Please note the following quote from the controversial Steinem piece:

"The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that."

Am I missing something, or is she not pitting racism against sexism at all?

angryblackbitch wrote a great post about this yesterday:

http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/2008/01/im-worried-too-ms-steinem.html

Beigelights, the quote you shared seems an after thought since earlier in the article Steinem wrote that "gender is probably the most restricting force in American life" and she also makes the false statement that black men were able to vote a half century before women. There is also the fact that the article is written with white feminists as the default target. She speaks of women voting for Clinton out of loyalty, ignoring that some feminists are both women AND ethnic minorities.

As a young feminist and as a woman of color, I found Steinem's article terribly ignorant and arrogant.

I don't know. I really don't think the Steinem piece deserves this much villification. Race & gender are pitted against each other not because Steinem notices they are, but because that's what the patriarchy does -- it tries to divide. It was fairly clear to me that she was trying to resist this effect while also pointing out that it's *still* more acceptable to be sexist than racist and historically always has been. Is that not true? I don't think she's saying that *either* should be acceptable, ever. But society at this point does not treat sexism and racism as equally abhorrent -isms. So how can Steinem talk about these social nuances, injustices, & contradictions without talking about them? I don't get it.

Could you clarify, Tami -- why is statement that black men were able to vote a half century before women false? That sounds right to me. 15th amendment=1870. 19th amendment=1920.

Is Steinem angry that abolition came before suffrage? And that the 15th amendment didn't eliminate the, later, need for the 19th? And that a man of color might be president before a woman is? Then, there's no surprise she chides: "The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that." We all have our biases, our histories, our voices. But, if american Elizabeth Cook-Lynn ever ran for pres, would we ever hear about it, and would anyone ever vote for her?

Lyra27, it is true that the 15th amendment was signed in 1870. It is not true that all black men were then free to take part in the political process then. The comment ignores the Reconstruction and Jim Crow eras where black people, especially in the South, were kept from the ballot box by local laws and the threat of physical harm. I mentioned this in another thread, but Gloria Steinem was 18 and free to vote in the 1952 election. My 53-year-old black grandfather in Mississippi certainly was not. Thus, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Lyra, the Jim Crow laws of the South through the forms of literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and general harassment denied blacks in the South (first men, and later both men and women) the right to vote until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To say that black men got the right to vote before women is disingenuous, because they may have technically had the right, but they couldn't invoke it.

Steinem's article definitely offended me, as well. To pit racism vs. sexism as if one could be worse than the other is a pathetic attempt to win the aptly named "oppression olympics". The truth is she was pushing for Hillary by blatantly saying it's harder to be a woman than it is to be black, as if these things are that cut and dry. She also excludes women of color with her remarks, and fosters the old concept that feminism is strictly for white women.

Fair enough, Tami. I still think her statement is valid in context. After all, feminists fought hard to get women's suffrage included on the 15th amendment (they wanted "sex" added along with "race") and they were soundly, overwhelmingly denied. It's not we feminists who rank one cause above the other, but the priveleged in charge who want us to fight amongst ourselves. They're the enemy, not Gloria Steinem. That's what I think, anyway.

Gloria Steinem is privileged, that's the thing Lyra. The intersection of racism and sexism is that just because Steinem's a woman doesn't mean she isn't privileged. The thing is that it's not an "us" vs. "them" thing where there's just white men and then everyone else. White women still receive plenty of privilege based on skin color, and by ignoring that or trying to diminish it we end up with statements like the ones Steinem made, in which women of color get totally ignored.

And the statement is definitely not valid, at all. Yes, feminists were denied on the 15th Amendment, but ignoring the Jim Crow laws and saying "black men got the right to vote" is so absurdly obtuse that one would have to have either zero knowledge of history (which isn't true in Steinem's case) or be trying to intentionally misrepresent history in order to try to make sexism seem worse than racism.

I definitely do not think she was trying to say "who has it worst." Her direct question is why sexism is not "taken as seriously" as racism today. I think this is a valid question. Think about the Don Imus debacle. But "taken seriously" is not the same as "which is worse." She also says "I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest."

The point about the 15th amendment IS valid because it was the fallout from the decision to exclude women that gave the state's too much limiting power later on. If Congress & the states had granted universal suffrage in that moment, it could have been a totally different ball game for black men. It was when women were NOT granted the vote that they had to start voting illegally, which got SBA & others arrested and allowed the Court in "Miner vs. Happersett" to give the state's power to restrict, which in turn horribly affected African American men who already were supposed to have the vote. This is what I think of when Steinem says "The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together." That moment in history is a wretched turning point for dividing the race and sex issues from each other. Before that, they pretty much flew together as one cause; after that, they didn't.

Anyway, I agree that Steinem has some white privilege -- but I can still see little evidence in her words here that she has truly "ignored" anything. I think a lot of people just don't like Gloria Steinem. I can certainly understand the reasons why.

I think that Steinem's article was not seeking to compare the experiences of sex or race, nor to make it an Olympics of the Oppressed. I think she was talking about the language of sexism and racism - what you are allowed to *say* in the mainstream media, because what you are allowed to say is tied to the way we think. And Steinem points out that it is considered more acceptable to be considered sexist than racist, and that this has been true throughout our entire history.

I agree with her. When I think of language, I think of Christopher Hitchens in his article blithely uncovering the reasons that women are biologically not as funny as men. Many many mainstream newspapers have picked up and misrepresented (or sometimes simply reported) anthropological 'studies' which prove women are made to be beautiful and men aggressive and profligate. I cannot imagine a newspaper article that blithely states that Hispanics are not as funny as whites or that Africans are clearly made to be beautiful but were subjugated by their more aggressive, profligate white neighbors and that this was 'natural' and 'evolution'. When someone from an A&E cable show makes a racist comment to his son, he was fired from his show, but the mainstream press (including Chris Matthews) has made many misogynistic comments about someone running for President! With nary a word. The scientist from the U.K. who suggested that race might be linked to IQ in the UK was fired immediately while the scientific community unanimously repudiated him. But Lawrence Summers from Harvard who said that gender explained why few women were scientists was allowed to resign at the end of the semester only after donors stopped giving funds, and he had quite a few supporters among the faculty.

For me, Steinem's article was about what you're allowed to *say*, not what you've experienced, and they're clearly not the same thing. I think there is still a lot of racism in this country, and I think the experiences of people of color still reflect these attitudes. Many people are still more comfortable when a person of color 'acts white'. I still have privilege as a white woman because of my whiteness.

But Steinem's article was about no one standing up and pointing at all the comments directed to and about Clinton and the 'women' who voted for her to say, "That is wrong", in the way the mainstream media would have if the remarks were about her race.

I don't think she was trying to be divisive - maybe she was. But I think she was talking about how we all talk about women in this country. And that affects *all* women.

I think she has ignored black women more than anything else. Perhaps it is more "acceptable" to be sexist than racist in today's social context, but that doesn't make it easy for black women to separate their identity as women from their identity as people of color.

What I get out of her article is that she is literally asking a whole group of people [women of color] to ignore one facet of their identity in order to privilege their role as women. That situation is not one that Steinem herself has to face, so I don't think it's fair that she's willing to accuse others for making that choice. Especially when their choice may [rightfully] be based more on politics rather than demographic. That doesn't sit well with me.

I agree quite a bit with Fang's main point, which is that pitting race against sex once again makes women of color invisible AND is a distraction from the larger battle against white male supremacy.

However, I don't agree with some of the nitpicks of Steinem's article, such as the claims that it's contradictory. You'd have to deliberately misread her opinion piece to come to some of the conclusions Fang did regarding "contradictions."

I have been shocked by the amount of sexism Hillary has experienced during this campaign, and especially lately. The anti-black racism has been kept alive quietly on the back burners, but if Obama gets the nomination, I think we can expect the racism to kick into high gear.

LlesbianLlama, do you think she was asking you to ignore aspects of your identity? I thought the article took pains to avoid this by emphasizing the "time to break *all* barriers" and "choose from a pool of talent that is not limited to sex, race..." etc?

But I do think the women of color ended up being invisible in that article - they weren't mentioned. I think Steinem's article was in direct response to news coverage that analyzed why 'women' voted for Clinton or not but not why men did, and I've similarly yet to see a pundit talk about why 'blacks' voted for Obama or not instead of whites. Maybe all that analysis is around the corner. God, I hope not. But it did ignore women of color and where they might believe their complex web of loyalties lie.

As a young, black women, I also felt Steinem had ignored black women. I was bothered more by the insinuation that women don't have legitimate reasons to not support Clinton over Obama.

Anyway, I've just discovered this site and look forward to more interactions.

I disagree. I thought Steinem made excellent points in her article. Especially the opening, if you list the exact same credentials but attribute them to a woman rather than to a man, they are lessened in the eyes of many people.

There is a strange emphasis on youth in Feministing (which I find ageist), but since y'all value the opinions of "young women" so much, I say this: I disagree with Ann and Jennifer Fang. I am a 22-year-old woman of color and I do not believe Steinem was "pitting race against gender" in her "Women Are Never Front-Runners" piece. I do believe most young women today are unaware the extent of misogyny. Most young women today have never taken a women's/gender studies course and they haven't learned the word "misogyny", even though they have to live with it. The contemporary porn industry is based on misogyny, but most women don't examine pornified rape culture even though we live in it. I am energized by Clinton running, because it’s helping girls and women to imagine themselves as leaders. I am happy that a person of color is running, because it has a similar effect for people of color. Anti-racist work is crucial and feminism encompasses intersectionalities (race, gender, sexuality, class, able-bodiedness), but I disagree with Jennifer and Ann that Steinem was being “disingenuous, divisive, overly simplistic, and ultimately harmful� by saying that women are never front-runners. I know that being a woman makes me a second class citizen and Steinem actually helped me feel visible in her piece. Jennifer Fang also finds the sexist Chris Rock skit funny (http://www.reappropriate.com/?p=951)... Ann, do you think it’s progressive of Jennifer to laugh along with Chris Rock’s ignorant male-privileged bullshit? Chris Rock also used the word “retarded� in a negative way and I hate it when people say that. I'll probably post more about this later.

I thought Steinem made excellent points in her article. Especially the opening, if you list the exact same credentials but attribute them to a woman rather than to a man, they are lessened in the eyes of many people.

Which is exactly why I find the meat of her article so frustrating-- she does have some good points, but they're buried in "kids today don't know how good they have it" and completely ignore women of color (not to mention Jim Crow). I think Jennifer is right on.

EstelaPez, it might shock you to know that no one here has ever asked my age.

An underexamined aspect of voting restrictions prior to the Voting Rights Act is the effect of those restrictions on women (PDF from NY Times archive). When men have control of economic resources -- and all the other kinds of control that follow from that -- it seems very likely that women would be disproportionately affected by these restrictions compared to men, much as people of color were disproportionately affected by these restrictions compared to men, and poor people were disproportionately affected compared to the well-off.

Oops, I cut and pasted my comment into oblivion. The end shoulda been...

It seems very likely that women would be disproportionately affected by these restrictions compared to men, much as people of color were disproportionately affected compared to white people, and poor people were disproportionately affected compared to the well-off.

None of those categories are mutually exclusive, of course.

Ok first I think that Gloria brings up a very valid point in that Sexism effects more people then any other kind of prejudice and is for some reason not taken seriously. You know poeple of other races are ALSO women!!!!! Women represent like half of the US population, and have less to show for it. If someone makes a sexist comment like Hillary reminds men of their nagging wives nothing happens. If someone said something like that against a race or religion, they would have LOST thier jobs. Why is that, because men are not affected by gender inequities.

There was nothing racist in that what she wrote. I have no idea. What IS racist is thinking that when someone talks about sexism, a reader automatically thinks of only white women.

It's not as if white men granted the vote to black men out of a spirit of true brotherhood. The Republicans pushed the 15th Amendment to consolidate their own power. Since many Southern districts had majority black populations, Republicans could retain control of the House by extending the vote to black men at the same time that white Confederates became re-enfranchised. It also bears mentioning that the Repubican Party was unbelievably corrupt at the time (shocking, I know). They would do anything to keep the bribes rolling in.

What I like about this election is that it's getting people to think about sexism, racism, and intersectionalities more. Whatever the outcome of the election, many people hopefully will have thought more about racism and sexism. Intro to Women's/Gender Studies must be having a ball right now...

smartorange, I agree with this: "Ok first I think that Gloria brings up a very valid point in that Sexism effects more people then any other kind of prejudice and is for some reason not taken seriously. You know poeple of other races are ALSO women!!!!! Women represent like half of the US population, and have less to show for it. If someone makes a sexist comment like Hillary reminds men of their nagging wives nothing happens...
There was nothing racist in that what she wrote. I have no idea. What IS racist is thinking that when someone talks about sexism, a reader automatically thinks of only white women."

If people are bothered by what Steinem wrote, contact her. Email her and let her know what you think.

BWrites, I said that I get ageist vibes from feministing, because I don't understand why Jessica Valenti's book has a girl's/ skinny (white?) woman's stomach(Valenti's stomach?) on the cover. I will read the book in a month or so and I will share my opinion about it later. I just don't think feminists should give into the yay-sexual-objectification crap. I wish Valenti would explain the pin-up logo for feministing (how is that image a rejection of patriarchal beauty standards EVEN if she is showing her middle finger)? Hopefully she will explain it in the future.

For those of us who identify as women here: We're going to be old women one day and I'd rather identify as an old woman/feminist than a "young feminist". I don't need my feminism to be "sexy" with flat stomachs and pin-up logos.

I have incredible respect for the second wave feminists who took sexual violence so seriously. I want feminists who don't care enough about sexual violence to learn more about it WITHOUT labeling 2nd-wavers as "playing the victim". THAT is a denial of women's oppression and I don't like that, just as I don't like how Jennifer Fang laughed along with Chris Rock's sexist jokes about women's liberation.

Y'all must be new, because the middle finger salute and Jessica's book cover have been discussed to death. I don't have streaming video and thus have no opinion on the Chris Rock piece, but I will say I find it incredibly frustrating that we're supposed to read the entire Steinem piece, believe only the bits we like, but that Jennifer Fang and Feministing can apparently be discredited by virtue of laughing at an inappropriate joke or using the wrong symbol on the cover.

And you still don't know how old I am, or what 'wave' I might be considered as.

And yes, by talking about 'blacks' and 'women' as exclusive groups, she was being racist, and by ignoring the need for the Voting Rights Act, she was being-- at best-- ludicrously ahistorical.

And last but not least, if you don't believe in discussing and criticizing something in public-- if the only appropriate solution is to 'email the author directly'-- than I'm damned if I know why you're on this website.

"And yes, by talking about 'blacks' and 'women' as exclusive groups, she was being racist, and by ignoring the need for the Voting Rights Act, she was being-- at best-- ludicrously ahistorical."

I am not sure how to take this. Are you suggesting that I can not say women and mean all women? Do I have to list all races so that everyone knows they are covered? Cause the reality is that when African American’s got the right to vote, African American women still were not voting until women got the right to vote.

I say it like this because when I argue for women, I usually mean all women. Gay, strait, female identified, colors, race, religion the whole shebang is what I am talking about. It is fair to say that in the US all women have had to fight sexism. Obviously this is not true for racism. So in a sense sexism affects more members of the population. That would make it a greater restricting force, simply because of the numbers. That is math not racism, and it in no way diminishes the importance of getting rid of racism.

BWrites, yes I'm new to feministing and you're right that these things should be discussed in public instead of private emails to the authors.

I think the fact that a questioning of "are racism and sexism viewed as equally abhorrent in our society" getting so many rabid comments says more than I can eloquently sum up while sick.

I can tell you that I've had jobs where it was perfectly acceptable for customers to belittle and patronize me for being female which would NEVER EVER fly in that company if they did the exact same comment regarding race.

I was a Jungle Cruise skipper at Disneyland and you would not believe the level of sexist, horrible comments directed at the female skippers. "Don't give a girl a gun, what if shes PMSING?" "I want a male skipper." "Women RUIN the jungle cruise and shouldnt be allowed to work here"

Imagine any of that with any race under the sun and see if it would fly so well.

I said that I was done commenting about this, and I am, right after this post. I promise.

It is wonderful to mean “all women� when you say “women.� That is as it should be. But it is not so great when you assume, because of your own privilege, that all women share your experiences and needs. While we are all much the same, it is not great to overlook the nuances in our lives, derived from race, culture, nationality, etc.

Gloria Steinem wrote: "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life." MOST to me connotes ranking, so I find Steinem’s statement arrogant. How does Steinem decide that sexism is more restricting than racism when she only faces one of those “isms?� Many women like me live both of those challenges every single day. It’s sort of like me deciding that women in France face fewer challenges than I do, when I have never set foot in the country nor spoken intimately with a French woman.

Steinem speaks of the fictional female black candidate, Anuche Obama, not having the same chance that Barack Obama now has. That is disingenuous. Anuche would not have the same political chances as Barack. True. She ALSO would not have the same chances as Hillary. Not only would Anuche suffer the sexism that Hillary now faces, she would suffer the racism that Barack faces, AND suffer the particular challenges that women of color do, including being seen as less than white women like Hillary. (Less smart, less attractive and less valuable.) If Anuche were running against Hillary, she wouldn't have a chance. Surely Steinem knows that white women hold a higher societal value than women of color. Or does she?

Steinem also speaks of women voting for their own as if some of us don’t have more than one “own.� I am a woman AND I am black. (And actually I support John Edwards, so I guess my black and woman card is about to get revoked.)

Saying that sexist remarks and behavior are accepted, while racist ones are not, is also not completely true. Yes, it is socially bad form for someone to yell the n-word at me. But there are many, many ways that racism and bias are subtly and not-so-subtly institutionalized, so that being called the n-word is frankly the least of my problems. If I go missing tomorrow, will there be a massive nationwide manhunt? Will Nancy Grace sob for me on television? Will the nation hold its breath over me like they do for myriad missing white women? Likely not.

The thing is…it IS stupid to rank sexism vs. racism. It helps nothing. But that is exactly what Gloria Steinem did. She applied “most restrictive� to sexism. She used a poor comparison of who got to vote when that was offensive in itself. And now, rather than say mea culpa or stand by her piece, Steinem in her interview with NPR yesterday did what men in power often do: Tell the oppressed woman that she misunderstood...that what she knows was said wasn’t said at all. Clarence to Anita: I didn’t harass you. You’re crazy. Isaiah to Anuche: I didn’t call you a bitch. You’re crazy. Gloria to women of color: I didn’t say sexism was worse than racism. You’re crazy.

This is why so many women of color are marginalized in the feminist movement.

Sorry...in my early-morning rant I f'ed up several names. Steinem's fictional woman of color was Achola Obama. The executive so poorly treated by the New York Knicks was Anucha Browne.

That's how much this whole incident has done my head in.

While I appreciate the "Women Are Never Front Runners" piece very much (because YES many younger women are desensitized to the degree of misogyny out there), I also value the criticism of it, because discussing white privilege and hearing everyone's voice is an important part of feminism (it's awesome that some people are passionately discussing white privilege). While I think it's great that Jennifer Fang is anti-racist, I don't say "yes yes and yes" to her, because I don't think she takes sexism seriously ENOUGH (at least from what I can tell from her website). Tami I agree with the following: "Not only would Anuche suffer the sexism that Hillary now faces, she would suffer the racism that Barack faces, AND suffer the particular challenges that women of color do, including being seen as less than white women... Surely Steinem knows that white women hold a higher societal value than women of color. Or does she?"

Yes, I do believe Steinem knows this. Steinem's piece is responding to how the media kept calling Clinton a "front-runner". Hillary was never a front-runner if you think about all anti-woman sentiment out there. Many people loathe Hillary because "she's a bitch"... I read that there's a facebook group that's called "Life's a bitch, why vote for one? Anti-Hillary '08" and it has 13,000 members in it. There's also a T-shirt: "Hillary for President: She Puts the C--- in Country". That's what Steinem is responding to--- the illusion that this woman was ever a front-runner. Yes, Clinton has white privilege, but she's still a woman and society is widely accepting of sexism. I was called a "spik" by a fellow student once and people tell me I'm "smart for my nationality" and I attended an all-white school, so I understand what it feels like to be invisible and treated differently because of the color on my skin and features on my face. I understand the importance this election has for women (when I say women I mean all women, as smartorange said) and the complications women of color face if they think they have to "choose" between race and gender. I just wish people would be more outraged about misogyny, because people are relatively quiet about it. Yes, racism isn't discussed enough either, but sexism is still considered very cool.

Estela, like you I agree with you that sexism isn't taken seriously. Too many women of all colors are merginalized in this country. Misogyny is too often seen as no big deal. Too many women of color are asked to wait for their freedom until their men get theirs. That is why I have always called myself a proud feminist, despite being told by many women of color that the feminist movement was not about me. That is why Steinem's op-ed and the reaction from mainstream feminists has so hurt me and has caused me to rethink my position on whether feminism is for women of color. I now see why so many women of color embrace Alice Walker's "womanist" label, rather than the "feminist" one.

Well I'm content with the "feminist" label, because I've noticed plenty of anti-racist efforts within feminism. I actually think Feministing.com is mainstreamed-feminism. Feministing is too rah-rah-young-women and the people in charge of this site need to educate themselves more on pornified rape culture. I also wish they'd respond to my damn emails and stop using the word "motherfucker" (like Jessica did) so casually. Again, I can't take Ms. Fang's critique seriously enough, because she laughs at Chris Rock's stereotypes about the feminist movement and I don't see evidence on her site that she cares that much about women's oppression as a group that much anyway. It's cool that she's anti-racist though.