I have found politics interesting since my childhood, when assassinations, wars and elections around the world made their way into my awareness through the many newspapers that landed at our doorstep every day. So while many find the detail of the caucuses and primaries in the US Presidential elections ennui-inducing, I find it fascinating.
I once asked an American friend of mine (woman, WASP, superb technology lawyer, late 50s, Boston native, currently and during the 1980s working in Silicon Valley) what she thought of the chances of Hillary Clinton.
Her answer:
“Honey, in the States, we would sooner vote a Jewish or a black man into Presidential Office before we let a woman in.”
In one sentence, she appears to have summarised the hierarchy of discrimination ingrained in the American psyche.
Post-New Hampshire, newspapers are awash with Hillary’s tears, not literally, but feeding headlines which claim that she owed her New Hampshire win to her tearing up in response to a question. You need no links here, readers, because I am sure you have already read it all.
The double standards are for all to see. A tearing-up man is sensitive; a tearing-up woman is playing for sympathy or is evidently too weak for office. A man with rhetoric is a leader, a visionary; a woman with vision and steely determination is a bitch. A man, who had no control over who sired him, and therefore his race, is somehow superior to a woman, who had no control over the same factors. How long, I wonder, before someone defocuses from the Mormon-Evangelical-Catholic divide and notices that Barack’s middle name is Hussein?
The media meanwhile is eating a large dose of humble pie, having been too quick to call the primary in favour of Obama, based on exit polls. Big mistake! Especially in a state whose slogan is: Live Free Or Die.
But in the whole Hillary-Barack saga, I cannot help but think about the choices as a reflection of broader societal attitudes in America.
My question:
Before the Americans start diversifying their colour portfolio within the same half of the population (i.e. male) that has always graced the Presidential role, is it not time they start including the other half of the population in their consideration set?
Without resorting to gender sterotypes and skullduggery? Without feeling pious about atoning for wrongs perpetrated on black people, while ignoring how women still really have an also-ran status in the modern history of the soi disant most powerful nation on the planet? Some of you may know that in the USA, the right to vote was given to blacks through the 15th Amendment in 1870 before women were considered worthy of it in 1920.
PS: Since everyone has such problems with the First Gentleman or First Laddie as a concept, I wonder about something else. If Obama does become the President, would you also like the Presidential office and home to be painted and renamed the Black House? Just wondering.
And please spare me lectures about how racist this post seems to you. I am a non-white woman (for those, who may be reading this blog for the first time) and I am more than aware of both race and gender related discrimination and prejudices first hand, in my country of birth, in my adopted country, in my adopted continent and in the USA. I know the order in which I suffer the prejudices.
Additional reading:
Americans prefer women, blacks to smokers, Mormons. More flavours of age, religion and personal habits reveal themselves.
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
Glad to know that you have tackled this politically sensitive subject. You are bang on about voting rights. Women have always been second class citizens and got the right to vote last! If you ask me in the west the discrimination against women is subtle, but it exists.
for example when men use their sexuality it’s hardly taken note off. I saw Obama on a show and frankly the way he spoke and carried himself I thought that he was using his sxuality to the hilt to charm voters.
Clinton doesn’t do that, at least not as much as Obama does, in fact it was the media who commented on her attire once, and that speaks volumes for the attitude of the people.
To be frank Shefaly, I am more concerned about pro war comments she made, also the possibility of an economic boom, if America continues their expenditure on defense like this. I have spoken to many American citizens, they are really concerned about raising levels of poverty, a possible scrapping of their social security because of the baby boom and number of people retiring. They also seem to have issues with falling dollar value, and increasing gas and commodity prices. Amidst all this, do you really think they should worry about gender when they vote?
Hillary comes with a lot of baggage. If someone like Janet Napolitano, governor of Arizona, who was chosen by Time Magazine as one of America’s Top Five Governors, was running for president, I think there would be a better chance for a woman president. She even has the real experience that Hillary lacks. I am tired of people assuming that we, as women should vote for Hillary because she is a woman. I want to make an inforemd vote based on what I feel is right for this country for all people, so do all others I know.
Peace!
http://mindtravels.wordpress.com/
How long, I wonder, before someone defocuses from the Mormon-Evangelical-Catholic divide and notices that Barack’s middle name is Hussein?
IIRC, Fox News already popped that cherry a long time ago. Along with playing up the issue of Obama studying at a madrassa and calling him Osama by “mistake” (also done by Romney). There will be a lot more of that if he is nominated.
As for Hillary, I’ve also talked to many women and they are ready to vote for a female president this time – they are excited about that possibility as they say they’ve waited long enough, and Hillary is good enough for them. So not all Americans share your friend’s views on Hillary.
I personally wouldn’t vote for Hillary though I would have no issue voting for a woman (I did that in the MA Gubernatorial race) – she’s too cozy with the corporate lobby for my taste, and her voting track record on the Iraq war leaves a lot to be desired. Though if elected, she would be as competent (or not) a President as any other, no doubt about that.
To answer your question about including women in the political consideration set: Of course. We are already doing this. Speaker of the House is female. Many national and state legislators, mayors, etc. The trend is moving in the right direction. Yes, sexism and racism still exist, but is going underground, and will eventually die out.
Now Hillary Clinton… good legislator, can swim with the sharks in Washington, DC, very accomplished. And – very uninspiring. She’s the sort of senator you would like representing your state: smart, does her homework, knows how to get things done.
But the Presidency is a whole different ballgame. A prospective pres. candidate should surroud him/herself with good staff, and most importantly, inspire us with leadership. We really, really need a uniter.
Want to add a few more points about leadership.
Once I supervised three men as a relatively inexperienced nurse. Looking back, I did everything wrong: worked by tail off, helped them with difficult cases when they needed it, and was there if they approached me with problems….
MY boss, on the other hand, was a true leader. Yes, she knew the program and everyones’ roles. But she took the time to greet everyone in the morning, ask about their families (I was frantically going thru emails and documentation while dreading constant intrusion by clinic staff). She went around the clinic, coffee cup in hand, and made a point to chat with all.
She held meetings and gave everyone feedback, thank you’s, and vision of where we were heading. She made me want to improve myself. That is leadership. I just thought a hierarchical approach and encyclopedic knowledge of the specialty were enough.
Honestly speaking… I don’t care who wins! I am just hope the new president will make ‘sensible decisions’, and not declare any more wars.. for they have messed with the rest of the world for more time than necessary. America is largely (not solely) responsible for the condition of Pakistan-Afghanistan now! (Iraq too)
PS: On the lighter side there is a rumour that America will stop playing Big Brother to rest of the world if Hillary wins. They say, America will play Big Sister then on!
Its just an era of ‘firsts’ for Uncle Sam. Either the first black president or the first woman eh!
I think its going to be about who they’d hate less in this case… wait and watch
Not much to add, but appreciation for the post, and Jackie’s comments, especially.
Shefaly where have you disappeared to?
Who would you vote for Shefaly,Obama or Hillary if you were an American?
Folks: Thanks for your views. Apologies again for replying late.
@ Nita: Thanks and I cannot say I disagree. Everything about Hillary Clinton is somehow commentary fodder and I daresay it is all because she is a woman. And the last time, someone saw her cleavage, it was deemed newsworthy too.
@ Rambler: Should they think about gender? Why should they not?
In business, for instance, women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. The American Presidency strikes me as a fairly precarious leadership position right now.
A few years ago, a piece of research suggested that the boards of failed companies overwhelmingly had women directors. Some imputed their presence to the failure. But a closer look at the data suggested that they were brought on board in last ditch attempts to shore up the companies’ flagging fortunes and the failure was inevitable even before they came on board. See here for the reference.
@ Maryblu: Welcome to my blog and thanks for your comment! The post does not suggest that you vote for Hillary because she is a woman. It does however suggest that it may be time to give a woman a fair chance, without resorting to commentary on every aspect of her life which may be unrelated to her professional abilities. After all, where are the commentators talking about Obama’s tailored suits or his crew-cut hair or his laughing style?
A capable and experienced candidate can only be elected if she chooses to contest the election, no? So if the said Governor wishes to stand for President, all power to her! She will have to raise the funds and not do an Elizabeth Dole; she will have to fight the primaries and she will probably have to tolerate the same kind of jibes as Clinton is enduring.
But for now, Hillary Clinton is demonstrating that it is possible to dream the dream. Napolitano would have to follow the example, if she so wishes, I am afraid.
@ Amit: Thanks. That women are ready to vote her in is great, but are the men?
@ Jackie: Thanks for your note.
Isn’t this your 110th Congress? It is high time, beyond it, I think, that a woman was elected Speaker.
Even we democratically-backward, monarchy-toting folk in the UK had a woman speaker (1992), although a woman occupied the speaker’s chair at least 22 years earlier, and a woman PM (1979) before the mighty US! Interestingly our first sitting woman MP was an American woman, Nancy Astor, in 1919.
In saying “She made me want to improve myself. That is leadership.” is it not possible that one is assuming rather a lot about one kind of leadership being the best kind? The best leader I worked with let me be; the best leadership I have provided, according to feedback, was enabling my team to believe they could do more than they thought they could. In other words, I never let them be. Leadership style also depends on the person(s) being led. No?
@ Balu: Thanks – there are great advantages to having a big sister. I never lifted a finger to do anything till mine was at home!
@ Aditya: Indeed! If the US chooses to elect McCain, there may be a first in a near-bald man being President; if Romney gets in, the first Mormon; if Huckabee gets it, the first Evangelical.
@ Rambodoc: Thanks.
@ Prerna: This post is not about voting her in because she is a woman; it is about giving her a fair chance and not subjecting her to additional scrutiny just because she is a woman.
When training managers for gender-neutral interviewing, we are taught to ask ourselves before we ask a question: “Would I ask this question of a man?”. If you would not, chances are it is a gender-discriminatory question and should not be used.
A Fawcett Society document reveals that a Conservative woman candidate going for selection in a safe seat was asked, if she gets elected and is in Westminster during the week, what her husband would do for sex. Would they have asked a man that about his wife? Somehow I doubt that very much! Gender discrimination is rife elsewhere and in politics, it assumes a different dimension altogether.
To answer your question: I would vote Hillary but not because she is a woman.
And the following text is only assuming this is a Clinton/ Obama choice.
People say she is a junior Senator and being the First Lady does not count as experience. In fact, her track record as a Senator is of bringing bi-partisan agreements to issues less glamorous than war. You can find her voting record on-line if you are interested (and you will find some interesting similarities between hers and Obama’s; do pay attention to Obama’s NV, that is ‘did not vote, was absent or was excused’ record if you want to ascertain his potential stance on issues of international trade and diplomacy). She has served a full term as a US Senator before declaring her intent to run, unlike Obama. Note emphasis on US Senate (Obama has served in Illinois Senate before).
As for being First Lady does not count as experience, I do not believe every Chris Rock gag! Many First Ladies before Clinton have gone on to build careers not always drawing on their specialist, subject matter expertise but drawing on their contacts, their better and broader understanding of certain issues while being in the White House, and their personal interests as well as their husbands’. Rosalynn Carter, for instance, works in the area of mental health, mainly on removing stigma and helping families cope with mental health patients. Before Hillary, Eleanor Roosevelt was one to assert her independence as a thinking person, not just a President’s wife but since we are wont to forget the nastiness once someone is dead, all that remains now is memories of her good work and that is how it should be. Yes, some may argue that running for President is different from running Foundations etc., but I disagree.
Yes, she has her faults but I would invoke the Christian tenet of inviting the fault-free, the blameless to cast the first stone!
If it were a broader choice, I would vote for a bipartisan Clinton/ McCain or McCain/ Clinton ticket. Thanks.
Shefaly, I don’t think that there’s any debate as to who wields the power in the US (white male) or that it’s high time someone other than a white male becomes the President. And the media definitely has been showing its sexism by focusing on Clinton in ways it wouldn’t on a male candidate – which is good enough a reason for many to make up their minds and vote for her.
As for n=1, I wouldn’t vote for her for the reasons mentioned in my earlier comment, and not because she’s a female. Given that she did win the NH primary, leads me to believe that some men are ready for a female president (or that gender is a non-issue for them). Does that translate into a majority of American males? Probably not (yet).
As for those who spout the cliché “America is not ready for a black or a woman to be President” I have an as yet untested hypothesis that it’s a thinly-veiled euphemism for “I am not ready to vote a black or a woman to power.”
@ Amit:
“As for those who spout the cliché “America is not ready for a black or a woman to be President” I have an as yet untested hypothesis that it’s a thinly-veiled euphemism for “I am not ready to vote a black or a woman to power.”
Touché!
However you parse it, USA is more divided (nationally) than I ever recall. Leadership at the national level has been so lacking, or is so untrustworthy, that states/local entities have gone around the feds. EX: Bobby Jindal, first Indian gov (Louisiana); large city mayors have held their own climate ‘summits’; regional states and Canadian provinces have signed carbon cap and trade pacts.
Where leadership lacks, the rest of us look elsewhere, locally. My Congresswoman is, well a, woman. One of our US Senators is female. In higher office and executive branches of government, it is not a big deal to see minorities/females in positions of power.
Hillary Clinton has finally burst through, in a big way, the national stage. She is to be admired for her accomplishments.
But my point about executive level leadership is that we need uniters. Given that any of the leading candidates is qualified to be American president, I am looking for inspiration, tact, articulateness, world-savvy, and not afraid to clean up the mess of the current administration.
Agree, comments about Hillary’s style are not fair, but all candidates are fair game – Rolling Stone did a hilarious but piercing piece on Huckabee, for example. Like it or not, there is some trigger that gets set off by wingnuts when Hillary, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, etc are brought up. If elected to presidency, I’m afraid Hillary will only embolden these wingnuts and spend a lot of energy fighting off attacks.
Given that the leading Democrats are more or less offering the same ideas, why not go with a uniter?
Disclaimer: I have no authority to comment on what it’s like to be a minority because I am not one in my present situation, nor have I ever been one for any extended period (more than a few hours at a time). That said, I find it hard to believe that it’s tougher for women in America than it is for African Americans. Are women “more discriminated against?” Possibly, but in different ways. Subtler ways. Non-violent, non-life threatening, non-hate filled ways. That’s why I think it would be a far more notable occasion, a prouder day for Americans, when as a country we declare that we choose an African American to lead us than I would be on that day when a woman is chosen to lead the country. As for the two present embodiments of African Americans and women running for that title, Hillary Clinton has what appears to be a tougher road due to hers and her husband’s political history, while Barrack Obama has to overcome prejudices against his name and the fact that he spent some of his youth in the world’s most populous Muslim country. I, for one, hold the firm belief that a person cannot begin to understand a persecuted group unless he/she has lived among one. Obama has seen both sides of the fence for Muslims and Christians, he has an African family in Africa where blacks are the majority, and he has lived his live as a black minority in America while overcoming it to rise to the top on his own merit (Harvard Law, U.S. Senate, and now Presidential Contender). You’ve got to admire, respect, and value those kinds of experiences and efforts, no matter who you are or what you believe in!
I was for Obama until last week. When Bill Clinton ganged up on him and he winced I saw someone who could easily be taken down by the right wing hate machine in Washington. Hillary on the other hand has shown that she can stand up to pressure over the last 16 years. I gave change a chance and voted for her. It felt great to be able to vote for a woman for president.
{ 1 trackback }