Views » January 1, 2009

Invisible Women

By Susan J. Douglas

So here’s the great contradiction of the 2008 presidential campaign: It was all about women, and not about women at all.

With Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the presidency, and Sarah Palin’s high profile run for veep — which maybe set women back 50 years — the spotlight remained on individual women and, inevitably, on their pantsuits, cleavage and peep toe shoes.

But women’s issues? Invisible, barely uttered. Indeed, the person making the most sustained case for a focus on female-centered issues was Michelle Obama.

The high visibility of all of these women (each different, of course, but nonetheless successful and financially comfortable) makes it seem as if gender equality has been achieved and that sexism — except that coming from white male pundits on cable — is a thing of the past.

The word “sexism” got bandied about (laughably, by Republican operatives), but almost exclusively to characterize what you could or couldn’t say about Clinton and Palin.

That actual sexism and genuine economic discrimination might continue to keep millions of women (and their children) in their place? Preposterous. Isn’t that so 1970s?

If a woman can run for president and vice president, aren’t we done here? Isn’t feminism unnecessary, even irrelevant?

Television reinforces this notion, as well. Watch various successful, primetime shows — “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Boston Legal,” “The Closer,” “House,” the various iterations of “CSI” and “Law & Order” — and women are surgeons, top partners in law firms, judges, DAs, forensic scientists (although with cleavage usually reserved for “gentlemen’s clubs”).

On the news, in addition to Katie Couric now anchoring “CBS Nightly News” (and, by the way, doing a much better job than she’s given credit for), the cable channels are filled with female reporters, anchors and pundits.

Women like me celebrate these accomplished women who handle, quite well, jobs previously reserved for men. But ironically, women are now overrepresented as having achieved “it all,” so that the notion that there might be the need for ongoing feminist struggle seems, well, quaint.

Women who earn the median income — $35K for females in 2007 — working-class women and poor women have been erased from the national, public imagination.

In the real world, most women are not doctors, lawyers or TV reporters. What were, in 2007, the top jobs for women? Secretaries, nurses, elementary and middle school teachers, cashiers, retail salespersons, nursing and home health aids, waitresses, maids and housekeeping cleaners and hairdressers.

While some of these jobs provide a decent living, others pay minimum wage — or less. According to Sara Gould, president of the Ms. Foundation, two-thirds of the minimum wage and below-minimum wage work force in the United States is female. Of the 37 million Americans living in poverty, 27 million are women. The National Council for Research on Women reports that the subprime disaster disproportionately affects African-American and Latina women.

White women still make 77 cents to a man’s dollar (it’s 62 cents for African-American women and only 53 cents for Latina women), and a 2007 American Association of University Women study showed that after one year of employment, female college graduates earn 20 percent less than their male colleagues. After 10 years in the work force, they earn 30 percent less.

Many mothers face discrimination at work, some of it subtle yet costly. We have the flimsiest support network for mothers and children of any industrialized country, with, still, no paid maternity leave and no nationally funded and regulated day care system. African-American and Latina women, still vastly underrepresented or stereotyped in the media, endure more poverty, brutality, crappy healthcare and disease than their white counterparts.

The foundational role that female poverty plays in the health of a nation’s economy is a fact not only for the United States but for developing countries around the world.

So, I’m hoping that, as secretary of state, we might get Hillary “It Takes A Village” Clinton who — in addition to all the post-Bush disasters she’ll have to confront — will see the welfare of women and children as central to her statecraft.

And I’m cheering Michelle Obama on in her efforts to advance a variety of policies that support women and families.

The legions of invisible women, struggling without any acknowledgment and erased by a media that makes them seem the minority when they are the majority, need to be made visible right now. Maybe we can make the 2008 campaign about women after all.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  *Yawn* The farce of so-called women’s issues is why Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin was lampooned as something only a breeding male could love.  Many women did not support Clinton because they saw her through the values of their own lives.  Many other women could not treat Palin with any recognition of the skill it took to become governor because they saw her through the values of their own lives.  Many women who identify themselves as Black or African-American and married similary identified men could not support Clinton or Palin because they saw the values of their own lives tied much more closely to the opportunities of their husbands than to any opportunity of gender equality.

  Condoleeza Rice built up women around the world with programs in the State Department targeted towards the gender. I hope Clinton continues those programs.

  Michele Obama does not inspire me with hope.  She seemed to be more willing to build up her husband’s career than she was in reaching for power directly. Moreover, women are never going to achieve equality until we stop talking about women in terms of families.  Let’s treat women equally with men and treat the needs of families separately.  That way caring for families is no longer considered a women’s issue, but a public policy issue, and women are no longer praised for having a $10,000 a year job that brings in some extra family income, instead of aiming for a $60,000 a year business that could provide security if there were not another breadwinner.

  Posted by SillyLeftist on Jan 4, 2009 at 2:58 AM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also featured Obama’s Burden
Which Way to Universal Healthcare?
Mind the Gap

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Susan J. Douglas

• Pitbullies of the Right
  By the time you read this, election day will be over and pundits… morePosted on November 24, 2009
• Women Reach a Breaking Point
  How tired are you of seeing a tiny minority of wingnut Americans--"birthers," "teabaggers,"… morePosted on October 13, 2009
• Killing Granny with the Laziness Bias
  Progressives have been wrong--overly idealistic--about the power of communication. Many of us cling… morePosted on September 17, 2009
• News Media ‘Acting Stupidly’
  The most exasperating, if utterly predictable, lesson from the Henry Louis Gates Jr.… morePosted on August 13, 2009
• Jon & Kate Plus Mindless Drivel
  Standing in the supermarket checkout line, I'm accosted by a slew of headlines:… morePosted on June 18, 2009