Senator Obama's tour de force speech on race in America was impressive.

It was made possible in part because more than a century ago the Constitution was amended to give all races equal protection under the laws and much too gradually since then the ideals have been given the teeth of enforcement. It was made possible because society no longer tolerates bigotry on the basis of race. With that achieved, Obama was able to take the next step.

Women haven't come quite as far. There is no Constitutional amendment guaranteeing them equal rights. The social opprobrium for using sexist slurs is far lower than that for using racist slurs. In general women are valued much more for their attractiveness than for their skills. Generations of inculcation from many homelands and religions often give the impression that women should be subservient to men.

Society needs to reject these and other ingrained ways we devalue women before we can move out of what Mario Solis-Marich called the post-racist, pre-post-sexist era into the post-sexist era with a similar speech.

Were we in that position, Senator Clinton could make a great speech, but one hopes that it would not be as inane as the one proposed here.

"There is no Constitutional amendment guaranteeing them equal rights. The social opprobrium for using sexist slurs is far lower than that for using racist slurs."

The law, as a tool, is better at taking away a measurable, concrete ceiling (of the type that have actively excluded Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, and also women).

In my view, the lack of legal protections exists because women have never been as harshly oppressed as have racial minorities. Women were never enslaved, forced to work in fields because of their gender, forcibly removed from the country as were thousands of Mexicans during the Great Depression (my grandfather included). And women, in fact, have historically played a major role in perpetuating racism.

Laws and social opprobriums against discrimination have come into effect in direct proportion to the degree of the challenge that each respective movement faces in achieving their goals. I disagree with the statement that society no longer tolerates racial bigotry. Society, unfortunately, tolerates bigotry about race just as readily as about gender. Exclusionary racial stereotypes abound in TV and music for black males just as much as white females.

Women make up more than half of active voters. If there is a lack of legal protections against gender discrimination, it has as much to do with the lack of perception of oppression among women as it does about material obstruction against such laws. Maybe all those women are wrong and you are right; either way, the law can only go so far in taking away a glass ceiling.

I have to disagree with y our analysis. Talk to black women of all education levels and income levels on what ism they are faced with most. The "typical" (average) black woman would probably say race.

I agree with you, great word opprobrium btw. I think that people also missed that when Obama targetted his white grandma it was two things, an attack directly on Hillary, as well as a gendist statement. Women not having Equal Rights under the constitution is the reason why it is legal to pay women differently than men. Although there are laws that protect this to some extent it is not regulated. Women are passed up for promotion more commonly because of the way that they look more often then men are. Look at the women in the media, and on TV very few women look "normal" and it is getting worse. We freely admit people as citizens into our country who have an intolerant attitude towards women, this feeds the problem we have with gendism. There are a lot of social reasons why women are regarded as inferior, we could look at religion but religion emanates from society. Ken Wilbur has an interesting outlook on agragarian and industrialized countries, religions and gender roles. But I like to look at it even more basic than that, when we were agragarian we needed more people to help with the crops, when we became more industrialized we needed less people to help with the crops but more people to consume in order to keep people near the top of the food chain increasing in wealth. As the entire world's population saturates, women will be less and less important. Even rats when faced with overly dense populations will begin ignoring the females. Our population has doubled in my lifetime here in the US. Richard Nixon once hypothesized about how many people could democracy hold in the US until it could no longer hold. Ability to have choice in concern to having a child or not, a network that would protect a woman who is breaking out of the predetermined ethnic role determined for her by a culture now in the US, the ability for women to rise up the ranks in corporate america based on credential not on looks, this will help eradicate gendism in the US and improve the corporate environment. It floors me that Computer Science, and mathmatical fields are not dominated by Women, these areas are where women should be accelerating at due to their multi-tasking abilities. When a movie like the Matrix has a female heroine who is (curvy, plain-looking and gutsy) as the person who kicks butt in this cyber world then there will not be a discussion about gender, because women will be able to be who they are, do what they are good at. There will be no gatekeepers who will not allow a promotion of a qualified woman because of "her handwriting, her weight, or her clothing style" but because she quicks b*tt at what she is good at.

B**ch is the new Black

traditionally white women have had more culturally to overcome than black women as far as gender repression, but it's changing, black women are beginning to feel the same pressure to conform to a specific body type, mode of dress and demeanor that white women have had to contend with. Other ethnicities of course have their own societal pressures, some ethnicities in the US enforce a rule that the women must be educated outside of the US so that the US influence on their upbringing is muted. Many of these young girls are not allowed to learn how to read, even though they are bright. There are poets out there living in the US that will not put their real names on their writings for fear of repercussions inside a culture that they have left. These are issues that Hillary would address as President and what so many here in the US are terrified of, in very similar ways that the South was terrified of Lincoln. This is why there is such an anti-Hillary backlash, she represents Lincoln for so many ethnically challenged women who need a leader who will help them ascend within society and be fully American.

Calvardos, you are incorrect in your reading of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Though it was originally enacted with the black population in mind, there is nothing specific in the language that says it only applies to them. In fact, since it has been enacted it has been used to protect ALL citizens of the US, including women. So please do not state otherwise.

Which male newscasters are normal looking? The beautiful people of either gender and any race are treated much better than their homelier counterparts. That's just reality, and we're all guilty.

I guess that's what's so great about America, we can all be victims if we try hard enough.

Would that it were true. While I agree that the wording could be interpreted as you suggest, I wonder why the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing to women the single right of suffrage, was necessary.

If the Supreme Court were to strike down every law that makes a distinction between males and females, both Federal and local, on the basis of the 14th Amendment, I would stop saying that further clarification is necessary. While it has been used to protect women in some cases, there are still laws on the books that require that distinctions be made on the basis of sex.

If the 14th amendment proves to be the basis on which Congress passes laws that guarantee equal treatment of men and women in all laws and regulations, I will be happy.

Regardless of the Constitutional situation, I still contend that there is more work to be done before we can claim to be in a country that has put sexual discrimination behind us.

Calvados, I don't think you understand. It's not just that the wording could be interpreted as I suggested, it is a simple fact that it is how it has been interpreted countless times over the decades. It is an equal protection clause for all United States citizens.

And you should be happy because the 14th Amendment has indeed been used to influence Congress in passing other equal protection laws. A perfect example of this is the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974. Congress passed this law specifically in response to the women's movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Before the law as enacted, women were routinely treated differently than their male counterparts when seeking credit. However, although it was enacted in response to the struggles of women, the law has been used to protected African-Americans (and other mintorities) from discrimination as well.

I think it is a great Amendment and it has applied to great effect, in support of many groups, including groups defined by race or sex. On the other hand, there remain laws that make distinctions on the basis of gender. An explicit amendment could help to clarify that, but one such effort has not yet been ratified and is presumed dead.

Regardless, that was the first in a chain of developments that I was talking about, culminating in the fact that society as a whole no longer tolerates racial slurs, particularly against African Americans. Even if the 14th amendment is an equal starting place for women, they were not guaranteed a vote in the constitution until 50 years after racial barriers were struck down, and further developments ensuring that they will be treated equaly have not happened, and seem to be very slow in coming.

Admittedly, sexism was around for many millennia before people started classifying each other by race, and it tends to be more subtle that the more overt hostility directed at non-European peoples by European Americans, but for that very reason it continues to flourish and harm half or our population.

Calvados: I come from an oppressed minority. We make up less than one-third of the U.S. population. We are discriminated against when it comes to applying for student financial aid and in several other areas of government assistance. We are nearly three times more likely to die on the job as people in the same age cohort from other groups. Although race and gender slurs can no longer be used in public discourse regarding others, we are exempt from this prohibition. We are frequently stereotyped as lazy, muddled, selfish, confused, aggressive or just outright evil.

I am, of course, a caucasian male.

I'm a firm believe in the idea that if you want people to be treated equally, start by treating people equally.

I'd agree with your principle in general. On the other hand, given that we did not start by treating people equally, instead giving both de facto and de jure preferential treatment to propertied white males for decades, it doesn't really seem to apply here. How do we make up for the fact that having failed to treat people equally for a long, long time, we have created a society that puts minorities (as measured by power, not population count) at a disadvantage much of the time?

I can see arguments for and against affirmative action (sticking it to the man or oppressing innocent white males, depending how you look at it). Your statistics sound interesting, but are not specific enough for me to understand how they apply to the discussion.

I'll go you one further. Since I hope to be treated fairly, I'll strive to help everyone I meet. If everyone does that, I'm sure the world will be a better place.

that speech, Calvados. And by "we," I mean American women; whereas by "we," I believe **you** meant American society as a whole. Both Robin Morgan & Gloria Steinem have indeed delivered that "speech" this campaign season; they just did it in written form, in Morgan's well-distributed essay on why it is time the U.S. should elect a woman and Steinem, in her now-famous January '08 Op-Ed piece in the New York Times. Great post, and thank you.

1.) Do you think the Equal Rights Amendment is still needed and an effort to pass it should be brought back?

and,

2.) Do you know Yoko Ono's famous quote on this topic?

@Contempo

Yes to both questions.

I fear it's less likely to be ratified now than then, though, but that's no excuse for the next president and congress not to try. Perhaps with the right leadership it can happen.

I assume you are referring to the title of the song she wrote with her husband?