Advertisement
“A dream you dream alone is only a dream; a dream you dream together is reality.” — Yoko Ono
Jul
25
Sometimes the questions we don’t ask tell us more than the questions we do
Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, bigotry, discrimination, gender, media, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, sexism, stereotypes | Posted by Cara |
I finally got the chance to watch the YouTube Democratic debate today. As a feminist, the fact that this question was asked and the fact that it was aired interested me:
[Transcript: Hello, my name is John McAlperin. I'm a proud member of the United States military and I'm serving overseas. This question is to Senator Hillary Clinton: The Arab states and Muslim nations believe [in] women as being second-class citizens. If you’re president of the United States, how do you feel that you would even be taken seriously by these states in any kind of talks negotiations or any other diplomatic relations? I feel that’s a legitimate question.]
Even more interesting, I think, is the reaction. I thought that Senator Clinton’s answer was spot on, saying that she has a long history of working with all kinds of people and that she has difficulty believing that anyone who has ever dealt with her might consider not taking her seriously.
But people are now asking whether or not the question was legitimate. [My answer, for the record, is "no."] There’s a thread on Feministing, where I was surprised to see several readers arguing that like it or not, it is a legitimate question, because many world leaders are sexist, there’s nothing we can do about it, and there’s no reason to blame the guy brave enough to ask.
There are two things that bother me, here. The first is the phrasing of the question. I think that a perfectly legitimate question would be “Unfortunately, many politicians and world leaders still harbor very sexist points of view. Have you thought about how you will conquer the specific obstacles that you may face as the first woman president?” This question is something decidedly different. Firstly, it singles out a specific group of people as being the really sexist ones with the problem– not us good, equality-loving Americans! Secondly, the words “how do you feel that you would even be taken seriously” already imply the answer to the question. How could she even be taken seriously? Well, obviously, she won’t be! Gee, that sucks, better not vote for her– not because we’re sexist, but because they are!
The second thing that bothers me is the questions that I don’t see anyone asking. The idea of electing a leader from a group of people that other leaders might dislike is not a new one. Surely, there are some leaders out there who dislike and are distrustful of Caucasians. We know for a fact that many nations are hostile towards Americans in general, but no one is asking Giuliani how he will be taken seriously in the Middle East, his being an American and all. No. Of course the American leader is going to be an American. And, the reasoning goes, we’ll elect whoever the hell we damn well please. If we’re talking about groups that many Arab and Muslim nations are hostile towards (obviously the hostility that Western nations have towards Arab and Muslim people is going to have to sit on the side for the moment), what about Christians? Fundamentalist Muslims certainly have hostility towards Christians. And yet, every American leader in history has either professed to be or assumed to be a Christian. Every presidential candidate from both parties is Christian. Someone asking John Edwards if he could expect to “even be taken seriously” in Arab and Muslim nations because of his faith would be considered ludicrous. Because that’s the way it has always been. And we do not choose our leaders based on the preferences of other countries.
The issue here is not at all about “them”– it’s about “us.” The question of how a woman will be taken seriously is not even remotely legitimate, and can carry no claims of being unbiased without asking the others that I have outlined. The fact that most of us would never think to ask these questions, while so many would ask the question about gender brightly shines an unpleasant light on the biases in our society. It is a sexist question, and the fact that privilege and/or social conditioning generally blinds us to that truth only serves as proof.
The question is not whether foreign leaders could take a female president seriously; it is whether or not her fellow Americans could.
Comments
6 Comments so far
Subscribe to The Curvature
“Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less.” — Susan B. Anthony
Thanks for a very lucid discussion of the problems with that question.
Yeah, I totally agree with you. About everything. That said, I’m so glad Clinton had the opportunity to field that question. Because 1)that sentiment, exactly how that guy phrased it, is incredibly common and needed to be addressed, 2)this YouTube-style debate was probably the only chance for her to be asked such a sexist question, since it would be totally unprofessional coming from anyone else, and 3)she answered it SO well.
It always gets under my skin when people think of excluding women from something because they are anticipating the sexism of others. Guess what! That, too, is sexism!
Yes, good points.
And yet, somehow, I have a feeling that this won’t be the last we hear of it . . .
I’m gonna take this guys side… the media loves to take the role of exploiting middle eastern countries for their sexist ways…. think about how when we went to war with Afghanistan, all of a sudden Laura Bush was concerned about the women being forced to wear head/face coverings over there. We make it out to be like the Muslim countries hate women… which is obviously a stereotype but whether or not it’s a valid stereotype is up for debate. Regardless, the guy who asked this question is probably legitimate.
. . . but that doesn’t address anything that I’ve discussed here.
right on, cara. not to mention, there’s another absurd assumption here about the way that sexisms work. as you point out, there’s no discussion of whether john edwards, as a christian, would be taken seriously as a leader of this country. obviously, if he were elected, his very post as president would demand that he be respected and taken seriously. the same goes for hillary if she were elected. the same goes for the ’seriousness’ with which our government considers any number of world leaders who are female/black/asian/muslim/whatever. the power encompassed in job leaves no room for discrimination based on personal characteristics. the president of the united states simply must be taken seriously. and if hillary is elected, this guy will be forced to take her seriously, too.