What We Vote For.
- J.C. Guest
- Feb 15, 2016
- 2 min read
Gloria Steinem recently said that Bernie Sanders attracts young female supporters because they’re boy-crazy, and “the boys are with Bernie.” An American feminist, journalist, and social and political activist, Steinem became nationally recognized spokeswoman for the feminist movement in the late 1960s and early seventies. Her assessment of young women in America, perhaps an attempt to make herself relevant to twenty-first century feminism, only angered the demographic to which she wished to endear herself. It was only after receiving criticism from that demographic that she apologized.
Not to be outdone, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in support of Hillary Clinton, went on record saying: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”
Really? Does that mean that there’s a special place for young men who don’t help each other when they vote for a woman?
Sadly, in America we seem to delight in placing labels on each other; labels of color, gender, religion, culture, left wing, right wing, moderate, and more. The more we label, the more the rights of all suffer. The battle between the sexes denotes a winner and a loser, while negotiation paves the way to compromise and ultimate victory. Why must feminism enter the picture when it mostly serves to antagonize a certain demographic? Can equality truly be won by shame or bloodying the nose of your opponent?
Feminism should not be about “winning” something or “taking” something. Ani DiFranco defines it as “self-determination” and “very open-ended”: “Every woman has the right to become herself, and do whatever she needs to do.”
It’s been said that in 2008 Americans were more enamored by electing the first African American president than they were by electing the first woman. Yet Obama didn’t run on race; it was the media that insisted on keeping his color at the forefront of his campaign. Obama ran for office on a platform of change and transparency. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the change he brought after seven years is a topic for another discussion, as is the transparency that was promised which has become more opaque.
Which begs the question: can Hillary Clinton win votes by claiming she deserves a job just because she’s a woman? Apparently Steinem and Albright think so.
It’s ludicrous to think that anyone, young or old, would vote for someone on something as shallow as gender. Yet I recall a middle-aged woman who, in 1976, voted for Jimmy Carter because her husband liked peanuts. Some United Auto Workers members vote the way their union tells them to.
Voters sometimes sour on a candidate based on a single stance of their platform, say, pro-life. They may agree with everything else on that candidate’s platform, but instead embrace their opponent, with whom they agree on nothing other than their pro-choice view.
Kudos to these young women for voicing their disapproval of Steinem and Albright’s attempts to shame them into voting on gender. They stood up as individuals capable of forming their own opinions based on the issues and the platforms of the candidates, showing the nation that they truly have “come a long way, baby.”
What true feminist could find fault with that?
Photo Courtesy: Feminaquotesdottumblr.com
コメント