Gloria Steinem writes about Clinton and Obama in a New York Times op-ed. Read the whole thing if you can, it’s worth it. She starts by pointing out that a female candidate with Obama’s biography would never have any chance:
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).
[…] there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
[…] 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 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.
Oh yes we do.
As if to illustrate the point, the same New York Times follows up with the article Women’s Support for Clinton Rises in Wake of Perceived Sexism. Given that the incidents mentioned in the article are obvious enough (if you’ve missed the most recent one, this Tom Toles cartoon explains it well enough), do we really have to call it “perceived” sexism? Better yet, could we say that women are angered over the sexist treatment of Senator Clinton, but the actual reason why they support her is that they think that she would make a good President?