Gender vs. Race

1/8/08 10:15AM EST

In explaining her decision to endorse Hillary Clinton--a decision with which I don't have tons of sympathy--Gloria Steinem makes a strong case that gender matters in this country more than race does. Obama, she says, would never have come this far in the primaries if he was a black woman instead of a black man--and it's probably true. But I think it's also a little bit more complicated than that. Does, for instance, being poor and rural subject a white woman to greater constraints than does being and equally poor, urban black male? Not sure the answer is very clear. But in the elite ranks of society, what Steinem says is almost certainly true.

Which may answer a question a friend of mine hinted at long ago: Is America more racist than sexist? In politics? More sexist.

Comments

I'd think the people best situated to make that sort of determination would be black female voters. We'll see which way they vote shortly.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on January 8, 2008 10:43 AM

Steinem's argues from a dated feminist paradigm. She asserts that a hypothetical black female with Obama's credentials would never have the opportunity that a black male has. Well, duh. If she asserts it, it must be true.

Maybe Steinem should ask us to imagine another paradigm: Imagine a candidate, a black woman, whose husband was the previous President of the United States. She was groomed for political office by powerful friends and special interests and with their financial backing and media attention, she was elected for one term as senator of a large Eastern state. Now she is running for President based on her "experience"--again with the backing of powerful, wealthy interests. Assume that she is competent and public-service minded but not visionary or inspirational.

Is it race or gender that would constrain this candidate?

Obama is transforming the old paradigms, and it is going to be hard for someone like Gloria Steinem to figure that out.

Posted by: PTate in MN on January 8, 2008 01:03 PM

Um. If gender were an issue Hillary would never have been dominating the polls. It wasn't a secret that she's woman.

Posted by: Justin on January 8, 2008 04:19 PM

She dominated because she was famous--from a famous family. Could Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein or somebody else with more experience have come as far as she did? I really doubt it.

Posted by: Brian on January 8, 2008 04:26 PM

So by comparing Obama and HRC, Steinem proves that sexism is a more powerful negative force in politics than racism?

No, wait; she doesn't prove her point by comparing Obama and Hillary Clinton, she proves it by imagining hypothetical candidates and telling us what we are thinking when we think about them.

It must be nice to be important enough to get published in the NYT even if you have absolutely nothing to say. Except, "I'm an important person endorsing X, so you should too."

Go Bears.

Posted by: Shai on January 8, 2008 07:58 PM

Obama and Clinton are both extraordinary for their own reasons. More generally, Steinem is correct--a black politician who is post-racial will alway have an easier time than a Democratic woman.

Posted by: Brian on January 8, 2008 10:38 PM

thanks you

http://www.chattur.com

Posted by: seviyeli sohbet on June 18, 2009 02:31 PM