While women have served as governors, representatives, and senators, they have not always had much sway or have been treated as equals, since they did not hold the keys to the high ranking positions like Speaker of the House, majority/minority leader positions, and president or vice president. Furthermore, many women politicians have not been helped by the media and have been mocked by pundits like Rush Limbaugh (“Femi-Nazis”) for their views and have been called “power-hungry” or “too opinionated.” Hillary Clinton was attacked for advocating universal healthcare in her husband’s administration and the new Speaker of the House, first female to hold the position, Nancy Pelosi, was called a “San Francisco Liberal” after the 2006 elections by those pundits like Limbaugh, which is then usually repeated by news reporters and anchors. However, when Pelosi took charge this past January, she indirectly attacked the notion that feminists are extreme liberals or out of touch with mainstream America in her “acceptance” speech:
"This is a historic moment - for the Congress, and for the women of this country. It is a moment for which we have waited more than 200 years. Never losing faith, we waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. But women weren't just waiting; women were working. Never losing faith, we worked to redeem the promise of America, that all men and women are created equal. For our daughters and granddaughters, today, we have broken the marble ceiling."
Pelosi was clearly referencing the feminist movement and the fact that women have been working for equality and the ability to voice their concerns in the public arena just as Elizabeth Cady Stanton did at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. Pelosi defined feminism in her own terms, “That all men and women are created equal,” and put the correct connotation on the term…that feminism is not anything scary, but simply means equality…equality that many, not just women, have fought for in the United States.
2 comments:
I think what I will say first is my view on the current state of feminism. I would say that I myself am a feminist and I believe that it is entirely possible and acceptable for a man to be a feminist. Feminism merely means equality, which Matt pointed out, and there is nothing wrong in my mind about recognizing the equality of men and women. Men too have always been recognized as potential feminists because Stanton makes the point that change “depends upon the zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women”.
Many people hold the opinion that feminism is a movement that is over the top and stands for all the wrong things. This opinion does make some sense when you consider that the feminist movement began as a completely radical movement and as it has progressed, its members have added a considerable number of causes to fight for. The media too has played a large part in collecting video of extreme events and protests and statements from extreme feminists. I believe that this opinion is an accurate portrayal of some aspects of feminism and that these parts of feminism have turned many away from the cause for women, which should still be the equality of men and women.
As for my thoughts on the differential treatment of women in office, I believe that the above opinion on feminism applies to these women. These women do something that is radical, either running for a high office or actually filling that position, and so are expected to bring more radical ideas with them. Allowing women in office is a liberal idea for the most part. Because these opportunities for women are so new, it will of course be awhile before they are utilized to the fullest or fully accepted by society. Placing a woman in the office of presidency must be a slow process in order for society to change and accept it. This is why there is no reason to stop promoting the ideas of feminism even today.
Matt brings up some interesting points about women in leadership roles in the United States. I am very surprised at the current discussion going on within this country about whether or not we are ready for a woman President. This strikes me as absurd for numerous reasons.
First of all, if countries like Great Britain, Norway, Germany, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India can have women leaders, then why can't the United States? What happened to being a shining beacon of equality and democracy? It also bothers me that female politicians are usually required to go to tremendous lengths to shed certain feminine stereotypes. But perhaps some progress is being made on these grounds. I noticed that when Ms. Clinton officially announced her candidacy she made direct references to being a mother and a woman, qualities female politicians usually have to keep on the back burner in political races.
There was also an interesting article in the New York Times today about the first female president of Harvard, Catharine Drew Gilpin Faust (Note that Harvard has been around since 1636 and then think about how ridiculous this is). While Dr. Faust was growing up, her mother used to tell her that, "It's a man's world, and the sooner you learn that the better off you'll be." Comments like this one show how even 150 years after the Seneca Falls Convention, there are still women apathetic towards the idea of feminism. This strikes me as odd. How can you be a woman and not be a feminist? It only makes logical sense to want equality for your gender or group, whatever it may be.
Post a Comment