Posts
I absolutely fall into this category. While I didn't support Obama or Hillary, I didn't consider it Hillary's sex a "consolation prize" when it looked like she was going to be the nominee. Nor when Palin emerged onto the scene, did I feel excitement because she was a woman. I simply do not view the world in that way, and I actually think that those that do are perpetuating part of the problem. I want the best person elected, regardless of their gender (or race, or whatever!) The struggles that women of earlier generations felt seem like historical relics to me. I think only once we stop labeling people, and stop getting all worked about about "firsts", can we move beyond the past and into the future.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Thoughts on the reading
One particular idea in Kornblut's book really struck me: beginning on page 83 the author talks about the lack of enthusiasm that young women had for Hillary Clinton. She explains that young women considered themselves "postfeminists" who "preferred not to view the world in terms of gender. Supporting Barack Obama was proof of their liberation:they were free to choose whomever they favored for president, unburdened by any old-fashioned notions of loyalty or sisterhood, a sign that women were now diverse and evolved enough to disagree."
I absolutely fall into this category. While I didn't support Obama or Hillary, I didn't consider it Hillary's sex a "consolation prize" when it looked like she was going to be the nominee. Nor when Palin emerged onto the scene, did I feel excitement because she was a woman. I simply do not view the world in that way, and I actually think that those that do are perpetuating part of the problem. I want the best person elected, regardless of their gender (or race, or whatever!) The struggles that women of earlier generations felt seem like historical relics to me. I think only once we stop labeling people, and stop getting all worked about about "firsts", can we move beyond the past and into the future.
I absolutely fall into this category. While I didn't support Obama or Hillary, I didn't consider it Hillary's sex a "consolation prize" when it looked like she was going to be the nominee. Nor when Palin emerged onto the scene, did I feel excitement because she was a woman. I simply do not view the world in that way, and I actually think that those that do are perpetuating part of the problem. I want the best person elected, regardless of their gender (or race, or whatever!) The struggles that women of earlier generations felt seem like historical relics to me. I think only once we stop labeling people, and stop getting all worked about about "firsts", can we move beyond the past and into the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38583.html
this is a link to a story in politico about Republican women's groups
Ilana,
I am glad you posted this! I have long believed this- and to see it in writing was really great.
Unfortunately, I feel like women in our generation who feel this way are often criticized for not "supporting" the work of other other, especially those older than us. I entirely disagree with this philosophy. Instead, the best thing that I can do for other women is to support the BEST candidate- regardless of gender.
Thanks for saying this outloud... Or in writing. It makes it easier to second your thoughts!
Ilana -
You took the words right out of my mouth. I also marked the passage on page 83 and was going to write about it. I too feel like I am a postfeminist. I have never been confronted with an issue specifically because I am a woman and I do not make choices about who to vote for based on gender.
Unlike, Ilana, however I am not as confident that making an issue of gender perpetuates the problem. I am more undecided. After reading this section in Kornblut's book I began to wonder if it is too soon to be postfeminist or if being postfeminist actually makes sexism worse because the issue is ignored.
Another point that I think is interesting and not mentioned in the book is the notion of post-race politics. So many journalists wrote about Obama's campaign and his ability to run a post-race campaign. Throughout his campaign, he focused very little on him possibly being the first African American president. And while I do not believe our country as a whole has moved beyond racial issues, running a "post-race" campaign seemed to work for President Obama.
Is there a difference between "post-race" and "postfeminisim"? Are we really there as a nation? Does being post-whatever harm or hurt the cause?
Agreed! It's particularly frustrating to know that we've had a female candidate who ALMOST became President, a female Speaker, and females in other key roles - across the country - yet society is still focused on what women have NOT accomplished. Like you've all mentioned, when will voters focus less on the sex of our candidates and more on their abilities/platforms? Perhaps no matter who is elected and no matter what position their elected for, there will still be those who are skeptical of a women's ability to lead - the same way that there are still people who doubt the abilities of African Americans and jump at opportunities to discount President Obama's achievements. So in response to Emma's comment, I do think that most women in our generation are "post feminist" and don't necessarily focus solely on gender when voting (in addition to many men and elders who certainly overlook it) - or else Clinton would have won.
Post a Comment