Women Are Never Frontrunners: Gloria Steinem
Gloria Steinem in the New York Times. You go girl!
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.
What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.
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. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”
Enjoy this post? Leave a comment below or subscribe to my feed. You also can sign up for email delivery by clicking here.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I completely agree that it’s worrying that female voters are considered biased if they support H Clinton and disloyal if they don’t. I’m also very uncomfortable with the way support for women is often mainly deemed as being support merely of their being women and not because of what they have to say.
….Gibbons hires Selby Marks to start terrorism fusion center and be ’secure facilites administrator. rjstory
Selby Marks “secure faciltiy administrator”? Is this the same guy who wrote “Alternative Fuels and the Technical Information Quandary: Policy Formulation and Implementation of the the Hydrogen Initiative” along with pundit Erik Herzik?
Marks is a graduate research assistant at UNR, no?
Marks was “hired in October to oversee the creation of the center.” Is this another Joe Enge type of appointment? Wasn’t there a hiring freeze in October?!
Well, if nothing else, he and Eric Herzik have worked together a little bit. And maybe he is familiar with Hatice Gecol since he also seems to be interested in the energy field. However, there are brilliant research assistants out there with incredible expertise in technical areas, particularly data collection and analysis, and since it sounds like the job of the center is to collect data and analyze it, I would guess he’s probably suited for the job. I know nothing about Mr. Marks except what I just linked to. Enge has been a very public figure.
Steinem’s whole point is wrong. HRC is not divisive due to gender. She is divisive because she is a Clinton, and all the dynastical elements that come into play, that either a Bush or a Clinton has led this country for the last 20 years. These royal families of American politics have led the nation down the path of hyper-partisanship, and we have the opportunity, no, the responsibility to end it.
I agree that dynasties are not a good idea, but you cannot discount Hillary Clinton’s gender–particularly in light of the recent media coverage.