Gloria Steinem: Pitting race against gender
by Racialicious guest contributor Jennifer Fang, originally published at Reappropriate
Since 2004, when rumours abounded over an Obama candidacy, pundits have cast this year’s Democratic election as a battle of identity politics: will Americans choose a Black man or a White woman to be their nominee for president? And by extension, will this finally settle the debate over which is the more subjugated identity: race or gender?
Yesterday morning, Gloria Steinem, influential second-wave feminist, weighed in at the New York Times with an opinion piece titled “Women Are Never Front-Runners”. I guess we can tell where she stands in this debate.
(Incidentally, if women are never front-runners, than how did Clinton get as far as she did on the “inevitable pseudo-incumbent” campaign she’s been running that made her the front-runner for most of last year? I find the headline of this piece to be a wee bit of hyperbole.)
We’ve heard many argue that it’s time for an African American president, and many more argue it’s time for a female president. But, nowhere in the race vs. gender frenzy that has swept the nation has anyone challenged the very validity of the question. How can one compare racism to sexism – and if one tries, where do those of us who are disadvantaged both by our race and by our gender fit in?
In truth, the juxtaposition is disingenuous, divisive, overly simplistic, and ultimately harmful, because it redirects our attention away from efforts to break the White male patriarchy that excludes all the Others, but towards in-fighting where we all compete to see both who’s more oppressed, and who will make it out of that “Oppression Box” first.
Scholars like Steinem have only fueled these divisive attitudes. Though she writes, “I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest”, Steinem opens her article with the observation that “gender is probably the most restricting force in American life”. She continues by implying that the race barrier has largely been resolved, because “Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women”.
While Steinem is correct in observing that women are still oppressed by the gender roles that expect us to remain in the kitchen over the White House, how can we compare those gender roles to the racist expectation that Black men be either athletes or in jail? How does that compare to the plight of Native Americans, who suffer from almost non-existent healthcare or educational opportunities? Or to the on-the-job harassment faced by Asian Americans seen as perpetually untrustworthy and foreign?
Steinem’s argument that women were denied the vote for a half-century after Black men were made voting citizens ignores two truths: 1) had the right for women to vote been included in the 14th and 15th Amendments, those Amendments were unlikely to have passed, and 2) despite being granted the right to vote in the Constitution, it took nearly another century before the Voting Rights Act allowed the majority of African Americans to exercise that right in the face of profoundly institutionalized racism and apartheid. But Steinem essentially argues that these details are irrelevant: because women were not granted the vote when Black men were, Black men face fewer barriers today compared to White women, and thus are less deserving of affirmative action when it comes to the highest position in the country. By extension, Steinem suggests that if White women don’t benefit from a step towards civil rights, than no one should – which is why we need a female president before we need a Black president.
Steinem further suggests that negative treatment (or impossible expectations) of Senator Hillary Clinton stem exclusively from a sexism “as pervasive as the air we breathe”. She notes that a fictional Achola Obama (who, unlike Senator Obama, doesn’t seem to have achieved anything more than state legislator) would not be seen as electable while Senator Barack Obama – by virtue of his gender, says Steinem – is. Not only does this ignore the very “un-electable Obama” argument that has been a core component of Clinton’s stump speeches, but Steinem carelessly paints all criticisms of Senator Clinton with the same sexist brush. She notes “Clinton could not have used Mr. Obama’s public style – or Bill Clinton’s either – without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits”. But, Hillary Clinton has tried: notably in Selma, Alabama earlier this year, when Clinton and Obama delivered back-to-back speeches in neighbouring churches. Obama’s speech was generally heralded as rousing and inspiring. Clinton’s was not criticized as being “too emotional”, but too robotic and fake. In fact, I suspect that Clinton can’t get away with Obama’s or Clinton’s style of speaking not because she’s a woman, but because she’s simply not that charismatic a speaker.
On the question of biology, Steinem again contradicts herself. Though she argues that sexism has remained pervasive because of how it is “still confused with nature” (i.e. women are naturally or biologically different), she goes on to underscore and praise Clinton’s innate differences as a woman by citing how she has “no masculinity to prove”. And when it comes to emotion, Steinem recognizes that Washington pundits are quick to charge female politicians with being “too emotional” but then she lauds Clinton for having “the courage to break the no-tears rule”. Steinem seems to want it front-ways, back-ways, and every ways but Sundays when it comes to Clinton – she believes Clinton deserves our vote in part “because she’s a woman”, while arguing that Clinton shouldn’t be seen as “divisive by her sex”.
But the contradictions on how to consider Senator Clinton’s gender seem to run deeper – all the way to the Senator’s campaign. Senator Clinton repeatedly cites the change that will be affected by electing a female president, but then dismisses the charge that she is playing the “gender card”. (By contrast, not once has Obama said that he should be elected because he would be the first Black president). Senator Clinton claims to be the candidate of feminists (indeed, Steinem herself basically questions the gender authenticity of young women for daring to choose a male candidate over Senator Clinton – going so far as to suggest that “women are the one group that grows more radical with age”) and yet Clinton expected to ride the wave of her husband’s accomplishments all the way to the White House. And in case we found out that she actually had very little to do with those accomplishments, she and her husband have carefully chosen to exclude White House documents pertaining to the First Lady’s role during the Clinton years from the public eye.
Ultimately, however, Steinem’s piece (intentionally or unintentionally) draws a line in the sand between people of colour and women, essentially disregarding the everyday racism faced by Black and Brown people, and claiming the Oppression Olympics gold medal for women. Further, by casting the debate as between Black men and White women (despite her imperfect creation of Achola Obama), Steinem renders the woman of colour invisible, reaffirms the binary Black-White paradigm of race, and demands we take a side in the epic battle between race and gender. Is it no wonder, then, that women of colour have long felt alienated by feminists like Steinem? Where do we fit when we’re being asked to choose between Obama and Clinton as a metaphor for race versus gender? And how are we supposed to react when an incorrect choice labels us as “less radical”?
Gloria Steinem wants us to able to say we’re supporting Senator Hillary Clinton because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman. But if we’re really ready to take “equal pride in breaking all the barriers”, then how can we be expected to make the call between voting for these candidates based even in part on their identity? Regardless of whom we decide on, by making the identity politics of our candidate a factor in our decision, we are implicitly establishing a “separate and unequal” relationship between race and gender barriers that only fuels the continued clash between race activists and feminists.
So, I’m supporting Senator Barack Obama because he’ll be a great president. And, not because he’s Black.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Tensegrities » Some counter arguments to Steinem on 09 Jan 2008 at 12:26 pm
[...] candidacy from two different friends. So perhaps it’s worth pointing people off to this critique of Steinem’s [...]
Steven White on 09 Jan 2008 at 3:29 pm
Sexism vs. Racism Addendum…
Check out two smart responses to Gloria Steinem’s very bad op-ed, one from Feministing: I don’t have a feminist obligation to vote for Hillary Clinton, or donate money to her campaign, or show up at her rallies. My obligation is…
The Debate Link on 09 Jan 2008 at 5:38 pm
The Gender Vote…
My good friend Esq picks up positively Gloria Steinem’s much discussed column on how gender should play into our decision to vote for Hillary Clinton. Both are in favor of letting Cliton’s gender act as a fairly strong argument in her favor as Presid…
Melissa Harris-Lacewell to Black People: “Rally for [Obama] Now” « PostBourgie on 10 Jan 2008 at 1:48 am
[...] Black People: “Rally for [Obama] Now” Uh, did we learn nothing from that rightly criticized op-ed by Gloria Steinem? I am mad about it. I am mad because on the night that Barack Obama won the [...]
The Lilith Blog :: Women, News, Media and Politics: I’m Exhausted on 14 Jan 2008 at 9:37 am
[...] a lot of information that was somewhat extraneous to that thesis, and it created some drag. A lot of drag, in fact. This time, I didn’t even bother to read the reactions of right-wing America—I was too [...]
Gloria Steinem: Pitting race against gender at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture « Ginny’s Thoughts & Things on 15 Jan 2008 at 6:53 pm
[...] January 15, 2008 at 7:48 pm (America, Barack Obama, Current Affairs, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Weblogs) Gloria Steinem: Pitting race against gender at Racialicious – the intersection of race and pop cultu… [...]
Black/Brown Politics « Aaminah Hernández on 17 Jan 2008 at 7:27 pm
[...] right now. For some good reading by more articulate women on that, see here, here, here, here and the above mentioned post at ABW. Some of these posts include links to others who have written [...]
Valerie Lee » Blog Archive » Sexism vs. Racism Addendum on 21 Jan 2008 at 1:49 pm
[...] And the second from Racialicious: [...]
JTan » Blog Archive » Cover up: French gender equality and the Islamic headscarf on 24 Jan 2008 at 5:39 pm
[...] There was also a question about the extent to which feminists in France were as quick to jump on the nationalist bandwagon as Scott argued – with only a minority working together with anti-racists – a fraught topic given the history of white Western feminism, as I’m coming to learn (and this great post by Zuky really crystallises a lot of the perspectives I’m trying to internalise). To some extent it’s not an unintelligible reaction – I would verbally kick the crap out of anyone who tried to suggest I wear a headscarf, and the notion of women as sexual gatekeeper is a huge feature of the social landscape that Western feminists (with whom I probably most identify, given my abject lack of exposure to feminism while in Singapore) have been fighting. At the same time, though, given the problem of “raunch culture”, you’d think that seeking to forcibly uncover women who don’t want to be uncovered (for whatever reason) would command less feminist support! An audience member suggested she thought it was different in Anglo-American feminism, to her experience; that feminists in Britain have a history of working together with anti-racists; and I don’t know enough to say if that’s true but it’s a danger of which I can’t help but be acutely aware, especially (as Scott pointed out) given the ever-present peril of the US Presidential Democratic primaries breaking into “oppression olympics” (no thanks to Gloria Steinem).[1] [...]
racial and gender politics Democrat style on 28 Mar 2008 at 9:19 am
[...] "I have a feeling that in this country where we’re at today in our thinking, it’s going to be harder to elect a woman than to elect a black man," he told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "I wish that weren’t true … I’d love to see Hillary as president." McGovern says he occasionally chats with men who don’t think a woman is ready for the responsibility. "Some guy will say, ‘Well, I think that’s too big a job for a woman, I don’t think she can handle those terrorists,’" he said, adding that he seldom hears the same thing said about a black man. The Associated Press: McGovern: Hard to Elect Female President Obviously he must be referring to liberal men because conservative men would vote for a women ;if she was the best candidate for the job. It must be a problem for liberals to reconcile conflicting orthodoxies .Evidently according to McGovern they prefer a patriarchy ;even if race is a factor in the decision. Women are obviously on the bottom rung of the Democrat caste system commonly known as affirmative action. Gloria Steinem pretty much echoed the sentiment earlier this year . Gloria Steinem: Pitting race against gender at Racialicious – the intersection of race and pop cultu… [...]
What if Hillary was black and Obama was gay? « Professor, What If…? on 06 Jun 2008 at 10:29 pm
[...] capitalist patriarchy and the military, prison, bio-pharm industrial complexes? As Jennifer Fang at Racialicious reminds us, this “race vs. gender frenzy… redirects our attention away from efforts to break [...]