What I Wish Gloria Steinem Had Said
I've been annoyed a lot lately by Gloria Steinem's recent NYT op-ed. If you read her generously, Steinem seems to be saying "hey, let's not pretend that women aren't discriminated against. It's time to get over that and elect one." If you read her somewhat less generously, perhaps she's saying "hey, women are more oppressed than anyone else. That's why you should elect one instead of an African-American man."
She's right, of course, that women are discriminated against. She may even be right (although in a different sense than the one I think she intended) that "[g]ender is probably the most restricting force in American life." But here's what I wish she'd said instead:
We all know -- or I hope we do -- that sexism and racism are still going on, that people of color and people of gender (that is, those who aren't both biologically and socially male) are discriminated against in ways great and small all the time, and that nothing short of significant social change is going to alleviate the suffering this causes. Still, it is not a small achievement that both a black man and a white woman are potentially viable candidates for President.
But let's not forget a few things here. Let's remember that discrimination is still an everyday reality for thousands of people, both in our country and around the globe. Let's remember that people have multiple identities that may privilege or endanger them, and that both of these candidates are privileged in some very important ways: they are wealthy and well-educated; they are Christian and present as straight.
Electing either candidate will have advantages: people's politics are shaped by their experiences, and one experience these candidates doubtless share is that of discrimination and oppression. How big and impact that will have -- and how much the White House is the place from which meaningful social change can originate -- remains to be seen.
The question of which one to elect, if you're thinking in these terms, is less clear. Who will be inspired by the election of either one, and to what? Who is more likely to advocate for those who are being discriminated against on multiple axes, to work to ameliorate suffering, to encourage the kind of systemic social change that can really lessen oppression?
Of course, there are dozens of important issues in any election, and many things to consider. But I hope that for all of you, this is one of them. I know it is for me.
She's right, of course, that women are discriminated against. She may even be right (although in a different sense than the one I think she intended) that "[g]ender is probably the most restricting force in American life." But here's what I wish she'd said instead:
We all know -- or I hope we do -- that sexism and racism are still going on, that people of color and people of gender (that is, those who aren't both biologically and socially male) are discriminated against in ways great and small all the time, and that nothing short of significant social change is going to alleviate the suffering this causes. Still, it is not a small achievement that both a black man and a white woman are potentially viable candidates for President.
But let's not forget a few things here. Let's remember that discrimination is still an everyday reality for thousands of people, both in our country and around the globe. Let's remember that people have multiple identities that may privilege or endanger them, and that both of these candidates are privileged in some very important ways: they are wealthy and well-educated; they are Christian and present as straight.
Electing either candidate will have advantages: people's politics are shaped by their experiences, and one experience these candidates doubtless share is that of discrimination and oppression. How big and impact that will have -- and how much the White House is the place from which meaningful social change can originate -- remains to be seen.
The question of which one to elect, if you're thinking in these terms, is less clear. Who will be inspired by the election of either one, and to what? Who is more likely to advocate for those who are being discriminated against on multiple axes, to work to ameliorate suffering, to encourage the kind of systemic social change that can really lessen oppression?
Of course, there are dozens of important issues in any election, and many things to consider. But I hope that for all of you, this is one of them. I know it is for me.
posted by Sarah at 5:15 PM
1 comments
