when two men stood in the crowd and began screaming, "Iron my shirt!" during one of her final appearances before the New Hampshire primary.

Clinton, a former first lady running to become the nation's first female president, laughed at the seemingly sexist protest that suggested a woman's place is doing the laundry and not running the country.

"Ah, the remnants of sexism — alive and well," Clinton said to applause in a school auditorium.

[MedleyMisty]

6. "Seemingly" sexist? What the hell?

And "remnants"?

[Fleshdancer]

16. yeah, I have NO idea

I'll let the "remnants" remark slide only because it can't be easy to think of the perfect response after crap like that, but the "seemingly" part of the article is absolutely ridiculous.

[rodeodance]

29. seemingly HELL--it WAS!!

[Solly Mack]

11. That's fucked up

[ShortnFiery]

12. Sorry, such sentiments will not catch fire.

I never used my husband's position to give me a boost up in my career. Further, there are many women who, like myself, resent those who do *take advantage of such relationships* ("My husband ...") and then turn around and scream "sexism" when it suits her.

HRC can't have it both ways with this feminist. :(

[Lyric]

60. This feminist supports her.

I guess I just don't see thing the way you do. I see a strong woman who (like a man would) uses every advantage she has, and I see nothing wrong with that.

[krabigirl]

17. That's so lame. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. They need to crawl back into the caves they crawled out of. The Stone Age is OVER

and may I suggest they iron their own fucking shirts?

[WinkyDink]

39. The proper retort, according to Miss Manners, is "KISS MY A**."

[HeraldSquare212]

7. I dont' agree

My impression, at least in the business world, has been that people will accept/hire white women, then black women, then black men. I'm only speaking of corporate America, but that's been my impression.

[KoKo]

13. Yes...Corporate America has worked that way....from my observation, too..

But, perhaps hiring women first was also because they still (in general) make less than white males.

[KoKo]

14. Here are some interesting points from the end of the article .....

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.

[HeraldSquare212]

23. I think older voters remember Clinton as a ground-breaking figure

and still admire her for that. Younger voters don't have that history. Maybe if Clinton could get more specific about what she's done and how she was one of the first women to be at such a high level in the political life of the country, they'd support her also.

[ShortnFiery]

27. What worries me (Steinem) ... is that she won't be able to visit the WH and weld as much power

with a non-DLC Executive Branch.

There's always *a hint* of a potential hidden agenda. ;)


Gloria Steinem protesth too much?

[marions ghost]

45. there's an interesting phenom out there

that I haven't seen mentioned too much--the fact that some older women Democrats want Hillary to win as payback for the ravages of Boosh and the Big Daddies. They see it as sweet revenge, since they know how much the Right hates Hillary and everything she stands for. President Hillary Clinton would be all too gratifying after the rule of the extreme alpha males. I have heard this line from older women--payback time is embodied in the controversial figure of Hillary.

[KoKo]

53. I don't think that way...I don't even understand the logic of that....

and I'm one who remembers the Women's Movement and knows what "coat hanger, Dr. Death Abortions were all about..

I don't see it that way. I don't hate Alpha Males but have seen them...even though like all obnoxious folks...I try to avoid them. I wouldn't like to think that Hillary runs on "Hate and Payback" for what Bill did our her friends had experiences with. :shrug: What you say is interesting, though...I wouldn't have thought of her Candidacy like that....

[marions ghost]

57. I'm not saying this thinking is widespread...

just that it's out there, particularly among women who have been abused or deeply affected by male domination, & who may have few other outlets for expressing that.

A lot of Hillary supporters are women who have overcome the odds through hard work and determination. No, it's not a theme of educated, successful women who like Hillary have made it in a man's world--it's more a viewpoint of the downtrodden woman, the woman who tends to lose out in the battle of the sexes and is more than a little bitter about it.

I don't think Hillary runs on this at all, and might even be surprised by the idea. I like you, was mystified when I encountered it. But I know it is out there among women for whom payback is a motivator.

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. Then why would a business hire any man?

If women are cheaper, why hire men?

[KoKo]

54. because women are cheaper in certain roles but a woman who can haul freight

still might not make as much as a man who can do the same. :shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Okay then, why do *any* men work in those "certain roles"?

And why would any man be hired to haul freight when a woman is cheaper?

[krabigirl]

22. Unless you're a mother of small children...

[debbierlus]

9. Amen, Steinem. The way she has been treated is terrible

And, I am no Hilliary fan. However, I read the commentaries & watched the reactions to her personally, & I realized this country is VERY immature. Of course, the heralding of a corporatist who happens to be mixed race is heralded as progress. Hilliary should have been shot down because of her policies, however Obama basically mirrors them & he is the new 'hope'.

Basically same policies, pick your flavor. One is decried, the other embraced. The insanity does not end.

Grow up, America.

[ShortnFiery]

21. Younger enlisted women being sexually harassed in The Military and The Government is "terrible."

HRC lives in the limelight - it's NADA, i.e., a mere inconvenience. If you take a moment to talk with "the average American woman worker" vice "the spoiled elite power brokers" many would concede that HRC has had it both ways?

[Fovea]

15. As I dry the last of the dishwater from my hands

let me respectfully diagree.

Note to Ms. Steinem.
The real question that haunts Hillary is that after an eight year period of Visconti style misrule, we are ready to trade that for the Borgias.

It's not about gender, or even plumbing. To paraphrase a famous Bill CLinton quote, It's the corporatism, stupid.

[krabigirl]

19. I agree with her, and it sucks, to put it mildly.

[crazylikafox]

25. K&R

[rodeodance]

28. ..and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a

BITCH. Bingo

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. She is spot on. The boys are still treatened by powerful women. Always will be.

IMCPO.

[ShortnFiery]

32. It will not improve at the CEO levels UNTIL it's strongly discouraged at the Blue-Collar levels.

:shrug:

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. And as long as the blue collar workers are sexist assholes....that will never happen.

It's a vicious circle for women.

[ShortnFiery]

36. That's the point! You quantify behavior as "sexist" - you change attitudes, not label people.

Just my dumb-a** opinion that when you LABEL PEOPLE as "sexist" then you are essentially either giving up or adopting a "victims mentality." Work WITH people who behave sexist to change their attitudes and subsequently ... just perhaps, behavior. :shrug:

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. You're joking, right? How many years have women been fighting this battle?

It will never change as long as the boys are in charge.

[ShortnFiery]

43. Absolutely NOT! I was in one of the first waves of women officers integrated into the US Army

once they dissolved the Womens' Army Corps (WACs) during the late 70s to mid-80s.

I KNOW what it's like to experience "in your face" sexist behavior. I also know what it's like to prove the worst of them wrong and change the minds of many objective men "in the middle." Stereotypes die hard. Further, we are all, to some extent GUILTY of making undue generalizations by the mere fact of being "human." :(

HRC is not "my sister" in the struggle for Women's Equality - because she's played it both ways.

She can't utter "my husband this and that ..." at every given opportunity, THEN claim "sexism" when a few goof-balls choose to say something stupid like "Iron my shirt!"

The jaded part of me wonders if her main man (Mark Penn not Bill Clinton) may have set-up this scenario. :shrug:

If you truly wish to experience a full dose of sexism, join a "traditionally male" field and attempt to make a place for yourself, i.e., military, police, firefighter, construction worker.

IMNSHO, HRC is an anti-feminist. :thumbsdown:

[Little Star]

51. How many years do women have to fight this battle? Many....

people deny it, even when they are being stabbed in the back by it. Young women need to wake up or they will loose the minor advances women before them fought to win. Just get me my burka.

[JAbuchan08]

64. Have you ever considered that sometimes it is the power which is threatening

and not the woman?

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Codswallop.

My governor and both my senators are women, and above-average elected officials.

Hillary isn't losing support because she's a woman. Neither did she have a full year as the inevitable next president because she's a woman.

Both of those realities have the same core reason - she's less likely to vigorously support the interests of the people, and more likely to support big-money corporations, than her opponents.

[BoneDaddy]

61. Why is it when women "win" or applauded

they did it solely through their "hard work", "strength", and "ability to compete against men" but when they lose it is due to "sexism", "misogyny" and "patriarchy".

Wow talk about playing both sides of the fence.

[riverdeep]

35. I agree with her points in a general sense, BUT,

trying to read too much about gender into the Hillary phenomenon is a mistake. There's so much more going on with her than just a woman running for office. Hillary has a particular and polarizing history in this country that gleaning a true reflection of America's views on gender from her becomes difficult because it's hard to separate out all the reasons people don't like her. I've heard lot's of people say, 'no problem with women, just not THAT woman!'

[Marr]

37. I get so sick of the sexism charge against Hillary Clinton's critics.

She's DLC. I won't vote for a corporatist, period. I'm interested in the candidates' proposed policies and their track record.

If someone puts gender ahead of those practical concerns and decides to support Hillary Clinton because she's a woman, *they're* the ones being sexist, not me.

[undeterred]

38. Clinton had a sense of "entitlement" to the Presidency

that none of the others have. Steinem is right about many things but she's not right about everything.

[tandem5]

49. Entitlement, of course, has negative connotations, but

I don't know if a genuine lifelong desire to be president is seen as a negative quality for a presidential candidate to posses - At least for the current and past male candidates. And again I can recall all the various analyzes by historians and the like, dissecting the makeup of a leader with regards to ego and assumption-of-command as being the necessary prerequisites for the presidency.

I just can't help but think a male with an aura of entitlement would be interpreted in terms of manifest destiny, vision, and foresight whereas with a woman it's just seen as uppity.

[undeterred]

50. Thats probably true.

And it probably depends who she's standing next to. Obama may have a little of it, but he's younger. With Hillary we know that its pretty much now or never.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Not when they're lousy candidates regardless of gender, no.

[madisongrace]

42. It is true. Most 'people' don't see it. n/t

[marions ghost]

44. Steinem makes some good points with this article...

food for thought anyway, esp about the double standards applied to every woman in power.

The question about HRC might be asked another way:

IF Hillary Clinton did NOT have the various strikes against her that keep many of us from supporting her--ie. DLC corporatist, defense of her war vote, Clinton baggage etc.--

WHAT IF her politics were say, more like Edwards or even Kucinich, would she have an equal chance as a man of any color in this election?

IMO the answer to that Q is still...no. Especially no, if you think about it.

And that just becomes another reason why I think she is not the best candidate in this risky election where a liberal Dem absolutely must be elected. HRC has been cynically promoted by the forces of the status quo, shoved down our throats in an attempt to thwart the "change" sentiment sweeping the country after the fall of the horrific House of Boosh. That effort seems thankfully in jeopardy.

America is still not ready for a woman president. But, despite her issues, the support Hillary has gained from women and many men this time around is telling. We might get there someday... So Hillary is "not the one" but can you really imagine a more liberal woman being elected president right now either? I can't. Maybe after a few years of a liberal man as prez.

[SoCalDem]

46. Not necesarily true.. Hillary was "worked" for a decade or more.

The right wingers and the press decided, early on, that she was the epitome of the "educated-uppity woman" and they made her into it.

There was no powerful press or media rebutting it daily..no Anti-Rush et al, so the meme stuck to her like glue.

Once the image is there, it never goes away.

Before Hillary, First Ladies had the aura of being the demure, quiet, supportive wife (Eleanor Roosevelt was the exception..but it was also during the depression & wartime).

There are some women who could be president, but I do not think Hillary is one of them. She thinks she should be, and she's probably as qualified as anyone running , but she was thoroughly swiftboated, before the term was ever known to us.

We choose our presidents very oddly, here in the USA. A look at the last 10 presidents we have had will tell us all we need to know :(

[distantearlywarning]

47. I disagree.

Social class is the most restricting force in American life.

If Hillary Clinton had been born in a trailer in Appalachia or in one of thousands of inner city slums, she'd have no chance at being president regardless of her plumbing.

[Johonny]

48. I think

the question is given the population dynamics why aren't more women running for president rather than why one particular (and only) women isn't attracting more voters.

[Elspeth]

52. Yes. This is right on the mark

:kick:

[Elspeth]

55. "they [Obama and Clinton] were the same more than 90 percent of the time."

From the article:

"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."

For anyone who says they are voting for Obama but not Hillary because of her political positions, let them respond to that.

[Hidden Stillness]

58. What a Fabulous, Wonderful Primary; I am So Thrilled She Won

I had a very unexpected response to this New Hampshire primary--I was so thrilled, so connected, I felt it was "me/us/my people/our time," and I was so happy that Hillary Clinton won. I started to hope, that males didn't beat us down, again, that everyone doesn't hate us and just want us to step aside and stop "taking an opportunity away from some male," again, and when she had the popular support, and that we could win and not only be defeated and removed, I was so happy, it was like time itself started ticking again, and women will have another era to work with, before it ends again. For every brilliant woman you have ever heard shut down with "bitch" or "who does your hair" or "why aren't you married" or any other killer-line, I loved that when they drove her to despair and she almost cracked, and almost cried--then attacked her for that, too--it was actually the start of a new era, and her own life, where before there was only male consultant orders, and fearing a show of anything real. Any woman who claims not to know why she eventually came to feel that she was walking on eggshells every public moment of her life, and could not predict where the next violent male attack was going to come from, or based on what, is delusional.

She gave a brilliant, real, totally unlike-her-controlled-self speech in N.H. on Monday night, which was so exciting and real, and was wonderful on Tuesday, too. We do not always have to eternally step aside, and find whatever male seems to be closest to what we would have been, if we had been "allowed"; we belong, too. Maybe, just maybe now, we don't always have to be "perfect," then ignored. Every male commentator has refused to face their own hatred of women, as they cheered Obama endlessly, but has called HER "divisive," and "polarizing"--it is always HER fault, and I believe women came to their own moment of rebellion. Maybe Clinton will now remember what she was many years ago--very liberal--and get the male consultants out, as they already have, and come home to the real country, where she can be even loved! (We are always, always, treated as the annoying nuisance, disrupting the male club, "talking too much," because we talk at all.) This night was so exciting to me; I will never forget it. For all the male-only media storyline, maybe now women will return as a force. I felt finally like it was my Presidential race, too! Wonderful.

[Glenda]

59. I wonder if her speech will be on YouTube?

I missed it

[kwassa]

62. Steinem has one part of this wrong

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).

Black men were given the vote after the Civil War, and then terrorized into disenfranchisement by various white supremicist groups and Jim Crow laws. It was not until the civil rights movements of the 60s until much of this was reversed.

The world of segregation kept them out of boardrooms, too, until very recently. This part of the argument holds no water. The success of black men and women in positions of power parallels that of white women in terms of time frame.

[NewJeffCT]

63. There are also a lot more women in high elected offices

when compared to people of color.

There is currently one African-American senator, out of 100. There are 16 female Senators. Even though both are under-represented, women are represented at a much greater percentage than African Americans

African-Americans - 1% rate in the senate, but 12.8% of the population, women 16% of the senate, but 50.7% of the population.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Similarly, there are more female governors than African American governors.