Posts
Monday, May 31, 2010
Enacting Change
In her book, Pearls, Politics, and Power, Madeleine Kunin includes the following quote from Hillary Clinton, "'You don't have to run for office to make a contribution in politics.' That would be my first point, because not everybody wants to run for office, but there are so many ways that women can influence the political process and the policies that affect their lives." (pg. 169). I find it interesting that Kunin includes this quote in her book because after reading her book I did not get the impression that this is a statement that she would agree with. Instead, Kunin seems to imply that women can enact change only through elected office. In several places in the book she uses the issue of breast cancer as an example. She writes, "Making a donation for breast cancer research is good, but obtaining funding of millions of dollars for research in the federal budget is so much better." (pg. xi). I completely disagree with Kunin. I believe that change actually happens much more often outside government before change happens inside government. For example, in my opinion, the Susan G. Komen Foundation has done a lot more for breast cancer research and breast cancer awareness than any elected official male or female has ever done. This is not the only instance of greater change happening outside of government. Both the Civil Rights Movement and the Women's Movement started outside of government and were not led by elected officials. Furthermore, I think we should also examine the number of women that work in politics outside of elected and appointed positions. How many women work as staffers on the Hill or in federal agencies? While these womens' voices may not be heard publicly they are certainly heard by their bosses who are making the decisions. Kunin never even mentions these women. While I think Kunin makes some valid points and I agree that we should work to get more women elected, I do not think we can simply discredit all of the work that women outside of elected and appointed positions do to enact change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In response to Emily's post-
I think you make a good case, but I am not sure that Kunin discredited women's voices in those other arenas. I think she spoke about women in elected office (primarily) because that is what she knows- since she was a woman who held elected office for so many years. For example, she does extol the virtues of encouraging community participation, educating girls to exercise power, teaching citizenship and negotiating skills, community service, and the like. I think while the focus of her book was women in elected office, I digested her message to be that women's empowerment in any avenue is to be lauded.
On a separate note-
I found one of the most powerful passages in the book to be the following (p.166): "Imagine that Barack Obama were Betty Obama. Would she be taken seriously with two and half years of experience in the U.S. Senate?"
The answer to this question of course is a resounding no. Let's compare apples to apples here. Carol Moseley Braun was the U.S. Senator from IL from 1993-1999. When she ran for President, did anyone take her seriously? NO.
Does this answer the question of whether race or gender is a bigger handicap? I actually don't think it does, however. Now everyone please don't hate me here, but I happen to think that a large reason Obama was elected was because "hope" and "change" was what people wanted to hear. I don't think the fact that he is African-American had too much to do with the fact that he won the Presidency. I think he was the right man at the right time with the right message. If Hillary had his message, I actually have no doubt that she would be Madame President. To be clear, I think some of the initial hoopla about Obama was a result of his race [oooh- he could actually be the first AA President!], and maybe that hype somehow enabled him to craft that message, but I think he won because people were sick of Bush and "hope" and "change" were nice ideas, like rainbows and unicorns are. :)
What do you all think- is gender the ultimate handicap as evidenced by the Obama election?
Ilana- I think that you make an interesting point towards the end of your post.
Obama won the election because of his message. Not because of his race, or because of Hillary's sex. It was his message that resonated with American voters, and brought them out to vote. As Ilana said, had Hillary embraced the same messaging, she might have been able to win the election herself.
With that said, I think that the 2008 Presidential does not prove that gender is the ultimate handicap- instead it just reinforces the importance of a strong and solid message.
Going off of what Sabrina said...
If the lack of women being elected is a matter of message (which I'm unsure if I necessarily believe), what are female candidates doing wrong when it comes to their messaging? If candidates' success is purely based on the creation and communication of ideas such as "hope" and "change," it seems to me that more women (as more creative beings than men... perhaps?) would be elected with the perfect message in tow. Further, candidates hire professionals to tailor and create their messages and slogans based on what ideas best resonate with the electorate - that makes me think that in theory women's messages should be just as successful as men's! Clearly there are many other factors involved. Even though polling may show otherwise, I still believe that much of the electorate is uncomfortable by female leaders (ex. the overwhelming disapproval of Speaker Pelosi), no matter what their campaign message is.
Jena- I think the Pelosi approval numbers don't have anything to do with her sex. Approval #s of leaders in Congress are always low, regardless of who the leaders are. The American people hate Congress generally, but love their Representatives/Senators, which is why incumbents win so overwhelmingly.
Post a Comment