Gloria Steinem on gender and the primary race.

[Deep13]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html

(Excuse me if this has already been posted. I only heard this yesterday.)

"THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

"Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth? * * *"

P.S.
RESPONSE TO THOSE WHO CLAIM HRC'S EXPERIENCE IS INADEQUATE because I'm sick of writing the same goddam thing over and over.

If she was chief of staff or secretary of state for eight years this would not be an issue. But since wife implicitly means "dumb servant" in many people's minds, her experience in the WH is totally discounted. Yeah, after all she just sat around baking cookies all day. Bill didn't rely on her advice or perspective. It's not like she went on diplomatic missions or sat in on every policy meeting or anything. (That's sarcasm, you see, because she totally did that stuff.) Frankly, she was a closer advisor and more integral part of the Clinton administration than anyone else. I think most of us who were adults in 1992 and heard all the RW crap about the "co-presidency" and "who elected her" know that she was as deeply involved with running the country as anyone else on the staff. In fact she is the only first lady to have an office int he west wing. I doubt Bill Clinton could have done it without her.

[LostinVA]

1. I've got to agree with Steinem

[woolldog]

2. Why not?

Hillary was elected to the US Senate with no experience, based on her husband's name. She had never even lived in New York before running to represent NY in the Senate.

[Deep13]

3. And they say chivalry is dead.

Yeah, after all she just sat around baking cookies all day. Bill didn't seek rely on her advice or perspective. It's not like she went on diplomatic missions or sat in on every policy meeting or anything.

Sorry, your observation is essentially that wife= dumb servant and it only proves the point.

[woolldog]

10. If you can show me where I said that?

I never said wife = dumb servant. But neither is it a qualification to be a US Senator.

Most US Senators have some state legislative experience, experience in the House of Representatives, active in state politics etc prior to joining the Senate. HRC didn't; Obama did.

I don't particularly care how she got her Senate seat, but for Steinem to question Obama's qualifications for the Senate, when he had significant lower level legislative experience prior to joining the senate, while not questioning Clinton's, who had none, seems the height of hypocrisy to me.

[Deep13]

13. It is the underlying assumption of your post.

Bullshit yourself if you must, but don't assume you can bullshit me.

[woolldog]

20. I didn't think you could respond to that

b/c you know I make a good point. So you resort to ad hominem...

By your logic Laura Bush is qualified to be elected Senator of Rhode Island.

[Deep13]

24. Maybe she is.

How old are you? I wonder because most people who were adults in the 1990s know how involved HC was in the Clinton administration.

Do you even know what ad hominem means?

[woolldog]

31. I know that implying that I'm a sexist

b/c I question HRC's qualifications to be a Senator, at the time she first ran, is an ad hominem attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Deep13]

32. I imply nothing.

You are sexist and don't even realize it. That is the basis of your criticism.

Was any other senior member of the Clinton WH unqualified to be governor of RI? (Why RI anyway?) No, it's just HC because a wife is implicitly subservient. I know what I know and won't argue the matter further.

[woolldog]

34. No it's not the basis of my criticism.

So sad you're so defensive that you can't see that.

Why can't you just admit that the only reason she's a Senator and a candidate for President is because she rode her husband's coat-tails? Obama is self-made. She isn't.

[boston bean]

59. Well

How old are you really? You talk like teenage boy. You don't have a clue what women face in the real world and women don't ride the men's coattails, it's the women's coattails and sacrifices and advice that make the man. You must not have much respect for Michelle Obama. She will tell you herself that she is a big reason Obama is where he is today.

I think it might be time that you take a moment of serious reflection on your views of women who you say can't get anywhere without some man, when in reality it is just the opposite. I am sick of the pervasive misogyny on this board and you are the epitomy of it. Sometimes when people point out something, it may just be true, not their imagination. Which when you imply it is in their imagination in post after post, is sexist in itself. Just the woman over reacting. Well I got a clue for you, you might be able to find some woman out there who agrees with everything you say and all the more power to you, but don't think outside your little bubble all women are the same. Some day maybe when you grow up a little you might understand. I am trying to give you some excuse for your piss poor attitude towards successful women, for all I know you might be one of the fifty year old women hating males. If you don't have anything positive to say I would recommend you say nothing because you are an embarassment to yourself.

[woolldog]

69. Get off your high horse

This isn't about "women". And I never said (and don't believe) that "women can't get anywhere without some man." That's your projection.

This is about HILLARY riding Bill's political coattails. The ONLY reason she had a shot at being elected Senator in a state she never resided in and with no legislative experience was because her husband was President Bill Clinton. (Barack didn't ride Michelle's political coattails.) That's not debatable.

Don't turn Hillary into some sort of referendum on feminism. She's not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[woolldog]

70. And there are plenty of women

on city councils, in state legislatures, in Governor's mansions, and in the US Senate, serving the public as councilmen, state senators, governors, senators who haven't ridden their husband's political coattails and are self-made. You do them a disservice with this argument.

[ekwhite]

45. So, lets see...

If you were going to court, and a man told you:

"I'm not a lawyer, but my wife is. I give her advice on her cases all the time. I even help her prepare court filings on weekends."

Would you ask him to represent you in court, or would you go for a real lawyer?

[Fire_brand]

4. Had she even held any elected office before?

[Deep13]

6. see response #3

[JVS]

22. Ok, so any criticism of your candidate's lack of experience is an attack on wives?

That is some stupid bullshit you've posted there.

[Fire_brand]

28. I'll take that as a no

[Captain Hilts]

14. One of the US's top 100 lawyers, Watergate Cmte, appted to post by Carter, etc. nt

[Fire_brand]

5. Changing the biography to a male doesn't make it sound more likely

yet it's still happening

[Deep13]

9. It's still happening because he is a male is Steinem's point.

duh

[Fire_brand]

30. my point is

that such a scenerio sounds equally unlikely no matter the gender of the indivudual in question. Both situations, imo, are equally unliekly, thus, if it's happening to a male it could also happen to a female.

[KittyWampus]

7. Steinem is apparently ignorant of what being a "community organizer" means.

[Deep13]

11. "Ignorant" is just the word that comes to mind when I think of...

...one of the founding members of the women's liberation movement.

Jesus Christ. A liberal message board this ain't.

[Political Heretic]

17. Acutally it is a liberal board....

...since part of the definition of liberal means being open to new ideas and not standing on dogma. It is also a board where appeals to authority don't end a discussion like they usually do in conservative circles.

Just because she is one of the founding members of the women's liberation movement doesn't mean she knows everything, doesn't mean she is always right, and doesn't mean we can suspend our responsibility to ask questions or think for ourselves.

Doing that, is actually the biggest insult to women.

[Deep13]

39. "Doing that, is actually the biggest insult to women."

If only that were true. As a criminal prosecutor and someone who has some idea of what happens ont his world, I know there are far greater insults in existence.

The claim was that Steinem is ignorant because she does not know what a community organizer is. No one with her credentials and experience could avoid knowing that. The appeal was to her reputation and accomplishments, not to her authority. The appeal to authority fallacy refers to a source of authority that is by itself unquestionable. Relying on the Bible without any basis for it is a common example. I did not say Steinem was unquestionable. I implied that she knows damn well what a community organizer is and that to suggest otherwise is downright silly.

So why don't you use for of that independent analysis and stop responding to every possible criticism of O as if he was your personal savior.

[Political Heretic]

42. Speaking of independent analysis...

"So why don't you use for of that independent analysis and stop responding to every possible criticism of O as if he was your personal savior."

Really? I do that? Oh that's right... no, I don't. A simple review of posting history clears that right up. :hi:

You're right though about there being far greater insults in existence. I fell prey to hyperbole.

"The claim was that Steinem is ignorant because she does not know what a community organizer is."

No, the claim as I understood it was that she doesn't understand community organizing, which is not the same as saying she doesn't know what it is. I guess because I agree with you that its silly to assume she doesn't know what it it "is" meant I assumed the argument was that she did not understand how it really works. Arguing that someone is correct based on reputation IS an appeal to authority - by definition. It's claiming someone is an authority on something because of their reputation.

The appeal to authority fallacy is not only about references to an unquestionable source. An "illicit" appeal to authority occurs when an illegitimate source is treated as an authoritative one - for example, basing an argument about brain surgery on the opinion of a master chef.

[Political Heretic]

12. Bingo.

[Radical Activist]

40. Obviously not.

There's a big difference between community organizing and Steinem's style of political activism. Hillary turned down Saul Alinsky's job offer to be a community organizer out of college.

[Eric J in MN]

51. What does it mean? NT

NT

[sandnsea]

8. She makes the case against Hillary

The woman in question spent some years as a corporate lawyer, served on the board of some children's organizations, was married to the President and then served 8 years as a US Senator.

I mean, hello, unqualified is unqualified.

The head of the Harvard Law Review, comunity organizer, civil rights attorney, constitutional law teacher, State Legislator and US Senator - a whole different ballgame and yes we would consider anyone with those credentials qualified to be President.

[Bucky]

19. Clinton is not unqualified

She's outmatched. There's no shame in that.

[JVS]

26. I'm not certain that she's unqualified, but her resume is not the most solid.

And for a candidate to tout experience, it would be nice if a water-tight claim of greater experience than her opponent could be made.

[eridani]

53. If voters wanted experience this time around--

--the showdown would be between Biden, Dodd and Richardson.

[Deep13]

21. See post #3. Also...

I went to law school. Law Review doesn't mean much. It is a nice bit of resume filler for ones first job search. Harvard is a good place to make contacts with important people, but I doubt his instruction was that much better than mine. After all, the ciriculum is pretty standard and regulated by ABA. Same with lawyers and professors, civil rights or otherwise. Also, it is obvious that he only ran for Senate as a stepping stone. O is not qualified to be president. If that is not obvious now it will be in about a year or year and a half.

HC was an integral part of the Clinton Administration, more so than any of the cabinate or other advisors. You wouldn't be fluffing it off if she was chief of staff. But since she was merely his wife, then she was just along for the ride.

And you people wonder where the accusations of chauvanism come from.

[woolldog]

29. I went to law school also.

And law review does mean something. In most cases you are selected to law review based on academics.

[woolldog]

33. Hi

:hi: Thought you might find these links about Obama's teaching experiences at UChicago interesting, if you haven't already seen them.

"Law Students gave Obama big thumbs-up"

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/701490,CST-NWS-obamaprof18.article

"Professor Obama and Me"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/20/12119/122/324/424784

[SeaLyons]

15. Great Post and

thank you for posting it - I had not seen it. Serves as a great sanity check for all who support Hillary.

[totodeinhere]

16. It's easy to set up a negative that cannot be disproved.

That's what Steinem is doing.

[Bucky]

18. BREAKING NEWS: the world is not fair.

Reality check: this wasn't the biography of a man I ever thought could stand as the front runner for president, running seven points ahead of a decorated war hero with a strong reputation for bipartisanship in a time of war.

It's ridiculous that Obama's the frontrunner--he's black, inexperienced, his name rhymes with Osama for Pete's sake... and he's still the dang front runner!

With all due respect to Ms Steinem and Sen Clinton, these candidates are not interchangeable. You cannot reduce their competition to demographics

[Deep13]

38. The world is what we make it. nt

[saltpoint]

44. Sometimes it is, yes. Sometimes we have to navigate a world others have

made.

Senator Clinton has already made history whether she is our nominee or not.

The momentum of that world does not appear to be resoundingly in her favor just now, which isn't to say that her campaign is done for. She could win in Texas and Ohio, as well as Rhode Island, and it would be her momentum again, and her name in the headlines Wednesday morning.

It's really the voters in those four states -- including Vermont -- who will shape those headlines. If they want this nomination race to go on, they may vote in large numbers for Sen. Clinton. If they are persuaded the Sen. Obama can win in November, they may cast votes for him.

[Orangepeel]

23. Sure she could be elected to the Senate

That bio sketch seems kind of similar to the biography of Senator Murray.

Could Senator Murray be elected president? Maybe. A better question is, could she raise $50 million a month? If so, the answer to the first question would be yes.

[Political Heretic]

25. Reasonable people disagree on what qualifies one to be president.

Personally, I think Obama is more experienced and more qualified the Clinton.

As sandnsea said, I think that being the head of the Harvard Law Review, community organizer, civil rights attorney, constitutional law teacher, State Legislator and US Senator is exactly the kind of background that I want in someone looking to be President. Part of the problem in Washington is that representatives with this kind of background have been sorely lacking.

I believe these to be much better qualifications than someone who, again quoting sandnsea, spent some years as a corporate lawyer, served on the board of some children's organizations, was married to the President and then served 8 years as a US Senator.

Make no mistake, I believe both are qualified. But I don't try to apologize for or "Defend" Obama against the inexperience attacks from the Clinton camp, because I simply don't agree at all. He has exactly the kind of experience that I believe we need in the White House. His experience isn't something I overlook to vote for Obama. It's WHY I am voting for Obama.

And if Obama was a woman, that would only be even better.

My problem with the original post? I certainly agree there is sexist divides in America and women still are often not treated the same ways in public or private life as men are. But I disagree that Obama's experience is lacking - at all.

[GodlessBiker]

27. Yes, she could be elected. People want a voice of hope and vision, coupled with sound judgment.

Presidents are surrounded by advisors. There is no way anyone can have the knowledge at their fingertips for all of the things that go on in the country and the world.

The problem nowadays is that we have turned the president into a Super-Bureaucrat. If this election is any indication, that is not what America wants.

[theboss]

35. Two can play this game

A female governor becomes a two-term president. During that time, her husband is put in charge of one important legislative initiative - and fails to secure its passage, nearly crippling the administration.

Later on, it is revealed that the president made a cuckold of her husband, but he stands by her.

The husband then runs for a Senate seat in a state in which he has never lived.

Is there any chance in hell that the husband is elected? The husband would be viewed as an emasculated nitwit.

Hillary's biography works for her precisely because she is a woman. And that is fine with me. I don't begrudge her the Senate seat - in fact, I want her to be there until she is Ted Kennedy's age. But let's not cast her as some sort of career power broker like George H.W. Bush was in '88.

[tishaLA]

36. Response to Ms Steinem

By Melissa Harris-Lacewell on Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/14/race_and_gender_in_presidential_politics

"I’m appalled by the parallel that Ms. Steinem draws in the beginning part of the New York Times article. What she’s trying to do there is to make a claim towards sort of bringing in black women into a coalition around questions of gender and asking us to ignore the ways in which race and gender intersect. This is actually a standard problem of second-wave feminism, which, although there have been twenty-five years now—oh, going on forty years, actually, of African American women pushing back against this, have really failed to think about the ways in which trying to appropriate black women’s lives’ experience in that way is really offensive, actually.

And so, when Steinem suggests, for example, in that article that Obama is a lawyer married to another lawyer and to suggest that, for example, Hillary Clinton represents some kind of sort of breakthrough in questions of gender, I think that ignores an entire history in which white women have in fact been in the White House. They’ve been there as an attachment to white male patriarchal power. It’s the same way that Hillary Clinton is now making a claim towards experience. It’s not her experience. It’s her experience married to, connected to, climbing up on white male patriarchy. This is exactly the ways in which this kind of system actually silences questions of gender that are more complicated than simply sort of putting white women in positions of power and then claiming women’s issues are cared for.

Now, what I know from the work that I’ve done on the Obama campaign is that there are tens of thousands of extremely hard-working white men and women, as well as black men and women, as well as actually a huge multiracial and interethnic coalition of people working for Barack Obama. And so, for Steinem to sort of make this very clear race and gender dichotomy that she does in that New York Times op-ed piece, I think it’s the very worst of second-wave feminism."

[ContinentalOp]

37. I think she's wrong and, like many who criticize Obama, she underestimates the power of "just words"

I honestly think that black woman who was a state senator could in fact be elected to the US Senate and ultimately to the white house IF she were, in Steinem's words, "an inspirational voice for national unity." If she were a powerful public speaker who could inspire a crowd, draw huge numbers to her rallies, successfully organize a campaign and break fundraising records then yes, why not? In addition, if she were running against a candidate with a huge built-in unpopularity then that wouldn't hurt either.

I don't understand how Steinem can count some of Obama's particular "negatives" like his "funny" name and his race as evidence that sexism worked in his favor, and yet completely ignore some of Clinton's negatives as though the two are complete equals in terms of public perception. If the VRWC hadn't existed and the media hadn't demonized Hillary for over a decade she might have obliterated Obama already. I mean she did beat out 6 other men in the primaries already, some who were far more qualified than she is.

[LostinVA]

41. Uh oh

Last time, Gloria was called a racist.

:popcorn:

[saltpoint]

43. My hunch is that Gloria Steinem would have made an excellent

candidate.

But I'm not buying her argument for Sen. Clinton in this piece, which has been circulating for some time now.

It is likely that Hillary Clinton was attendant to policy during her husband's administration, whether greatly so or marginally so, but if Steinem grants credit for Bill's not have being able to "have done it without her," it is also true that she has name recognition over other Democratic candidates as a result of her husband's being in the Oval Office.

The piece uses "wife" as hinge but like all hinges, it swivels both directions.

[From The Left]

46. Wasn't Gloria a former Playboy Bunny?

[Scout]

49. yes, for an expose of "bunnydom" and the abuses of the women....

what's your point?

[From The Left]

56. Are you Gloria's autobiographer?

[Darth_Kitten]

66. Duh, you ASKED?

Hello?

[Darth_Kitten]

65. So?

n/t

[scheming daemons]

47. I don't claim her experience is inadequate.... I claim it is irrelevant

"experience" is the most over-used, and least effective, campaign themes.


Americans... especially in negative times like now.... are looking for something OTHER than experience.

James Buchanan, our 15th President, had boatloads of experience. He is regarded as one of the worst presidents in our history. His ineffectiveness led us into a civil war.


Abe Lincoln, our 16th President, has less experience than Obama does now. All Lincoln did was preserve the union and end slavery.


Experience is over-rated.... and in some cases, it is detrimental to progress.

[davidthegnome]

48. Her experience

and whether or not it is adequate, is a matter of opinion, and hardly sexist in and of itself. The argument that experience is no substitute for vision still remains. The argument that experience, in and of itself, has little value, remains. What kind of experience has it been? How does it compare with the experience of others? All very legitimate questions.

We have examples of great leaders who had little or no experience, examples of some who did, and everything in between. Does experience alone make one a great leader? Absolutely not. A more valid argument by far, I think, would be to point out not only her experience - but to also point how it has been positive, how she has served to improve humanity and the world at large. What good has she done? What ill? That's what matters, experience alone is just that, experience.

Her experience - what I have seen of it, and read of it, is not enough to convince me that she is more qualified than Obama - though yes, she certainly does have more. It is not simply a question of experience... but of what KIND of experience.

It is not at all sexist to point out that experience isn't everything. It is not at all sexist to point that not all of that experience has been good. Any other candidate would be scrutinized the exact same way. Your implication that the basis of this argument is due to sexism on the part of those who disagree with you well, I think it's beyond flawed - unless of course the poster says so does say things that are quite sexist. In that case I would join you in rejecting those statements.

[AtomicKitten]

50. Clinton had no security clearance, did not attend NSC meetings ....

But during those two terms in the White House, Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti or Rwanda. And during one of President Bill Clinton's major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal dragged on.

In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience. But as the junior senator from New York, she has few significant legislative accomplishments to her name. She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her "eight years with a front-row seat on history."

Her rivals scoff at the idea that her background gives her any special qualifications for the presidency, and on the campaign trail have increasingly been challenging her assertions of unique experience. Senator Barack Obama has especially questioned "what experiences she's claiming" as first lady, noting that the job is not the same as being a cabinet member, much less president. And last Friday, he suggested that more foreign policy experts from the Clinton administration were supporting his candidacy than hers.

edited for link: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/25/america/clinton.php

[hfojvt]

52. doesn't wash, Gloria

After all, Obama was not considered a viable candidate either, especially not against such a well-known and well-financed candidate as Hillary. Then he organized, made speeches, took part in debates, mailed flyers, raised money, and won primaries. A majority of primary voters decided that they liked him better. That's how he became a viable candidate. It was not given to him by virtue of his past experience. He earned it in his campaigning.

[mattclearing]

54. First Lady is not a governing position.

I'm married to a graphic designer, and we discuss it all the time, but you don't want me doing your photoshop.

[FreeJoe]

57. She's qualified

Hillary is a natural born citizen. She's at least 35 years old. She's been a resident for 14 years. That's all it takes to be officially qualified.

Does anyone seriously think that either she or Barak isn't capable and ready to do the job? Bush was a governor before becoming president; did that make him capable?

A president needs good judgment. They need to be a good leader. Both of the remaining candidates easily qualify.

[mattclearing]

62. I don't see that.

I see a candidate with solid judgment and good leadership qualities, and I see a pandering career politician whose opinion depends as much as if not moreso on what's going on at the time and how it can benefit her than any underlying principle.

[cali]

55. Pat Leahy was elected to the U.S Senate at the age of 34

after only a few years as a County Prosecutor in Vermont. There are many other like examples of both men and women currently serving in the Senate. Steinem's argument is absolutely absurd. She should fucking know better than to lie her ass off. And Hillary had no more experience when she ran for Senate- in fact she had less. Disgusting bullshit from Steinem.

[Recursion]

58. Deep13: name a time she has shown good judgment in a crisis

I'm all ears. There are like 5 threads asking this (we must have hit some tipping point of being sick of this line), and as yet no answers on any of them.

So show me, please, what decisions from her time as first lady make you trust her judgment so highly?

[bigtree]

60. She was on the trail with Hillary yesterday

in Texas, I think

[workinclasszero]

61. Why the hell is Hillary running away from NAFTA then, Gloria???

If Hillary deserves credit for the good things in Bill's administration, then she damn well deserves credit for the bad things as well!

Fuckin Hillary hypocrites are a dime a dozen anymore.:puke:

[Darth_Kitten]

64. It beats Obama's talking out about NAFTA out of both sides of his mouth.

Fucking Obama hypocrites, eh? :puke: :eyes:

[rodeodance]

68. Not running away---She wants it fixed--as O. does.

[Darth_Kitten]

63. It makes perfect sense...........

people who are knocking Steinem's piece just aren't reading it verbatim.......they are so ready to see it as a slam against Obama so they slam her.

Steinem was marching for civil rights long before a lot of Obama supporter's parents may have been born. They should wise up and do some research.

[cd3dem]

67. if Hillary is president, then Bill will have too much power, but Hillary had no impact...

as first lady - sexism.....................

tired of the double-standard...

women need to stand up and fight... it is still going on!