Gender and Politics
During the 1984 Presidential elections I was in 1st grade. My teacher had us fill out a mock election ballot put out by some children’s magazine as to who we would vote for if we could vote. In my astute understanding of how the entire process worked I voted for Geraldine A. Ferraro, Walter Mondale’s vice presidential candidate. My rational was as follows – since Reagan and Bush had already had a turn in the White House I thought it would be fair to let someone else have a turn. And given that there had never been a female President, I thought it was high time a woman got to take a turn at that as well. (I apparently got the whole playing fair and taking turns thing). So in the box under the pictures of Mondale and Ferraro, I shaded in only the half of the box under her side. I wanted to vote for a woman.
But I am not voting for Hillary Clinton in the Primaries (it could be a different story if she gets the nomination). But I have been intrigued by the media’s reports on the effects of gender on this campaign. Many are accusing Hillary supporters (quite a few who are 50-60 year old women) of voting for her just because she is a woman. I have a hard time with this. I am a firm advocate of the need to allow women to have a voice and the necessity of altering male-dominated systems to make that happen, but I don’t subscribe to the idea that one’s gender should be one’s sole qualifications for a position. But neither should it stand in the way.
I found Gloria Steinem’s recent op-ed piece in the New York Times on this issue to be intriguing. In the piece she states her support for Hillary and mentions the gender roadblocks she continues to face.
“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.”(and for a challenge to her racism/sexism comments see this interview on Democracy Now!)
Hillary Clinton has hecklers demanding that she iron their shirts for them. Her win in New Hampshire gets attributed to her tears on national television – just sympathy votes for a woman. She is seen as divisive because of her sex. Women are called disloyal to their sex if they don’t vote for her, and biased by gender if they do. In all – the gender issue is still an issue.
I personally think we absolutely need more women in leadership in this country to bring in various perspectives and leadership styles and to serve as role models. But I have my reasons for voting as I do and I no longer vote as I did in first grade and am not voting for someone solely on her or his gender. Nor do I appreciate the accusation that gender based voting is the only reason one would ever vote for Hillary. But then again single issue voting is one of my many pet peeves. I find it sad that (at least in the media) this comes down to being about gender. I know it could represent a long overdue historic first for women, but I look forward to the day when “because she’s a woman” doesn’t have to be a factor either way.
Tags:
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
I never thought I would write this about a post that included an uncritical quote from Gloria Steinem, but this is a good piece of writing. Well done.
was reading this month, after the Civil War, the Constitution was changed (14th and 15th Amendments) giving blacks the right to vote. interestingly, the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote wasn’t passed until 50 years later.
Isn’t the best way to get to that day when “because she’s a woman” doesn’t have to be a factor either way, to do as you are doing and vote for the candidate you feel is best qualified for the job regardless of his or her skin color or gender? I think so and say your post is right on the money.
If that is the case, does this apply to other jobs besides public office? What about college and grad school admissions? Should otherwise less qualified candidates get the nod “because she’s a woman?” Or “because she’s a racial minority?”
The issue is on my mind because I’ve been reading “The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court” by Jeffrey Toobin and just finished a section about the court’s decision curbing but not eliminating affirmative action.
Karl – I think there is a fine line between affirmative action and being deliberate about making sure women have a presence/voice. Many feel that being aware of a need for women and helping remove barriers women face is affirmative action, I see that as just getting over sexism. Equity though is not a reality yet (for women or minorities) – helping either succeed in a system created for white men is not the same as lowering standing just because a person is a woman or a minority. If an when sexism is history and equity the norm, then race and gender won’t have to be such divisive issue or even issues at all.
I remember a similar classroom exercise in 3rd grade — I picked George Wallace because he was the youngest candidate, and I figured he wouldn’t die in office (don’t ask me how that squared with the youngest previously elected president getting assassinated… I was 8, OK?). My mother had to inform me that Wallace wasn’t a good pick because he was a racist (though I don’t think she used that word).
So know you know I’m a lot older than you… but I also feel the tension between believing it shouldn’t matter and really wanting to see a woman in the highest office. You said it very well.
Julie, I see a difference between helping remove barriers for equally qualified candidates, vs. choosing a less qualified candidate due to his or her race or gender. The removal of barriers is much needed. But it isn’t the same as affirmative action. Even though equity is not a reality yet (for women or minorities), I don’t think putting a less qualified candidate in office (or in an office or classroom) due solely to the goal of diversity, is the way to true equity. It sounds like we agree.
In law school, I had several conversations with woman and minority classmates about these issues, along with studying the supreme court cases on affirmative action. Most strikingly though, I observed the different standards applied to minorities (and women, though to a much lesser extent) when it came to admissions, and in the job search process. I tend to agree with the late Arthur Ashe, who felt that giving a minority a job or grad school admission, when a white candidate with the same qualifications would have no chance at that job or school admission, was actually demeaning to the minority person and counterproductive to the ultimate goal of a society “where ‘because she’s a woman (or minority)’ doesn’t have to be a factor either way.” Good for you, for voting for Obama over Clinton because the candidate’s qualifications and stance on issues are more important to you than his or her gender or skin color.