Standing Sexual Politics on Its Head

Nicholas Kristof's article on sexists vs. racists in Sunday's New York Times illuminates the guilt many women feel for not supporting Hillary Clinton. One friend recently stated that she did not see how any woman could not be for Clinton. Does that mean if I were a British subject, I would have had to vote for Margaret Thatcher, or if Elizabeth Dole had won the nomination, I would have had to become a Republican?

The pressure to vote for gender rather than policy and personal substance reminds me once again of the Scottsboro case which turned sexual politics on its head for half the twentieth century. In Scottsboro, two white sometime prostitutes accused nine young black men of a rape that never occurred. The unsubstantiated charge of rape by white women against black youths and the subsequent and speedy death sentences meted out were not exactly unusual in Depression-era Alabama. What was news was the support the two women found in the South and the ire they aroused in the North.

The International Labor Defense, which was the legal arm of the Communist Party, immediately swung into action to defend the boys. One of their chief tactics was defaming the girls.

"Who ever heard of raping a prostitute?" the poet Langston Hughes, who knew something about prejudice first hand, asked.

"Those boys are going to burn for what they could have had for two bits," good northern liberals joked. The same men who under other circumstances would have defended the girls as victims of social and economic injustice and probably tried to unionize them in the bargain did their best to vilify them.

Meanwhile, southerners, who normally would have dismissed the girls as loose women, vagrants, or worse, championed them as examples of southern white womanhood. They may be women of easy virtue, the men said, but they're white women of easy virtue. More respectable southern women took up collections for them and bought them clothes.

North and South (then the equivalent of red states and blue states) took more predictable, but not necessarily more rational approaches to the nine young men accused. In June, 1931, the New York Times ran an article stating that while many in the North believed the South wanted to send the youths to the electric chair simply because they were black, many in the South believed those in the North wanted to save them for precisely the same reason, regardless of guilt or innocence.

It is naive, of course, to think that even the best-intentioned of us, black or white, male or female, can look at Clinton or Obama and see not a white woman or a black man but a candidate. As the psychological tests Kristof cited show, we all have our unstated, our unconscious prejudices. But what we can try to avoid is our tendency to try to turn candidates, or individuals, into emblems of political expediency.

Comments

[fabrom]

I have to laugh everytime I read about self-proclaimed, life-long Feminists saying they would love to vote for a woman "just not this woman (Clinton)". I suspect there is no woman perfect enough for these women to support. They'll support imperfect men and probably have, over and over again.

HRC is not where she is because she married Clinton. From my observation, she's an extremely intelligent woman and has always been very ambitious. Oops! Sorry. I know she's not supposed to be ambitious. It's an evil trait in a woman.

I have concerns about both Clinton's and Obama's candidacy. They're both funded by corporate interests. Yes, don't faint! Obama too. I also have problems with Clinton's vote on the flag burning amendment. She shouldn't have supported it. I have even more of a problem with Obama's vote on CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act). The Republicans and Bush pushed for this act for years. It moves class action suits from state courts (they're more favorable to plaintiffs). Obama, one of a handful of Democrats, helped pass this amendment.

So, take a breath, all of you anti-Clinton, so-called Feminists. It's okay to hate a woman who stayed with a philandering husband, who is very intelligent and capable. Don't support her. Wait! The perfect woman might just show up one of these years. Maybe even in your life times. Just don't hold your breath too long.

[DemandTruth]

I'd vote for Elizabeth Edwards over Hillary Clinton any day of the week. There. I just named a more perfect woman. Your ignorance, generalization and over-simplification do neither you nor your candidate any good at all.

Feminists for Obama!

[Clinton]

So would I. Fact is there are many women more qualified than HRC. Were HRC to be elected she would be such a disaster that it would actually hurt women. You don't get a pass on lyin', cheatin', and stealin' just because you're woman. The belief that you should isn't feminism, it's a con job.

[anon004]

"HRC is not where she is because she married Clinton. From my observation, she's an extremely intelligent woman and has always been very ambitious." Fabrom, since when does merely being intelligent and ambitous make you a good candidate or a good president? You mention her negatives and that Obama has similar negatives, but you do not mention any positives in her favor. Why should I put my support behind someone merely because they "no worse than the other candidate" ? Wow, is that inspirational or what? Or I am not being a "true feminist" because I won't support a candidate merely because she has breasts? The feminism I remember from my youth was about policies and character as much as it was about gender. No, I'm not waitng for a "perfect" female presidential candidate. I merely unwilling to settle for such an imperfect one.

[PumaJ]

To me, Kristof is very much writing about any internalized racism and/or sexism that we may be prone to. At one point in his article he states , "The unconscious is playing a political role this year, for the evidence is overwhelming that most Americans have unconscious biases both against blacks and against women in executive roles."

I'm not sure how his ideas "illuminate the guilt many women feel for not supporting Hillary Clinton". I do not recall him writing anything about guilt.
Nonetheless, I understand your point of view for I did feel a few pangs of guilt myself about not supporting her.

I can certainly see that Clinton has been vilified simply because she is a strong and outspoken woman. I, also, understand your point that Clinton may garner some support simply because she is a white woman vs. being a black man.

However, it would seem that thus far, Obama is doing quite well, infact better than Clinton. Perhaps this is an example of Kristof's point that it may be "easier to override racism, than it is sexism".

Personally, I feel very blessed as a Democrat to have two such wonderfully qualified candidates to choose from. I think Obama is the better choice due to having an uncommon intellectual brilliance. However, if Clinton won the primaries I would vote for her, for I do think she would be competent in the position.

[Disparaged]

Thanks Ellen; great post. It is hard not to see Clinton as a "female" - she is portraying the very worst in women with her shrill retoric and kitchen-sink tactics. With not very clever or honest theatrics, no wonder a lot of men (and women) absolutely want no part in her candidacy. These are the types of traits any person "hates"; not just men, but women as well. It seems to me that she has been the worst kind of woman and the fact that she is losing respect to a lot of people in this process is precisely due to her portrayal of womanhood. If she had offered a more honest and genuine portrayal of women, she could have been considered a "champion role model" to women. Instead she will be considered (if not already) a disgrace. Perhaps all women would want her to succeed had she been more like Maggie Thacher. But when a woman acts the way she has through much of this process, is it any wonder that not only Black and young women have denied her their votes, but many of us senior females have also run in the opposite direction? She has spoiled a "womans" image in the eyes of the public. I certainly don't want to be categorized as being anything like her - a woman who is a spoiler, a whiner, a complainer, a LIAR with no credibility and a power/money-hungry monster. Please don't affilliate me in this category of "woman".

[Clinton]

True. Had HRC shown more class, her campaign would have done better and even if she lost, she would have gained a lot of respect and hence had a better chance of winning in the future. All she's done is make herself look like a cheap politician at best, and a lying crook at worst.

[anon004]

Sorry, I'm a white woman who was a child of the sixties and who became a feminist at ten, and I feel no guilt whatsoever about supporting Obama over Hillary. I happen to believe that it is about policies, character and associates (just to head off the Hillary supporters, Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson are way scarier to me than the Rev. Wright ever could be), not gender or race (at the same time, I have no illusions that I'm prejudice-fee). I would love to support someone of my gender for president, just not this particular woman, who is where she is because of who she married. (My recollection of feminist theory was that women were supposed to earn what they achieved, not marry into it.) On top of that, her campaign has been so poorly run (no strategy after Super Tuesday, to name one glaring example), that you wonder how she could possibly run the federal government. Finally, her tactics have been nothing short of Rovian, which is not only disgusting,it has the added negative that it's not even working! If a qualified woman runs, I'll be right there for her. Hillary isn't it.

[Samson1]

I would have to say that using the scottsboro case, one of the worst cases in racial bigotry in history as a means of denigrating one of the reasons to vote for a presidential candidate who has said and done nothing relative to this is probably the most egregious use of the "race card" on behalf of a candidate (Obama clearly) I have ever seen. Disgraceful

[AnninCA]

I haven't seen a single sign that anyone is voting for Hillary due to her sexual category.

Zip.

Not one.

I've seen obvious signs that Obama is getting votes due to his skin color.

Tons.

[uscitizen]

Then you've missed a number of articles and comments that have been posted here at HuffPo.

[AnitaBee]

As a woman, I've heard, on numerous occasions, from friends, acquaintances and people I talk to in business, that they are surprised that I'm not for Hillary. They assume that, as a woman, I'm siding with the woman. Nevermind that, based on what friends know of my views, they should know her legislative history would disturb me or that her pattern of lying and attacking goes against everything I believe in.

No, they assume that the presence of a uterus trumps all until I tell them otherwise.

So, I find it difficult to believe that you've never been exposed to a "single sign" that anyone might be voting for Hillary due to her gender.

I'm voting for Obama, if HRC doesn't manage to overturn the will of the voters, and not because of his skin color.

When my first choice, Edwards dropped out, my second choice was Obama. Despite my slight differences with him on a couple of issues, I see him as an astoundingly honest politician. I'm not saying he's never lied or pandered but, if political character were measured on a bell curve, Obama would be at the extreme end, with the integrity we don't imagine we can get in a politician. And Clinton would be over on the other extreme, where careerist, unprincipled politicians will do anything, no matter what the cost to others, to secure their power.

If you haven't seen any of this, you haven't allowed yourself to look.

[Disparaged]

AnitaBee, this is truly beautiful and so well written along with your analogies. Thank you for such lovely writing. I love your last line as well. Cudos!

[GromytTheDog]

Well, look at this issues-free cheerleading for Clinton then:

http://www.blogher.com/why-its-cool-vote-hillary

"My girl right or wrong"--you have to wonder, are these supporters not reading the news? Do they not care about policy? Is it enough to put your fingers in your ears every time Clinton comes out with some new self-sabotaging gaffe and go "la-la-la-­la-la-la"?

"Because she is a white woman just like me" is not a good reason to vote for a candidate.

[LeoMarvin]

Denial springs eternal, right Ann? How about this all too typical low-lite from HuffPost?:

"Every woman has some degree of experience with men -- their husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers, colleagues, etc. And collectively we all know the truth: women are better."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/this-ones-for-the-girls_b_89254.html

(And don't even get me started on the man-hating comments.)

There's plenty more where that came from, as you know. And need I mention "Marcia Pappas?" But then, we don't really need to be playing this charade, do we Ann? After all, it was you who said yesterday, "He's just another guy. I'm so done with these "guys." Time for a real change."? And that was only yesterday.

I'm loathe to call anyone a liar without evidence of dishonest intent. On the other hand, I don't think it's much nicer to say "then you must be deranged." So I won't draw any conclusions. Why don't you just explain it to us, so we won't be fooled by our own lying eyes?

[VOTER]

"Tons"

I'll bet you have in Rove's Office, no doubt.

This moniker is not a HIllary Supporter and not a Dem but is instead a Rove Troll

because the GOP fears Obama as the Dem nominee. SO SHE PLAYS THE ROLE OF

HILLARY SUPPORTER.

Check the Profile: Not once has she written a word against the GOP, Bush's War of

Choice, Bush, Cheney, McCain, and on and on.

NOT ONCE! Every Dem whether a Clinton or an Obama supporter have often

written the truth about the warmongering GOP. NOT AnninCA!

[standforpeace]

What'sso disturbing to me lately is the tendency that so many have to throw principle out the window in support of a candidate. There is plenty of evidence of this on both sides of the Obama/Clinton divide. Obama supporters argue "the rules" justify making the Democratic voters of Michigan and Florida sit out this election (as though the arbitrary decisions of party and governing elites could ever "justify" taking the voice away from voters) rather than demanding a fair revote. Meanwhile, Clinton supporters are willing to excuse as "misspeech" a blatant lie (how else to explain confusing a ceremony that involved the presentation of flowers by a little girl while your teenage daughter looked on with ducking and running for cover in sniper fire). Even worse, Clinton supporters continue to cling to the argument that the Super Delegates are a benign and objective force for picking the best candidate even as they denounce Super Delegates who are making the decision to support Obama as respondents to inappropriate political pressure. Whatever happened to principles like demanding truth from our candidates, making sure all candidates get a chance to compete for votes and that all comers get to cast a vote that counts? And finally standing up for the basic democratic principle that it's the will of the voters not the desires of poltiical elites that should produce the nominee? Aren't these principles at least as important as who the nominee will be?

[DemandTruth]

Sorry, but you're throwing out a straw man argument. NOBODY on Obama's side has any problem whatsoever with a fair revote. What we object to is exactly what Clinton has been calling for - for the delegates to be seated as-is. There is NO way anyone could possibly claim the MI vote was fair or representative, since Obama supporters were unable to vote for their candidate of choice. NO Obama supporter has ever been against a fair re-vote. But we are realistic that the states have neither the will nor the money to pull it off. Even Obama has been working toward a fair resolution and compromise. But Clinton wants those delegates as-is, and I don't see her saying she's willing to negotiate. Her way or the highway - as usual. And it's unacceptable and unrepresentative of the voters' will.

[standforpeace]

If you'll note my post was not about Obama or his official campaign position but rather about what supporters are arguing. I am more concerned with where we as members of the Democratic party are standing on this. And it's not a straw man. Just take a look at any post on the Huff, and you'll see tons of responders who say over and over again "It's the rules." As though the Democratic party was somehow justified in setting up a system that generally gives the voters in largely rural and overwhelmingly white Iowa and New Hampshire the right to pick the nominee for a party that is largely urban and ethnically diverse and then punish voters in states that tried to move up to be part of the decision making process rather than a rubber stamp.

[LeftRight]

As a white man, I will admit that there's a possible unconscious sexism/racism present in my thinking. However, by the logic that many people are using in this election cycle, I would have HAD to vote for Edwards. Or come November that I will HAVE to vote for John McBush. Let's be serious here, and get over our own prejudices. I am an Obama supporter, who will GLADLY vote for EITHER of our candidates come November!!

[pbarba1969]

Great post LeftRight. I started out for Edwards and then went to Hillary but I will cast my vote for Barack Obama if he is the nominee.

I think the bottom line is between the Obama and Hillary supporters is that this a family dispute and we'll support each other in the end.

Wether we care to admit it or not, the Conservative wing needs the Liberal wing to fly, and better our candidate then the other guy....

[LeoMarvin]

"Wether we care to admit it or not, the Conservative wing needs the Liberal wing to fly"

That's very wise. Unfortunately, only the part of the bird between the wings knows it's true.