Gender, Race and the Presidential Election: A Response to Gloria Steinem

Recently in the New York Times, Gloria Steinem argued that if Barack Obama was a woman, he wouldn't be elected. That's probably true. Ms. Steinem then concludes that gender "is probably the most restricting force in American life." That's definitely false. Or, rather, a false choice. The reality is that racism and sexism are both profound and pervasive throughout our society. Ranking different forms of oppression is a ridiculous waste of time. We should be working to eradicate all forms of oppression, not deciding which one takes precedence.

In other words, just because Senator Obama was (at the time of Ms. Steinem's op-ed) surging above Hillary Clinton doesn't mean that racism has taken a back seat to sexism in the American body politic. Voter preferences may actually have to do with perceived differences on the candidate's positions. Or they may have to do with how each candidate USES their identity: Senator Clinton highlighting her uniqueness as a woman in appealing to women voters, Senator Obama emphasizing how his experiences as an African American give him a more universal insight on unity and solidarity that applies across race. It's not to say one approach is right or wrong but merely different TAKES on their marginalized identities not merely different identities between these two candidates.

Nonetheless, it's probably true that if Barack Obama were a biracial and a woman, he might not be where he is today. But Ms. Steinem neglected to note that if Hillary Clinton were an African American woman, she probably wouldn't be either. It goes to show not that one form of oppression is more persistent than the other but that both run deep and strong in our country, as witnessed most powerfully where they intersect.

Strict gender roles and norms still pervade our society. Glass ceilings and double standards are all still too common. And racial profiling and lack of meaningful access to equal opportunity in education, jobs, lending and more still plagues African American communities. These are real problems, and I hope that whomever we elect -- white or black, male or female -- they can use their own experience of privilege in life -- or lack thereof -- to breakdown the barriers of discrimination and create an America that truly values all of us. That deeply American ideal of community values, that all people are inherently equal and interconnected, is what we need to be reminded of, regardless of the messenger.

The roots of racism and sexism are the same -- the desire to maintain power and privilege for some at the expense of everyone else . Our only hope of addressing EITHER racism or sexism is to address them BOTH together. Rooting racism AND sexism from every facet of our social, economic and political institutions and practices to create a better America is far more worthwhile than debating which form of oppression is faring worse.

Comments

[Aravail]

"Macaca" sinks your campaign. Praising Strom Thurmond's segregationalist past gets you fired. And rightly so.

"Can you beat the bitch?" gets a chuckle and a pass the way "Can you beat the n*****?" never would.

We only feel like we have to choose between race and gender because the two front-runners invite reflection on these issues. Steinem's article doesn't help, but go back and read it anyway because she's correct.

Hillary has received more scrutiny for every sigh, laugh, tear, brooch, pant-suit, haircut, etc. and most analyses of her campagin begin with the assumption that she has some psychological damage to reconcile or advance. We then blame her for the absurd volume of therapy we've so lovingly heaped on her by saying she's asking for it.

Obama is charming because he delivers us from painful memories about racism. He's half black and half white, so he represents not triumph over racism but something more seductive: transcendence. Moreover, it's a transcendence that's already happened ... all we need to do is ratify it in the ballot box and feel great about ourselves for voting for a man who's chief legislative virtue is that he's never had to make a choice to go to war. In Hillary's campaign, the absence of any comparable sex appeal only lays bare the matrix of libidinal ties that go into choosing a leader as insanely powerful as our President.

"Perceived differences on the candidates positions"?

You can't even say, simply, "differences on the candidates positions" because you either don't know any of them or agree that it doesn't much matter when we're choosing an icon-in-chief. As long as that's the real game, sexual hangups will trump race relations every time.

[Ronnagade]

I wholeheartedly agree with you Sally!!! I feel that many of the people who have left comments are missing the point, racism AND sexism are unacceptable. If we are ever to grow as a country we must never forget that oppression of any kind must be eliminated from our culture.
We need to embrace the ideals of community values and realize that we have more in common as people than we have differences. We are truly interconnected, and if we nurture those ideals we all succeed.
Does it matter if you die from cancer or aids? No, the end result is still the same. Oppression must be removed from our lives and when we get in the voting booths we should be voting for the person who best represents our values.

[legalclubs]

Here is an interesting one...if Hillary was a white man with only one completed term in the U.S. Senate and only fractionally through a second term and the only other claim to fame being the husband of a Governor and a President, would anyone take such a canidate seriously? Could Hillary under this scenario credibily claim the mantle of "most experienced"? Wouldn't the better argument be that Hillary's gender and her marriage to a popular president be the only reasons why she is a viable canidate (compare her political experience to Richardson's)? As such, is feminism suppose to be about equality between the sexes or is it really about receiving benefits beyond those of the opposite sex? Just some questions.

[Dailyfare]

As much as white women talk about equality and feminism, one who is not a white woman usually gets the feeling that, when push comes to shove, white women will always opt to protect their own interests and side with white MEN. And the idea of who's been the biggest victim in society - black men or white women? - Yes. It is a ridiculous argument by the simple fact that white women as a group have never been ENSLAVED in this country.

White women have a lot of power. They give birth to, raise, nurture and enable white men. They ALWAYS have access to power, yet instead of choosing to use that power, they too often choose to play the damsel in distress.

Ladies, you can't have it both ways.

[Kelleah]

Thank you, Sarah. It's nice to know that some white women get that race and gender discrimination are not mutually exclusive, and that many of us don't get a choice on which affects our lives the most. I guess it's a good thing that Ms. Steinem does have that choice, otherwise she wouldn't be able to write that drivel for NYT.

I won't go into detail about how the article made me feel because Shark Fu's pretty much summed it for me: http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/2008/01/im-worried-too-ms-steinem.html

It would do well for others who agree with Ms. Steinem to read her response and maybe -- and I realize this is a highly improbable maybe -- learn something.

[clevelandchick]

Sexism is more ingrained in our society than racism. Black men broke voting, electoral office and corporate barriers long before any woman of any color has. And sexism is not only ingrained in our society but every society around the globe save a few small progressive countries like Norway or Sweden.

Sexism is the one thing all races and creeds share equally. It would have been nice if Ms. Steinem recognized that a woman of color would have it even harder than poor Hillary.

[smartorange]

Wow, what artical did you read? I do not believe she pitted one against the other. I think that Gloria brings up a very valid point in that Sexism effects more people then any other kind of prejudice and is for some reason not taken seriously. You know poeple of other races are ALSO women! Women represent like half of the US population, and have less to show for it. If someone makes a sexist comment like Hillary reminds men of their nagging wives nothing happens. If someone said something like that against a race or religion, they would have LOST thier jobs. Why is that, because men are not affected by gender inequities.

I think it is fair play and I think valid and in no way racist.

[Thad]

"Voter preferences may actually have to do with perceived differences on the candidate's positions."

What a concept!

[NABNYC]

I'm not surprised that the Clintons are using a few elitest feminists to write articles supporting Hillary. Even though Hillary has never done one thing to help any other woman.

I'm surprised and disappointed that some of these formerly well-known feminists are writing these absurd articles. Everyone knows that the word "feminist" means something more than a human with female genitalia.

It has traditionally referred to an entirely different world view in which the goal of any society is to provide its people with a healthy place to work and to live, to grow, to be educated, to contribute. Collaborative and cooperative conflict-resolution.

But today we sadly see such icons as Gloria Steinem steadfastly defending HRC just because she's female. All women must vote for HRC because she got a little weepy on camera and said she was tired.

All women must ignore the fact that HRC is in the pocket of the biggest multi-national corporations in this country. Ignore the fact that she supports war, and more war, ane more war. Hillary "Patton" Clinton is her new name. Ignore the fact that she has not done one thing to help the people of this country since she got into the Senate (or before that, as far as I know).

And here is a woman asking us to believe what she says. But we all know that Bill Clinton lied to the public about his affairs, and HRC sat steadfastly beside him, supporting him the whole time as he lied to the public. And that is the essence of the Clintons: everything that might advance their ambitions for more money and power is okay.

We can do a lot better. Hillary hired a union-buster to run her campaign. She sat on Wal Mart's board, a company known for union busting and outsourcing, and slave labor.

Are we really supposed to be so stupid that if she's female, we must ignore all her trashy behavior and vote for her anyway. Why? Because women are always good and decent? Talk about fairy tales.

[Jeffersonian1]

Mr. Steinem just gets it completely wrong when she attempts to suggest that the obstacles faced by a Caucasian female candidate are somehow far greater than those faced by an African American in the American electoral system.

A simple look at the composition of the United States Senate would give her a rather rapid reality check. Currently, there are sixteen female Senators representing a rather broad range of ideology and a diverse mix of states. One African American currently serves in the Senate.

Obviously, a ratio of 16 to 1 is not exactly demonstrative of African American men "ascend[ing] to positions of power . . . before any women."

Indeed, when one remembers that voters have elected only 3 African Americans to the Senate in the entire history of the republic and compares that number to the 16 female Senators in this Congress alone, Ms. Steinem's complaint becomes almost ridiculous.

Nor is the disparity limited to positions viewed by voters as legislative rather than executive. Currently, there are 8 Caucasian females and 1 African American male serving as governors of their states. And again, the 8 females serving today greatly outnumber the 2 African American male governors elected since Reconstruction.

Racism and sexism both exist in our society to a far greater degree than is acceptable. Yet Ms. Steinem's attempt to paint Senator Clinton as the victim of the more powerful evil is contrary to any quantifiable measure.

I understand and almost admire the chutzpah of her political tactic, portraying Senator Clinton as the plucky underdog facing monolithic odds due to unfounded stereotypes (much of America does love an underdog). It is her bad luck, however, that Senator Clinton faces a candidate who has had a far steeper hill to climb and faces far more pervasive and lasting discriminatory attitudes.

In attempting to come to the aid of her friend with the premise that sexism trumps racism, Steinem does a real disservice -- both to honesty and the cause of feminism.

[rationalmadman]

Yes, becasue the obvious lesson to draw from this presidential season is that America is both racist and sexist, clearly thats why a woman and a black man are the two most popular candidates. Clearly.

[Absintheforall]

Yeah, but would a bunch of white guys yell at Obama to iron their shirts?

[Sumocat]

"Our only hope of addressing EITHER racism or sexism is to address them BOTH together." -- That's a good point, but I liked it better when Gloria Steinem wrote it: "The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together."

[dtd]

Hillary Clinton and her supporters keep hyping that election a woman would be a monumental change as if electing an African American or Latino wouldn't be as much or more of a change. That's the problem with identity politics, everyone thinks their plight is worse than someone else's. If you are only speaking to half the electorate then you are only going to get half the vote. I want a candidate that speaks to everyone!