Women are never front runners
This paper is in response to the article “Women are never front runners” by Gloria Steinman that appeared in the online version of New York Times in January 2008. In the article, Steinman debates the issue of women in politics with particular reference to Senator Hillary Clinton’s bid for the democratic nomination. She starts off by explaining how Sen. Clinton is viewed as primarily a woman and then a serious contender and this underscores the fact that gender is much more of an issue than race in the contemporary political discourse in the US.
She starts off by describing the profile of the main contender (who is now the president) in terms of a woman and then goes on to describe how if in reality the profile was indeed that of a woman and not of Barack Obama, how much chance she would have had at the nomination. As Steinman puts it there is a lot of difference between being named, say, Achola Obama and Barack Obama. The gender here makes all the difference.
Steinman then goes on to describe the difficulties faced in getting universal adult suffrage particularly when it came to giving women voting rights. She notes in a sardonic tone that black men were given voting rights half a century before women of any race were allowed to vote. This underscores the contention of the writer regarding gender as an issue.
The article then goes on to describe how gender is not taken seriously as an issue as much as race. The example is that of Obama quoting JFK and being applauded for the same as championing the civil rights cause. Whereas Sen. Clinton is seen as continuing the status quo whereas a closer look at her voting patterns with that of Sen. Obama show that they have similar records 90 percent of the time. So, why are Sen. Clinton and the insinuations against her being allowed to continue? The answer to this lies in the very cause that Steinman is arguing for.
Thus, the key issue here is that sexism is that much more controversial to handle than racism. This fact shows how the deep-rooted prejudices against women are a hallmark of the American political discourse and Sen. Clinton by following the no-tears rule is implicitly and explicitly challenging deeply ingrained stereotypes. Contrast this with the moment last November when during Sen. McCain’s concession speech, Gov. Palin’s misty eyed eyes brought in more approval.
To discuss Gov. Palin’s chances, we have to contrast her demeanor with that of Sen. Clinton. While the former is seen as a “cute” and adorable pretty thing or a “hockey-mom”, Sen. Clinton is seen as being a tough as nails and no-nonsense kind of person. The fact that Gov. Palin’s chances are that much better for the next election that Sen. Clinton’s shows how the overall perceptions are loaded against women who do well professionally and have earned a name for themselves beyond looking good on TV. T
Processing your request, Please wait....
