Sticking Your Neck Out on Gender: So Uncool

Massachusetts' political establishment is coming out en masse to support Barack Obama, and one of our most prominent female politicians is mad as hell. In Massachusetts, where I live, MA Senate President Therese Murray said she's disappointed that so many male elected officials, including Sens. Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, are supporting Obama.

Senate President Therese Murray, a prominent Clinton supporter, chastised prominent male Democrats for abandoning Clinton to support Obama. "I don't want to be pushed aside anymore," Murray told the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus during an event this morning. "I don't want to be patted on the head, saying, 'You did a good job on that, but now we got this young person, we got this attractive man, because you can't get elected because the media said you couldn't, because the polls said you couldn't. We're going to put this guy out front.'"

I don't think Murray made many friends in the Statehouse today. Leadership literature cites the "double bind" faced by women in power: as Catalyst writes, "Women leaders are perceived as "never just right." If women business leaders act consistent with gender stereotypes, they are considered too soft. If they go against gender stereotypes, they are considered too tough." By the same token, in this post-feminist age, women who bring up gender risk being attacked for bitching, asking for too much, or my favorite, "being shrill." But we can utilize gender when cheering for Hillary at a rally (You Go Girl!), or planning a conference or panel on "Women leaders in business/law/medicine/politics/golf": I'm planning one right now.

Feminism is so nuanced now. We can't burn our bras, shout, protest, and call it a good effort. Many women operate by maintaining an inner dialogue with our bad and good feminist selves, picking our battles, and enjoying shared, often subtle, protestations when with peers. For God's sake, it took Gloria Steinem to articulate what many women, younger and older feel: that voting for a woman president means something, and that gender is the ultimate restricting force in American life. Steinem can get away with it. Can you? Can I?

For example, NOW, the old grey lady of the women's movement, went too far in New York, and risks a huge backlash. Read this strident yet ballsy, statement from NOW NY, courtesy of the Albany Project blog:

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He's picked the new guy over us. He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not "this" one). 'They' are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That's Howard's brother) who run DFA (that's the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they'll do feminist and women's rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America's future or whatever.

This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women's rights, women's voices, women's equality, women's authority and our ability -- indeed, our obligation -- to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who 'know what's best for us.'

Whew. NOW's been rewarded with everything from smug headlines, as in the Atlantic's "Angry! Liberal! Women!" from Marc Ambinder, to a general sentiment of distaste from women bloggers: a la the Moderate Voice: "To their credit, the feminist bloggers whom I regularly read are as mindblown by NOW-New York's hissy fit as I am." Whatever the result, NOW NY's statement was seen as extremely uncool, a little old fashioned, politically unwise, and definitely shrill in the blogosphere. I have not seen one defense.

But then again, gender protestations are often easy to dismiss. I'm wondering if the entire Massachusetts political elite had endorsed Hillary, not Obama, if racial intimations would be brought into play -- and not so easily dismissed.

For me, the fact Senators Kerry and Obama, Congressman Michael Capuano, and MA's Governor Deval Patrick have all endorsed Obama is a significant signal from the establishment, and I'm not sure gender plays a role in their decisions, but I respect those who question if it does. It's a fair question. A few weeks ago I wrote that women should consider voting for Hillary just because she's a woman (and I think she's the best qualified candidate). I got a lot of heat for that: one reader said my approach was "nauseating" but for what it's worth, this Massachusetts voter stands away from the Establishment. Who'd have thought standing for Hillary would ever be anti-Establishment?

Follow Morra Aarons-Mele on Twitter: www.twitter.com/morra_am

Comments

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

The tantrum by NOW is indicative of the failure of women's causes and coalitions.

What male organizations celebrate support of men by all men, no matter what those men represent? This is the main argument that I have with anyone who is voting for Hillary merely because she is female.

Having ridden on the coat tails of her more politically talented and charismatic husband she has shown herself to be incapable of running on her own, or quieting that Bigmouth-o­f-the-Sout­h. If she cannot curry enough respect from her husband by persuading him to stop embarrassing her, both in the philandering sense and the political sense, then she is weak willed and weak minded.

She has resorted to underhanded tactics during this campaign, and has not been a model of femininity that is particularly admirable.

I never understood her unpopularity until I watched her pandering and unmistakable move towards the right. After her witnessing what she has done in this campaign, I am extremely doubtful that she has any American's (or women's) interests in mind except her own.

[lynnn]

I am upset that better qualified women; women w/more experience than Hillary didn't run. COME ONE THERE ARE SO MANY MORE QUALIFIED WOMEN IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. These women got there by themselves. Can you really complain about getting "passed over" for a job, when the only reason you are there is bc your husband started the company?....no

It is a shame there wasn't a draft Sebilus movement, or something. At least Sebilus has the guts...

[jfor]

Hillary is a Clinton but she could be a Bush. That is why she will never get my vote. Gender has nothing to do with it.

[Clinton]

Oh, I get it. We're supposed to support the woman no matter how much she screws up (or screws everyone over). You know, there are plenty of incompetent women out there (just as there are plenty of incompetent men. Sad that I have to add this, it's so obvious). And selling out the electorate is not confined to male politicians. Are we supposed to ignore this because of gender?

[xenofile]

"Who'd have thought standing for Hillary would ever be anti-Estab­lishment?"

Nobody. Hillary WAS the anointed Establishment pick until recently. And in the minds of many, she still is. That's why the Establishment momentum is shifting to Obama. How often do you have to hear the shrieks of protest against both Bush and Clinton dynasties, before you recognize that there is a broad and deep resentment of the status quo. And, except for the fact that she's a woman, Hillary represents the status quo to many. Being a woman simply isn't enough.

Now Obama and Clinton are BOTH establishment candidates. The jury's still out on Edwards, but the real anti-establishment candidates like Kucinich have been thrown from the train.

I saw this coming a while ago -- it didn't take prescience -- so I did my own political calculation and decided that a Clinton/Obama ticket (with Clinton on top!) is the best thing for the country. It's purely a symbolic statement, but that's good enough. The actual candidates will INEVITABLY DISAPPOINT us once elected, but the Republicans have beaten us to a pulp with a symbolic club for the past 20 years, so the symbolic victory is a necessary first step to turning the country around.

But this nonsense of trying to blame anti-Hillary sentiments (primarily) on sexism is frankly offensive to me. I'm sick of people who think they can read my mind and KNOW that my criticisms of Clinton are based on the fact that she's a woman.

[myskylark]

It's easy to encourage women to vote for the woman candidate when she is the best candidate. I remember the days when older women who worked for their company for years and knew the work inside out were expected to train younger men for the promotion that was closed to them. Younger women don't always get it. My vote for Hillary is not for gender alone, but gender certainly adds intensity to my support.

[amberglow]

Many women have been passed over for promotion and/or jobs by younger guys- less experienced "hotshots" -- they see it happening here again and are mad-- they're entitled to be.

[midtown]

Therese Murray is off her rocker. She's doing nothing for women with these ridiculous comments. People voted for Pelosi who is two deaths away from the Presidency.

Absolutely ridiculous and she is doing Hillary no favors.

[happytrails]

I can't believe that any SERIOUS politician would ask people to vote simply on gender! How about the issues? What about Hillary's dismal record of supporting Bu$h? Hillary is a DISAPPOINTMENT! She is not a democrat. When are some women going to take that into consideration? And most of us who will not support Hillary made that decision BEFORE Bill showed that even he does not respect her or think she can win on her own.

As a woman, I find Hillary a disappointment, an embarrassment, a liar, and not the leader we need in these post-Bu$h times of national peril.