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.
Follow Sally Kohn on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sallykohn
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think it is fair play and I think valid and in no way racist.
What a concept!
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.
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.