320 Years of History
Gold Member
I am not one of those folks whereof what I say is just as important as what I don't say, that is, short of understanding the meanings of the words I choose to say. In political campaigning, be it the candidates themselves or their advocates, unfortunately that's just not so.
This past weekend, Madeleine Albright once again uttered her well known aphorism, "There's a special place in Hell for women who don't help each other." Although I have no strong feeling about the saying, I found it interesting that she repeated it.
It's pretty clear the statement makes the case that owners of vaginas must stick together for their collective benefit. That is probably true, in fact. Women's suffrage was achieved by women sticking together. The "glass ceiling" has developed cracks in it by women sticking together. Those two examples highlight not only the gains gender based solidarity can achieve, but also the need for it in order to make certain types of substantive change.
The thing I found surprising is that it was even necessary, in any regard, for Mrs. Albright to have made the remark. For instance, looking back at Mr. Obama's 2008 run, I can't recall hearing similar exhortations and reminders from black community leaders with regard to blacks needing to support Mr. Obama.
When I've discussed the "blacks voting for Mr. Obama because he is black" issue with my black friends and close acquaintances, to an individual, it has been the exact same basic story:
I get the basic tenet of solidarity forged via commonalities. I'd certainly vote for a candidate with whom I went to high school, or whom I know in college, even if I had little substantive contact with them afterwards. I've simply never had to choose between two so clearly integral elements as my ethnicity or gender in an election. I honestly cannot reliably say what I'd do were I forced to do so. (As a white male, I doubt I ever will be; no candidate's maleness or whiteness has never crossed my mind as something to consider in choosing them.)
What I don't get is how it is that women need, judging my Mrs. Albright's remarks, need to be reminded to support Mrs. Clinton in part because she's a woman. I would think that any Democratic woman would immediately recognize that by placing a woman in the Presidency, it goes without saying that while she may not and really cannot pander to women's interest, at the very least, women's perspectives will unavoidably be kept in mind when making policy choices. For men, that's probably at worst a neutral thing, but for women, it can only be a good thing.
The questions I have for women participants here are these:
This past weekend, Madeleine Albright once again uttered her well known aphorism, "There's a special place in Hell for women who don't help each other." Although I have no strong feeling about the saying, I found it interesting that she repeated it.
It's pretty clear the statement makes the case that owners of vaginas must stick together for their collective benefit. That is probably true, in fact. Women's suffrage was achieved by women sticking together. The "glass ceiling" has developed cracks in it by women sticking together. Those two examples highlight not only the gains gender based solidarity can achieve, but also the need for it in order to make certain types of substantive change.
The thing I found surprising is that it was even necessary, in any regard, for Mrs. Albright to have made the remark. For instance, looking back at Mr. Obama's 2008 run, I can't recall hearing similar exhortations and reminders from black community leaders with regard to blacks needing to support Mr. Obama.
When I've discussed the "blacks voting for Mr. Obama because he is black" issue with my black friends and close acquaintances, to an individual, it has been the exact same basic story:
- He and Mrs. Clinton weren't all that far apart on the issues; either would have been perfectly acceptable.
- Given that for all intents and purposes they were indifferent between the two, they voted for Mr. Obama as a show of solidarity as much as anything else.
I get the basic tenet of solidarity forged via commonalities. I'd certainly vote for a candidate with whom I went to high school, or whom I know in college, even if I had little substantive contact with them afterwards. I've simply never had to choose between two so clearly integral elements as my ethnicity or gender in an election. I honestly cannot reliably say what I'd do were I forced to do so. (As a white male, I doubt I ever will be; no candidate's maleness or whiteness has never crossed my mind as something to consider in choosing them.)
What I don't get is how it is that women need, judging my Mrs. Albright's remarks, need to be reminded to support Mrs. Clinton in part because she's a woman. I would think that any Democratic woman would immediately recognize that by placing a woman in the Presidency, it goes without saying that while she may not and really cannot pander to women's interest, at the very least, women's perspectives will unavoidably be kept in mind when making policy choices. For men, that's probably at worst a neutral thing, but for women, it can only be a good thing.
The questions I have for women participants here are these:
- In the Democratic primary, what about Mr. Sanders' policy positions bests Mrs. Clinton's to the extent that you can't countenance the prospect of her gaining the nomination? (Yes, I realize one must be a female Democrat to credibly answer this question.)
- Among the women here how far to the right must one be before Mrs. Clinton's policy positions are just too objectionable for you to support her even though you share her gender?
Just so we have a common set of terms/measures for answering this question, please use the following guidelines to gauge how far left or right you are. (You can click on the image to access the source document from which it is taken along with a bit more explanation of what each label means.)
To amplify on a point made above and put the matter in perspective, the black folks with whom I've spoken wouldn't vote for Ben Carson under any circumstances. I point that out because obviously merely being a member of a unique identity group isn't enough to garner the votes of others belonging to the same group. This question in the second bullet is about the limit of solidarity, where your innate awareness that a woman President isn't going to be a bad thing for you overall, even if certain of her policies may fit your ideal vision of what a President would propone.