Sexism and Politics

I don't know some days why I read the Times editorials. Today featured the latest booster rocket in Gloria Steinem's ever accelerating race toward political obsolescence. It was her usual collection of gross generalizations; the kind that would get me labeled a racist or sexist or homophobe if I made them about blacks, women or gays.

I worry about sexism for the same reason I worry about racism: it hurts my life. If my wife is held back in her job, it hurts me. If the women around me at work aren't fully included, it weakens the team. I think it's important to support girls and women's sports, where they can learn skills that translate to everything from manual work to driving, habits for long term health, and abstract but critical skills like leadership and team work. When my buddies and I talk about our wives, everyone sites independence, intelligence, job success and athletic abilities or interests at the top of why we love them. I was talking with 3 hockey buddies after a game the other day and we all realized we were married to women that out earned us, were as (or more) educated than us, and who were all very independent people. It wasn't mentioned in the context of surprise that women could do those things; it was mentioned in the context of talking about how lucky we were. Another friend recently had to stop playing, citing his need to spend more time caring for the kids and doing things at home in support of his wife, who needed to put more time into her job. Yet two others said they played hockey with us because the late playing times fit around their obligations to care for children while their wives worked.

My wife out earns me in spite of what I suspect are some sexist limitations where she works. I kind of like that, and I support her in that. In a fun reversal of traditional gender roles, she can show love by buying me things, and I can show love by graciously accepting them and offering sex in return. You can ask her, I'm easy, but not cheap.

Seriously, I want to see my wife, and all the women around me, be more successful. Not just for the tangible benefits, but also because successful people are happier people, and happier people think clearer, make better decisions, and are just more pleasant to be around.

So, Steinem and I are in the same book, if not on the same page. So what gives?

Steinem is bitter. I get that. The feminist movement has done what lots of movements do: partly won, partly lost, got stuck somewhere in the middle of things. But if she wants to get it un-stuck, she needs to start talking to guys like me, not talking about us. Steinem needs to stop assuming we all hate Clinton because of her gender, or fear her because she reminds us of our mothers, or that we embrace Obama (or anyone else) because they remind us of masculinity. Steinem and those like her should be asking why guys like me (politically moderate, religious, educated and supportive of our working wives), won't embrace the women's rights movement, and she needs to separate it from Clinton's campaign. Instead of assuming that my opposition to Clinton derives from a desire to see women remain in the kitchen, then extrapolate from that my inherent sexism, maybe she should be asking what I would like to see happen to improve the lives of women like my wife, sister, mother, and my female friends and colleagues. If nothing else, I bet I know more about my wife's day to day life and needs than Steinem does.

Then, if Gloria Steinem really needs to go there, she should ask why guys like me don't see Hillary Clinton as a good political answer to our problems or our wives problems. She'd find out that even if I was stupid enough to be a single issue voter, and my one issue was gender equality (which would at least be a good single issue), I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

Like it or not, Hillary Clinton got to where she is because of who she was married to. I knew nothing about her when I voted for her husband, and I didn't care. I wasn't voting for a co-Presidency. The most I was supporting her for as First Lady was to pick out curtains and hold luncheons at the White House. If I were to vote for her for President now, I would be voting for Bill Clinton to do those things as First Gentleman, not to return to the Oval Office as co-President Clinton. (And actually, I really question Bill's taste in curtains, but that's another rant.)

Assuming that Hillary Clinton's proximity to her husband qualifies her for the Presidency is just as stupid as assuming Bush's proximity to his father qualifies him. Both are people that ended up in positions of privilege because of someone else's success and sought to spin that into political careers of their own. I didn't buy it with Bush, and I don't buy it with Clinton.

Eight years as first lady is not "on the job training." On the job training means you learn while doing the job. She didn't. She wasn't President. She was not an elected official, and her and Bill's attempt to have her usurp the powers of elected officialdom created anger among lots of people of both genders and both political parties. The fact that people run from "Hillary Care" medical programs isn't a testament to their sexism, it's a testament to the fact that a lot of us don't like her health care ideas and resented having an unelected person trying to shove them down our throats.

Steinem, and lots of others, are making the same fallacious generalizations about supporting Clinton as they have about supporting the "Pro Choice" movement. Lots of people who support women's rights have principled oppositions to abortion. Years of being told that the only real pro-woman person is a "Pro Choice" person has alienated tons of men and women. She's making the same mistake now. Lots of us are both ardent supporters of women and also opposed to Hillary Clinton becoming President. Making support of Clinton into another prerequisite for supporting equality for women is destined to erode support for women's rights, and is almost assuredly not going to change one vote in Clinton's favor.