Taking bets on women in power
Let's take a moment to crow over a victory won for the cause of women's leadership last night: Nancy Pelosi is likely to become the first female speaker of the House. There was also a net gain in women in the Senate, thanks to Claire McCaskill's win in Missouri (as of January there will be 15)*.
Next question. Which will now come first, a woman president or a woman Senate majority leader? My prediction is president will be first. But I put this out more as a challenge to current and aspiring female senators.
*CORRECTION: How could I forget Klobuchar? Sorry, Minnesota! That brings the Senate female total to 16 for the 110th Congress.
Next question. Which will now come first, a woman president or a woman Senate majority leader? My prediction is president will be first. But I put this out more as a challenge to current and aspiring female senators.
*CORRECTION: How could I forget Klobuchar? Sorry, Minnesota! That brings the Senate female total to 16 for the 110th Congress.
Labels: elections, feminism, Hillary Clinton, Klobuchar, McCaskill, Senators
posted by Waage on Wednesday, November 08, 2006
3 Comments:
Look, I'm all for equality of the genders in congress and elsewhere, but let's not assume that women, as a whole, will be generically better or even worse than their male counterparts.
Evil women in politics!, you say? You betcha. Maggie Thatcher comes to mind. President Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright who called innocents who die in our invasions "necessary and unfortunate collateral". Condie 'kill them first and ask questions later' Rice, is another riot grrl on the wrong team. Nancy P. better come out swinging before she gets my r-e-s-p-e-c-t.
And, don't even get me going on Hilary. I'd sooner vote for Gore than that fence-wetter.
Ah, that felt better. It feels good to be a female registered Independent. Can't fence this beeyotch in!
Certainly, self-serving hypocrites, scary ideologues, incompetents, and other flawed personalities occur in similar proportions within both the female and male populations. And women are not better leaders by virtue of their gender any more than men are.
But that's not what gender equity is about. It's about not privileging one asshole over another just because that asshole happens to be male, or privileging one fine leader over another fine leader for the same reason.
It must be me. But I don't get it. Your post seemed to set the tone that you welcome 'women power' in a seemingly broad sweep of acceptance based soley on their female gender.
As a former warrior in the trenches known as 'women's graduate studies' in upstate NY, I know how to tip toe through the gender land mines as much as the next gal. I have to admit, though, that most times I shook my head in befuddlement. The gen-exer in me just wants to go beyond labels, you know?
Gender, what gender? Just make sure you are a decent human being who has the cajones to stand up for yourself, and I may vote for you.
Post a Comment
<< Home