“Hillary” Against the Rest?
Can a woman win? What a patronizing implied doubt! I am irritated by the question, but it has to be asked. Eleanor Roosevelt said in 1934: “I hope [a woman president] will only become a reality when she is elected as an individual because of her capacity and the trust, which the majority of the people have in her integrity and ability as a person.” I wholeheartedly agree with this, but am afraid most American voters have not yet grown enough to answer Roosevelt’s call.
In most of the Western World and parts of the Middle East, questioning the ability of a woman candidate isn’t even an issue. But here, in the United States, it is. Give me a break! Who are we kidding? Even though women make up more than half of the population and its voters, 84% of the members of congress and 77% of Senators are male; only six of the 50 states have women governors; of the top 100 US cities, only 15 have female mayors. One might argue that we’re making progress; but in fact, over the past five years, women’s representation has stayed constant. Yes, there were (and are) strong women in politics and beyond in America. But by far not enough! And yet, you still believe a woman can become U.S. President?
We are all at fault: Men are at fault, because they don’t like to shake the boat if they’re the ones who could be thrown overboard first; women are at fault, because we follow Clinton’s presidential candidacy like Pavlov dogs and actually say out loud that we consider voting for her not based on her experience and qualifications, which she has plenty of, but because of her gender (and God help the man who admits he’ll vote — or won’t vote — for a candidate because of gender).
The media are at fault, because they urge Clinton to be approachable and emotional (but not too much, thank you very much), nicely dressed and coiffed. Pundits, pompous commentators and presumptuous op-ed writers are more often than not to blame, both men and women — even though 80% of all op-ed writers are men; they ponder likeability — and we all know where that call has left us the last time.
The tone of the entire public discourse regarding Clinton is dismissive, diminutive and condescending: We refer to her as “Hillary”, as if she’s our little “gal”. She is running against the grownups Edwards, Obama and all the other candidates with surnames. We treat her as our pet project — but won’t refer to her as Clinton, lest we not confuse her with her husband.
“Hillary” against the rest? What a sad state of affairs. Now let’s get our priorities straight and discuss the issues!
— Tekla Szymanski
Filed under: politics, presidential election, women in politics | 1 Comment
Tags: gender issues, politics, presidential election, primaries 2008, women in politics
Postscript:
Overheard during the January 21st presidential debate of the democratic candidates in South Carolina, which was broadcast on CNN:
The moderator, Wolf Blitzer quotes Congressman Charles B. Rangel, a powerful African-American member of the House of Representatives from New York, who supports Hillary Clinton: “I like you, Senator Obama, I am very proud of your accomplishments. But black voters should not do what makes us feel good, but what’s good for our great nation.”
And this is what Barack Obama answered: “Charlie is right in principle. Black Americans should vote for what’s best for them and their children and their country. And women should vote for what’s best for them and their children and their country.”