Not a Man 2020: There's no shame in wanting a woman to be president by Jessica Valenti

[PunkinPi]

Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2019, 10:46 AM - Edit history (1)

Now that Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris have announced their intent to run for president — and American women are expressing excitement over multiple female candidates on the ballot — we can expect a familiar refrain to reemerge from the shadows of 2016: Caring about gender in an election is sexist.

How could feminists, who claim to want equality between the sexes, admit to wanting to vote for a woman?

The short answer is: Because political representation is important. Despite historic gains in the midterms, women still hold less than 25 percent of seats in Congress and less than 30 percent of those in statewide elective executive offices and state legislatures are women. Those aren’t just numbers — as the government decides if women will be able to access abortion without jumping through hoops, or what kind of support single moms will get, less than a third of the people at the table will be women.

...

What’s more biased: Wanting a female president, or expecting half the population to live in a country of laws crafted by men?

The truth is that a vote for a man is far more tainted by bias — generations of patriarchy, to be exact — than any vote for a female leader. We live in a country where for over 200 years, men have been elected to the presidency because they were men. Still, a vote for men is depicted as a politically neutral act, whereas a vote for a woman, that’s influenced by the desire to push back against years of inequality, is painted as silly or shallow.

...

Since there’s no winning cultural approval, women might as well do and say whatever they want. For me, that means being unequivocally thrilled about voting for a woman. That doesn’t mean any woman will do (Gabbard, I’m looking at you), but it does mean gender matters to me. It matters to a lot of us — and it should.

More here --> https://medium.com/s/jessica-valenti/not-a-man-2020-7688677ee06e

[Squinch]

1. I appreciate her saying this, but to me it is so self-evident that, deep down, I'm just pissed that

it needs to be said.

I took no end of grief for saying that if the Democratic primary comes down to a man and a woman, I will vote for the woman.

There was a lot of self-righteous "I vote based on policies!" or "I can only say that I would vote for a woman with all else being equal!"

Well, all else is NEVER going to be exactly equal. But, within the Democratic primary options, neither is "all else" going to be so glaringly different that it will overcome my demand to be represented for the first time in 250 years. And I vote based on policies too. But I see no advantage of, say, Joe over Kamala or Liz in terms of policy.

We've waited 250 years. It's time. Surely that is too obvious to need explaining.

[Voltaire2]

2. Sarah Palin

[PunkinPi]

3. ?

[CTyankee]

4. She is a republican. The OP was talking about our party's candidate.

We have lots of female talent in our party. Sarah Palin doesn't matter...

[Voltaire2]

5. I get that. But the point is that there is a problem

with putting identity before ideology. I don’t know where the balance point is

[CTyankee]

6. You see, here is the problem. For so long there was no such thing as a "balance point."

Women have been DENIED the opportunity to be a full player in politics for so long. It is downright embarrassing that we have never had a woman president. The rest of the world laughs at us. That is why I scoff at the whole notion implied in "I'll vote for the best person for the job, not just because she's a woman." We've got all the excellent female candidates we could possibly hope for.

[Voltaire2]

8. I agree that we have great candidates right now.

[Squinch]

7. I do. I really have no problem seeing where the balance point is.

Do you really worry that Democrats will nominate someone like Sarah Palin?

Really?