Well, it’s Women's History month. Since February, I’ve been in white male reactionary mode. Can you blame me? I’ve been raised in a typical Silent Majority household in which the last 40 years of trying to reverse the hundreds of years of injustices committed against minorities and women makes me, the white male, the new victim of persecution.
Woe is me! I now only make 11¢ more per dollar than my female colleague instead of the 19¢ a few years ago! The slight inconvenience of not getting a scholarship is the same as hundreds of years of forced bondage and a hundred years of second-class citizenship!
With sarcasm out of the way, I do have a problem with some feminist complaints:
“There are not enough women in politics! These country’s have more women in their Parliament/Congress/Representative body than the US!”.
What I really hate is the numbers game. First, I would like to point out that some of these countries have small Parliaments. Second, how does having women in power make a country better? Ok, Rwanda is #1 (It only has 80 seats in their Parliament). Although the country has improved since that whole ethnic cleansing thing in the 90s, I still wouldn’t go there. Let us look at other countries on that list that beat the US:
#4 Cuba
#11 Angola (tied with Costa Rica)
#15 Tanzania
#23 Belarus
#24 Uganda
#35 Mexico
#37 Viet Nam (37???)
#38 Sudan
#55 China (tied with Italy)
#58 Nicaragua
#62 El Salvador
#69 Kazakhstan (Dude!)
#71 Venezuela
How many of these countries either have one or a combination of these problems: massive electoral fraud, corruption, dictatorship, censorship, ethnic cleansing, drug wars that have left thousands dead? Yes, Germany, France, the UK, and Canada did beat us out too. The point is, the number of women in your parliament does not make you a better country. The USA did beat out Russia, Brazil, BOTH Korea’s, Japan, Ireland, India, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
“It took until 1920 for women to vote!”
It is true that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and even Germany beat us to the punch. But we did give women the right to vote before Britain (1928), France (1944), Mexico and Japan (1947), China (1949, do they even have a right to vote or free elections?), Switzerland (1971), South Africa (1994), and the United Arab Emirates (2006!).
“The US has never had a female head of state/government!”
There might be a reason why a woman has not been elected President. The US was founded at a time when women were not considered equal to men. They were too emotional to be allowed to vote and their duty was to stay home and raise and educate the kids. So, this notion persisted for quite some time. If you look at most of the countries that have female Heads of State/Government, most of them are new countries (India, Indonesia, Israel, former Soviet states). At the time of their Independence, the idea that all people (men and women) were equal was more common. Coming off of colonial rule, they embraced this idea. Of course these nations and their people/customs have existed farther back then their date of independence. India still faces problems with women’s rights. I’m not sure if I understand this argument as well, but it’s a thought that popped into my head as I tried to drown out my coworkers.
We did elect a woman as Speaker of the House in 2007, Nancy Pelosi. And I think (I have not done a lot of research) we were the first to elect a woman to our legislative branch, Jeannette Rankin 1917-1919 and 1941-1943 (Beating out the UK and Australia!). 229 women have served in Congress since 1917 (hey, it’s better than zero…).
France has never had a female President. Russia/USSR hasn't (if you don't count Czars). Many other nations have never had a female head of state/government. Germany and the UK has had one Chancellor and Prime Minister respectively.
A friend told me after the Democratic Primaries finished in 2008 that it proved the US was more sexist than racist.
Hold on.
Timeout.
This is a horribly over simplified analysis of the Democratic Primaries.
One, An African-American and a Caucasian Woman beat out a handful of white men. That sounds like some progress to me.
Two, the last two candidates were a black man and a white woman. If Clinton had won, my friend would have told me it proved we were more racist than sexist. I’m sorry but we can only choose one person to run, SOMEONE would have to lose. Clinton happened to be the loser (and now she is Secretary of State, not a bad job. In fact, three of the last four Secretaries of State were women).
Three, Clinton had baggage. Saying her very name is enough to anger some people. She had high name recognition in 2007, but was very unpopular. She was infamous. Eight years under her husband (or should I say Monica was under her husband? Ha Ha Ha. Sorry…) and her failed Healthcare proposal in 1994 gained the ire of conservatives and Republicans. She was the butt of jokes, like mine up there. Obama was an unknown with charisma and had no real baggage.
“We need a law mandating an X amount of seats in Congress should be held by women!”
I hate “equality of results”. We should not force women into Congress just to fill a quota and make us feel less guilty about the past. Like I said before, the numbers game means nothing. I don’t know what stops a woman from running for office. If there are high barriers to women being able to run, then they should be torn down to allow for the “equality of opportunity”. I hate this phrase but “the best person for the job”. I hate it because it makes it sound like women (and minorities) are not the best qualified for a job and that it will always go to the white male. That is not true. It made me sick when a woman said that women in the military should not serve in combat duties because, on average, women are weaker and smaller than men. What about the number of women who CAN perform the duties associated with combat, no matter how statistically small the numbers? Why should some women be denied the right for advancement because others cannot? Yes, do not force unqualified women into combat roles, just as you shouldn’t force unqualified men (like me!) into combat roles. But give them the opportunity if they are capable!
I think women should be more involved in politics. A lot of women suffered to obtain the right to vote. More suffered to demand equality and enjoy rights like divorce and property ownership. There are a lot of intelligent and ambitious women in this country that I think would make a good elected leader.
I have no objections to voting for a woman. My first election, I chose Hillary Clinton for the Senate in 2006, because I thought she was the best candidate. All you Liberal Women out there; would you vote for Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, or Christine O’Donnell just to have them be the first female president? No, you wouldn’t. You would not like these candidates because you care about more than gender. Issues and experience matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment