Enough is enough

Andrea J. Cabral

Over the course of my career, I’ve been asked many times: Do you identify yourself first as a black person or as a woman? I’ve always thought it was an odd question, the answer to which would depend on the situation in which I was called to “identify myself.” Moreover, it seemed silly to assess permanent supremacy to one immutable characteristic over another when I’ve always felt so shaped by both.

This presidential race has changed that. Because I deeply care about my country’s future and my gender’s progress in it, I have learned to prioritize.

The Founding Fathers didn’t specifically exempt black people and women from the “all men are created equal” paragraph of the Constitution because they intended them to share in the bounty created by those “certain inalienable rights.” It was simply because no rational mind of the time would have considered them equal, so clear was their inferiority. It has taken centuries for this country to move from that to the point where bigoted comments and racial slurs provoke outrage, ostracism and (sometimes temporary) job terminations.

I am not, by any means, suggesting that these responses mean that bigotry and racial discrimination are no longer a problem in this country. They clearly are. What I am suggesting is that what has become unacceptable public comment and behavior on the issue of race is still the sport of kings when it comes to gender.

I’m not talking about the vitriol that spouts incessantly from desperately fearful, drug-addicted fools like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. I’m talking about ABC political talk show host George Stephanopoulos, who asked at the opening of the last New Hampshire debate, “The question is: Who’s going to kiss Hillary?” I’m talking about MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews, whose nightly, cackling sexism is unconcealed, or former presidential candidate John Edwards, who forsakes an opportunity to offer substantive credible criticism of an opponent for a chance to question her fashion choice.

If only these superior minds and others had reported the details leading to the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq with the same scrutiny they employ to search for hidden meanings and calculated motivations when Hillary Clinton’s voice cracks with emotion. In both national and local media, male pundits engage in this meaningless palaver like little boys on a playground, keeping the girls off the swings. While no one would dare suggest publicly that it is wrong for black people to vote for Barack Obama because he is black, there is no reticence about such declarations regarding women who vote for Clinton.

Sadly and too often, female journalists join in or fail to challenge comments that should insult them as much as the intended target. This puzzles me most of all because if there’s a woman, particularly one who works in a male-dominated profession, who has not been unfairly judged due to her sex, I’d like to meet her. Maybe these women journalists have just been extraordinarily lucky, and their work environments extraordinarily enlightened.

There is no accusation more politically damning than to call a female candidate “unlikable,” “polarizing” or “unbecoming.” “Serial killer” would generate less heat. Without credible explanation, these words are used to describe Hillary Clinton as though they were scientific conclusions.

If these are gender-neutral terms guaranteed to wither men as well as women, why didn’t Mitt Romney similarly chastise Mike Huckabee or Fred Thompson when they unleashed a flurry of barbs much more biting than anything former gubernatorial opponent Shannon O’Brien leveled at him in 2002? Because the worst sin is to be labeled a woman who is, for whatever reason, unacceptable to men.

Given that the next president will face the greatest challenges since those surmounted by FDR, I can’t think of a more baseless and less substantive reason less to reject a candidate whose entire career in public service shows she can meet those challenges. George W. Bush was likeable. How’s that working out for everybody?

Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president is a defining moment for this country. This is not just because she is a woman and the prospect of her presidency represents progress no less important to the cause of civil rights than any other. It is because she is a strong leader, respected internationally and a proven change agent in time where those qualities are most needed. As women and regardless of who we support for president, we should demand a level playing field for her and every female candidate who follows her.

Andrea J. Cabral, Esq. is the elected Sheriff of Suffolk County, Massachusetts.