Misogyny and the elections: and it only gets worse...

Charlotte Allen’s article in last Sunday’s Washington Post, “We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?” —a misogynistic tirade that assails women for their supposed lack of intelligence as evidenced by their behavior during the primaries—is so ridiculously enraging that it’s hard to know where to begin. Putting Allen aside for a second—what in the world was the Washington Post thinking? Did Allen’s editor think the tit-for-tat coverage of race vs. gender in the primaries hadn’t become destructive or banal enough? Do he and his colleagues think they’re at a loss for quality opinion writing to fill their pages? If this is the case, we’d be happy to suggest a long list of brilliant women writers who have insightful, substantive and genuinely witty things to say about race, gender, politics and other important issues of our time. The problem is they generally have very little access to the limited op-ed space offered by the Post and other mainstream outlets. And then they get overlooked for debasing drivel like Charlotte Allen’s?

At the very least, we were reassured to read the uproarious responses from thousands of people nationwide (including bloggers at Feministing and Broadsheet) who’ve chastised the Post’s editorial decisions and Allen’s destructive, embarrassing, stereotype-wielding pen.

We agree with much of what’s been said by this slew of outraged writers, but we wanted to highlight a particularly dangerous thread of Allen’s inane argument: that women (and gay men) are inherently less intelligent than heterosexual men. Frighteningly, her argument is zero degrees of separation from the “logic” of other pseudo-scientific rationales for inferiority. Examples that immediately come to mind are the nefarious and profoundly racist book, The Bell Curve; similarly minded comments made by Nobel Prize winner and biologist, James Watson, last year; and claims made by Lawrence Summers, the former president of Harvard, about women’s innate inferiority in the fields of math and science. These stances were widely rebuked, but they were covered extensively by mainstream media, with a sense that the logic behind them was actually up for debate.

The fact is, as a society, nearly 100 years since the eugenics movement, we’re still not able to quash attempts to justify misogyny, racism and homophobia with pseudo-scientific reasoning. And it’s not just writers like Allen—whose perspectives we might like to dismiss as fringe lunacy—but editors at mainstream publications like the Washington Post who give credence to such arguments. It doesn’t matter that Allen subsequently claimed she was writing with humorous flair, or that the Washington Post changed the title in attempts to appease angry readers. Her comments are still dangerously vile.

Sara K. Gould
President & CEO

A Closer "Look" at Women Voters

Did anyone catch the sad irony of the way the New York Times Magazine presented Linda Hirshman’s article, “16 Ways of Looking at a Female Voter” last Sunday (2/3/08)?

One of the most disturbing things about the piece—in the online and print versions, though it’s more stark in print—was that there was not one significant visual image of a woman voter alongside the text. While one could write a thesis and more about the absence, and misrepresentation, of women in the media, this was especially stunning given that the article was supposed to be a literal “look” at female voters.

For those who don’t have the article in front of them, the only visual markers throughout the piece were small photos of women’s disembodied hands placing a ballot in a box. I couldn’t help thinking that while Hirshman ostensibly sets out to address the motivations and thinking of women voters, the omission of photos of real women only perpetuates their invisibility as real political actors.

Unfortunately, the irony of the title also extends to the absence of a thoughtful and in-depth “look” at “what we know and don’t know about gender and politics.”

This is surely not all we know and don’t know about gender and politics. Hirshman’s reliance on disembodied data and minimal-to-no context—as well as her odd interpretation of some of the data—paints a pretty disparaging picture of women. After scanning the extremely short takes on how women think, readers can only conclude that women don’t think all that much. And that what they do think doesn’t really matter. According to the article’s sources, women on average have less knowledge and interest in our country’s political life than men; they read the news far less than men; they will decide whether or not to support Clinton solely on the basis of her gender; and when they do vote, their voting power won’t decide elections. As Hirshman writes, “with the possible exception of 1996, women have never voted a candidate into the White House when men thought the other guy should win.”

Then there’s the extraordinarily cursory mention of race and class—less than two short paragraphs under the heading, “Race Matters—and Class, Too”—with zero mention of the ways in which racial discrimination and economic inequality prevent women from fully participating in voting booths and at policy making tables.

As we are well aware at the Ms. Foundation, women—especially women of color and low-income women—continue to be marginalized in the political arena and widely excluded from centers of power and decision-making. How can an article about women voters ignore this fact? In any analysis of women’s political participation, the relationship of race and class to gender is key. And this speaks not just to Hirshman’s article, but to the majority of coverage of this year’s primaries which has consistently sought to analyze gender, race and class in isolation, or worse yet, to pit them against one another.

So, while giving a nod to women’s power by conceding that “when women do come forward they alter the political landscape,” the article’s less than one-dimensional picture of a “female voter” further marginalizes women’s participation in the political arena—particularly women of color and low income women—and undermines the crucial role women play in developing and implementing policy solutions on grassroots, state and national levels.

The Times, as is true for media nationwide, owes it to all its readers to provide a more in-depth, sophisticated and nuanced examination of gender, race, class, public policy and civic engagement. It must also commit to incorporating a full range of women’s voices and perspectives—throughout the election season and beyond.

And one more thought: If you read this issue of the Magazine cover to cover, aside from a couple of advertisements, the only images of women you’ll find are in a 14-page fashion spread of young, white women in surreal, nymph-like dress. Is this the only way we’re permitted to look at women—even if the title of an article on women voters suggests otherwise? Meanwhile, the same issue of the Magazine profiles Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister of France, and includes no fewer than nine pictures of him in action, touring the world! What’s wrong with this, well, picture?

Sara K. Gould
President & CEO

The Primaries: Yes, Gender Matters...A LOT

Let’s put aside the question of whom to support in the Democratic primaries. Instead, let’s look at some of the most challenging issues facing our democracy that were raised by Gloria Steinem, co-founder of the Ms. Foundation for Women, in an op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times (1/8/08), "Women are Never Front-Runners."

They include:

“Why aren’t we ready to break the gender barrier?”

“The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent, and can only be uprooted together.” And finally,

We have “a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers, and paper degrees.”

Yes, money and pedigree are on the list, too, even though this country likes to blur our own class structures by highlighting the opportunities our free market system has to offer “everyone.” Class, like race and gender, creates significant barriers to equal and meaningful participation in our democratic process.

So, if our commitment to progressive social justice is real, we must at once address race and gender and class as we strive for an equitable and inclusive democracy.

At the Ms. Foundation, we support over 200 community-based and national advocacy organizations across the United States that represent, and work on behalf of, low-income women and women of color. Through our 35 years of support for women’s full participation in our society, we have seen over and over again that our grantees have powerful solutions to the myriad crises facing communities nationwide. But while fighting for policy and culture changes that benefit us all, they continue to face reinforcing barriers of racism, sexism and poverty–making them the most marginalized citizens in our democratic process.

Just take Hurricane Katrina and the ongoing disaster in the Gulf Coast. Low-income women of color were disproportionately affected by the storms and subsequent housing, health care and unemployment crises. But while their experiences make them uniquely positioned to devise and implement policy solutions, they remain largely excluded from decision-making tables.

In her op-ed, Gloria Steinem addresses the barriers women face by asking us to imagine an African American woman—with the same credentials as Barack Obama—running for president. “Could [she] be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?” Ms. Steinem asks. Not likely. That’s because, she goes on to say, “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.”

Let's now add class to the mix. Let's imagine a low-income, African American woman, single mother of three, running for public office. A woman with scarce resources and time, yet whose knowledge, leadership and commitment would drive significant policy changes that would benefit all members of her community, city, state or country.

The fact is, while small numbers of low-income women of color have won a seat at policy tables —our grantees are a testament to that—most continue to be excluded from decision-making processes—and at great cost to us all. So as we take a look at the field of presidential candidates before us, let's not forget that the combined, often inextricably linked barriers of race, gender and class persist nationwide. Just how deep and pernicious these barriers are should be of great concern to everyone if we hope to realize a just and truly participatory democracy in 2008 and beyond.

By Sara K. Gould
President & CEO