Things That Make Me Angry

Today's topic? Gloria Steinem.

I know, it sounds crazy. I never would have thought that a brilliant thinker and feminist icon could fill me with as much rage as a Rush Limbaugh rant, but here we are.

Steinem wrote an op-ed piece in the Times today that's worth reading. Even more worth reading, perhaps, are some of the comments following.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

It's not interesting because it's a good article. It's interesting because it's a terrible article--divisive, manipulative, stuffed with tedious identity politics, and frankly obvious holes in logic.

Here in brief are my problems with Steinem's piece, much of which is better articulated in some of the brilliant commentary following the article:

In the first few paragraphs, Steinem skimps on Obama's resume and fails to point out that the glass ceiling for black women is a lot heavier than the one above white women and black men. It also ignores the existence of black congresswomen, including one from Illinois who somewhat resembles Steinem's 'imaginary person.'

She doesn't cite this study: "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."

Cite your damn study, Gloria.

Black men did get the vote long before all women, that's true. But Jim Crow laws essentially prohibited that right until the 50's, well after white women got the unhindered right to vote. Something of an important detail, there.

Obama's and Bill Clinton's styles are not merely 'emotional.' They are charismatic, passionate, inspiring. If Hillary talked like that, probably some people would dismiss her as emotional, but others would see her as, I dunno, charismatic and passionate.

Racism is still confused with nature. See the exiled Dr. Watson's idiotic comments about IQ.

Steinem can say she's not pitting race against gender, but when you're saying white women have it tougher than black men, then you're pitting race against gender and that's that.

Let's go phrase by phrase here:

"...unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House..."

The First Lady, even a First Lady as active as Hillary was, is not an elected position. It does not have the responsibilities, the accountability, the importance of an elected position. Basically, you get to host dinners, go to events, and talk nice to foreign dignitaries. When there's a First Gentlemen, he'll have to do the same things, and rightly so. Being married to someone does not qualify you to do their job, even if you forayed into their field (in her case, with disastrous consequences.)

"[Hillary has]...no masculinity to prove..."

To channel Sheila Braflowski for a moment: What what WHAT?

What has Obama done to show us that he feels a need to prove his masculinity? I can't think of any particular statement or action.

But I don't think Obama did or said anything to warrant this comment. I think it's just unbelievably sexist on Steinem's part. I never thought I'd say that phrase, but there it is.

As for the gender card vs. the race card: Obama does not use his race as either a weapon or a shield. He rarely even mentions it, one way or the other. That's because race--and gender--should be irrelevant to candidacy. All that should matter is the strength and intelligence of the candidate's positions.

If Obama (or Edwards, dealing with his wife's cancer) cried, people would have called them wimps, because we still see femininity/emotion as weak. That's bad, but Hillary wept for weakness, deliberately, to generate sympathy for this poor woman so put upon in running a campaign. Her tears embodied the frustration of every woman who's had a tough time breaking into a man's world. But a sense of solidarity against those bad people who have mistreated us is unfair, divisive, and disingenuous. If you don't like the heat, Hill, get out of the kitchen.

And last: "What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age."

...Voting for someone other than the lone female candidate means that we young women love and accept the sexual caste system? Do you mean to imply, Gloria, that we should vote for candidates based mostly upon their race or gender?

"We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”"

Oh, Gloria. So that's exactly what you're implying.

But maybe it's a brave new world, where I can feel free to vote for a black man or a white woman or a Mormon or a Baptist preacher or an elf (Kucinich) based solely on their ideas, not on identity politics and misplaced ideas of solidarity.