parrhesia

NY Times[20080108] 강조는 namunnib

Women Are Never Front-Runners (여성들은 절대로 선두주자가 아니다)

_Gloria Steinem

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father ? in this race-conscious country, she is considered black ? she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).

If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style? or Bill Clinton’s either? without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.

I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old? for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy? while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.

This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”

Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center.


Correction: January 9, 2008

An Op-Ed article yesterday about Hillary Rodham Clinton misstated Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s position on the presidential race. He has not endorsed Mrs. Clinton or any candidate.

미국 민주당 경선 소식을 좀 찾아보다가, 이 기사를 대충 읽고(잘 번역이 안 되어서 번역은 좀 하다가 포기했다^^* 매끄럽게 잘 안되길래) 마음이 무거워져서 옮겨 둔다. 오바마는 흑인이고, 힐러리는 여성인ㅡ세상에, 무려 백인 남성이 없다!ㅡ이런 후보 구도란 게 사실 미국 같은 나라에서는(사실은 어떤 나라에서도) 흔하게 일어나긴 힘들 것이다. 물론 이렇게 두 사람을 하나의 정체성으로 환원하여 구분짓는 것은 때론 위험하고 바보 같은 일(Stupid!)이다. 오바마의 사회적 스탠스가 흑인으로 환원되는 것도 아니고, 힐러리의 사회적 스탠스가 여성으로 환원되는 것도 아닌데, 이런 식으로 투명하게 나누어서 재현하는 것은 큰 문제가 있다. 그리고 또 어떤 흑인이며 여성인가?ㅡ그리고 그 구분법은 누구에게, 어떤 권력에게 봉사하는가? 하는 질문에 답할 수 있는 것도 아니니 말이다. 나야 뭐 그래도 은근 힐러리가 되길 바라고 있었지만(;) 최근의 동향은 그렇지 못한 것 같아 안타깝다;ㅅ;

게다가 언론에 보도되는 선거 이미지도 이 꼴이다 -_-;

이미지 보기

나야 오바마가 어떤 인물이며 힐러리가 어떤 인물인지에 대해서는 잘 아는 바가 없기 때문에 일단 패스를 해보자. 그 중요한 것을 패스하더라도, 역시 젠더의 더블 스탠더드(이중 규범)가 중요한 문제로 떠오를 수밖에 없다. 이중 규범이란 예컨대 이런 것이다. 여성-힐러리가 너무 '독'하게 말하면 입담 좋고 여유 있으며 유머 감각 있는 남성-오바마에 비해 너무 공격적이고 강하고 독단적인 후보처럼 비춰질 것이다. 또 너무 '유'하게 말하면 너무 감정적이고 연약한 후보처럼 비춰질 것이다. 힐러리는 오바마에 비하면 정치인으로서 짊어지고 갈 짐이 무거운 것이다. 인종과 젠더는 어느 지점에서는 연결 되어 있으면서도 분명히 다른 것이다.


정말이지 다음 대선에는 심상정 의원이 좀 돌풍을 일으켰으면 하는 마음이 강하게 있는데, 그때 까지 갈 길이 먼 것 같다. 이번 민노당 비대위원장 맡으셨던데, 비대위 결과가 좋아야 할텐데... 대선 결과도 너무 안 좋았고, 또 한 동안 "주사파 대 평등파" 운운하는 논쟁 때문에 나쁜 쪽으로만 주목 받았던 것 같아서 아무래도 총선 때가 걱정된다. 솔직히 말하면 그 과정을 지켜보면서 좀 불편했다. 많은 사람들의 참여와 관심, 그리고 토론(혹은 격투;)가 있었다는 사실은 솔직히 놀라웠지만, 아무리 생각해도 가당찮은 오버도 좀 있었던 것 같다. 트집 잡을 거 생겼다고 막 벌떼처럼 일어난 사람들도 그닥 좋게 보이진 않았고... 뭐 그만큼 많은 사람들이 민노당에 기대를 했었다는 의미도 있겠고, 나도 민노당에 대해서는 잘 모르니^^;


덧) 힐러리와 오바마가 각각 '여성'을 대표한다거나 '흑인'을 대표한다거나 하는 이미지를 내세우는 것은 아닌걸로 알고 있다. 이처럼 '투쟁적인' 이미지를 내세우지 않기 때문에 (특히 백인) 유권자들이 거북함을 느끼지 않을 것이란 분석도 가능할 것이다.. 오히려 나중에 백래쉬가 일지는 않을지 걱정된다.

덧2) 글을 읽으면서 부분 부분 스타이넘이 꽤 나이브한 측면도 있구나 하는 생각도 들었다. 뭐 글쓰는 사람에게 '모든 영역'의 '전문가'가 되라고 주문하는 것은 물론 오버고 가능한 것도 아니다. 하지만 좀 세심해졌으면 하는 부분도 있다. 예컨대, 젠더 문제가 "가장most" 심하다고...? 문제의 우위나 경중을 따지는 것에 대한 윤리적인 의문을 차치하더라도, 저런 표현은 좀 자제했으면 싶다; 너무 투박하지 않나?;