Will Sex Ever Make Us As Smart As Race?

By Gloria Steinem, AlterNet. Posted November 1, 2002.

When the stock market took a plunge and my pension fund went down with it, I had the classic female fear of becoming a bag lady. But I also had another thought: If "it's the economy, stupid," then this disaster will have been worth every penny. Even people who don't care about the female half of the country, and who would be perfectly happy to bomb everything, will be mad as hell and looking for change.

I know this sounds contrary. There hasn't been much criticism of Bush & Company since terrorism caused the country to circle its wagons. Even before that, there was the idea that Bush and Gore were pretty much alike, so why bother?

I remember when that tactic was first created by Richard Nixon, who suppressed mainstream-to-progressive voter turnout by pretending to be like Jack Kennedy. Now, rightwing extremist candidates get away with charging "negative campaigning" if their opponents so much as report their voting records. As for the media, they seem hooked on the idea that objectivity requires being even-handedly negative, and so suppress interest in politics even more.

When combined with the physical difficulties of voting -- which are greater here than in any other country -- this smokescreen has allowed a smaller proportion of people to rule this nation than in any democracy in the world. Older, richer, whiter voters are far more likely to go to the polls to vote their interests than younger, poorer, voters of color are to vote their hopes. Indeed, 36 million women aren't registered at all, and 40 percent of those who did vote ended up supporting candidates who were opposed to women's majority views on issues as crucial to life as reproductive freedom, protection of air and water, and support for public education.

Still, there was a 12-point gender gap that made the difference in hundreds of races, from school boards and the U.S. Senate to Bush's defeat in the popular vote. Clinton couldn't have won either of his races without this culturally female voting pattern that favors center-to-progressive issues. Nor could Gore have won any of the big electoral states if his greater support among white women hadn't compensated for his low level of support among white men -- and then some.

Yet imagine what those results would have been -- and what they could be on Tuesday -- if white women were to vote with a little more of the self-respect and enlightened self-interest of, say, African-American male voters, who chose Gore over Bush by 85 percent. Or better yet, African-American female voters who, perhaps doubly educated by race and sex, rejected the rightwing platform by a nearly unanimous 94 percent.

The truth is that European-American women remain the largest group in this country that votes for leaders who don't vote for us. Some of this is due to candidates who downplay their real positions, some to being surrounded by the belief that issues affecting the female half of the country can't be serious, some to media that fail report issues as they impact our daily lives, and some to other causes; for example, being born into families that normalize inequality, or depending on the income and approval of supremacist men.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »