Saturday, January 13, 2007
Week 3 Blog Topic
Nice discussion yesterday in class. Good job! Let's continue with some of the themes from class. We talked a bit about how politicians use the gender gap to garner votes from potential swing-voting women. More specifically, we talked about Soccer Moms (Clinton) turned Security Moms (Bush). Several options for discussion here: How useful is it to categorize women in this way? Who does this leave out and what types of policy issues are thus de-prioritized on the campaign trail? We also talked about whether women vote for women. What is the most important predictor of vote choice -- partisan identification! There seemed to be some conflicting thoughts in the room though about whether Republican women might vote for Hillary Clinton if she were to secure the Democratic nomination for President for the sake of making history. What do you think about this? What do your Republican friends, parents, others think about this? You may address one or both of these topics -- just be sure to follow the guidelines on blogging distributed in class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
It is very useful to categorize women in this way because it helps show how women have changed in a short period of time just because someone else is running the country. I have never thought about it that way, but going from a soccer mom to a security mom is so true. It is funny to hear that the mothers in America have gone from one extreme to the next. I think a more women than none will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman and they want to be part of history. I don't think that they are voting for her because they want a woman to run the country. I don't even think they are thinking about that. From the discussion in class, it sounds like a lot of people are going to be voting Hillary into office and from what I remember, Hillary basically ran the country when Clinton was in office. That is prob. why Clinton had so much time on his hands for extra activities...The Republicans could care less about history because if a woman or a man is running for the democrats, it is not going to happen. Republicans are a "my way or the high way" kind of group. I think we are already part of history and this war is plenty of history for my lifetime. Personally, I am tired of history and I wouldn't trust Hillary in office anyway. It was Clinton that started all this in the first place.
Tyler Barnett
I would disagree with Tyler's comment that the "soccer moms" and "security moms" labels are useful. I think they are limited in their application. I think from our discussion last week about the conservative and liberal women's websites, we can see that the political opinions of women are broad and cover a wide spectrum. I just don't think those terms reveal much about women voters in America. As for women voting for Hilary Clinton because she is a woman; I'm not 100% sure. I think that there are women that would definitely cast a vote for Hilary just to see a woman in the presidential office. Although I too, would like to see a woman president someday, I think voting in that way isn't a smart way to vote. To me, a person voting based on no facts and simply the idea that they would like a woman president, is an uninformed and irresponsible use their voting rights. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Hilary Clinton. If the 2008 elections are between her and any Republican candiate, I will most likely vote for Clinton. However, I have a problem with people who would vote for her (or against her for that matter) simply based on her sex. Issues are what should be important in an election and people should be listening to what Clinton has to say about them instead of paying so much attention to the fact that she's a woman.
Jenny Holly
I believe that politicians target women for swing votes, because they believe that they will be more easily swayed concerning one or two hot topic issues. Now this is obviously not true across the board, but I think that the conception the politicians have on women is that they will vote for someone that holds a certain stance on abortion no matter what his or her other policies may be. Unfortunately, for men and women I believe this is becoming an all too familiar occurrence. In my own experience, I know several women that support candidates solely on whether they support abortion or not; conversely, I know many ultra-religious women that will only vote for candidates that are against abortion. To me, this is a dead issue since the question of abortion was decided in the 70’s. I know that it is possible that there could eventually be a case in the Supreme Court that could overturn Roe v. Wade, but there are so many more issues of importance to consider than simply that. All in all though, I believe that politicians perceive women to be easy targets that can be easily swayed with the hot topics of the day.
As for whether I think that women will band together and vote for Hillary, I believe that there are a lot of factors to consider aside from her just being a woman. Obviously, some men and women will vote for her or vote against her simply because she is not the stereotypical candidate; however, I believe that she will garner a large preponderance of female votes. Several factors play into this, first of which is that fact that she is a Democrat. We all know that women are more likely to vote for a Democrat and Hillary should be no exception. Secondly, there is a general disapproval of Republican candidates since the Iraq War has become so unpopular and approval ratings are low. Many women that would have initially voted along party lines for a Republican may switch to Democrats. Lastly, Hillary brings a woman’s touch to the White House that many women seem to trust. She is able to connect with the female demographic better than men can and it is certainly helping her on the campaign trail. She should have a considerable amount of female support by the time that November 2008 rolls around.
This is a very interesting topic, and I wish we could spend two or three class meetings just going back and forth across the room. I know we wouldn't change anyone's opinion in a couple meetings, but it would still be fun just to do. I think that Senator Clinton has been trying to bring herself closer to the middle of the road for a couple years now. This is remarkable true as she stated that she still believes that marriage should be considered in the classical sense of a man and a woman. This drives her very close to the middle, even though she still sits on the left. This makes her easier on the republican conscious, if the right decides to vote for her. However, this I think disappoints her left supports as many of them fight for a redefinition of marriage. I think women will replace men in Senator Clinton's main supportive body, and if that is the case I think men will be her swing vote. From what we learned in class, and what I've learned in my time here at EKU, men are generally more conservative. Therefore, men will not only see a woman candidate as weak, but a liberal democrat. I don't believe that she is weak, I believe she's a very strong independent woman. To wrap this up, I see a very strong divide between Conservatives and liberals. However, I see this divide being crossed by Senator Clinton running for President. I feel that if Senator Clinton were to run with John Edwards as her Vice President Nominee, they would be unstoppable and take the White House in 2008. But I don't have a political crystal ball, so we have to wait and see.
While it may be useful for politicians to label women in an attempt to garner votes, ultimately, a wide range are left out. Women are not a monolithic block. So, these politicians choose one or two "women's issues" to bring to the forefront. These issues may include family, pay wages, or welfare. But what politicians (and others for that matter) don't really understand is that women can bring new perspectives on issues. It seems they are going along with stereotypical women's gender roles. The typical "view" the media represents for various issues is always from the white male perspective (unless otherwise stated). A good example of this was the article we read in the Whitaker book. "Feminist Theory as Seeing" by Ring discussed the most common view we all have of slavery. But there is more to it when we see it from a woman's perspective.
I think more important is WHY do politicians feel the NEED to appeal to women especially? There is more to it than the swing vote, which is certainly important. Women are generally not included in viewpoints, politics included. People (the ones in charge, mainly) assume that women MUST have such vastly different views that they are in special need of being addressed separately. Yes, we do have views different from men. But women have varying opinions between them as well. Case in point: Women's Studies and Literature classes. Why are these issues not included in REGULAR history or literature classes? I think they are certainly IMPORTANT enough to be, but when I took two different Lit classes on campus, I think we read MAYBE one female author. DON'T GET ME WRONG. It is an exceptional thing that we can offer courses devoted to women, but all I am saying is that these are issues that should be talked about on a wider basis, not just in specialized classes. Why can't I read Flannery O'Connor in Lit along with Hemingway? Politics is the same, women should be included on a WIDER scale, because we have opinions on ALL issues, not just social ones (the ones that polticians like to address as "women's issues"). I just hope to see a day when women's issues can be talked about on the same scale as general issues.
And as for women voting for Hillary. I agree with Jenny that the issues are what SHOULD be important. Unfortunately, so many people who vote DON'T know the issues. From personal experience, I know that some Republican women will vote for Hillary because she is a woman. I suppose this is because, regardless of their political views, they believe it is time for a woman to step up and prove that we have the power to accomplish whatever we dream. So, a heuristic factor could be gender. Then again, some may NOT vote for her because she is a woman. I am sure there are some sexist people out there who don't want her to be in charge. Ultimately, if she gets the Democratic bid, there will be a big deal made out of the possibility of the first woman president! YES, I wish people who were not educated on the issues would just stay at home, but then what kind of fake democracy would we have? (just kidding.....sort of).
~Ashley Farmer
Ashley gets a gold star for using "monolithic block" in the blog...
Tyler... Hillary basically ran the office when Clinton was in office? That's why he had so much extra time? I think when you get into partisan politics both groups are "my way or the highway". Very interesting. Class Debate?
Nice discussion yesterday in class. Good job! Let's continue with some of the themes from class. We talked a bit about how politicians use the gender gap to garner votes from potential swing-voting women. More specifically, we talked about Soccer Moms (Clinton) turned Security Moms (Bush). Several options for discussion here: How useful is it to categorize women in this way? Who does this leave out and what types of policy issues are thus de-prioritized on the campaign trail? We also talked about whether women vote for women. What is the most important predictor of vote choice -- partisan identification! There seemed to be some conflicting thoughts in the room though about whether Republican women might vote for Hillary Clinton if she were to secure the Democratic nomination for President for the sake of making history. What do you think about this? What do your Republican friends, parents, others think about this? You may address one or both of these topics -- just be sure to follow the guidelines on blogging distributed in class.
I believe that by labeling women in such terms as “soccer moms” or “Security moms,” politicians end up excluding some women. On their part it probably isn’t so intentional, because they are out there trying to get votes, but some women just don’t like labels or they don’t feel included because that isn’t them. They won’t relate to the politician because of the label. There are the moms who have to work everyday and it may not be your 7 – 4 or 8 – 5 Monday through Friday job and they don’t have the time to be a “soccer mom” or for that matter a “nascar mom”, Sundays is for church and family dinners. Women who work two jobs just to get by, or your over 40 hours a week mom, whose kids are taken care of by dad, grandma, or the babysitter. These are the women they need to appeal to. They don’t have time to watch the news about political issues, they have just enough time to pay attention to the stock market and the weather and maybe if they are lucky they can catch Grey’s Anatomy or ER on TV.
On the other side of the topic, People in general have select hearing, not just men. :> People listen, but not everything grabs their undivided attention. The labels may call attention to women who fit that role. They will pay more attention and go vote, because they think the politicians are going to take care of them. The politician may have “soccer mom” and or “nascar mom” best intentions at heart, but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything can be done about the issues they want worked on.
Although there will be some women who vote based because there is a woman candidate and want to make history, I don’t think the majority of women will vote on a woman candidate just because the candidate is female. I think women are more educated than to just side with the same sex. I feel that women will vote on who they feel has their best interests at heart whether or not they are republican or democratic. Majority of the women that I know are democratic vs. republican and actually in Kentucky.
I do think that women will vote for Clinton, because she has the experience, she is strong, and I feel that if an event happened and she had to push the red button, she would. Not only because she is a mom, but because she went through 9/11 just like all of us did, but she saw a close up view that many of us were spared.
She is honest and not afraid to admit fault and attempt to correct it. She has already said to the public that she admits she helped as many did with Bush sending in the troops to Iraq, but however, she was duped under false pretense, as many people on capital hill were, for that matter as most of the nation was. We were misinformed and still reeling from not being able to attack someone so quickly. She knows that now we have to clean up our actions and bring our people home. She has also stated that we can not just pull them out and leave Iraq quickly. That would be a disaster for all.
Bush has only hurt us in the eyes of other nations and we need someone who can relate better and mend our bridges.
This is a very good website on helping someone get an idea on each political candidate by asking simple questions and then you can compare the candidates
http://www.selectsmart.com/president/
I called my sister in western Kentucky, she works at a non-profit medical behavior center and had her ask all the women in her office who they would vote for with the potential candidates now. They all said they would probably vote for Hillary. Only 2 out of 5 said because she is a woman. The others said that they would vote for her because she had the same ideals as they had.
I asked my husband (republican) he wouldn’t vote for Hillary, his reason was because he didn’t like her when Bill was in office and he still feels that way. I am a democrat, but I am not voting because Hillary is female, I actually have her in mind alongside two other candidates which are democrats. We’ll just have to see what events unfold from now until time to vote.
angela sumnlers
oops got carried away and copied Dr. Patton's comment
The topic that I found particularly interesting is the issue with women voters and Hilary Clinton. I believe that yes there will be women who vote for her because she is a woman, I also believe there will people who vote against her also because she is a woman. While I don't condone either situation it should be recognized that the majority of the American population is uninformed and will not go to the issues to decide. I have a friend who exemplifies this theory: she voted for Bush in the 2004 election... because he was cuter than Kerry. Yes, it seems trivial but I believe it happens more than one would think.
I don't however believe that Hilary caters to the woman's vote. I see her as rather harsh and unapproachable. This opinion could just be coming from my disagreement with her policies, namely Iraq, but I can picture her getting into office and forgetting all of the things she promised the women voters.
I think there is something that we as women need to pay particular attention to. Do we want to see a woman president? Of course we do. But we also need to take into consideration the woman running. Do we want to vote in the wrong woman? No, if we vote in a woman and she does a terrible job just think how long it will be until we get another woman even nominated! I don’t believe Hilary is the woman for the job… in fact I have a strong disdain for her in general!
There is another thing that I think should be considered when dealing with voting a woman into office. I think that those women who will vote for Hilary because she is a woman need to picture the repercussions. How much do you honestly think the FIRST woman president will be able to accomplish? She will be a publicity stunt, she will meet outrageous opposition from Congress, and she will be under extreme criticism… America will be waiting for her to screw up. I believe it will be the second woman president who will be the real hero, I think she will accomplish far more for the American people!
First off, I found the term “swing-voting women” very interesting. I guess I’d never really thought about overall, how likely women are to vote for or against their political party based on a policy issue or some other factor or impression of candidate. However, because women are considered the “swing” vote, it caused me to question whether politicians, especially male, also consider women fickle as a whole. On the other side of this, however, to acknowledge that women have such a “swing” that could potentially skew an election emphasized how powerful the woman’s vote is. A man’s vote is important, but as we discussed the statistic in class, there is usually a higher voter turnout of females as compared to males. This caused me to reflect on the time when women fought for this right, and now that women have the right, how they are using it.
When I think of the “Soccer Mom” and “Security Mom” labels, I also think of what may seem like a silly question: “What about those who aren’t mothers?” and “What about the Soccer and Security Dads?”
I feel that focusing on the “Soccer/Security Mom” often puts less emphasis on other important policy issues, such as social security, environmental issues, etc. Focusing on this group also neglects various other groups of citizens who make up other parts of the national vote.
As far as women voting for women, especially Republican women voting for a female Democratic candidate, I know that some might vote for Hillary Clinton based upon the possibility of “making history” and feeling like they were a part of it. These women will be the ones who still feel like they have to prove something to the country/world about the female population, as if it’s their personal responsibility to do so. However, overall, I feel that women will either stay with their party vote or vote for a male for various reasons (traditions, more experience, etc). Although as the “swing voters,” women could “swing” the election either way they wanted, but personally, I highly doubt it.
Okay, so where I work, we get weekly magazines and classifieds, and the LexWeekly magazine had a Q&A section this week. The question was:
"Do you think America is ready for a woman president?"
The answers:
-Katie, 19: "I don't think we are ready, because I think we still need that masculine figure to lead the country in the kind of world we live in in this present day."
-Johnny, 21: "Even if the role of a female president is met with the same criteria for a male president, Americans are still more than likely to subjugate women under a different standard."
-Casey, 20: "If Opera ran for president, she would probably win."
-Brian, 18: "Since half our population is female, I think they should be represented."
I find this interesting, that even the women find it unlikely that a woman could/should win. Other countries have elected women leaders, it just surprises me that in this day and age SO many are still so skeptical. It seems as though the historical gender roles definitely play a part in ones opinion of male or female leaders. I personally think women are just as strong of leaders as men. We just need to not QUESTION the sex issue so much. I know that is a big deal because we are encountering the possibility of a first woman president, but the issues are what should ALWAYS matter. Hillary isn't my favorite candidate, although I'm liberal and would probably vote for her over a Republican. Personally, I hope that IF Hillary secures the Democratic bid and IF she is elected President in 2008, that she kicks some serious ass, so as to erase doubt that women can lead this country too.
~Ashley Farmer
I asked a conservative friend of mine who is an older woman if she would vote for Hillary if she ran for President. Her over enthusiastic responne: "When hell freezes over and pigs fly!!!"
I guess that settles it, conservative women will not vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman.
Getting serious, I don't think women will vote for her simply because they want to be a part of making history. In my mind she is going to have to work even harder than a male democratic candidate to win the conservative women's vote.
It goes without saying that Hillary is a very intelligent, capable, well connected woman. A person that I believe could run the country. The problem is both democrats and republicans alike are turned off by her. (Although for her age, I think she is very attractive.) I mean in almost every photo I have ever seen she looks like she is scouling at someone or something. She is just not as charasmatic as her husband, and let's face it, if she is going to make a competitive run she has got to do some warming up with the American public.
Voters want to feel a connection with the candidate, that's why Bush carries the redneck swingers vote every single election. (I think redneck swing voters is something commonly overlooked by the democratic party). My point is this Hillary is going to face what every candidate faces, a general public that is unaware of the majority of policy issues and needs to base there vote on some solid moral issue that they get from 10 minutes of CNN (or Fox News). I'm not familiar with where Hillary stands on every issue but I do believe she is going to have to prove more than her gender to get the conservative women's vote.
-CG
The concept of women, not just Republican, voting for Hillary Clinton just for sake of the potential to make history seem difficult to accept. Yes, I do believe that Hillary will garner some votes just because she is a female from the uniformed. Just like what happens in every single election. I feel that those that are informed will be turned off to Team Billary because of her past scandals. Yes, of course the scandal of Bill’s extra curricular activities in the White House will once again pop up. Many people have obviously formulated their opinion that the only reason that Hillary stuck beside Bill throughout was only to further promote her political career. I am sure her ethical behavior in Whitewater, her former Campaign Finance Directors’ indictment, and Filegate will obviously come into question. In a January Gallup Poll (not separated by gender) 89% of Republicans said that they would definitely not vote for Hillary Clinton. In addition, 20% of Democrats stated that they would definitely not vote for Clinton. There will be a divide concerning her stance on the war in Iraq. She has already exhibited waffling on this issue. Not because she originally voted for the war in Iraq. It has become obvious that the majority of those who voted to go to war were misinformed at the time. Rather she has waffled as of recent. In her January Web cast, she said that she wanted to bring home troops, but in the same address, she stated that we still had to deal with the danger in Iraq. This middle of the road approach is not going to sway many votes. She obviously cannot be too dovish concerning the war or she will fall into the stereotypical ‘soft on defense woman’. With that being said, I am sure healthcare will come to the forefront of her political agenda in order to gather more votes from women, especially single women. In short, Hillary will have to deal with a double-edged sword amplified greater than any of her male opponents. Kind of the damned if she does and damned if doesn’t situation. I have no problem with a female President; I just do not think that Hillary Clinton will be the first. I already live with my own personal president, my wife!
I wanted to start off with an e-mail that I received on January 21st from one of my friends who does not follow politics. She said “I am so psyched that Hillary Clinton is running for President. We may actually see the first woman president!! She's definitely got my vote and I'm not even sure who she's running against.....”.
I think that categorizing women as “soccer moms” and “security moms” does leave many women unaccounted for. As one other classmate said… “what about those without children?” I also think categorizing in this manner ostracizes the lower class women. However, as we discussed in class they are less likely to vote than middle and upper class women so I don’t think political parties are really concerned about who they are leaving out. Considering there are so many eligible voters in the lower class these days it would be really smart for a presidential candidate to start targeting them as voters. If the lower class started showing up to vote in full force there could be some really big upsets in elections. Issues such as an increase in welfare spending, uniform standard of living, minimum wage increases, and universal healthcare are some of the issues that get left behind when you target only middle and upper class women. As we have seen in the current administration funding has been cut numerous times for social programs so that money could be poured into “homeland security”. It is nice that the middle and upper portion of the population feels safer, but it really doesn’t address those who are homeless, hungry, or dying without insurance because we don’t offer “standard of living security”. They are not concerned whether America is safe from another terrorist attack; they are concerned with staying alive for another day.
I think there is a large portion of our population that is not educated in politics. Some because they don’t want to, some because they just haven’t been exposed to it, and some because they are just sick and tired of those ridiculous degrading campaign commercials. I really feel that in the 2008 election voters (for the majority) will stay true to political affiliation. There will be some who vote for Hillary because she is a woman, but there will be far more that will vote against her for that reason. However, I think party affiliation will probably be the biggest factor in who Americans vote for. As a few other classmates mentioned Hillary is quite good at staying in the middle which I am not sure will help her campaign. I believe America is fed up with those kinds of politicians and is ready for someone to take a firm stand on the issues without being middle of the road. I also believe her original stance on the war in Iraq may go against her as well as her stance on same-sex marriage (though she may have changed her mind on this as well).
I would like to take this time to address a comment made by a classmate in class about those in the lower class enjoying the tax breaks that the Republicans offer. You may think that those living in poverty are enjoying tax breaks, but I need to give you a dose of reality. Most of those individuals living in poverty do not even make enough money to pay taxes in the first place. Maybe you would consider that a tax break, I consider it a reflection of how far down our country has gone. It is disgusting and pathetic that individuals in this country can work and not make enough money to pay taxes. So, before you make comments about those in poverty enjoying tax breaks, take a minute and write your representatives in Congress to raise the minimum wage high enough so that everyone can make enough money to pay taxes!
Janice Clayton
I believe one of the biggest problems with classifying women is that they don’t all fit into a neat organized block of uniform ideology. There are women that end up left out that make some of the statistics all the more interesting. In the article we read that discussed the transformation from soccer mom to security mom, I feel it’s worth noting that among women who opposed greater defense spending in the 2002 elections, the gender gap of the last few decades still existed. I suppose that these classifications still do hold some relevance for campaign strategists who might hope to gain leverage with a given demographic by turning their candidate into a champion for a certain issue, and there are certainly members of the electorate who will choose who to vote for on the basis of their stance on one or only a few issues they deem critical. I feel, though, that men have similar voting habits, and, as a whole, the electorate can be easily swayed to the right or left depending on the circumstances of the times (i.e. the 2002 and 2006 midterm elections). According to one of the tables in the much maligned “Rethinking Pink and Blue” article, men and women identify themselves as moderate and thus likely swing voters, in fairly similar percentages.
In regards to Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign, I believe there will certainly be women who will vote for her simply because she is a woman. I don’t believe that it is an intelligent course of action to decide on a candidate based on his or her gender, or even to choose based on only a limited agreement with his or her platform, but I also don’t believe that the American electorate, or any other electorate for that matter, is on a whole intelligent (I swear I’m not always so cynical!). Regardless, Hillary Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics, so polarizing that some women will only vote for when hell freezes over and pigs fly, as Cameron’s female friend apparently put it so eloquently. If the gender gap doesn’t sway from the precedent of the last few decades, she’s at least got an 11% head start on the female vote.
Andrew Easley
I think labeling women voters has worked out beneficial for politicians on a number of levels. From a psychological stand point, grouping women together takes away from personal autonomy and belonging to a group is ‘safer’ than standing alone. By doing this, women feel as if they need to conform all of their beliefs to align a certain political party instead of being bipartisan. This has proved to be true with the Bush administration, women were focused more on safety after 9/11, and I personally know a few Democrats that became Republicans just because they didn’t agree with the Democrats way of approaching the Middle East.
As far as women swing voting for Hilary Clinton, I think the under informed would be more likely to vote just because she is a women. While the political savvy, are more likely to hold to their political views and vote for the more Conservative candidate regardless.
There are even some Democrats that I has spoken with who are not in favor of Hilary just because she seems ‘mean, and unapproachable’. I have even heard the comment “She needs to spend some time in the South to develop an accent and become more friendly and open to the public”.
Whatever someone thinks about this issue, I just hope the decision is informed and made with an open mind.
Marketta Ray
I was talking with a friend of mine just the other day and I asked her if she was a soccer mom or a security mom. She simply stated that she wasn't a mom but if she were she would be a caring mom. She said that she didn't like being labeled as something when in reality she was really neither. I have to agree with her. We also got on the topic of whether or not women would vote for Hillary Clinton. She said she wouldn't know until she did some research on her and saw what issues she was going to back and which one she weren't. I however don't believe I would vote for a Hillary. Don't get me wrong I'm a female and all but I just don't see her making things better in the US. Everyone says that she would be just like Bill because she practically ran his office. I didn't like Bill so I'm almost positive I won't like her. I do however believe that women will vote for her in hopes that she will cover the topic of women's issues.
On the issue of Partisan Identification, although I think Hillary Clinton will sway the female vote, I don’t think it will be a very large portion of females that change their opinion. In Hillary’s case, everyone either likes her, or doesn’t like her, and most aren’t likely to change their opinion of her just because of her gender, I personally think that’s a bad reason to vote for someone.
Both of my parents are republicans, and neither of them would vote for Hillary, whether they didn’t like the Republican Candidate or not, and I’m positive my mother would rather have a different female candidate run for president for the historical value, I know even I would rather have someone else!
I especially think that the Republican demographic would be resistant of Hillary out of dislike of her husband, as Bill Clinton was practically the bane of republican existence once they secured the house and the senate, and judging from the way republican-leaning pundits and citizens seem to think of her, I doubt many will take the plunge and vote for her just because she is a woman!
I’m sure that some women will relate to her on some issues, and decide that she may be worth voting for out of a mutual interest in her issues and the fact that she is female. Some women think that she is strong and intelligent, and worth voting for because of these qualities, but then there are many women who believe that she doesn’t stand up for her issues, or that she doesn’t represent what they want in a president, and that’s what matters to people.
“The power of the President will resemble equally that of the King of Great Britain and the governor of New York.”
-The Federalist Papers
We, as a nation, are simply not ready for a female president. We are stuck in this hole of war that Bush has dug us into, and as a country struggling to agree with the choices of our leaders, we need to remain loyal to what we know will help us succeed: a male president. Having had a total of 42 male presidents over the past 228 years, the United States now, more than ever needs to remain just that, “united.” Though Mrs. Clinton may be close to the standard as Senator of New York rather than governor, she lacks many of the authoritative attributes of a king.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am all for a woman to be president some time in the future. Just not now, and not Hillary. For when concepts of equality are better understood, ignorance becomes less romped, and America is no longer at war, then and only then would be the right time to test run such a drastic change in leadership.
When choosing a president, yes it is crucial to know where they stand and on what issues for progress into the future, but it is also prudent that we take into consideration the present state of the union. We as a country are working with several leadership figureheads around the world that may not even recognize the authority of a country simply because of its’ female gendered president. And as leaders of the free world I fail to see how our country, Republican and Democratic alike, would be willing to give up such a powerful title, just to have Hillary Clinton sit as chief.
-erin jo mullen
I personally think the "soccer mom" to "security mom" shift is total bunk. So far, I have yet to find any mothers who have made such a jump. No one I know rushes home from soccer practice so that hubby can install bullet-proof panels on the family Escalade. Although they may claim that women are now more concerned about security, I would argue that although they are more "conscious" about the threats to American security, they surely aren't actively addressing these issues.
Not to mention that there are more childless, unmarried women nowadays, isolating a huge segment of this supposed "swing" population. I think this "security" shift is just a tactic used by politicians as justification for their wars and spending habits, trying to delude the populace in to thinking that they're doing it because the "security moms" are concerned... Really, I think all women are still concerned about the same issues we've always been concerned with.
As a side note on this, talking about the supposed “womens’ issues,” why do issues of social wellbeing and justice receive such a negative connotation? It seems to me that these should be the issues that we applaud people for standing up about, instead we say that these are “womens’ issues,” issues only touchy-feely people care about, issues that don’t really matter (thus they much be womens’ issues.) To me, this is also bolstering the stereotype that women are somehow “soft” in politics, instead of “just.” Where is it that we decided that humanism is “soft,” while cut-throat business and war is the right thing?
Ahhh Hillary. This is such an interesting issue. Even though I would love to say that I think she could win, sadly I think she would most likely lose. I think there are just too many people in America still who think that women are incapable of running the country. And he supposed “sordid” history will good ol’ Bill doesn’t help her image. Although I think its ridiculous, many people see her as some how morally corrupt because of her husband’s philandering (although if one impeached all the politicians who have had inter-office affairs, there would most likely be no one left in Washington…) and this would be especially damning to the more morally concerned right wing. There are people who were concerned about Kerry because he was a catholic, what would they do if woman were up for the presidency? As much as I would love to see her or another woman in office, I think the public just isn’t ready yet, for whatever reason.
Sarah Cooper
I'm going to begin by prefacing with a newsflash. This probably would be inappropriate for the grading scale, but we're not being graded yet! Ha!
I had an epiphany in class the other day about data. I consider myself to be much more theory-oriented than quantoid-oriented, and Dr. Patton was talking to me the other day about how often there is a competition between the poiltical science quantitative and qualitative sectors. But it occurred to me that they are both so very necessary. In our discussions, we can spout off theories all we want, but they are most often groundless. We can drone over stats, but without some analysis to produce a theory they're useless--just numbers that may or may not show a trend. The two are so very vital to the field--it was a really cool epiphany. Although typing it just now, it seems totally lame. Guess you had to be there. You know, in my head...
ANYWAY, I'm gonna shoot a little bit of theory about the whole Hillary for president thing. It seems today that we are seeing much less of an identification with gender groups. Actually, I don't really know of many times where we saw a really strong wave of gender identification. The sufferage movement could be considered such, but as we discussed, women were even split on that, unwilling to put the socially oppresive state of their gender above their class roles or their ideologies. It seems ideologies have had the tendency to superceed sex organs when it comes to loyalty and group identification. Thus why party alignment is what people jump for in the poll booths when they have no idea what the candidate stands for. I just ended a sentence with a preposition. I think. Suck.
ANYWAY, gender does not usually indicate ideology. Thus, a woman would be more inclined to vote for a man who she believed would ideologically agree with her than someone who just happened to have ovaries.
The bigger obstacle for Hillary is actually ideology, of men and women alike. In a society originally settled by a bunch of Puritanical, backward-ass, witch-burning, scarlet-letter-branding, judgemental Bible-toting sadists, remnants of misogynistic patriarchal thinking are in no short supply even today. Many Americans still clutch dearly to their Judeo-Christian heritage, and firmly believe that a man is the only head of the house, and that for America (which is I guess in essense the "supremo-house") to be headed by a woman would not only be entirely inappropriate and ludicrous, but would actually be blasphemous. Women and men alike adhere to this belief.
Aside from the blatantly backward religious sort of backward thinking, there is also its latent left-over affects that reside even in those who do not outwardly claim religiousity. The belief that a woman is inadequate. That she is not equally capable as man in matters of commanding authority and especially respect. Men are not the only misogynists. So many women also subscribe to this ideology, however latently, that woman is incapable of holding positions of authority and respect and power, for many reasons, all of which are rooted in the same sexist mentality that stratifies people's capabilites by their sex.
That damn Eve just had to pluck that apple and seduce poor old innocent Adam with her evil sex to eat from the tree of knowledge, thus damning mankind forever. So much misgynistic thinking is reinforced by religion, and in a nation that is so overly religious in comparison to other industrialized nations, it's no wonder that we're a little behind the game socially.
To address Sarah: While you yourself have yet to meet any soccer moms turned security moms, that doesn't mean that the trend didn't hold water. First off, you don't run with too many soccer moms, so you wouldn't really know if they made a switch. I do agree that this does in fact segregate a large population of women, though, especially since there are more unmarried childless women than at previous times in history, but still there are more family-oriented women than not.
Ok. I just went through and read all the comments. Like just now, after I typed that response to Sarah.
A few comments.
In response to Leslie's comment about her friend that voted for GW because he was "cuter" than Kerry:
This to me exemplifies the problem with democracy. The dumbest mother-effing people can just walk right into a freaking ballot box and cancel out a freaking political science PhD's vote--A PhD who stays up to date on ALL the issues, is well informed, and makes a decision with difficult, careful, calculated thought. No, I'm sorry, their votes ARE NOT FREAKING EQUAL. SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY SOME IDIOTIC GIRL WHO IS GOING TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE'S CUTER THAN THE OTHER CANDIDATE SHOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN 500 FEET OF A BALLOT BOX.
I know that regulating this sort of thing would potentially be difficult, as we discussed last semeseter, but does anyone else recognize the inherrent freaking flaw of having an ignorant, shallow, petty society casting votes for the greater good of all society?
Oh suck. I'm in a terrible mood all of the sudden.
And I'm REALLY pissed about all this talk about women for president. To vote for Hillary Clinton strictly because she is a woman is LUDICROUS. I know it would be monumental and all, but presidents (as we have seen) have the ENORMOUS ability to muck up things for the rest of us, both domestically and abroad, and the damage a person could do as president could be far more monumental than getting someone into the white house that has different reproductive organs than all the other presidents have had. Ok, i'm oversimplifying the feminist cause, and i realize that it's much more symbolic than that, but the symbolic march of sexual equality should not supercede every issue known to man. Although gravely important to all of society, it should not be the singular determinate factor in something as enormously influential as the presidential position.
That being said, obviously, not voting for a candidate just because she is a woman is equally if not more so idiotic and approaches the line of down right despicable, as that voter wouldn't even have the arguably noble cause of the symolic women's march for equality to back up their sexism.
So. That being said.
Someone who is going to voice there opinion on whether or not they're voting for Hillary:
Please supply some reasonable argument for your position. If you think, as Leslie does, that she would bring the nation to it's knees and foster in the chaotic collapse of civilization and brand all women politians as enormous failures, then please supply some reasoning for this. If it is that you disagree with her policies, then it is those policies that would bring America to it's knees and do all that other awful speculatory stuff that Hillary-haters just know would happen. If it's that she's weak and incable of running a country, supply some evidentiary argument for that position.
If you think Hillary is our savior, and that you can't wait to vote her in, DEFEND YOUR POSITION WITH WHY. We are all so quick to make claims of either condemnation or support, but we really have to be careful why we hold the positions we hold, and thoughtful discussion and arguementation of these issues not only helps us understand why we feel how we do, but it helps us help eachother understand our opinions and eachother's.
Suck. I'm sick and tired, both physically and psychologically. I'm going to bed now.
Hope I didn't offend. I'm overly cranky right now, so take me with a grain of salt. I just would like to see more in depth discussion of people's disdain or support for Hillary Clinton.
Oh, and WTF, Tyler--Clinton "started all this anyway?" What is "this" and please explain to me why "this," whatever it may be, was started by Bill clinton.
PS Clinton's personal life is irrelevant to his job as president. You wanna talk about how he was either spectacular for or terrible for this country, you talk about his policies, not his sexual appetites.
Ok, so after 1 am, I can't spell for beans. And my grammatical capabilities apparently cease to function. Just wanted to let everyone know that I know half of what I type doesn't actual make sense to an educated person. Sorry. :D
I just wanted to say a little bit more about voters who vote based on trivial matters (and I include in this people who vote for Hillary because she's a woman.) I said a little about this in my first post. Voting for someone because they're cute, or because you think they're cool, or because you would like to have a beer with them is fine, as long as you're voting for American Idol. These ideas should never enter an individual's mind when voting for the president. But what I've often wondered is this: How do you correct this uneducated voting without treading on individual rights? At the college I first attended, we had panels of professors from many disciplines discuss and argue the issues. We had a debate between the college Democrats and Republicans who argued their party's platform so uneducated individuals could better understand the issues. But if we had something like that here, would anyone show up? I doubt it. I have a feeling that the people who would show up would be those who already have a firm grasp on the issues. It seems that television would be an answer. But basically every political ad I've seen is less than informative and more about smearing the other opponent. So how to fix this? I'm not really sure I know the answer. Voting is a right that should be taken seriously and uesd wisely. Just because I have the right to bear arms doesn't mean I would casually tote a gun around without the vaguest idea about how to use it. Just some musings from Jenny.
Jenny Holly
In some instances it is helpful to categorize women into groups such as “soccer moms” and security “moms” when attempting to attract votes from a specified demographic. I realize that every person is different but groups of people do often have similar core values. Politicians can then use these core values to propose policy and take stands on issues that align with these values. In the same way that not every Republican or Democrat believes the exact same thing, not every woman in these groups will stand for the same things either. However, in the same way key ideological views are often shared by political parties, there are ideological views that are shared among women in these groups. The draw back to categorizing women into these groups is that not every woman will fit snuggly into one of the groups according to their political, moral, and ideological views. Categorizing women or people in general, into demographic groups is also a little tricky considering the presence of these groups vary in different parts of the country. For example, politicians campaigning in the retirement communities of Florida are less likely to concentrate on “soccer mom” issues like education and more on the issues older citizens are concerned with such as social security.
Women who are not included in either “soccer moms” or “security moms” face the possibility of being overlooked at election time. Others, such as women without children and older women whose children have now become adults would not be categorized into either group. This means that issues they are concerned with such as social security and Medicare are put to the side. I’m not saying that these issues are not recognized at all, because they are, and I’m not saying that “soccer moms” now turned “security moms” aren’t concerned with these issues. None the less, issues like education and Medicaid are at times pushed to the front when a party or candidate is trying to establish a base among ideological women’s groups. I also think that women and men who are both not married and do not have children are often penalized in a sense during campaigns because many candidates tend to concentrate on issues centered on the “nuclear family.” These voters may be marginalized when politicians discuss issues like giving families tax breaks.
I do not think that Republican women will vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman. It is socially irresponsible to abandon your belief system and stances on political issues just because you want a woman to be president. I understand that electing a woman president would mean our society is one step closer to having women and men placed on an even playing field in the public and private sectors. However, just because Hillary Clinton is a female candidate does not mean she represents the views and opinions of all women. Why do people think that a female candidate will best represent the ideologies of all women? No one would ever think that a male candidate represents the views of every male voter. Just because Hillary Clinton is a woman does not mean that I agree with her on issues of the economy, social security, abortion, or healthcare. It would be irresponsible of me or any other woman to drop everything I stand for politically and vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, regardless of the political party I am affiliated with. I haven’t really heard many Republican women talk about voting for Clinton because she is a woman. Actually, what I’ve heard most are Democratic women who say that they will not vote for Clinton even though she is a woman and a Democrat. If there is a male candidate that represents my beliefs and opinions better than a female candidate I would vote for the male candidate.
Kristeena Winkler
Post a Comment