Response to Steinem

Earlier this week, Gloria Steinem published an opinion titled "Women Are Never Front Runners" that left me both disheartened by her message and puzzled by her logic.

Steinem starts with the premise that a woman with Barack Obama's credentials would never have qualified for the United States Senate. She then offers that if Barack Obama were a black woman, "her goose would have been cooked a long time ago."

But could a black woman with Hillary Clinton's credentials be elected to the United States Senate? No, if for no other reason than there has never been a black First Lady. Could a black man with Hillary's credentials be elected to the Senate? No, again, as there has never been a black First Gentleman.

Senator Clinton, who, for all intents and purposes, has been the front runner for the majority of 2007, does not fit well into Steinem's message. She has enjoyed more popular name recognition than any non-incumbent ever could have. She has enjoyed more establishment support through fundraising and operations than any other candidate in the race. And yet, we are told, it is her gender that constrains her ability to become President of the United States.

Steinem then goes on to state:

"Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House."

One of the strongest criticisms of feminism in contemporary society is the lack of attention to the needs and issues of the less-advantaged women in the world -- women who suffer from multiple forms of discrimination based not only upon their gender, but also upon their race, orientation and socioeconomic status. For example, the combined discrimination of being 1) black 2) female and 3) poor may be greater than the sum of each of the three parts.

To be sure, gender is one of many unfortunate obstacles to financial success and/or stability in the U.S., not unlike race, class, and sexual orientation. Women, by the sheer size of our population, can exercise much more ability to achieve substantive representation by women, for women, or both.

For other groups, and for women of color, poor women, lesbians, or any combination therein, substantive representation is often more difficult to achieve.

Should we harken back to the 1990s, as Senator Clinton would repeatedly have us do, three memories come to mind:

First, the complete and total abandonment of Lani Guinier by the Clintons. Guinier, a black woman who was nominated to run the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and one of the most brilliant thinkers of our time, was quickly abandoned by the first Clinton administration following her nomination without any offer to defend her positions.

Second, there was the crime legislation of 1994, where the Clinton administration opted to reduce crime prevention funding by $3 billion rather than address the issue of racial bias in death penalty sentencing.

Finally, there was welfare reform. The Clinton administration seemingly missed the fact that for many single mothers (like my own many years ago), the most prominent barrier to employment is obtaining safe, affordable and accessible childcare for their young ones.

Senator Barack Obama has eloquently addressed the issues his own mother faced as a single mother raising her son. Similarly, Senator Edwards has made poverty and its root causes the centerpiece of his campaign for the presidency. Given a chance, I find it unlikely that another Clinton administration would act with a thorough understanding of the contours of race and poverty in 2009. To the contrary, my unfortunate prediction is that it would opt for expedience.

Comments

[hankandted]

We have to look at the forces that the candidates represent, aside from gender and race. Clinton represents the DLC, insiders, and top down forces in the Democratic party. Obama represents the progressive outsiders who want to take back the party. He knows we need a massive people's mobilization to responde to the "fierce urgency of now."

[eaglecapri]

Msssss. Steinem fails to realize that Hillary Clinton is where she is today, running as a viable presidential female candidate, because she is Hillary Clinton. If she had been Hillary Rodham, I think we would have a different story. Yes, her resume is impressive; but surely, there are other female senators with impressive resumes, as well. The reality is, her celebrity of being President Clinton's wife is the real reason she is in the spotlight!

Msssss. Steinem's article was very insulting to me as a black and as a black female! Msssss. Steinem needs to go sit down somewhere!

[Macready]

Great blog . . thank you . . . I totally agree with you about both clintons . . . hillary is running on name recognition . . . but it is a forked sword . . . I think both steinham and jong are living in a timewarp . . . they haven't engaged with hillary's voting record . . .they seem totally oblivious to her support for most of bush's policies and the fact that hillary is a follower and a paid up member of the status quo . . . they missed the bus years ago . . . I suspect the only people they have a margin of credibility with are the die-hard pro-hillary women.

[Tellmethetruth]

Looks like you had to try hard to make a case against Clinton and race.

Empowerment zone tax credits to businesses that located in black districts.

Welfare to work credits for employers who hired people from welfare. Education bills for women on welfare. How are these not good????

Signed the Protection of Women Against Violent Crimes Act of 1994. (written by Joe Biden and supported by Hillary Clinton). Did not African American Women benefit from this?

Family Leave Act - Again - what woman who is a caretaker did they not benefit from this (Written by Dodd).

Hope Credit and Lifetime Learning credits for students and the "poor" to return to college for further education.

Increasing the Earned Income Credits for working poor with children.

Hiring more minorities in the government - through executive orders in the Clinton years -recended by Bush. Giving government contract preferences to minority owned businesses.

The list goes on and on. Bill and Hillary Clinton went out of their way for African Americans - no student of history would cite otherwise.

[Boadicea]

Nicely stated.

I'm a white woman in my 50s. I confess, I don't share Steinem's view of the world. I think she still sees things through her original granny glasses. But much more important, Steinem completely ignores the content of a person's character. Steinem is obsessed with gender, and can't see anything else.

Hillary is the quintessential ambitious plodder. She's spent a lot of time setting herself up for the presidency, and she wants us to reward her for that *experience* with the nomination. But she misrepresents the truth, about her own experience and her opponent, and that offends my sense of fair play and decency. She's not trustworthy. Her campaign has been dirty.

And there's no use pretending that Obama is just an ordinary but ambitious politician who wants to be president. He's not. Anyone paying attention at all can plainly see that he is a gifted leader. The evidence is everywhere, from his career choices to his Senate accomplishments, from his remarkable campaign success to his responses to Hillary's dirty tactics. He's remarkable.

All of the DEmocratic candidates are good people, and effective politicians. But Obama has a combination of skills, accomplishments and character traits that make him that once-in-a-generation leader. America is crying out for such a leader.

Democrats would be foolish to give the nomination to Hillary just because people like Gloria Steinem and other out-of-touch 60s feminists are demanding a woman president. It's personal with them - the crowning achievement of their feminist dreams. For them, it's all about the fact that she's a woman.

But this country would miss out on a great opportunity if we passed on a President Obama. And that opportunity has absolutely nothing to do with the color of his skin.

[onlinesavant]

I personally couldn't have said this better myself. Yes Obama is a politician, and his political history does show instances of waffling, but for the most part he has displayed a history of principled, thoughtful stances in public life (Which for those who want to conveniently forget, is longer than Clinton's in elected office.). However Hillary's history is littered with instances of selling out to moneyed interest, the right wing, and political convenience. Now, no one has to believe me. All anyone one has to do is their own research and they'll see that I'm right on this.

[Revrob56]

BRAVO!!!!!!!!! Excellent observation.

[LeeScho]

Indeed. And Ms. Steinem was unable to defend her position on "Democracy Now!" today when confronted by a single-parent, African-American woman and Princeton professor who is a supporter of Barack Obama. It is sad and counter-productive when someone tries to make a contest of the degree of wretchedness endured by two historically oppressed entities. Some have tried to do it with the African Slave Trade and the Jewish Holocaust. It is an exercise of minds made feeble by partisanship rather than robust by intellect; it is the damnation of a corrupting social and emotional insularity, against whose advance we held no vigilance.

[Clinton]

Don't forget about Dr. Jocelyn Elders, who was hung out to dry for mentioning masturbation.
Feminism in America is often seen as managed by upper middle class white women, with only token concern for women outside of that group. HRC sure seems to be in that mold, of course so does Steinem. The presidency is a dream job to which the Clintons apparently feel entitled. They are elitists of the usual sort (meaning not really elite, just powerful due to political maneuvering and connections), and seem willing to sell out just about anyone to advance their own quest for more power (like your typical republican).
Back when Clinton was president he often implied that we should all be grateful whenever he did the most marginally progressive things, hinting that he could barely handle the republicans. Of course given the cowardice of the democrats at the time (not much different from now) I thought he was just trying to survive, so it was difficult to blame him. But he's hardly an inspiring leader. The only people they seem to take seriously are themselves.

[stop7997]

Don't forget Joycelyn Elders. Clinton sure did.

[HailtotheChimp]

Great exampled. Women and African-Americans really need to do research on the Clintons. The Clintons have not done anything for either group.

And first it was a right wing conspiracy and now it is because she is a woman. Oh and she found her own voice

[ckdogs]

I agree. I have great respect for Gloria Steinem, but in a crucial election, she is focused on gender, instead of on which person would be the best president. Hillary would be a competent president - no doubt - but she also brings all the negative baggage of the '90's. The right wing will never stop attacking her, and her administration will have to spend precious time, and energy, fending off attacks and investigations. Obama is a breath of fresh air. Without all that divisive history, and with his amazing leadership skills, he is the best choice to move this country forward on solving the myriad of problems.