The Politics of Gender

Gloria Steinem has turned up the heat. The slow simmer that has characterized the discussion about gender politics and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is now slowly moving toward that inevitable boil.

Steinem wrote her thoughts as an op-ed contributor to the New York Times earlier this week in a piece entitled "Women Are Never Front Runners." She begins by speculating whether or not Obama would have made it this far had he been a woman, and then goes on to say:

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. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

"Why is the Sex Barrier Not Taken as Seriously as the Racial One?"

This is the question that Steinem asks, and then answers with five statements that have already sparked quite a discussion among the About.com Guides in the News and Issues channel:

The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

For Steinem, the most troubling aspect of this are the media and public perceptions of both candidates - perceptions framed by race and gender:

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

A Delicate Dance

He may be unifying the larger society, but news reports indicate that the Obama campaign has given a wide berth to old-school black political leaders Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton, although both have reached out to him. (However, US Politics Guide Kathy Gill reminds us in her comment below that "Jesse Jackson Jr is the co-chair of his campaign — hardly a repudiation of Jackson Sr, merely expeditious, IMO.") What does this mean? Is it due to the fact that Obama has to dance around the concept of black empowerment as carefully and as delicately as Hillary Clinton dances around the concept of feminism?

Clinton has a much tougher row to hoe in appealing to her own 'community.' People of color are grateful that Obama's candidacy means there's an opportunity for the country to see an image of a successful black man reflected from the highest office in the nation. But women don't feel similarly about Hillary Clinton. It's not enough that she's a woman. She has to prove herself as both strong enough and yet soft enough - a paradoxical position. Trying to campaign in a way that ensures both aspects are represented to the satisfaction of voters is nearly impossible.

Clinton's Catch-22

The heat that she's taken for her emotional moment is proof of her own campaign catch-22.

I am grateful to Gloria Steinem for naming the elephant on the table - that "there is still no 'right' way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what."

They've already called Clinton a bitch. The pot is beginning to boil, and what comes out of it may have many of us steaming.