A Female President in a Sexist Nation

By Broadside Opinion Columnist Arthur Gailes

Since the end of the civil war, America has been more sexist than racist. Our history has been violently marked by the struggle for racial equality. Our strides have come at once suddenly and slowly; while slavery wasn’t ended until nearly 100 years after we declared that “all men are created equal,” it only took another four years for all men to be able to vote.

But while America has struggled with the question of whether men of another race are indeed men, we’ve always known that women aren’t. And while racial suffrage was granted in 1869, it took another 50 years for women to be granted the same. Because of course, why should the weaker sex, weak and frail, so obviously not man, have a say in where this country goes?

Of course, when we need her, Rosie the Riveter is great. She can hold down the house while the men are off doing the real work, becoming heroes. When we come back, she better be ready to give up her job so we can get back to running the nation the way it’s supposed to be. Drafting women into the military? Ridiculous!

Fast forward to 2008, and the ghosts of that sentiment can be easily seen in our Democratic presidential nominations. In a race where either nominee would be a first in the White House, only one is seen and marketed by the press as the agent for change. Barack Obama is younger than John McCain. He’s less established than Hillary Clinton. He’s also blacker than both.

Black Americans have always been seen as outside of the establishment, and Obama’s presidential campaign is reflective of this.

The American Black male has always been the bastard child of this country, something to be hidden, ashamed of or even despised. Putting him in the White House would be a huge step for us – a sign to us and the rest of the world that we have finally overcome this nation’s biggest moral failure, and can put it all behind us.

And the other candidate? While Clinton certainly would be a shot in the arm, she’s much more mainstream. The First Lady for eight years, she’s been famous for longer than Obama, hence her campaigning as the most experienced candidate. In a country that is fed up with the rotating current Bush and future Clinton dynasty, this hurts as much as it helps. She’s running with the issue of change as much as Obama, but his campaign seems more vital and honest to the American public.

In terms of them both as individuals, what’s the difference between the two? Obama runs as the underdog, the anti-establishmentarian candidate, but his campaign is being just as supported by corporate America as Clinton’s, bringing in record breaking funds in February, estimated at near $50 million.

He’s better educated, and has been wealthier for most of his adult life, than the majority of America’s public. For that matter, he’s only been in the Senate four years less than Clinton, and both of them started as lawyers. The only real difference is that Clinton is older, and married to somebody more famous.

Obama doesn’t face anywhere near the scrutiny that Clinton receives. Clinton can’t make a step without the media questioning her in not-so-subtle gender terms. If she wears a suit, she’s “forgotten what gender she is,” and if she doesn’t, she’s not professional enough. She can’t afford to make mistakes or ever appear weak, because any moment of weakness from a woman is a critical political failure. Of course, if she doesn’t show any weakness, then she’s overcompensating for being a woman. She’s either too aggressive or too submissive, having to walk the thin line created by her critics.

Much more than Obama does with race, Clinton seems to carry a burden for her entire gender. She’s well aware that her gender plays a huge role in the election, but she’s either over- or under-emphasizing it, depending on who you ask. Neither Obama nor McCain are put under the microscope in the same way as she is, because neither has the vast amount of subtle prejudice amounted against them. Sex covers every line that is written or said about Clinton, and it’s indicative of the state of prejudice in the United States.

As usual, in America it is far more likely for a black man to be successful than any woman. While Obama certainly has his opposition, his show nowhere near the prejudicial vigor of Clinton’s. A woman in power is still one of the greatest human fears, as it goes against thousands of years of our history. We’re on the brink of an incredible change, and its one that still scares us. Clinton is running to be a leader of a nation that isn’t ready for it, and breaking through this prejudice is proving to be an uphill battle.