Time for “The Talk” — Gloria Steinem’s NYTimes op-ed raises questions about race, gender and election year media
|
Posted by Guest Blogger January 28th, 2008 |
By Guest Blogger Avis A. Jones-DeWeever
It’s time for “The Talk.”
I met Gloria Steinem yesterday. As a woman, I must admit I was a bit star-struck—proud to be engaged in conversation with one of those rare people in history who mixed passion, courage, and action together in such a way as to inspire others to help bring about change. But as a Black woman, the pride I felt was measured with no small amount of pain. I was one of those who read Gloria’s now infamous New York Times op-ed piece following the Iowa primary where she famously made the case that gender was more prohibitive than race in the presidential electionbecause, she asserted, gender breakthroughs typically occur after racial ones.
To illustrate her point more fully she argued, “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.” She then went on to state, “That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change.” And then, as if to say—here’s the irrefutable evidence—she reminds us, “Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot…”
You know how Oprah has her “ah-ha” moments? Well, that was my, “Oh, hell no” moment. I remember reading those words for the first time and feeling the stab in my soul that inevitably occurs whenever I’m confronted with what I believe to be dismissive, diminutive statements that seem factual on their face but are not placed in the proper historical context and, as such, ultimately downplay the real horrors and outcomes of racial apartheid in America just to make the point that others today seemingly “have it worse.”
But as I listened to Gloria, I heard what I needed to hear from her. That the final piece than ran in the Times was significantly different than the one she had originally crafted. That in the full version, the sentence that had offended me most had actually acknowledged the reality of lynchings, poll taxes, literacy tests, and other forms of racist and violent oppression and intimidation that in practice erased the enfranchisement of Black men (and Black women for that matter) for many more decades to come—far beyond, in fact, the acquisition and implementation of voting rights by white women. I also heard her take full responsibility for giving the go-ahead to the edited version after having it vetted by several friends (none of whom, though, were apparently Black).
I heard her say that it was never her intention, despite how the piece read, to compare oppressions between Blacks and women, and in fact, she specifically instructed the Times not to imply such in whatever headline they chose for the piece. I heard all of that and believed her. It seemed sincere when she expressed remorse for the “us” vs. “them” dichotomy her final piece implied. It seemed sincere when she spoke movingly about the importance of having the oppressed join together to fight for a more just society. Yet, I found it sad that neither she nor her friends could have anticipated the interpretation that women like me would take from her words.
With all the talk recently about how unfortunate it is that we have come to focus so much on issues of race in the run up to the South Carolina primary, it seems to me the lesson we can learn from the major blind spot exhibited by Gloria and her friends – and by the Times and others in media – is that we, as a nation, need to talk more about race, not less. Of course that talk needs to be substantive, real, and sustained; not the snide, race-baiting innuendoes we’ve seen recently that play to the Willie Horton-hatin’ wing of every party. It won’t be easy. But such a discussion is indeed necessary. When even our friends don’t understand what offends us, such a discussion is long overdue.
As a nation, we now stand at a critically important moment in history. Having viable presidential candidates that break the white male mold creates the space we’ve never had for having “the talk.” Now all we need is the courage to engage in it.
Guest Blogger Avis A. Jones-DeWeever, Ph.D. is the Director of the National Council of Negro Women’s Research, Public Policy, and Information Center. The RPPI Center is a research/action institute which seeks to inform, catalyze and mobilize African American women for change in both the policy arena and throughout the broader cultural dynamic.
January 28th, 2008 21:25
You encourage Americans to talk more about race. I would add: Can we talk more about gender, too? Can we talk about other aspects of oppression, such as class, sexuality, age and ability? If Steinem’s essay – and the presidential candidates – leads us into conversations only about race, then we imply race is more important. This would contradict the main criticism of Steinem for describing one oppression as worse than another.
I appreciate your honest and civil conversation about these issues. Many others were not. You give links to other blogs who attacked Steinem harshly, such as Aunt B at Tiny Cat Pants who said to her: “Fuck you.” (http://tinycatpants.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/gloria-steinem-with-all-due-respect-kiss-my-butt/) This virulence shuts down dialogue.
You criticize facts that are taken out of context to diminish racism. Along those lines, I’ve been disturbed by progressive blogs that, in criticizing Steinem, distorted history for their own purposes. In the same post on Tiny Cat Pants, for example, the author says Sojourner Truth took white feminists to task. Anyone who reads her famous speech will see that Truth was addressing men, not women. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/sojtruth-woman.html
In an attack on Steinem for not mentioning white privilege, the Too Sense blog asserts that “white women still earn more money than both black men and black women.”
http://halfricanrevolution.blogspot.com/2008/01/passion-of-gloria-steinem.html The link leads to a chart with data from 1970-2004 that shows black men made more money than all women, including white women, until white women exceeded them in 2004. Black men still made more than black women, however. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html
I’m posting my concerns here because this seems like a forum for reasonable discussion. Much of the blogosphere seems to discourage that.
January 28th, 2008 22:03
Thanks for this very smart, considered piece. Much more fodder here to chew on, as the past week or 2 has handed us plentifully.
January 29th, 2008 07:18
Municipales 2088 : “Aimer-Lyon”, une liste réelle d’égalité homme-femme. Par Sabiha Ahmine
Aujourd’hui, pour faire avancer nos droits, j’aimerais vous parler d’une partie de nos propositions pour la Liste AIMER-LYON, relative aux droits des femmes :
En tant qu’Adjointe au Maire de Lyon, les droits des femmes sont au coeur de notre action municipales.Pour nous,la lutte pour l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes constitue à la fois un enjeu de civilisation, une des grandes conquetes de ces dernières decennies et un objectif toujours à atteindre.
Des progrès considétables ont été réalisés, mais beaucoup reste à faire. L’évolution de la législation (droit à la contraception, à l’IVG, parité de la représentation politique, mesures pour l’égalité professionnelle) doit s’accompagner d’une évolution des mentalités et des pratiques concrètes.Notre municipalité souhaite y contribuer.
Si la parité sur les listes électorales est désormais assurée par la loi, des progrès importants restent à accomplir pour une meilleure représentation des femmes dans les instances de débat et de prospective de la vie locale. Ainsi le pourcentage de femmes présentes au sein du Conseil de Développement (20% environ) n’est-il pas satisfaisant. Nous agirons pour favoriser la participation des femmes dans les différentes structures de démocratie participative, notamment par une meilleure diffusion de l’information et une reflexion sur le mode de sélection des membres.
Nous intégrerons l’objectif d’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes dans les appels à projet et cahiers des charges, chaque fois que ce sera possible.
En lien avec les professionnels de la petite enfance et le monde enseignant, nous favoriserons auprès des enfants une perception moderne de la place de la femme dans la société et nous developperons la prévention contre les violences sexistes.
Le personnel municipal bénéficiera de modules de formation spécifiques sur cette thématique essentielle pour l’évolution des mentalités. Notre politique de diversification des modes de garde qui permettra d’atteindre l’objectif de 90% de la demande lyonnaise satisfaite avant la fin du prochain mandat, contribuera fortement à améliorer concrètement les conditions de vie des femmes, sur lesquelles reposent majoritairement les responsabilités familiales.
De même, dans le cadre de notre politique d’accès au logement social, nous intègrerons, en coopération avec les bailleurs sociaux, la problématique de l’accès au logement pour les femmes seules avec enfants. Le bureau des temps du Grand Lyon aidera également à prendre en compte la question des horaires décalés pour les femmes qui sont particulièrement touchées par cette difficulté dans leur vie quotidienne.
Alors que les femmes constituent aujourd’hui, 46% de la population active, elles ne représentent que 26% des créateurs d’entreprises. Le taux de survie à 5 ans d’une entreprise créée par une femme est sensiblement inférieur à celui des hommes (46,5% contre 52,5%).
L’INSEE nous apprend encore que, contrairement aux hommes, la majorité des femmes étaient au chômage ou inactives au moment de se lancer dans la création d’entreprises et qu’elles étaient moins nombreuses que les hommes à être épaulées par un conjoint ou un membre de leur famille dans leur aventure entrepreneuriale. On sait aussi que, disposant souvent de moins de fonds que leurs collègues masculins, les femmes aspirantes chef d’entreprise ont, de fait, plus de difficultés à accéder au financement bancaire.
Nous poursuivrons, en l’amplifiant, l’effort du Grand Lyon qui soutient plusieurs associations spécifiquement engagées dans la promotion de l’entrepreneuriat au féminin, dans le cadre de « Lyon Ville de l’Entrepreneuriat » (LVE). Nous nous appuierons sur les chambres consulaires, en valorisant les réussites actuelles et en portant une attention particulière aux problèmes de reprises/transmissions d’entreprises et sur l’entrepreneuriat social.
Faut-il encore le rappeler : une femme meurt tous les trois jours des suites des coups portés par son compagnon. Lyon est une des premières villes de France à s’être battue contre ce phénomène inacceptable. Dès 2002, la Ville a en effet financé le film bien connu maintenant de la réalisatrice
Arlette Sauvage « La vie voyez-vous » qu’elle a présenté le 8 mars 2002. Cette collaboration s’est poursuivie et développée puisque le film a donné lieu à de nombreuses rencontres sur l’agglomération et que FILACTION qui s’est créée pour la soutenir a initié avec le soutien de la Ville une campagne itinérante de lutte contre les violences en direction des jeunes dont les moments forts ont été les concerts organisés le 25 novembre dernier au Ninkasi et au Transbordeur en 2004.
Nous poursuivrons et amplifierons cette politique lyonnaise de lutte contre les violences faites aux femmes
• en soutenant les associations concernées, par des subventions ou des mises à disposition de locaux.
• en poursuivant la réhabilitation ou la création d’équipements(Charade, Point Nuit, Maison des Amies du Monde, aménagement d’appartements à Résidence…) dédiés à l’accueil des femmes victimes de violence et à leur réinsertion,
• en généralisant les permanences expérimentées dans trois arrondissements en direction des femmes victimes de violence par l’association Femmes Informations,
• en renforçant notre participation aux côtés de la délégation des droits de femmes dans les actions de sensibilisation comme celle sur les mariages forcés,
• en finançant les actions de santé communautaire en direction des personnes prostituées,
• en amplifiant les campagnes d’information, notamment destinées aux jeunes, • en maintenant l’organisation d’évènements festifs et de réflexions autour de la journée du 8 mars.
Pour mettre en oeuvre l’ensemble de ces orientations, nous nous appuierons sur deux leviers :
l’adoption de la charte européenne pour l’égalité des femmes et des hommes dans la vie locale qui mobilise ses signataires pour prendre en compte les besoins spécifiques des femmes.
la création de l’observatoire de l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes rattaché à la mairie centrale, outil de veille, d’alerte et d’action au service de l’égalité….”
January 30th, 2008 11:27
[…] Before diving into the NY-NOW press release, it is clear that the only reason the corporate media ran with it was its tone and demands. If NOW or any other group had sent out a press release demanding that the candidates take a stand on why the hell Congress keeps funneling money into abstinence-only sex education despite report after report [pdf] that says it doesn’t work, we would likely hear crickets chirp. Despite the name calling, the race baiting and the misogyny of the press, the plain simple fact is that corporate media wants us (feminists, progressives, liberals, pick a label) to fight this identity politics war. […]
January 31st, 2008 07:15
Brava Avis! This is a poignant, yet generous, account of the racial issues, media politics, and emotional experiences of this moment.
February 1st, 2008 17:14
[…] Of course, that’s not to say there aren’t valid critiques of Clinton’s campaign style, but I do agree with one part of Gloria Steinem’s controversial New York Times op/ed (critiqued on this blog by Avis Jones DeWeever): “There is still no ‘right’ way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.” […]
February 5th, 2008 01:13
[…] I’ve kept mum on my dog in the presidential race because as the director of a non-profit women’s media justice group, I don’t feel comfortable endorsing political candidates. And with the brilliant Rebecca Traister writing about primary season media coverage through much the same lens and with the same attention to detail I tend to, I haven’t felt the need to weigh in on media bias in campaign coverage as much as I would normally have; there’s only so much time in the day, and with folks like Traister on the case — and with WIMN’s Voices bloggers such as Shireen Mitchell, Veronica Arreola, Michelle Garcia and guest blogger Avis Jones-Deweever regularly offering their own important insights about the highly problematic pitting of race against gender, feminists against feminists, Blacks agains Latinos, and Black women against themselves in recent months — I’ve felt less of a need recently to do my usual monitoring of biased, double-standard-laden, obnoxious, substance-free horse-race election coverage. […]
February 5th, 2008 20:26
[…] Steinem’s piece has been picked up all over the blogosphere — see Avis Jones-deWeever’s “Time for ‘The Talk’ — Gloria Steinem’s NYTimes op-ed raises questions about race, gender and election year media” here on WIMN’s Voices, Sally Kohn’s “My Debate with Gloria Steinem Continues: Race, Gender and the Election” on Huffington Post, or Emily Douglas of RH Reality Check, and watch Gloria Steinem and Melissa Harris-Lacewell on “Race and Gender in Presidential Politics” on Democracy Now, for just a glimpse into the discussion sparked by Steinem’s analysis. […]