CLICK HERE FOR THOUSANDS OF FREE BLOGGER TEMPLATES »

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Women Are Never Front-Runners


"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.

"So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? 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.

"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.

"What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

"What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

"This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers."

3 comments:

jenaprn08 said...

I hear people criticize Hillary all the time for being too "strong" and too "aggresive" and not very feminine. I want to scream!

Just Katy said...

Yeah, I thought that was a great article.
I was shocked when I heard about Clinton "breaking down" and "sobbing" in NH then I watched the clip and all she did was pause, maybe stutter. It's such a joke that by showing emotion people see her as more of a "real" person. I think it's more their expectations for women to be "more emotional" and her show of emotion made her fit their expectations better. That made me feel sad, like Clinton was supporting the stereotype to get ahead. But it's politics and Clinton and good or bad it's really smart.
The whole affair makes it so obvious that US culture is afraid of powerful women, especially powerful female leadership. It makes me really want Clinton to win.

Abby said...

I have no real opinion of my own, but I think it would be better to combine the two most influential candidates: Clinton and Obama. That way the sexists can feel reassured because Clinton will be with a man and, Obama will be with a white person. The reason why it would never work is because each one would want to be on top and no matter who is on top, the press will have a field day.

Lilypie