Why are (some) women Angry?

In the trailing end of the primary season we are witnessing a political garage sale coming from the losing camp. It sometimes seems that Camp Clinton has decided to clean out the closets and cupboards, and round up all of that stuff that’s been floating loose in the garage and just put it out on the table to see who would buy it.  But the fire sale on justifications, rationales and explanations, should not obscure a very important and highly complex issue. Sexism, and how did/does it affect the campaigns of women.

One of the most important points that folks needs to be reminded of is that both of the remaining candidates are “Pathfinders” – the first of their kind to travel the road to the presidential nomination of a major party.  And if you think about it at all, you know that pathfinders that must be willing to take the risks, chance the dangers, encounter the obstacles and suffer the pains that come with being the first person to strike out in the new direction. This is true whether you are Cinque or Scajawea – MLK or Susan B. Anthony. And it is equally true for Senators Clinton and Obama!

And as pathfinders, Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama they are blazing the way and they will be instrumental in setting the standards and parameters for the conduct of all future campaigns involving women and racial minorities. But because they are pathfinders they will also naturally encounter more questionable behavior and even physical risks than those who follow in their wake - One of the roles pathfinders play is to mark the way, and help establish our guidelines. This may not be fair, but it is real. The first folks through the door of any previously excluded group always have to endure the worst of the slings and arrows and then help (sometimes force) their new peers to adapt to their presence.  There was a time when the “N-word” and the “B-word” and their equivalents were widely used in the backrooms, shops and offices where men gathered to work, discuss issues and socialize. As minorities and women entered those precincts they forced a change in such conduct and language, which was gradually ruled out of bounds. But we still encounter it from time-to-time today.

So while Sen. Clinton complains about “sexism” she has encountered, that is one of the functions of the pathfinder – by definition – to take the heat and help force a change.  And to do so without complaint! Women who have been angered by this fact are reacting to the fact that she has encountered the reality of her new situation, but it seems that they are also reacting both to their distaste for such things that they have encountered in their lives, as well as to their perception that their should be no need for their pathfinder to deal with such things.  They perceive the fact that women have been increasingly active and involved in the workplace and halls of power over the years – and they have an expectation that such conduct should have diminished. And at the level of their existence, that may be true. But it is like comparing the problems of ice on the windshield of your car on a clod winter's commute to work and the ice that forms on the fuel tank of the shuttle as it rockets into space. Same problem, different degree.

Sen. Clinton is still “the first” in this situation and she must prepare her own path, encounter the obstacles and best them. For truth be told, such things don’t go away by themselves. They go away because the status quo is challenged – as it has been said, "power concedes nothing without demand!" So the first female/African-American presidential contender is trying to breakthrough more than just the “glass ceiling”. S/he is also trying to break through a culture and history of power distribution. And because the current two pathfinders have blazed the trail, those following will find the going a little easier.

It is also important to try to escape the simplistic rhetoric and sound bites of the campaign season and recognize the complexity of the issue of sexism. As one who was involved in some of the early investigation and litigation around the issues of sexual discrimination as a staff attorney for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board, as well as representing women workers as a union representative, I can tell you the issue is not simple, not Black and White and not always easily discernable or describable. And if you look at the legal definitions of sex discrimination that have evolved over time, you can see how difficult a time we as a society have had in trying to establish definitions and parameters. It is very complex and often depends on the subjective perception of the individuals involved.

Sexism (and misogynistic acts), as it has been complained about during this campaign, has not always been seen or received the same way by women observers. There are obviously some blatantly sexist remarks that anyone could identify – i.e. the “How do we beat the Bitch?” or the “Hilary iron my shirt!” comments. But there are other instances where the complained of action or comment was a little more ambiguous and depended on how the person it was directed at received it. The “Sweetie” comment for example. Some women found it endearing, some offensive – and they are both right! Were the comments on Hilary’s laugh sexist?, Or those on her New Hampshire crying? Some women found them so, others did not. (and while I won't digress about the comparative burdens of sexism and racism - I will say the attempt to engage in pain comparisons was superficial and trite!)

One of the problems that has had to be addressed in trying to deal with the issue of “objectionable” and “offensive” comments for example, is that the nature of the comment is often in the eyes of the beholder. In most cases you can tell the candidate a person is supporting simply by listening to whether or not they found a particular comment “sexist”. This is a phenomenon that most of us are familiar with. A statement made by someone you like or feel close to at work, for example, may be received as benign, but the same statement by someone you don’t know may be deemed as sexist. In employment settings we have, in many cases, banned personal comments in toto just to avoid having to deal with such issues. Over time, employers have learned to discourage such things as male employees commenting on the personal appearance of female employees. Men are instructed to refrain from making “complimentary” remarks about the personal grooming or appearance of their female co-workers, because some women will find such comments offensive or objectionable.

The “angry women” supporters of Camp Clinton are not entirely wrong, nor are they necessarily being extreme. There have obviously been some instances of sexism during the campaign. And since sexism is still part of the fabric of our society we can expect there will be more. However, to direct their anger at their competitor’s camp and/or the party is simply to direct it wrongly. Sen. Clinton is a pathfinder. And when she decided to be the “first” woman to run for the Democratic nomination, she assumed certain risks and responsibilities, among which was to be the head of the spear for the women to follow – to take and absorb the blows that come with being the first to try to plow through the barrier (and to over come them without complaint). It isn’t fair – but this ain’t about fair, this is about making history.