A seat at the table

It's no secret that I'm a feminist. I don't back away from the word, but wear it proudly. A lot of wonderful women have come before me, paving the way for me to have the opportunities I've enjoyed, and I'm thankful for each and every one of them.

I'm part of that 'tween generation. I was an excellent baseball player as a kid, but I was not allowed to play Little League baseball. Why? 1) There were no teams for girls, and 2) girls were not allowed to play on the boys team. The same was true about basketball, another sport I loved. Title IX didn't become law until I was out of high school.

I switched to music and got involved in our high school band. One of the big events in Indiana each year is the marching band competition at the Indiana State Fair. I loved it. Even before I was old enough to be in the band I attended every practice and knew all the marching band routines by heart.

Once in the band I wasn't satisfied with just being a "right guide" ... which all my marching-band buddies will understand. I wanted to be the leader ... the drum major. But guess what? Being a drum major was reserved for the boys. Girls weren't allowed.

So I'm a senior in high school and I wanted to become a Congressional Page. I know, sounds funny now with all the hoop-la surrounding the Page scandals ... but I wanted to be one. Guess what? You got it, only boys were allowed.

Once in college, and even after, life seemed to get a bit easier. Maybe it's just because I've always been someone who just put their head down and kept moving forward. But there was always that hint of sexism. At 54, I can say that it's only been within the last 15 years or so that I have been in a work environment where I felt I had an equal opportunity. But I'm fully aware that not every woman can say this -- and I do believe that none of us are equal until we are all equal.

I know that we are all human, and as such we make mistakes. But at this point it should be clear that sexism is an issue that must be addressed. A comment by esmense on Crooks and Liars really sums up my feelings:

It wasn’t Hillary’s tears — it was Obama’s shrug

No one, male or female, young or old, Left or Right, has trouble recognizing, and applauding, the historic, inspirational aspects of Barack Obama’s campaign.

But this campaign season has shown that men, including the leading male Democratic candidates and their mostly male campaign advisers, may be having difficulty fully recognizing, and effectively acknowledging, how historic and inspirational Hillary Clinton’s campaign is for women.

That failure to grasp what the first serious female Presidential candidacy means for women, including those who are not committed Clinton supporters, or fully decided on any candidate, had consequences in New Hampshire.

For instance, if the Obama camp had been able to put themselves in the shoes of women, to see the campaign through their eyes for a moment, Obama might not have missed the opportunity handed to him in the New Hampshire debate, when Clinton was questioned about her “likeability” — a question that, for women, resonated with all the age-old dismissals of public women and their attractiveness. He would have known that he needed to strongly and immediately denounce the cringe-making, sexist nature of the inquiry. He would have understood that it wasn’t Hillary’s likeability that needed defending — with a shrug and a diffident, “You’re likable enough” — but a woman candidate’s right to be taken seriously, and engaged with, seriously. He would have known that it wasn’t about standing up for Hillary, a strong and able competitor, but about demonstrating that he would stand with the women whose votes he seeks and needs.

Today’s women, especially those of Clinton’s generation, have spent most of their lives bushwhacking into new territory, without guides or guideposts. They understand that competing against a woman is mostly new, and therefore tricky, territory for male politicians. They’re willing to forgive a few mistakes, but not too many. Both Obama and Edwards made rooky mistakes in, at times, appearing to take cues on how they should compete against a woman from the mostly clueless, still male dominated, media. They also allowed themselves to be lulled into over-estimating how much the orgy of over-the-top negative coverage of Clinton could benefit them. Now they’ve been given a chance to get a clue from women voters themselves.

If they know how to listen, here is what they’ll hear; they have to take every opportunity possible to disassociate themselves from the boy’s club discomfort with a woman in the tree house that characterizes too much of the coverage of Clinton’s candidacy — and run like men who fully understand the respect women have earned.

Male candidates can be reassured that women won’t vote for a woman just because she is a woman. But it’s past time for them to wake up to the full implications of this; increasingly, women don’t have to vote for men simply because they have no other choice.

Well said.