Girls Still Not Allowed

I was on the fence for a long time when trying to decide how to cast my vote in the Democratic Primary. I really like Barack and what he represents and I really like and respect Hillary and all of her accomplishments and struggles (namely that man she supported all of these years only to have him humiliate her as no first lady has been humiliated before). As I stated in a post a few weeks ago, when those jerks showed up at a Clinton rally with signs saying "Iron My Shirts" it triggered my decision to cast my vote towards changing an America where sexism is still very prevalent (even internalized and perpetuated by women themselves). I knew that if there had been signs in an Obama crowd which directed him to shine shoes, the outrage would have been fever pitch. As I said, I will support and campaign for the eventual winner - which more and more looks like Obama. But, I want people to take a look at themselves and the way sexism and misogyny have run so rampant
in this race.

There are four common themes in media coverage of Clinton's candidacy:

First, Clinton is criticized using a gender-based grading system. The media evaluate how she looks, dresses, talks, laughs and even claps. She is held to double standards familiar to working women. A man demonstrates toughness and strength; a woman who behaves similarly is called icy and rigid. His behavior shows compassion and warmth, but her similar behavior shows too much emotion and maybe weakness. He knows how to work the system; she is manipulative. He shows a mastery of the subject; she is nit-picky. He thinks through all the options before charting a course; she is calculating. Familiar?

Second, our society still has not come to terms with ambition in women -- it is suspect. Clinton is frequently charged with doing or saying anything to win. But I think it has an extra sharp anti-woman overtone as it is used against Hillary. In other words, everything Clinton does to win the election -- strategizing, organizing, confronting, comparing and contrasting -- is interpreted as calculating, fake or just plain evil. But when a man campaigns hard, refusing to cede an inch, they call it . . . running for office!

Third, Clinton is presumed to be where she is today because of her husband, Bill. The fact that Clinton has a famous former president for a husband is used to discredit her own achievements and to imply that maybe she couldn't have made it on her own. I’m trying to remember if any of these commentators implied that George W. Bush shouldn't be taken seriously as a candidate because his father had been president. Or that people shouldn't vote for a certain male candidate because he clearly got a leg up from his powerful family's money, legacy? Or say from the advantages bestowed by his wife's fortune? Who's to say that if Hillary had taken the fast-track first, instead of Bill, she wouldn't have risen to the top before him?

Finally, when all else fails, belittle the voters. Women voters are irrational and biased, and voting only on the basis of gender, the press are happy to intimate (at least about the women who are voting for Hillary), and they not so subtly imply that all voters are stupid and shallow. When the pundits try to mind-read the general public to guess why they cast their ballots one way or another, they often conclude that voters make decisions based on the same superficial traits that fascinates the talking-heads themselves -- like who seems "comfortable in their own skin" or who strikes them as annoyingly nerdy.

One more thing: Hillary Clinton, and women in general, aren't the only ones subject to gender-based assessments. Barack Obama and John Edwards have also been degraded when the media detect in them "feminine" characteristics or behaviors (like paying attention to your appearance) that supposedly are unbecoming in men. That's right, both women and men can be poked with the "girls are icky" stick.

We've got a lot of "isms" left to battle in this country and throughout out the world. I was just hoping to start with the one that impacts half of the country's population rather than 12%.

Also, here is a link to an Op-Ed that Gloria Steinem wrote a few weeks ago. She made some good points.