Gloria Steinem is doubtless one of the most talented writers out there, and that can probably be attributed to sheer persuasiveness. Readers of this article will likely find themselves swayed from distrustful or intimidated by Sen. Clinton, to at least seeing her in a new light. She talks about the psychology of the male dislike of powerful women, she highlights Sen. Clinton’s credentials as a reason for popular support instead of just sex, and all while paralleling her with Sen. Obama.
Steinem says that “[if he] was named Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago.” Here she highlights, with attitude, the double standard inherent in our peeing contest of our political culture. She notes that the voters attitude should be changed from the cowboy loving, ‘which guy would ya wanna have a beer with,’ state that its in, into a more reasonable race focused on credentials. Which is not an uncommon argument, but which does prompt certain questions, including what is her stance on Bill Richardson and his impressive resume, and reasons for which he is not included in this article. Also, the easy argument remains unanswered in her article, namely what if men and women are inherently different?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Wait! What, exactly, is the easy argument you're suggesting? Steinem established herself firmly at the forefront of American feminism's second wave. That generation couldn't touch the question of "inherent difference" because it would have killed them before they began. Of course, there are indeed inherent differences between men and women (this comes from a third wave point of view), but the nature of those differences are far from easy to argue, even from a biological standpoint. But then what is it you're suggesting? That those inherent differences somehow point to greater leadership or presidential abilities?
I agree with marin's comment that biologically, men and women are different (and speaking as a science major, that has been documented a few times over...) so I am also confused as to what your argument is? Is it that men and women are inherently different political leaders (because I don't think that this is necessarily true...)?
On a larger scale, my question remains whether America is more ready for a black man as a president or a woman? This election should be an interesting one...
Post a Comment