BlogHer - Dear Gloria Steinem: Ain't I a woman, too? - Comments

This is why US feminism failed as a movement

debontherocks — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:02:50 -0600

Nice piece. Gloria Steinem's old school feminism lost relevance long ago for just this type of divisive, narrow, tyrannical thinking. Comparing anything to racism in this country is appalling and demeaning. Ugh, hearing her hypocritical attempt to control women's votes as well as to marginalize and minimize the issues concerning women and race in the name of "feminism" is like watching a train wreck within sight of the stop where I disembarked. Sickening.

Wasn't she also in the group of feminists proud of their off-color comedy fundraiser this fall, promoting the message that feminists have a sense of humor after all?

Deb

www.debontherocks.com
when life throws you on the rocks, it's time to get your rocks off

Oops! Thanks so much!

Megan Smith — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:39:17 -0600

It's been corrected.

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/YouTube

Personal Blog: Megan's Minute

Brilliant Post

InMyHeels — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:36:02 -0600

WOW what an article! Thank you for posting this - I have a couple women in mind that I would like to share this with

thank you for sharing your thoughts!

www.inmyheels.com

Link to your blog

fabooj — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:19:47 -0600

FYI: There's an extra '.' in your link to your blog, so that it reads: www.megansminute..com and it doesn't come up.

"I am so perfect so divine so ethereal so surreal. I cannot be comprehended except by my permission. I mean...I...can fly like a bird in the sky." Ego Trippin' by Nikki Giovanni
Visit me at faboo mama

Thank you!

whattamisaid — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:59:57 -0600

Thanks for all of the wonderful comments, visits to my blog and links. I am relatively new to the Blogher family and I really do love the wonderful dialogue with smart women it provides.

The Black candidate

fabooj — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:37:52 -0600

In my post someone had mentioned Condoleeza Rice and if she was a candidate. I would be in your same situation. There is no way in hell, I'd vote for her. Her track record just doesn't bear out.

15 or so years ago, I had the chance to vote for a Muslim candidate, but wouldn't because he was a Republican and I didn't think our area needed his brand of "change".

Awesome

fabooj — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:18:54 -0600

I'm so linking this entry to my entry on my own blog, so people can see where we're coming from.

Thank you for speaking up for those of us not in "lock-step"

holly_jahangiri — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:29:43 -0600

Anyone who says they don't have a prejudiced bone in their body (regarding some group out there who is different in some way, or not well understood) is probably lying. Or a candidate for sainthood. The only way to get over it is to crawl out of your shell and get to know people.

Job discrimination because of race or gender is illegal; discrimination over hair is just stupid. If I were hiring (which I'm not), you'd make the short list simply because you can spell, you can think clearly, and you write very well. Your writing is passionate and persuasive without being combative. That's all I've ever cared about in interviewing a candidate - do they have the skills (or can they learn them quickly enough) to do what needs to be done?

I'm lucky; I've never (to the best of my knowledge) experienced gender discrimination. It has simply never been an issue, and I don't go out of my way to make it one. You might be surprised to learn that I have felt excluded or discriminated against due to race. (It's a sword that cuts in many directions, isn't it?) I've heard my share of "dumb blonde" jokes, too.

But what amazes me is the happy ignorance some people insist on wallowing in. I was inspired by a forwarded email - an piece of malicious, ignorant garbage - to write a post about Obama: http://jahangiri.us/blog/2008/01/12/barack-obama-religion-and-respect/. And I continue to be amazed, appalled, and utterly dumbfounded by the search terms that lead readers to that post.

---------------
Holly Jahangiri
http://jahangiri.us/blog

Thank you, Tami

Nordette — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:21:33 -0600

You've said succinctly in this one post what I articulated in a post at my old blog in March 2007, a four-part post. Coincidentally, the 3rd post is entitled "Feminism and African Americans: "Ain't I a woman?"

Yes, I was annoyed enough to write a post that long after I read another feminist had asked something like shouldn't women support Hillary Clinton the same way black people support Barack Obama? Her reasoning struck me as clearly offensive and potentially highly divisive for a number of reasons, but the most obvious was that there are humans who are both black and female or Mexican and female or some other non-white group that still experiences oppression and female simultaneously. So what was she saying to us and won't conservatives be happy when the two groups smack each other upside the head, minorities and women, and implode on a me first rocket?

I wrote then:

And let's be practical here. If either of these candidates makes an issue of heavily identifying with gender or race, he/she will lose. Hillary will suffer if she harps on "I am woman" as will Obama if he focuses on "I am black." (March 2007 blog)

Thank you for scrutinizing Ms. Steinem's reasoning. It seems there should be a better way to get women to support Hillary than to argue sexism is worse than racism. I think someone who's experienced both forms of bigotry is better qualified to assess that situation, and I think that argument alienates those who've suffered both.

Your point on natural hair is so on, too. My daughter's dealing with that now. I do believe there are jobs she will not get if she continues to wear her hair unprocessed in its natural, kinky state. That pisses me off! Still, she's probably far less likely to be hassled than my son by "authorities" for walking while black. He wears a close-cropped conservative style, btw.

I can think of instances where a black male was favored over females of any race in professions that are still dominated by men, but I wouldn't stake my life on that this is the case across the board. And I guarantee you that the men in my family are chauvinists, but in the world beyond I think my skin color will cause me more problems than my gender. Still, absent a candidate's declaration that he hates blacks and women, what the hell does this have to do with who deserves my vote? This country's in crisis and I want the best person in office to clean up Bush's mess.

There's probably a study somewhere that gives an honest answer about who continues to face the most discrimination, but I don't think Hillary Clinton's campaign will benefit if feminists seek to make an issue of racism vs. sexism anymore than Barack Obama would benefit from this discussion. Does Gloria Steinem secretly support John Edwards? Haha! Just kidding. But it does seem she's not thinking about backlash that may cause some black voters to dump Hillary completely.

If you should visit that old post, just hit the cancel button when you're asked to sign in.

Nordette Adams is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.org.

I've added this post to BlogHer's homepage headlines

Lisa Stone — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:45:34 -0600

Thank you Tami!

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

Fabulous Post

Megan Smith — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:09:36 -0600

Tami, thanks for putting it out there.

I get so sick of people, black or white, deciding how I should think and feel because I'm a black woman.

I'm a person first. A person with many different experiences and feelings.

We should all resent it when anyone expects us to walk in lock step because "we should" or because "we" were "the most oppressed."

Megan
Contributing Editor, TV/YouTube
Personal Blog: Megan's Minute

Tami, Your Blog is great, I

Roberta — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:10:36 -0600

Tami,
Your Blog is great, I am glad I came across this post.

Birdsword

Lieberman and Jews

Jill Miller Zimon — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:23:48 -0600

Tami, thanks for writing this, saying what I might not read anywhere else, through my own fault of not reading as diverse blogs as I should (one reason why I love BlogHer - the diversity in every way).

The critiques of Steinem's column have been very good here. And today, for the first time during the entire election cycle, I remembered how I felt as a Jew to have Joe Lieberman be Al Gore's running mate in 2000. I was very happy, but I also knew that I wouldn't vote for him just because he was a Jew.

Here in Ohio, our statehouse, with 99 reps and 33 senators, has only, I believe 4 Jews. One of my grad school classmates is one of those four and he is termlimited out this year. He's a Republican and I don't know if I would vote for him if I were in his district, but he has urged me and my husband to vote for the Jewish candidate in our district, who is a Republican and someone with whom I disagree on EVERYTHING. Needless to say, I've not voted for the guy. And it's not easy in some ways. But I also know it's the right thing to do - to not vote for him. The being Jewish just is not enough of a reason.

Much like being a woman or any other definable feature.

Thanks.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Inspiring words

Suzanne Reisman — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:44:55 -0600

Along with Maria's, this is the most compelling essay I've read on the election thus far. Thank you.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Great Post Tami!

Catherine Morgan — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:10:39 -0600

This is a great post Tami. I checked out your blog and added it to the list of women political bloggers at The Political Voices of Women.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
also at CatherineBlogs.com and The Political Voices of Women

Dear Gloria Steinem: Ain't I a woman, too?

whattamisaid — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:52:20 -0600

Originally posted at www.whattamisaid.blogspot.com.

From time to time, I am challenged by other black women for calling myself a feminist. Some of them believe that while all women suffer from sexism, white women who make up the feminist mainstream do not understand the extra burden of race faced by women of color. Feminist icon Gloria Steinem's Jan. 8 Op-ed in The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?ex=1357534800&e...) just made it even harder for me to defend myself. In it, she declares that sexism trumps racism and that true "radical" feminists are casting their votes for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. Not only does Steinem show a remarkable ignorance and arrogance regarding the issue of race in America, but she seeks to make women's choices more narrow than those of the rest of the electorate.

Steinem begins her opinion piece by going for a gold medal in the oppression Olympics. "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life," she writes.

Really? Before she decided that sexism beats racism, I wonder if Steinem asked someone who was both a woman and a racial minority. If she had, she may have come to a different conclusion. Has Steinem not read "Colonize This!" or any of the other fine writings by feminists of color?

I do not worry when going for a job interview that my gender will hinder me. I do worry about my race. I have experienced the disappointed look and rushed interview that comes when a potential employer, fooled by a nondescript phone voice, is surprised to encounter a black woman instead of a white one. I don't worry about wearing skirts and dresses and other gender-specific clothing in public. I do worry about the reaction to my unprocessed black hair, deemed ugly and unacceptable by the mainstream. In my years working in several major public relations agencies, I reported almost exclusively to white women and was nearly always the only black person in a professional position. Black women, in some cases even ones with post-graduate degrees, remained in administrative support roles. I DO face unique challenges as a woman, but my race compounds those challenges. Steinem appears to not be aware of her own inherent privilege.

I could go on about how women of color, are marginalized in our society, but Steinem provides a good example herself. Her op-ed piece reads as if the universal "women" she is writing to, includes only white women. In her view, a feminist's choice is between voting for one of her own, i.e. a woman candidate (Clinton), or voting for a man. What of those of us with more than one loyalty? Steinem separates the race issue from the gender issue as if there are not some of us affected by society's views of both. Ain't I a woman, too?

"That's why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. 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 (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter). "

I assume that at 18, Gloria Steinem cast her first presidential vote in the 1952 election. Certainly society did not prevent her from doing so. My paternal grandfather was a 53-year-old black man living in Mississippi that year. He was not afforded that freedom. Do we really want to go here? Apparently not. Later in her article, Steinem says:

"I'm not advocating a competition for who has it toughest."

Good. Let's agree that trying to parse whether sexism beats racism is an empty, pointless exercise, and offensive to boot. Let's just say that women and ethnic minorities have both overcome considerable challenges and continue to fight for equality in this country and abroad. Let's acknowledge that both groups were once bound by the chains of oppression and forbidden from exercising one of the most fundamental American rights--the right to vote.

This is the other thing that dismays me about Steinem's article. She seeks to replace the chains of sexism with the shackles of tribal loyalty, which, I should point out, is one of the things that historically has kept women and minorities from having a seat at the political table.

Generations of men and women fought and died for my right to weigh the issues of the day, walk into a voting booth and cast my ballot for the person of my choosing. But Steinem wants me to give up that right and instead walk in lock step with first-wave feminists and cast my vote for symbolism's sake. Apparently as a woman, my choices should be narrower than those of other Americans. The presence of a woman on the Democratic primary ballot means my vote is preordained.

This kind of thinking is as ludicrous as that of many black people who say I MUST vote for Barack Obama without critically reviewing the policies of all candidates.

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

No. I need to be able to say that I am supporting a candidate that will get us out of Iraq swiftly, who will repair America's broken reputation abroad, who will stand up to the corporatocracy, who will protect my right to govern my own body, who will make sure that every American child gets the health care she needs, who will strengthen laws barring discrimination based on race, gender or sexuality, who will ease the burdens of the middle class and the poor, who will improve our education system, who will mend the "red" vs. "blue" divide...Gender (and race) has nothing to do with it.