What Lies Beneath

What Lies Beneath


We’ve all heard it lately, many of us more than others now that there is only one Democratic nominee, and it’s not a woman. We’ve heard it from blogs, websites, friends, and even MSM (that’s mainstream media in IM terms). We’ve been listening to counts and recounts, defenses and explanations, and even denials, of how the media was sexist in its portrayal and coverage of the historic presidential bid of Hillary Rodham Clinton. I wonder why did we wait until we felt it was safe to come out and talk about this once there is no longer any coverage to cover, especially since we all knew of rumblings many months ago regarding Hillary’s treatment by political pundits and journalists?

How was it decided, and by whom, that race was no longer an acceptable social construct, but sexism was? And when did it become customary to rank them, or even pit them against each other?

Let me be clear – this is not about comparing the two Democratic candidates. I’ve never felt that in order to promote the attributes and accomplishments of my candidate I am required to then denounce the other and exploit their flaws. We know how much Hillary’s campaign has meant to women, as much as Obama’s has meant to the African-American community (not to mention the nuances in between, like Black women). Obviously these two campaigns have also moved many people beyond their natural constituencies, which speaks to the many strides that have been made in the past decades in the advancement of historically disenfranchised voices in the social and political spheres. The legacies of both candidates will be historic and empowering for all of us because of the boldness with which they have challenged our social conscience, and we all will be the beneficiaries of how they have occupied their time and place in history.

What this IS about is questioning the underlying assumptions that permeate how our stories get told in MSM. It is our supposedly fair and unbiased media chains who seem to have consciously made a decision as to which candidates will get the flattering shots, easier questions, less probing into personal and political pasts, and even lighter and more positive commentaries by their pundits and reporters.

While it’s still unfortunate, if not shocking, that corporate media conglomerates would sponsor and encourage sexist language among their often older, Caucasian, male anchors, it is still painful to see when a woman reporter has drunk the Kool-Aid and swallowed it giddily. When I heard the almost unbelievable (certainly unbearable) snides at Hillary from female anchors and reporters (albeit mostly conservative), I can only remind myself that internalized oppression is an ugly thing, and it is not only painful for those that experience it, but for those that have to witness it as well.

As saddening as it is to see overt sexist taunts at 4pm by your local cable news, the sexism debate actually reflects something much deeper that has only yet to graze the surface of reporters’ stories, and which we have been afraid to fully confront. It is about how Hillary’s treatment by MSM is only a symptom of deeply engrained sexism and sexist patterns that continue to permeate our culture, social institutions and value systems 88 years after women have gained the right to vote and own land. Allowing institutions we work for, or watch, to use us to help them rank oppression and determine which card will trump them all – race or sex – only continues to perpetuate outdated and useless beliefs about what we as a multifaceted society are capable of achieving. And it is not just you and I who are being offended, but our daughters, nieces, granddaughters, neighbors, nephews, co-workers, students, toddlers, etc. who, if we’re not careful, will unconsciously inherit these belief systems and will guide themselves and others according to them.

I have to often remind myself that history will ultimately expose those who have encouraged us to focus on the differences amongst us, while uplifting and honoring those who have promoted the similarities we share. After witnessing that our “fair and unbiased” media has come out of the first half of this election season unscathed, ask yourself as women committed to shifting the global paradigm for women across our city and globe, what images will we leave in place for our daughters or granddaughters, to inherit? After the media’s scrutiny has subsided, what will the legacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the almost first female President, be?

If I had it my way, I know what my answer to that rhetorical question would be. It would be the story that I heard passed down of a child in Ireland over ten years ago when then President Mary Robinson, Ireland’s first female head of state, was still elected. A young girl who had been born and raised under her term looked at her mom and said, “Mommy, can boys become presidents, too?” Maybe one day during the election season in 2028 we’ll enjoy our evening dinner watching female journalists reporting on the unprecedented number of women running for elected positions who grew up watching Hillary Rodham Clinton and were inspired by her courageous and daring move to challenge our notions of what women were capable of. Now THAT’S a legacy we all can inherit.