Like many of you, I listened to Senator Obama's tremendous speech last Tuesday with equal measures of pride and awe: pride at this relatively young man's attempt to bring race from the neglected sidelines of life to the center of our attention, and awe at his bravery in doing it. Facing history head-on is no easy task, but with this speech Obama did just that -- and asked the rest of America to join him in opening up a conversation on race in America that is long overdue. It was a monumental moment in our nation's history.
Being a mother myself, I couldn't help thinking, as I watched Obama speak, of his own, amazing mother, the woman who was written about so movingly in the New York Times recently, and whose courage and commitment to him is largely responsible for that speech. Which in turn made me think of the many women throughout history who have supported and nurtured men into power, but who rarely have been recognized for their role in shaping our nation.
Women like Abigail Adams, who is poignantly portrayed as the brains behind the brawn in HBO's new mini-series about founding father John Adams. Abigail's rendering in this portrait offers a rare reminder us of how much women have contributed to this great Republic, and yet how little attention is given to what we have done -- and how little we have been rewarded for it through advancing us into leadership alongside men.
And women like Eleanor Roosevelt. The creation of the New Deal is often credited to Franklin Roosevelt alone, but the truth is more complex. According to biographer Blanche Wiesen Cook, in the aftermath of learning that her husband was having an extramarital affair, "Eleanor Roosevelt delivered herself from unreal loyalties." She became, for the first time, loyal to her own life and talents. As a result, she began to travel and speak and document what was happening to the people of this country, from the poverty of the white coal miners to the struggles of blacks in every sphere of life. And from that work grew the very policies upon which so much of the legislation of the New Deal was forged.
In short, by creating a new deal for herself -- a deal whereby she would use her voice to create a new vision -- Eleanor was ultimately instrumental in creating a New Deal for America.
"Remember the ladies" Abigail Adams wrote to John, back when this new nation was taking shape. It was her plea that the new American Congress not leave women out as they proclaimed freedom for others. But in the end, women were left out -- though it didn't stop them from leading from the sidelines, helping to create monumental advances both before and after they were able to flex their power publicly, as the examples of both Abigail and Eleanor make clear.
Centuries have passed, but Abigail's plea resonates today, when women continue to struggle to ascend to the positions of leadership they deserve.
People are loathe to believe this is true, but here are the facts: the U.S. ranks an astonishing 71st in the world when it comes to women's political representation - behind such stalwarts of democracy as Iraq (33rd), Sudan (65th), and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (57th). There are only nine women governors, less than three percent of Fortune 500 companies are led by women, only one woman leads a Fortune 50 company and we are stuck at approximately 22% of state legislators nationwide.
As Deborah Rhode of Stanford says, America likes to think of itself as a fair country, and to believe that women are represented fairly in every sector-- but that sentiment is a far cry from reality.
Just as America needed the Roosevelts' New Deal back in the 1930s, today, America's women are in need of their own new deal -- and a new conversation about gender in America. Because whatever we may try to convince ourselves, parity has not been achieved on the gender front. When, in the first installment of John Adams, Abigail told her husband to "Send a woman to the Congress," because "she might knock some sense into them," I thought about how sadly familiar her struggle feels even in this 21st Century environment.
All these years later, we are still struggling to get women into the Congress and all the other halls of power in equal numbers to their male peers -- but today we have an opportunity to make new progress, and to commit ourselves to approaching the trappings of gender just as holistically as Senator Obama has asked us to approach the ills of racial prejudice.
"These are difficult issues," Senator Clinton said last week in response to Senator Obama's speech. "Race and gender are difficult issues. And we need to have more discussion about them."
I couldn't agree with her more. Clinton's allusion to gender serves as the important reminder we need that in issues of gender, as in issues of race, we have miles to go before we sleep. True, in this election, we have a woman frontrunner and increased visibility for women as leaders across sectors.
But we're not there yet. "Remember the ladies," was Abigail's demand. It must continue to be ours, too.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Marie, your eloquent wish to "Remember the Ladies...." will be guaranteed to come true with Madam President !
For many years I have longed to have the opportunity to vote for a woman President. I have longed for the day that woman would be seen as just as capable and there would be women running frequently. The old adage "be careful what you wish for" seems most appropriate this year. I have learned that I don't want just any woman.
I"m a Democrat. I"ll vote for our candidate and I urge others to do the same - because we don"t need more years of the war, more years of the Bush tax cuts, and ESPECIALLY more conservatives on the Supreme Court. That, incidentally, would be the ultimate place for Hillary Clinton - I hope to see her there some day.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is there entirely on his own merit. It started with the keynote speech at the 2004 convention, a speech that woke viewers up out of their torpor in a "Who"s this guy?" moment. It was his delivery and his message - black, white, or red, blue or purple - that got the nation"s attention, kept it, and has skyrocketed him from there in four short years.
If Bill Clinton hadn"t been President, would we ever have heard of Hillary Clinton? Wouldn"t she still be practicing law in Little Rock? The sad thing is that as the first viable female candidate for President, Clinton is there only because of her husband"s fame - both the positive and the negative aspects of that fame.
Hillary Clinton is not the frontrunner, as others have pointed out. Wishful thinking on your part?
Very true. This is all a moot point where Hillary is concerned because Hillary has already lost. This is a dispassionate mathematical fact. Every mathematical and statistical analysis has determined that it is literal impossibility for Hillary to win either the electoral or the popular vote. So, unless HRC and the Super Delegates choose usurp the will of the Democratic electorate - thereby catastrophically disenfranchising a large percentage of blacks, young first-time (read: the future of the party) voters, and progressives - then this, in reality, been over for some months now. There are many articles out there now addressing the cold, hard math and I, as a professional mathematician, would strongly suggest to denial-cleaving Clinton supporters (of which I was one) that they read them and come to grips with reality and decide where their loyalty lies, with the Dem Party or with their wounded self-righteous pride.
the majority of the Democratic party are women... yet Hillary is still losing the primary race... why? it's not because she is a woman... it is because more men and women are choosing Obama. end of story.
She doesn't "deserve" to be president. Her problem is that she thinks she does.
The notion that a Dem Party primary would turn on people choosing a black MAN over a white WOMAN is the absurd product of HRC supporters who can't understand that, ALL things considered, they'd prefer an Obama administration.
You have done sterling work in advancing the cause of women. I agree with your thesis and its supporting rationale. Your argument is also much better nuanced than say Erica Jong's was in this forum recently.
However, let's be clear not to conflate the very real need for better representation of women in government with securing Hillary Clinton's nomination for this November's election.
As long as we are making literary references, Aristophanes in his 'Lysistrata' was probably the earliest Western writer to advance the sentiment that Abigail Adams echoes in her exhortation to send women to Congress to 'knock sense into the men'.
I couldn't agree more with the last three paragraphs of Ms Wilson's piece.
Last night, PBS ran a biography of Eleanor Roosevelt. I have seen other biographies of that extraordinary woman on PBS, but last night's film differed from the earlier ones. For example, it included information regarding J. Edgar Hoover's obsessive, illegal invasions of her privacy because he had concluded that her championing the civil rights of blacks meant that she was a communist; that her close friendships with lesbian women meant that she was a lesbian; and that her close friendships with younger men meant that she was sexually involved with men other than FDR.
I couldn't avoid seeing last night's film through the prism of this election cycle in which issues of both gender and race have been raised and of the differences in the ways in which Mrs. Roosevelt and Senator Clinton have addressed or declined to address those issues. Both were endowed with enormous intellectual gifts. Both were married to men who acquired great political power and both acquired great public notoriety as the wives of those men. Both were accused of meddling in matters of state that were outside the proper bounds of a First Lady. Both had to develop a rhinoceros hide in the face of withering criticism.
Both were betrayed by their husbands with other women, Mrs. Roosevelt less publicly than Senator Clinton. Both had to redefine themselves in the wake of those betrayals. The different paths they chose to re-make themselves are no doubt attributable at least in part to the differences between the attitudes of the body politic toward race and gender then and now, but those different paths are surely also a reflection of the differences in their character and personality.
Mrs. Roosevelt continued to fight for the civil rights of blacks in the face of death threats from the KKK and the whispers emanating from the FBI that she was a communist. She continued her work for social justice despite ugly ad personam attacks on everything from her personal appearance to her choice of friends by the openly racist demagogues of her time. She became the principal author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the person with the political acuity to get this founding document approved by the U.N., then in its infancy. She was for many years the most admired woman in the world. She never considered running for President, although there are historians who believe that she would have won if she had chosen to do so.
Senator Clinton has made other choices. Most notably, she has chosen to run for president. Having done so, she has remained silent in the face of efforts to reignite racial animosities. On the other hand, rather than disavowing the venom of her "feminist" supporters, she has encouraged it, if only by her silence. Rather than seeking to heal the wounds of both racism and sexism, as well as of religious, class and political divisions in the body politic, she has at least accepted, if not actually sought, political advantage from those divisions. At any rate, that is how it appears to this once vocal advocate of Senator Clinton.
Mrs. Roosevelt's ambitions were not for personal power; they were to further human rights and social justice. Although she was as tough as nails, she never descended to the level of her attackers' insults, whether of American-bred demagogues or Soviet spokesmen at the U.N. She never lost her dignity, and ultimately she was remarkably successful realizing her ambitions. Senator Clinton could do worse than to re-examine her choices in light of those of Mrs. Roosevelt.
This is a great comment, and I hope you don't mind my making a couple of observations on it:
...and my observations got eaten by the computer monster. Perhaps I'll have time to post them later. Sorry.
I hope so.
Not at all.
No one's forgotten the "ladies."
But let's remember: this is an election for "President," not "Woman President."
If people thought Hillary was the best candidate on merit, she would be winning the contest. Not only is she not winning, but she can't win.
I personally thought Ferarro was bringing out the discussion of how race and gender affect politics. Her point is sure one I've thought about more than once. Darn, but the fact that Hillary is the first viable female to run was lost in the excitement over the first viable AA candidate. I personally viewed this "advantage" as something beyond anyone's real control. It's all about timing. Nobody can bottle that up or market it. It can be blown. Heck, it has been blown. But you can't create that situation.
I agree that it would be just as life-changing if Hillary were elected. It would be just as uplifting to just as many people, too. Young women would know, finally, that life really can be bigger than your wedding dress. Ditto for Obama's influence on young AA people.
I decided not to hold a resentment about his advantage. Heck, there's nothing in the rule book that says: "This is unfair." I have also been very proud that HIllary spoke up only when the sexism bias was harming women, tangentially. No, male media guys, it is NOT OK to use sexist terms and think nobody will complain. No, it is NOT OK to pretend you're not doing it.
But once she spoke up, then the issue was over. It hasn't become the focal point. I never wanted just any woman. I wanted one who was for people, into solutions, and competent.
She's having to convince people the hard way that she really is who she says she is: Someone who will focus on people and our problems, not on herself.
Today, I was very proud of my candidate. She is proving the pundits wrong again. The focus isn't on Obama's weaknesses. She's addressing MY worries, fears, and concerns. She's focusing on solutions for US.
The most offensive aspect about Obama's campaign always to me has been that it's been totally about him. He is just a guy, one guy, and I'm already totally sick of his ego. I have "Obama-fatigue."
The move to block voters just did me in. All about him.
Thankfully, we have a candidate who believes this election belongs to people, to voters, to us!
And you are absolutely right to remind everyone that having a female be the one to do this is certainly "high time," too.
"I agree that it would be just as life-changing if Hillary were elected. It would be just as uplifting to just as many people, too. Young women would know, finally, that life really can be bigger than your wedding dress. "
Not to sound unappreciative of what feminism has done for women of all ages - something that I as a very proud young, liberal, lesbian, feminist Democrat would hate to imply - but many women in my generation (GenX) as well as many more young women even younger than I, already understand this and navigate our own lives and careers accordingly. And Hillary's campaign has absolutely nothing to do with this realization. Following the women's rights movement as well as Title IX, among many other gender equality advancements, many of us have now been on this self-realized path for 30-40 years now. Hillary's win or loss will neither significantly elevate us nor deter our march towards further equality and advancement in politics, corporate America, or within the walls of our own homes.
Why is it so hard for Clinton supporters to accept the fact that people are voting against Hillary because of her record and voting for Obama because of his?
The whole notion that Obama is winning the campaign for Democratic Party nominee is the result of bias for a black man over a white woman is simply laughable.
I would call this the Clinton fairy tale.
What record? Non-present? Doesn't show up for meetings?
What is this great record of his?
HuffPost's Pick
I wouldn't argue for Clinton (or against Obama) on the basis of experience or record. Neither she nor Obama are on particularly solid ground there. While I have no doubt that Hillary was privy to much policy and practice during her time as first lady in the WH, I still don't want time spent as first lady to be counted towards years of experience. I doubt very highly that any of us would care to rate Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, or even Cindy McCain very high on the experience scale - and yes, I do understand that Hillary is very different from these three examples on a number of levels, but it's still a desperate stretch. I mean, 35 years of experience? I would love to know the multiplier involved in that calculation, because I only count about 6 as Senator. Experience by osmosis or proximity is a fairly weak argument - I have people that work by me all day and technically know what I do, but wouldn't have the first clue how to actually perform my job. Lastly, since when is experience, or meeting some undefined "Commander in Chief" threshold necessarily a good thing? A rather tragically flawed argument considering there has never been a adminstration with more years of political and governmental "experience" (Bush, Cheney, Rummy, etc) than that of the GW Bush administration.
Why is it so hard for Obama supporters to understand that millions of Hillary supporters will not support Obama if he is the candidate....I am one of them
It's really easy to understand why you would support McCain over Obama. Because Hillary and the rest of the DLC might as well be Republicans. If Rovian "kitchen-sink" slinging and race-baiting appeal to you, I'm not really sure how you ended up voting in the Democratic primary in the first place.
So let's remember the ladies, the Laura Bush's and Lynne Cheney's of the world, whose husband filled with self entitlement have run this country into the ground.
See it works both way. You gloss over the Lady MacBeths who have helped build these monstrous egos, conveniently, and had such a devastating impact on society but their handiwork is self evident.
Hillary has proven more than anything just how equal the sexes are in their lust for power.
Rah, rah...zis boom bah...
Ah, the truth hurts.
"These are difficult issues," Senator Clinton said last week in response to Senator Obama's speech. "Race and gender are difficult issues. And we need to have more discussion about them."
And that, ladies and gentleman, was the most substantive comment this presumptive progressive leader of the executive branch could muster on the topic of race. Not only could she not comment on race at all, but she couldn't even refer to it without mentioning gender as well.
I think it is amazing that we have a black candidate who is willing to address the complexities of race in this country. And sad that we have a female candidate who is not willing to take the risk of speaking to the complexities of gender.
She spoke up but just didn't make it the focal point of why people should vote for her.
He's turned race into the reason why people should vote for him.
*blink*
Hillary would rather pigeon hole women as victims because it works to her advantage. She is no feminist. She is an opportunist. She had nothing but space and opportunity to do exactly what Obama did regarding race when she whined that the media was picking on her because she was a woman. Instead she went on SNL. As a woman who have witnessed women in my family and community stand up and make their voices heard over the fray, she has yet to show me a strong woman. What she has shown me is a politician that would do and say anything to get votes.
Sorry but we don't have a woman front runner. And for that I am truly grateful because I hope that we will someday (soon) have a female president, but when our time comes, my hope is that the woman who leads will not feel compelled to prove her macho credentials by authorizing a preemptive military strike on the women, men, and children of another nation based on intelligence that any disinterested obvserver would have regarded as highly suspect.
Ain't I a woman?-Tubman
Sojourner Truth, actually, 1851 Women's Convention in Ohio. "That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?"
I think you have more emphasis on women in this primary but you do not have a woman frontrunner. You do have a woman who is very visible and who has raised the issue of gender to a great degree but she is not the frontrunner and she doesn't need false titles to enhance her importance. Are you trying to say you need to forget "all that other stuff" and vote only based on gender?
An ABC-TV outlet in Houston, and now the Houston Chronicle,...
The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment...
Loading comments…
Posted March 24, 2008 | 11:01 AM (EST)