I've stayed away from the gender in politics (and politics of gender) debate surrounding Hillary Clinton's campaign for the White House to now for the same reasons I've also stayed away from discussing issues of race surrounding Obama's bid. Frankly neither 'race' nor 'sex' qualify or disqualify someone from holding the coveted presidential position. But in trying to differentiate between a candidate's personal qualities and those ascribed to her by social expectation, long-time feminist Gloria Steinem makes the wrong point about gender and the White House.
Stumping for Hillary Clinton in Austin, Texas, Steinem drew attention to McCain's military record and the praise he has received for his experiences as a POW. As the New York Observer reports,

“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.

Sure, the scenario Steinem describes isn't far from the realities of millions of women's lives—women who become punching bag for the release of their spouse's frustrations; or innocent victims of a larger society's preference for males—but in arguing against the bravery and military service McCain claims, Steinem seems to lose her way.
In criticizing the praise McCain's service record receives, the Observer notes later, "Steinem’s broader argument was that the media and the political world are too admiring of militarism in all its guises." I agree, that our nation and our media and our politics focus on military campaigns and the strength of tradition weapons and warfare, rather than the non-militaristic battles we should be fighting, but in denouncing militarism, Steinem seems to perpetuate gender stereotypes. If McCain and other ex-military serviceman reflect a militaristic attitude in the media, then Clinton offers the opposite with her femininity. At least that's the take-away message the seem to lie beneath the surface…

And if that's not the point Steinem wanted to convey, her other argument seems self-contradictory as well. Remarking that she likes Clinton because Clinton actually enjoys conflict, Steinem not only acknowledges the legitimacy of those questions that are still floating around about Clinton's ability to succeed in a man's world but also perpetuates the standards of male and female behavior by emphasizing Clinton's atypical penchant for conflict, thereby dumping Clinton back into the 'militaristic' category Steinem deplores.
So it seems (if one can believe the Observer's report as an accurate representation of Steinem's speech) that Steinem wants to simultaneously praise Clinton's non-militaristic femininity and induct her into the Old Boys' Debate Club. From someone with Steinem's level of experience discussing feminist thought, I expected a better argument. The one we get instead, is another round of the same old identity politics: Clinton is the better candidate than Obama because "There are six million female lives lost in the world every year simply because they are female". If Steinem wants to support Clinton, that's fine, but promoting Clinton because millions of women face gender- and sex-based discrimination is hardly a step above the sexist anti-Clinton rhetoric.
For every person who votes for Clinton because she's a woman, there's another person who will not vote for Clinton because she's a woman. When it comes to sex, gender and politics, there are relevant arguments to make, yet I have a hard time buying the logic of Steinem's 'sexism trumps racism, vote for Hillary' argument. The only way to defeat sexism and sex-based discrimination is to throw out gender as a category for consideration.
</img> </img> </img>


(Source Link)