Much has been made of the historic character of this year’s race for the presidency, and as we’ve had it drilled in our heads, we have a Woman and a Black running for President (and the largely-ignored John Edwards, who I am still proud to support). However, it is not simply enough to have a pair of Historic Candidates.
Consider the high-pitched squeals coming from the direction of the post-feminist camp. This from the Globe and Mail:
As a result, the girls of this generation, who consider it “lame” to align themselves with a woman candidate on the sole ground of sisterhood, are more likely to tune in to the new CosmoTV digital channel (sample program, Dirty Cows: “Take 10 stylin’ British babes, add one cold and lofty barn and a young, rich, handsome farmer looking for love, and you’ve got a recipe for mayhem, because to win his heart they’re going to have to fight like dirty cows”) than flip open the 35th-anniversary issue of Ms. Magazine.
The horrors–that women might be considering candidates on the basis of issues instead of a group estrogen explosion. How incredibly patronizing is this? Women must choose Hillary Clinton because Hillary Clinton is a woman, period, end of story. Harping further on this point, a letter from the New York NOW:
Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few.
It goes on. You must really read the whole letter.
I am appalled at how the Oppressed Minorities of America, be they women, blacks or Hispanics (and yeah, Asians, but we are never on the radar screen) both are thoroughly typecast and urged to vote on the basis of solidarity or sisterhood over substance and seem so willing to gravitate as a bloc towards a candidate. The fact a woman and a black are on the brink of the presidency is not historic in and of itself. I will only call a historic moment when America stops worrying about the candidate’s race or gender and starts worrying about issues.
Sadly, this campaign is not about issues. It was never about issues–and because of that I fear that our historic step forward may turn out to expose how far we still have to go.
Perhaps one day America will figure out that I am not an Asian-American, or an ethnic American, or some kind of bloc. I am an American that happens to care about the same country as the rest of you. Hopefully the same will go for everyone else.
2 Comments
You were very respectful in your support for your man. I actually volunteered for him back when I lived in FL during the last go round until we had the nominee. Come help us make sure Obama gets the chance to enable Edwards’ vision.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/edwards/?iref=mpstoryview
Excellent post Kenton! I particularly like the phrase “an estrogen explosion.”
I thought the NOW letter was silly, myself. In fact, I’ve always asked the NOW-types this question: If you had a choice between a male candidate who supports equal pay for equal work, reproductive rights, the Family Leave Act, and other issues important to women, versus Phyllis Schafly, would you vote for Schafly because she was a woman, or the man who was the actual feminist?
Feminists come in all genders and are people who support legislation that helps women to achieve equality. There are plenty of women who are anti-feminists out there.