| By Jenny Odegard - Jan 8th, 2008 at 3:16 pm EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
My gender studies education has taught me, if nothing else, to do my best to approach things in a gender-blind way. Thinking in that way, is it possible for me and other feminists of my generation to reconcile casting votes for female politicians if part of our vote is based on their gender?
The argument starts out with a firm declaration that voting for a female on the basis of gender would be just as "bad" as anyone else voting inside their demographic to secure that groups place in the power grid. But in a reality where the playing field isn't level, do I react by compensating and casting my own biased vote to swing the scales?
Or do I move forward with what I've been taught, and fight gender inequalities by acting irregardless of gender?
Feminist icon Gloria Steinem writes in the New York Times today that women should cast votes for other women, arguing that the feminist agenda continues to lag behind the fight for racial equality. And that a female vote for a female candidate stands up against the idea that some younger women have of "hop[ing] to deny or escape the sexual caste system" as a path towards equality. (Jezebel reflects, unsatisfyingly.)
For myself, as much as I want to ignore the caste system as a way to abolish it, I recognize that this tactic might not be a catalyst to change minds. And I think about how much a woman President of the United States would mean to females around the world that haven't grown up with the same positive messages and female role models that I have.
I can't resist the notion that a woman as one of the most powerful people on earth would send the "reach for the stars" message loud and clear, not just to women but to anyone who feels held back by the role they've been assigned.
I know that this is a circular form of idealism, using opposing notions of how to achieve change to end up back where I started, like a tearful Ms. America going on about world peace.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
I don't think Steinem wants all women to vote for women. Rather, she points out that continuing to permit such coverage of the election is irresponsible, regardless of who has the best platform going into the election. Calling Clinton a robot says something serious about how we value women in this country.
Read this critique for several good points. Link
Steinem writes:
"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."
In what cockeyed worldview is voting for Hillary "radical"?
Why try to resist it, your instinct is right. I can't believe the sexist, ageist garbage that has been thrown at Hillary. And so far a lot of it has been coming from people on the left and so called progressives.
A woman in the White House would be a good thing if you ask me. However, she should not win just because she is a woman. She should be elected because enough people feel that she'd do a good job as president.
By the way, I don't believe that sexism is necessarily the reason for all the bad coverage about Hillary. It's just that many people feel very strongly about her (on both sides). The media knows that, so they do that kind of coverage because they know many people want to hear it. Don't forget that news is a business.
Once I see an equal number of men and women candidates in the race, I'll agree with you. But for right now it seems to me you're over-philosophizing
Well, now you've made an extreme case. Luckily, these extreme situations never occur outside debating matches and philosophy classes. In the real world, no candidate is probably ever TOTALLY opposite or TOTALLY in agreement with the policies I would support. For instance, I'm not crazy about Senator Clinton's health care proposals, but I would find it easy to support her for president. Mainly because of the message it would send to have a woman in that office.
I guess outside the idealized world of gender studies classes, we have to pick and choose, weigh one thing against another, and muddle our way through this very un-ideal world as best we can.
That's just what I meant.
And one more thing about Hillary: I for one can't support her, for a good reason. Whoever becomes the next president will have a very hard job to do. So whoever it is should be someone most people can live with, even if they're not enthusiastic about him/her. Hillaty is definitely not that person. About half of the country can't stand her. The next president, whoever it is, needs to be a uniter!
First, I'm 100% sure the person who said this (and those who hear it) imagine a little boy rather than a little girl:) also since I am from the middle east, I can tell you that a woman president would have a much better impact on little girls in the middle east. Not that there are not enough strong female role models in their own communities (because there are MANY) but seeing their own heads of state next to a powerful female president definitely puts things in perspective much better.
I agree that we are not living in a gender-free world. The US is lagging behind most developed countries when in comes to women's rights (CEDAW was never ratified here). yet I feel that lot of women my age or younger do try to ignore gender. It is very appealing and convenient, but it doesn't make the problem go away. We need more women in the government, in the media, even in engineering and sciences so everyone can benefit from a different and fresh point of view. And that doesn't just happen on its own. it will only happen if women (and men who appreciate the value of utilizing the potential of the whole community rather than half of it) support the female pioneers in government, media, etc.
I also want to add that if Hillary were in fact against women's rights, of course women shouldn't vote for her, that would hurt women rather than help us. So we are not just voting because she is a woman. We are voting because she is a great candidate, AND because she is a woman.