Sexism & Politics -- Where Do We Go From Here?

I've been perplexed and saddened at the media's apparent disinterest in the gender issue in this campaign.

So many journalists and pundits have turned a laser focus on the issue of race, but, as Marie Cocco pointed out in her Washington Post piece last week, even the Democratic party isn't doing a lot to help the first "viable woman candidate for President" put an end to the seemingly endless stream of sexist comments about Hillary Clinton.

Many loud voices continue to claim there is no gender problem in America -- look at all the women in law school and medical school! See, there are women in every profession -- you've come a long way, baby, so we don't have to worry anymore. Yup, check that one off the list. No one is trying to suggest that a woman can't be President. That notion is just a confused one in your pretty little heads!

But as Hillary's voice gets quieter in this campaign, I'm wondering where we, as political women, go from here? Three articles in New York Times in two days have raised the question. But what's the solution?

I'm still working on that one, but one thing occurred to me as I was reading these articles that might be important in getting to the answer:

Men are takers, women are askers.

If Hillary Clinton was, as Barack Obama is apparently going to do regardless of vote and delegate count this week, to proclaim himself the winner of the Democratic presidential nomination, there would be an uproar of incredible proportions. We'd hear plenty of, "Who does she think she is? What gives her the right to just march up there and ignore the rules?"

Yet, few seem to have a problem with Obama doing that. And I'm sure we won't hear much criticism of the fact that he has no problem taking something that isn't his quite yet. Granted, it's likely that will be the ultimate outcome, but few seem bothered by the fact that he's not playing by the rules. When a women steps outside the rules of a game, she's slapped down -- men just get slapped on the wrist.

When I was still a naive junior associate in a large law firm, I learned that lesson the hard way more than I'd like to remember. The guys would march into senior lawyers' offices, plop themselves down in a chair and start chatting, until they got assigned to the juiciest cases. Us gals? We generally knocked first, and got told to come back in things weren't so busy.

We're never going to convince men that they should be more polite in how they achieve their goals, so women are going to have to adjust their approach and take a lesson from the "takers."

Clinton may be the imperfect example to illustrate how much further we all have to go in having more of a role in all aspects of politics and life in general, and how we can achieve that, but that doesn't make what has happened to her less true. We still face accepted sexist attitudes and comments every day, like one reporter did recently did when Barack Obama referred dismissively to her as "sweetie."

Let's put our heads together and figure out how we start today to keep the next "viable woman candidate for President" going through the same treatment as Hillary Clinton.

Joanne Bamberger is sometimes better known as PunditMom. You can find her at her blog of the same name, as well as at MOMocrats and at BlogHer, where she is a Contributing Editor for Politics & News.

Follow Joanne Bamberger on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PunditMom

Comments

[Babzter]

Hillary was pummeled in the press before she made any of the mistakes the Obamaniacs give as reasons for not voting for her. I personally like her, and I personally know that this unending criticism is not deserved. I don't think gender lost her votes; media beatings did. Just take a look at Media Tenor for the stats. This is no way reflects on Obama - I absolutely think he's great, but we don't have to crucify an Intelligent capable woman because she voted for the war -- remember her job is to represent her constituents; about 75% of her constituents wanted to go hammer Sadam thanks to Bush's creative writing team. Everyone says they were opposed to the war now -- that is such crap! Most of you are hypocrites! You wanted to kick butt back in 2003. I remember feeling totally isolated because I believed that it was an obscene mistake. So stop beating her over the head with it. And the sniper fire? So what? You've never embellished a story (the fish was huge, something was faster bigger more awful in the retelling?

Of course sexism is alive and well.

If you cannot see the rampant gender bias, check out Olberman's (I love Olberman overall) interview with Kevin Spacey. Compare Olberman's interpretation of some Hillary soundbites; then listen to Spacey. It is so glaringly obvious -- if it doesn't smack you in the face, you,my friend, are drinking the MSM Kool-Aid. And you probably believe in invisible

[ofbbg]

Has anyone considered that the fear isn't of women - it's a legitimate fear of THAT woman! As corrupt as anyone could be, she repeatedly takes credit for things she didn't do ( sniper fire, Irish peace talks, etc. ) while blithely shrugging her shoulders and saying "I didn't know" about everything else ( Trooper gate, travel gate, billing records, FBI files, etc., etc ad nauseum ) - and whose political philosophy is much closer to Benito Moussolinis than Thomas Jeffersons.

[ContraEgoiste]

Maybe, voters aren't as concerned by the candidates appearance and gender as much as they are by what they will mean to their future and that of their children’s and their children’s future.

And maybe, just maybe, we are making our decision by what they actually do, or have done and where their loyalties lie and not as much as by what they say or promise.

And just quite possibly, we are highly concerned about the policies, decisions and the direction our government has taken under corporate ownership, and we are opting for the candidate less owned by them.

And it could possible be that most voters wouldn't have any objection on that person being a woman any more than they would of being black, regardless of the pundits all out attempt at making it a battle of the genders.

And perhaps continued efforts on making this a battle of the sexes does more to damage their candidate, since it leaves the same bad taste on ones mouth that Rovian tactics such as "gay marriage" did. And it leaves one wondering if the candidate can not stand on the issues nor defend their record that they must rely on low brow republican politics.

[frustratedinohio]

The real problem is that some women still don't support other women. If they did we would have been in the White House a long time ago.

[AllaboutME]

Intended for Daisy1111

You and the Clinton campaign do not know what black people think and you do not speak for them.

"It's a mistake for Bill Clinton to believe that there has been given to him this mantle of authority to be able to speak for and to be dismissive of African-Americans,"

Doug Wilder

[Daisy1111]

Political manuevering?

The Obama campaign were masterful at political manuevering.

See that crowd of 75,000 in Portland?

Did you know a huge number of those people were there because of the FREE concert being offered by Portland's most popular band an hour later?

A lot of those people would have been in that park even if Obama didn't give a speech.

That was a political manuever for the media.

Divisive?

Obama repeating, "Let's make history." What was he refering to? Couldn't be a case to elect him because he's a man or a Harvard grad. We've had plenty of those in politics. He was refering to his race.

Obama using words to AA crowds like bamboozled and hoodwinked.

It went over white voters heads because they are unfamilar with Black History and famous Black writers and activists.

These are code words for "The white man will keep you down."

When it came to manipulation, the Obama camp was far better at it than the Clinton camp.

That's for sure.

[DXP]

It was a beautiful warm sunny day in Portland. It was really the first nice weekend since last fall after a long rainy cold winter. That park is often crowded, but on a day like that Portlanders just come outside in droves. I know Clinton supporters who were at the park too and lots of highschoolers who wanted some fun and to see some action. Also, the park was cordoned off so the crowd has to be compressed. Usually Portlanders would not bunch up like that, so this was a highly manipulated event, and the number estimates varied wildly. Politics as usual, hope for the future with Obama? No. A nice sunny day? Sure!

[lorla]

I do not think Hillary would have any problem entering an office and plopping herself down and talking until she got the job. After all, her own camp says she has balls and testicular fortitude.
The fact is she is embedded in a corrupt system, and thinks that those old poitical ways will stand. She failed because she was not the most professional, genuine candidate. Give us a woman that conducted herself with the guiding principles of Obama, and we would probably have a woman this time around.
If you are sincere, honest and genuine in your purpose you wil be recognized for your efforts.

[notthistime]

And there you have it lorla. That is the reason why initially I stood behind Hillary and as the weeks went by and because of her actions -- I just could not do it. I can't support lack of honesty, telling blatant lies with a straight face, change the rules to suit personal needs, mismanagement of her campaign, not blinking an eye when tossing out groups at a whim as if they were considered "collateral damage".

[DMW1]

Where do we go?

Hopefully the next viable female candidate will not ask to change the rules she agrees to in midstream.

Hopefully the next viable female candidate will use the same math that the rest of us use.

Hopefully the next female candidate will be secure enough in her own accomplishments that hse will not outright ask for votes based on her gender.

Hopefully that's where we go.

[AllaboutME]

As a Latino women I have always had some issues with the white feminist movement in this country. First, they benefited from affirmative action, yet you would think that only black and brown folks did. Second, white women belong to the most protected class in this country, so I have always been somewhat confused as to just what they have to complain about.

History has already answered. Sixteen white women currently serve in the U.S. Senate, versus one lone Black, and "thirty white women have served as state governors compared to two Black men since Reconstruction." Every indicator shows white women are "the second most privileged category of human in the US.

[JoeSun]

Yes, but you see, they are not the first privileged category, that proves sexism.

Oh, and Obama's victory proves sexism too.

[Liam617]

I am amazed by the asymmetry. Obama waged a decent campaign against Hillary (the worst he said was "likeable enough") and abided by the rules and ran a great campaign ($, votes, delegates, supers). Hillary's campaign (incl herself & surrogates [Ferraro, Johnson, etc]) spewed divisive language (all he has is a speech, fails the CiC test) and lies (Bosnia) and twisted the rules (MI&FL) ran a bad campaign squandering her advantages (recognition, connections, money), yet her fans feel spiteful towards Obama?

Idiots hold up "Iron my shirts" signs and Hillary's fans think Obama's to blame? MSNBC is biased so Obama's to blame? Obama fans comment on blogs so Hillary's fans think Obama's to blame?

Obama fans would be rightfully angry if the supers were gave the nom to Hillary after he won majorities and raised more $, but I cannot see how ANY Hillary fan can think the nom was stolen from her. It's a nomination not a coronation, it has to be won. Hillary ran a bad campaign. After Iowa she was almost never in the lead. She had no long term plan nor thought anyone would oppose. She did not win.

Sexism exists but no one can blame her failure on Obama. She had every advantage but her faults were bigger. (Note: those were her faults, not those of women.) Her fans have absolutely no valid reason for not supporting the Dem nominee.

[CWW]

I fully agree with this comment.
Ferraro is crazy to come out and accuse Obama of being sexist because he said Hillary is "likable enough" (which is a stretch) and he brushed off her attacks as if she didn't matter.

Now Hillary herself is actually complaining about the sexism to continue her campaign and she is hurting Obama. If Obama used race as a crutch he would be ridiculed.
I'm not saying sexism isn't out there, but stop using it as a crutch. She is worse than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Hillary lost this campaign because she thought the nomination was hers and she underestimated Obama. If women want a female politician to champion it shouldn't be Clinton, there are more qualified women in the political arena.

[CWW]

I completely agree with this comment.
Ferraro is crazy for now saying that Obama is sexist because he called Clinton "likable enough" and literally brushed her attacks off. If an Obama former surrogate said Clinton was harboring racism (not injecting race) there would be a huge backlash against Obama.

Now Clinton is focusing on sexism to stay in the race. I'm not saying there isn't sexism, but she is focusing on it like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton much of the time focus on race. If Obama used race as a crutch he would be ridiculed, Obama is showing he wants to soar above racism, Clinton should have picked up on that and done the same with sexism.

If Clinton supporters want someone to blame, blame Hillary. She ran a horrible campaign through March which underestimated Obama and that is why he is winning. Not sexism or any perceived lack of support from the DNC but Hillary Clinton is to blame for her loss.

[DXP]

Mr Obama should return money raised at Obama fundraising events like the one where Randi Rhodes called Clinton and Ferraro "big F*cking W*ores". Not once but over and over and over. His silence is deafening. and then you all complain about Hillary. hypocrisy is lying

[AllaboutME]

You and the Clinton campaign do not know what black people think and you do not speak for them.

"It's a mistake for Bill Clinton to believe that there has been given to him this mantle of authority to be able to speak for and to be dismissive of African-Americans,"

Doug Wilder

[jah2008]

"Let's put our heads together and figure out how we start today to keep the next "viable woman candidate for President" going through the same treatment as Hillary Clinton."

I'd suggest we find someone who is truly a viable candidate, and not Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is the problem, not women. Unless you change this mentality, we will never elect a woman President. Please look at the candidate past her gender and see for who she is.

I am sick and tired of these excuses that blame everything else except the candidate herself.

[Zogtastic]

Omg... broken record...

Ok... here's something you need to understand, and this goes towards racism too. Sexism played a role, yes, but it was a minor one just as racism was. It reared its ugly head every now and then but if you think it was the major cause or it was a tool of the majority then you are undermining the very cause you're fighting for. You're pegging her as a victim and attacking all males.

The longer we keep reading about how Hillary lost because of sexism (and this would go the same for Obama if they claimed he lost because of racism), the LESS SERIOUS we're going to take the next female candidate because we won't think she can handle losing. She's held her head high and not once said sexism was the reason and there's a reason for that. It's called dignity. She's trying to hold herself as post-gender and you're holding her back!

STOP IT!

[Zogtastic]

Great... just as I said this... "Hillary Clinton Opens Fire On 'Sexist Media'"

... I stand corrected...

[Grunty1]

Can one of the women here explain how HIllary is losing to sexism when her last argument is that only she alone can draw in the "blue collar, hard working whites", which would seem to be a lot of white MALES to me?

[jah2008]

I've said it before. Hillary Clinton blames everything and everyone except herself. Who coined the term "kitchen sink" strategy? I found the term "kitchen sink" extremely offensive and sexist. Clinton blames the sexist media, yet she brings "kitchen" into her campaign. Why? She exploits and exploited every card she could use, be it race, gender, culture, age, and class. It appears that nothing is off limits to Hillary.

[notthistime]

don't forget her statement "women know how to clean house".

What did that mean? Sexist statement to both women and men as they both clean.. Reminded me of the "women belong in the kitchen" statement.

[ICUP]

You are so right. Being a junior partner in a law firm totally sucks and is just as oppressive as being beaten by the police and redlined. White women need to look at real oppression before they grouse about their p0light. Who has it better in America, Ms. Bamberger or a male Native Amrerican on the reservation? Is she worse off than a poor white man in West Virigina or a working class black man in rural Gerogia? Class trumps all in the US and women like Bamberger and Clinton hold the cards, despite their protestations.

[RyanB]

First of all, get your facts straight on the "sweetie" comment. Obama said it to a reporter, and then called later that day to apologize.

I'm sick to death of all this insinuation that Obama is sexist. Look at the women who he surrounds himself with - strong, opinionated, smart. I don't buy the notion that because he said "sweetie" he's all of a sudden part of this problem.

And just for the record, I'm a strong, opinionated, smart woman... who voted for Obama in PA.