Discussion: View Thread

For those following the US Presidential primaries, a recent Opinion piece by
Gloria Steinem might be of interest. Full text follows below.
Jeanie

Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM
Published: 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.”


Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center.




*************************************
Jeanie Mannheimer Forray, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Management
Director of International Business Programs
Western New England College
1215 Wilbraham Road, Springfield, MA 01119
Email: jforray@wnec.edu
Tel: 1-413-782-1702; Fax: 1-413-796-2068
 
President, OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators
www.obts.org