Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less,” declared Susan B. Anthony in her suffragist newspaper, The Revolution. Perhaps the gentlewoman from New York and presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton could take a page from this 1868 work.
After a sub-par performance in last week’s Democratic presidential debate, Clinton has been content to subtly play the gender card in an oft-awkward attempt to defend her less-than-stellar rhetorical skills. Clinton claimed she was fighting against an “all-boys-club of presidential politics” at her alma mater — the all-girls Wellesley College — and has noted that winning the Iowa caucus may be out of reach since the state has never elected a female governor or senator.
Yet, if we can take one thing away from Anthony’s quote it should be this: Women and men ought stand on equal grounds in all scenarios. While this has historically proven difficult, any true feminist or women’s rights activist must realize that playing the gender card can actually be detrimental to the equality cause.
Certainly, there are times when gender does fulfill a significant and discriminatory role: the most recent example being Ms. Lilly Ledbetter (of Supreme Court fame) who discovered she was making almost 20 percent less than her male coworkers for the same job. However, if the gender card were to be invoked every time a woman faced an uphill struggle, then the entire reality of gender-based discrimination is mitigated.
If women want true equality in politics (and any other professional or personal endeavor), then polemical attacks must be accepted as a matter of common practice. No quarter should be given to Clinton simply because she has a different chromosomal make-up than her male opponents.
Former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro said in a recent New York Times article that, “They [other politicians] say we’re playing the gender card. We are not . . . We have got to stand up. It’s discrimination against her as a candidate because she is a woman.” This highly contradictory statement seems to firm up the view held by many female politicos (or is it politicas?) that Clinton is being dealt a different hand because of her gender.
Oddly, this is one of those rare presidential races in which another candidate could lay claim to unequal treatment. Many of you may have noticed that Sen. Barack Obama is black. And yet, he has never alleged that any attack leveled against him has anything to do with the color of his skin.
“I didn’t come out and say, ‘Look, I’m being hit on because I look different from the rest of the folks on the stage,'” Obama is quoted as saying following Clinton’s “all-boys-club” remark. Strangely, in almost any other year, I believe Clinton’s gender-card game may actually have worked, but it’s difficult to take her assertion seriously when her closest opponent happens to be black.
Now, I don’t intend to have this column devolve into a debate about whether it is more difficult in America win a presidential election as a woman or a black man. But given that two major candidates embody at least one of these traits, I can only hope that the pitiful politics of discrimination will be put aside. This presidential race should be about the issues — not skin color or sex.
It is understandable why Hillary’s campaign would go on the defensive and invoke the gender card following her debate performance — it worked in her 2000 Senate race as women rallied behind her in droves. Yet, Clinton herself even recognized that the attacks may not have been entirely sexist when she said, “I don’t think they’re piling on because I’m a woman. I think they’re piling on because I’m winning.” This may be the truth we have been searching for: Clinton is the focus of political assault because she is the front-runner. Obama or Edwards (heck, even Kucinich) would have been at the center of the mess if they were sitting on a double-digit lead going into the primary season.
I wonder, and this is purely speculative, if the Obama camp would have offered up the race card had the table been flipped: Obama, with a double-digit lead, mercilessly bombarded at the debate by his all white opponents — his performance underwhelming. Would the tide have shifted? It’s impossible to say, but I hope Obama is a man of integrity who would rise above the pettiness of “card playing.”
I offer this simple plea to the Clinton campaign: Win the election as a meritorious candidate, deserving of the post for no reason other than your intellect, leadership and presidential capabilities. To the voters: I implore you to stay true to the issues and vote for the best candidate, not the one who makes her gender the fulcrum upon which her candidacy balances.
We already have a president who has used you-look-like-or-act-like-me politics to win an election, and observe what has been the morbid result. We need a president with true character and a forward-thinking perspective.
I close with another quote from Susan B. Anthony: “I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand.” Hillary, protect yourself by winning the election because you are the right person for the job, not because you are the only woman.
Neil St. Clair, a senior in the College of Communication and College of Arts and Sciences, is a weekly columnist for The Daily Free Press. He is also the host of butv10’s On That Point. He can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected].