Arguments Over Race and Gender: Or Why Feminists Need a New Analysis, or Simply "Intersectionality"

In her New York Times op-ed piece, "Women Are Never Frontrunners," Gloria Steinem weighs in on why she thinks Senator Hillary Clinton is suddenly trailing behind Senator Barack Obama. As is typical of second-wave liberal feminists, she blames sexism and sexism alone and even suggests that sexism is a the harder barrier to overcome than racism.

Look, I'll be the first to admit that gender politics shapes this presidential race as much as racial politics. I have not overlooked some of the extreme chauvinism and sheer misogyny that have been expressed by the anti-Hillary camp. But, I take issue with Steinem using, as her historical analogy, the 14th Amendment - which granted black men the right to vote long before white women did - to suggest that "race" trumps "gender" every time! Considering the way the women's suffrage movement was immediately divided over this amendment - and then encouraged white supremacist women to argue that, to ensure white supremacy, white men must support the right of white women to vote - we may want to complicate our analysis of race and gender in this presidential race.

Could it be that Hillary has run out of steam or never had a real shot at the presidency? That it has been her white male opponents who have been opposing her and exposing her faults more than Obama (OK, I just realized that I called the woman by her first name and the man by his last name - oh the challenges of internalized sexism!)? Could it be that, years ago, Senator Clinton might have had a real shot (i.e. she should have run against Bush Jr. in 2004) but now, she represents the "old guard" (from the Clinton years, which gave us NAFTA, Welfare Reform, and the 1996 Telecommunications act, which have allowed for multinational corporations to be stronger than ever) and has betrayed many in New York state when she voted in Congress in ways that suprised us? That yesterday, when she came close to tears, was the first time she appeared sincere during her presidential campaign?

How do we weigh all these issues alongside the issues of race and gender so that we don't get caught up in the "Oppression Olympics" (i.e. who's got it harder: black men or white women? As a black woman, all I can tell you is "some of us are brave")?

Here is an excerpt from Gloria Steinem's op-ed, and decide for yourself:

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?

If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably
the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be
in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the
list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes
gender roles more than the average democracy.

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).

If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named,
say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long
ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public
style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by
Washington pundits.

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The
reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused
with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as
more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human
race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so
men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a
powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so
long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as
long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right”
way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

Read further.