This morning I get on the subway and run into my colleague. We happen to meet on the same car of the subway every so often as we both calculate which door of which car will get us closer to the turnstile to minimize the delay in getting to our J-O-B before 10am, when it is still acceptable to be late. We often talk about music, as she and I vibe on some of the freakishly same cheesy stuff from the 80s but for some reason, maybe it’s Gooliani finally dropping out (in an act of poetic justice, if nothing more) or Edwards conceding, we turn to politics.
She wants to play DJ at our next staff party, she says. And I say, oh, when is that?
Super Tuesday.
Now at this point, I look her in the eye and said, you know I’m supporting Obama along with a lot of the other younger staff and staff of color, right? She looks at me quizzically.
The President of my organization went to school with Hilary and under Bill’s administration she served on an official government delegation for UN meetings. She has a vested interest in Clinton’s campaign, as do many older white feminists. Many people look at my organization and assume we’re not only supportive of Clinton, but we’re gonna campaign for her.
My colleague looks vaguely shocked.”I find that interesting that you’re for Obama. Why?” I chuckle and think, well if you haven’t figured it out by now, I am no Obama missionary. And, in a sort of authentic concilliatory note I say to her, well, if Clinton wins, I will support her. Oh really, she smirks, if Obama wins, I’m going to McCain’s camp. And therein lies one of the many fundamental differences between us.
Many weeks ago, Gloria Steinem wrote the following op-ed for the New York Times. Before reading on, however, know this:
I wish we could simply break it down as I’m choosing between the binary of a black man and a white woman. Or a black person and a white person. Or a man and a woman. I wish, but it’s not the case. I have issues with Clinton that extend beyond this dichotomy and I’m a feminist. Let’s face it, if Clarence Thomas were running, he wouldn’t remotely get my vote. If Indira Gandhi came back to life, she would never get my vote either. Not even if she won the democratic primary…
Steinem says: “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.” Talk to radical young feminists, white and of color, and ask them who they’d vote for. Don’t discredit them if they’re not going for Hilary. Our world view, our historical analyses are just as valid in leading some of us to say we support Obama. (I have to say how I love that she’s appropriated the caste system to sexuality… my colleagues in India would have a hay day with that).
And the assumptions about Obama’s (supposedly hyper) masculinity appealing to white men makes me a bit nauseous. That’s a bit of a low blow. Historically the hypermasculinized black male representation has threatend white men.
Fundamentally, Gloria sees Hilary Clinton’s track record far different from me. I’m not about to put my hat in for a woman who has proven to be anti-immigrant, who sounds so very Republican when she supported this war, who, frankly, I’m not convinced will be able to hit the ground running on day 1. And, yes, Obama’s record is short and he’s not perfect, but what he stands for is far more affirming to me than Clinton. I have friends ALLIES that are among Obama’s advisors. No candidate before Obama would turn to people like them to advise them on jack. It’s who he holds close that I trust.
I also know this: folks I’d never envision toting any candidates sticker or button are rocking something that says OBAMA. And as my friend said the other night, proudly displaying his Obama button, If Obama doesn’t get it, I’m gonna quit my hustle and go out and get mine! It’s the last straw, folks. Get on the bus.
By the way, where did she get the name Achola Obama from?
Women Are Never Front-Runners
function getSharePasskey() { return ‘ex=1357534800&en=9f6d8783ff1b15c9&ei=5124′;} function getShareURL() { return encodeURIComponent(‘http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html’); } function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent(‘Women Are Never Front-Runners’); } function getShareDescription() { return encodeURIComponent(‘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.’); } function getShareKeywords() { return encodeURIComponent(‘United States Politics and Government,Women,Presidential Election of 2008′); } function getShareSection() { return encodeURIComponent(‘opinion’); } function getShareSectionDisplay() { return encodeURIComponent(‘Op-Ed Contributor’); } function getShareSubSection() { return encodeURIComponent(”); } function getShareByline() { return encodeURIComponent(‘By GLORIA STEINEM’); } function getSharePubdate() { return encodeURIComponent(‘January 8, 2008′); }
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
