Of course it has not been ignored; it would be impossible to do so: Hillary Clinton may very well be the first woman president. This would be huge.
What has been ignored: who is comfortable with a woman president?
It’s occurred to me that there have been more people who have said to me that they just don’t know that a woman could do the job of President of the United States, as if that is an acceptable idea. Nobody has said to me that a black man couldn’t be an effective president, maybe it’s because the people I’ve come across are smart, and not racist. But maybe it’s just that it’s still considered acceptable for people to find women to be less able, less tough, less trustworthy than men. Men, and even some women, are uncomfortable with a woman in charge. Why?
The way people are able to shrug off the idea that it’s okay to be opposed to Hillary Clinton because of her gender has bothered me to no end. I could give you a long list of how women have been able to govern in about the same way as men after being elected. It seems like the idea that a woman can’t do it, while probably a minority opinion, is getting a pass. It’s not right.
What do you think? This isn’t a question of electability. It’s simple. Is it valid to think that a woman couldn’t do the job of President?
(P.S. I think it’s stupid to focus on the question of what would make a bigger impact or advance, if a white woman or a black man were elected president, so please don’t consider my comparison of reactions as that. For a misguided op-ed about that written by Gloria Steinem on that issue, see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?ex=1357534800&en=9f6d8783ff1b15c9&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink For the record I’m just proud to be a member of a party that has Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as front-runners. )
January 10, 2008 at 11:42 pm
My friend has made this argument with me time and time again. He points to the fact that the only person to vote against World War II was a woman, and personality differences and thinks that this is justification for saying that women arent as “effective” as men, but I disagree with this notion. I always use Merkel in Germany as an example. Germany is definetly one of the world’s greatest economic powerhouses (and they are motioning to illegalize Scientology) and they arent collapsing at the feet of the female. Personally speaking, I’m a pretty devout Christian, and I don’t believe that war is ever justified…and I know that a woman is more likely to keep/achieve peace than a trigger happy old man with a lot of money and time on his hands. So to directly answer your question, I am absolutely comfortable being led by a woman.
January 11, 2008 at 12:16 am
I agree that women can be as “effective” as men, but let’s not make them the cure all solution. A woman could be just as “ineffective” as a man. I say we base any job on qualifications and abilities as opposed to sex. In my parents country of Chile Michelle Bachelet has lead Chile to become an economic powerhouse. The only problem with a female president would be the men in power who refuse to work with her. That is a challenge any female president would face, but then again the “first” always has to. Jackie Robinson faced those problems in baseball. The first female congresswoman probably faced the same obstacle. It’s just one thing the first woman president would have to overcome, unfortunately.