confessions of a very political feminist

[JoB]

this morning i realized that one of my most significant political biases had faded away to nothing .. there was a time when given a choice between a male and a female candidate.. i would preference gender over party…

yup.. i admit it. i indulged in sexist behavior..

that didn’t change because i thought it was wrong to be sexist.. to preference women in public office over men…

but because the political stance of what was once the moderate Republican choice.. women.. seems to have changed.

Republican women now stand with Republican men against social issues that disproportionately affect women.. like fair pay.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-republican-women-voted-against-equal-pay-214201211.html

and if you look at the noise from the campaign trail.. it only goes downhill from there.

This is happening at a time when women are becoming far more effective in Congress… in spite of limited support from Republican Women in Congress.. Female legislators are actually putting together bipartisan coalitions to pass legislation even in this do-nothing Congress…

which btw is how i personally defend my personal bias towards female candidates.. for the most part, they are pragmatic legislators who are accustomed to facing significant resistance to their proposals and as a result they tend to work harder to find common goals.

in my not so humble opinion.. getting something done.. no matter how small.. always trumps political pie in the sky tomorrow grandstanding…

but back to the topic…

the Washington Post weighed in on the dearth of electable female candidates in the Republican Party

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/09/29/why-the-republican-party-doesnt-have-more-female-candidates/

and an article in Roll Call did the same

http://atr.rollcall.com/house-gop-will-focus-on-female-recruits-for-2014/

Even the Republican party has realized they have a problem fielding female candidates that women voters will respond to.. and has created a program to actively recruit candidates.

unfortunately, it hasn’t been successful.

is the lack of candidates the problem or the party’s insistence on playing political football instead of creating legislation?

US news seem to think it’s the party. They say

Republican women fight an uphill battle against the policies of their own party…

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2014/09/10/republican-women-struggle-to-secure-partys-future

i tend to agree with them. I believe women are far less likely to preference a female candidate over a party candidate because in their rush to field female candidates to counteract what they saw as the female vote the Republican party didn’t bother to seek excellence in their candidates..

which reinforced the public perception that the road to success for a female politician clearly lies though the Democratic party….

Is it because they prioritize appearance over substance? Maybe. They have certainly fielded female candidates whose appearance was more appealing to male candidates and conservative women….

but then.. the democrats are more into appearances these days than substance too… so that can’t be the whole story.

whatever.. and i’m cool with those size then feet they planted into my feminist leanings.

i don’t assume that that pretty face has any substance behind it…

not even if it’s a female face.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Yup, JoB, it’s all about image, not substance. Remember when the Bella Abzug’s of the world got respect for their intelligence and grit and actually moved the needle for women?

Now, the R’s are looking for the photogenic airheads who couldn’t put forth a cogent argument if their life depended on it.

Palin, Bachmann, Hasselbeck, the faces on Faux News, the list grows every day.

But it sells. Unfortunately, it sells…

Share This

[JoB]

wake.. it doesn’t sell well to women

if it did.. they wouldn’t be scrambling to find candidates who do

Share This

[wakeflood]

Let’s hope that the smarter gender steps up to the plate this election season and kicks us over the top.

Cuz, if we’re depending on the testosterone-fueled gang to use our um…thinking head, we’re all in trouble. ;-)

Share This

[JTB]

I’d like to encourage everyone to read “When Everything Changed-The Amazing Journey of American Women From 1960 to the Present” by Gail Collins. I thought I had a good sense of the women’s movement through my involvement in radical politics in the late 60’s and early 70’s then working in healthcare up through the mid 80’s. But Collins’ book provides an engaging review of the sociological and economic forces that promoted the movement from the early period on. It’s also interesting to reflect on how influential the civil rights movement was in inspiring women to become politicized. Collins examines the opposition to women’s rights including a detailed review of Phyllis Schlafly’s career.

Considering how Republican policies are often at odds with the interests of working women, it’s surprising the gender gap isn’t larger than it is.

I know I can sound pessimistic about our future, given the challenges and lack of a meaningful democratic opposition to an entrenched power structure, but taking the time to reflect on how much has been accomplished by the women’s movement in 50 years, I realize there is always hope for progress. Perhaps the students in Hong Kong and Jefferson County, CO offer some examples that at some point, people still realize they have to act in opposition to oppressive forces if they hope to have a shot at a decent life.

Share This

[JoB]

JTB..

great read.

like you i was involved in the late 60s and early 70s and thought i had a pretty good grasp of both the historical perspective and the issues until recently.

books like Gail Collin’s “When Everything Changed” and “The woman Behind the New Deal” by Kirstin Downey give me some hope… although Frances Perkins was only mentioned twice in the recent Roosevelt series.. at least she was mentioned…

that’s progress.

i didn’t even know she existed until fairly recently.

Share This

[Author]

Posts