Comments on: Day 236: Celiac Woes, Out in Wine Country & Contemplating the State of the Feminist Movement http://365daysuntillove.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/day-236-celiac-woes-out-in-wine-country-contemplating-the-state-of-the-feminist-movement/ Responding to an oracle on seeking out love in all of its manifestations... by Leah Jorgensen Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:58:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: David http://365daysuntillove.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/day-236-celiac-woes-out-in-wine-country-contemplating-the-state-of-the-feminist-movement/#comment-354 David Mon, 26 May 2008 00:24:33 +0000 http://365daysuntillove.wordpress.com/?p=298#comment-354 I absolutely wouldn't argue that Clinton is a viable candidate. I just think that if a woman doesn't think she's the better of the two candidates strictly from a political/leadership standpoint, it doesn't make sense to support her simply on the basis of gender solidarity. I guess I kind of think of it, probably wrongly, in terms of family ... if my mother, whom I adore, were running for office against another woman whom I felt to be better qualified, I'd vote for the other woman, even if it meant disappointing my mother. To me, what someone really thinks is more important than loyalty. To my dubious credit, I think that about people who interact with me, as well ... I'd rather that someone do what feels right to them, rather than support me simply because they "owe" it to me for some reason. I realize that in saying this I have gotten a bit off topic, but the basic concept underlies why solidarity of any kind baffles me a bit. Then again, I've always been unrepentantly disenfranchised, in every possible sense of the word. I agree that criticizing Clinton's dress, mannerisms, or anything else about her personally is beyond contemptible, and highly reflective of the fact that we haven't really come all that far regarding gender equality. It's too bad that the media has such an impact on politics ... it's such a circus sideshow. I absolutely wouldn’t argue that Clinton is a viable candidate. I just think that if a woman doesn’t think she’s the better of the two candidates strictly from a political/leadership standpoint, it doesn’t make sense to support her simply on the basis of gender solidarity. I guess I kind of think of it, probably wrongly, in terms of family … if my mother, whom I adore, were running for office against another woman whom I felt to be better qualified, I’d vote for the other woman, even if it meant disappointing my mother. To me, what someone really thinks is more important than loyalty. To my dubious credit, I think that about people who interact with me, as well … I’d rather that someone do what feels right to them, rather than support me simply because they “owe” it to me for some reason. I realize that in saying this I have gotten a bit off topic, but the basic concept underlies why solidarity of any kind baffles me a bit. Then again, I’ve always been unrepentantly disenfranchised, in every possible sense of the word.

I agree that criticizing Clinton’s dress, mannerisms, or anything else about her personally is beyond contemptible, and highly reflective of the fact that we haven’t really come all that far regarding gender equality. It’s too bad that the media has such an impact on politics … it’s such a circus sideshow.

]]> By: leahjorgensen http://365daysuntillove.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/day-236-celiac-woes-out-in-wine-country-contemplating-the-state-of-the-feminist-movement/#comment-351 leahjorgensen Sun, 25 May 2008 18:01:34 +0000 http://365daysuntillove.wordpress.com/?p=298#comment-351 Hello David, Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective. I would like to point out that most of the women I'm talking to, who are on the fence about both leaders, the ones who find Clinton and Obama as equal candidates, those are the ones I target in my commentary. It's very easy for men to play the card - we should vote for the best candidate, not gender or race or whatever. I do that - which is why I am registered Independent and not by party. I would never vote based on a party, but on the best candidate. I believe women, and men for that matter, should vote for the best candidate. If Hillary was not a viable candidate, then there would be no discussion, no debate. But the fact of the matter is that she is a viable candidate. I think it is important, at this time in history, for women to consider gender in this election, sexist or not. The only sexist part of presidential politics, in my opinion, is the fact that women have not been able to make a case for leading our country until now. I do believe women lead with more compassion then most male politicians. I saw this all of the time growing up in Washington, DC, especially with so many of my friends who worked on the Hill or in the White House. Unfortunately, sexism in our society continues to keep women's voices in the background. I don't think Nancy Pelosi should be considered a token woman leader in her position. Nor do I think Hillary should be the token woman president. I believe they deserve to be in their positions of power. It kills me that Hillary has been judged for what outfit she wears or for her laugh. The media has been responsible for much of that. But, there are still so many men, and apparently women, out there who don't take women seriously enough to lead. My uncle is one of those people. He actually thinks that men are smarter than women. It's appalling to me. So, yes, growing up as a woman who was told she could be anything she wants to be, only to learn the foil of that myth, well, yeah, I think women need to step it up and support their gender. Sorry. Kind regards, Leah Hello David,

Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective.

I would like to point out that most of the women I’m talking to, who are on the fence about both leaders, the ones who find Clinton and Obama as equal candidates, those are the ones I target in my commentary.

It’s very easy for men to play the card - we should vote for the best candidate, not gender or race or whatever. I do that - which is why I am registered Independent and not by party. I would never vote based on a party, but on the best candidate.

I believe women, and men for that matter, should vote for the best candidate. If Hillary was not a viable candidate, then there would be no discussion, no debate. But the fact of the matter is that she is a viable candidate.

I think it is important, at this time in history, for women to consider gender in this election, sexist or not. The only sexist part of presidential politics, in my opinion, is the fact that women have not been able to make a case for leading our country until now.

I do believe women lead with more compassion then most male politicians. I saw this all of the time growing up in Washington, DC, especially with so many of my friends who worked on the Hill or in the White House. Unfortunately, sexism in our society continues to keep women’s voices in the background. I don’t think Nancy Pelosi should be considered a token woman leader in her position. Nor do I think Hillary should be the token woman president. I believe they deserve to be in their positions of power.

It kills me that Hillary has been judged for what outfit she wears or for her laugh. The media has been responsible for much of that. But, there are still so many men, and apparently women, out there who don’t take women seriously enough to lead. My uncle is one of those people. He actually thinks that men are smarter than women. It’s appalling to me.

So, yes, growing up as a woman who was told she could be anything she wants to be, only to learn the foil of that myth, well, yeah, I think women need to step it up and support their gender. Sorry.

Kind regards,
Leah

]]> By: David http://365daysuntillove.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/day-236-celiac-woes-out-in-wine-country-contemplating-the-state-of-the-feminist-movement/#comment-348 David Sat, 24 May 2008 17:12:05 +0000 http://365daysuntillove.wordpress.com/?p=298#comment-348 Most of the liberal women I know who support Obama vs. Clinton are doing so based on their different records regarding support of the war, rather than anything to do with gender. I'm not sure it's fair to expect women to support a woman out of gender solidarity if Clinton does not appeal to them as a candidate. If you'll forgive my saying something that may sound very odd, and which is not in any way meant to be critical of you ... in a way, isn't it kind of <i> more </i> sexist to assume that a woman in the White House will be a great catalyst for change? That idea supposes that women operate very differently from men. Then again, perhaps I have an unusual idea of what gender equality is. Ideally, I'd like to see Clinton and Obama considered as people with values and skills, not as a white woman and a black man. If Clinton falls in with the policies and procedures of the status quo (which many people fear she will, based on her voting record and her husband) she'll be the same kind of leader we already have, her gender notwithstanding. Anyway ... I guess I feel that voting women who are considering their vote based on the candidate, rather than gender solidarity, are making a valid choice, and are actually making a choice that supports women ... because they're exercising their right to think for themselves, rather than voting based on the simple fact that a candidate shares their chromosomal makeup. Most of the liberal women I know who support Obama vs. Clinton are doing so based on their different records regarding support of the war, rather than anything to do with gender. I’m not sure it’s fair to expect women to support a woman out of gender solidarity if Clinton does not appeal to them as a candidate.

If you’ll forgive my saying something that may sound very odd, and which is not in any way meant to be critical of you … in a way, isn’t it kind of more sexist to assume that a woman in the White House will be a great catalyst for change? That idea supposes that women operate very differently from men. Then again, perhaps I have an unusual idea of what gender equality is. Ideally, I’d like to see Clinton and Obama considered as people with values and skills, not as a white woman and a black man. If Clinton falls in with the policies and procedures of the status quo (which many people fear she will, based on her voting record and her husband) she’ll be the same kind of leader we already have, her gender notwithstanding.

Anyway … I guess I feel that voting women who are considering their vote based on the candidate, rather than gender solidarity, are making a valid choice, and are actually making a choice that supports women … because they’re exercising their right to think for themselves, rather than voting based on the simple fact that a candidate shares their chromosomal makeup.

]]>