Entering a new age of political correctness

Few people will argue that the Saturday Night Live sketches done by Tina Fey and Amy Palmer had an effect on public opinion. While I do not believe it was a deciding factor in the election, I think that it was an important step for the media. These sketches allowed the stigma surrounding women and feminism to fall. Fey and Palmer were quick to note that while sexism runs rampant in our media, we try to pretend that it does not. My attention was recently brought to a piece done by Onion News, entitled: "First Female Dictator Hailed as Step Forward for Women." I noted this because I feel that a dictatorship is a very masculine concept. I am not promoting a dictatorship in any way, shape, or form, but I do feel that it is a very interesting concept.

Why is it the women are not dictators? Is it because there has not been a women with a strong enough following to create such a senario, or is it because we simply laugh the thought off. Society tells us that a women is not strong or aggressive enough to rule a country in such a way.
These views are prevalent enough that The Onion felt that they could mock them. However, I do not believe that, (despite how forward The Onion tends to be) they would have produced this video prior to the SNL skits.
I have thought a lot about why these sketches were acceptable, and I believe it comes back to the two women behind it. Men would not take on sexist issues for fear of being called sexist. However, because Tina Fey and Amy Palmer are represented as strong and self-assured women by the media, they were able to highlight sexism as it presently exists in the media and society at large.
By doing so, Fey and Palmer have brought sexism out from behind the curtain, and I feel that we can only go forward from here.

"Gender Affinity Affect", Major or Minor Play in the 2008 Election?

Gender was one of the play cards used in the 2008 election; however, to what extent did it work? According to a scholarly research article, the gender affinity affect is when women voters are most likely in support for female candidates. This article found women do actually feel positively towards a female candidate because of the "shared sex identity".

In this past election Hillary Clinton was a female candidate up for running as president. The Washington Post conducted a survey and found that 51 percent of women supported Hillary while 24 percent supported Obama and 11 percent supported John Edwards. Here is a clear example to the gender affinity affect. However how far does this affect go? Far enough for women to cross over parties? Interestingly, John McCain was the main candidate that tried to used this phenomenon for his advantage, and it somewhat worked. He felt as though having Sarah Palin as his vice president nominee would switch women supporters of Hillary Clinton over to support his campaign. However this article states otherwise:

......women often evaluate female candidates through the lens of political party. That women respondents feel more positively toward female Democratic candidates than do men, but do not have the same affective feelings for female Republican candidates, suggests that any gender gap in evaluations of female candidates should take into account partisan differences as well as sex-based identity.

Overall John McCain's pick for Sarah Palin as his running mate made a difference, but not a drastic difference. A poll conducted by Newsweek found that only 14 percent of female Hillary Clinton supporters wanted to switch and support McCain. This was an affect on McCain's campaign, but not substantial change enough to help him win the election.

The gender affinity affect, in my opinion, played a major role for Hillary Clinton. There were huge numbers of Hillary Clinton supporters that were female and this did help her in the election. On the other hand, McCain thought he could use this affect to his advantage, but it ended up only playing a minor role and not helping out as much as McCain wanted. The gender affinity affect did exist in this election as much as we did not want it to. This article has found that with the number of women increasing in office, we as women are getting a greater understanding and becoming more complex in our thought patterns, when choosing a candidate to support. To some this affect may play a minor role, but the gender affinity affect does exist sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst.

The Election Is Over; Now It Is Time to Analyze It

Yes, the election is over, and Obama is already taking his first few footsteps in the White House, but we cannot leave this noteworthy election behind.  This past election was important to us in so many ways.  It marked the beginning of many opportunities for change.  It was the first time a serious woman candidate was in the running, and it was also the first time an African-American was running to be president of the United States of America.

As a very aware and intellectual society, it is our calling to analyze the results of this 2008 presidential election.  As a whole, as a country, we need to work together in trying to understand the twists and turns of this election-- who voted for whom, possible influences on voters' preferences for a candidate, etc.  Our class has been pondering this all quarter long now.  It is very hard to know exactly what caused specific events or situations to happen and how much of an effect certain influences did have.

Our class sent out an online survey that included questions about the reasons why voters voted for whoever they chose.  People's reasons varied immensely; however, it was interesting to see and note that some women voted for Clinton (in the primaries) just because she was a woman.  Interestingly enough, some African-Americans voted for Obama for the same reason-- just because he was an African-American.  They wanted to see "their kind" take foot in the White House.

The New York Times has posted a very interesting interactive graphic on "How Different Groups Voted in the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primaries."  You can click on the boxes underneath the graphic to see how different demographics of voters voted.  I examined "Women" and "Blacks."  When I clicked on the "Women" box, I noticed that there was a pretty even split-- about half the states had stronger Clinton support, and half had stronger Obama support; however, when I clicked on the "Blacks" box to see how African-American voters voted, all 28 states represented in the graphic were on the right-hand side.  They all had stronger Obama support.  This really sparked my interest.  Did African-Americans feel a greater need to support an African-American candidate than woman did to support a female candidate?

There are so many factors that probably influenced the election.  There was a range of different influences that could have affected voters' decisions-- from media to voters' perceptions.  There is no way to perfectly analyze the election results and the reasons why everyone voted the way they did, but we should look at all the results and hard proof that we do have to better understand this 2008 presidential election.

Why I Voted for Barack Obama

I'm a moderate republican. I like the 2nd amendment, the death penalty, and Ayn Rand. I'm a capitalist at heart and I believe the best societies have more financial freedom. I'm also a woman, and some of my social views are pretty liberal. Because of this I spent a long time debating who I should vote for, making lists of the candidates' platforms and voting records, and trying to align those with my own views. Even though there were only two choices, I felt like who I picked would tell me a lot about myself and which views I found more important. For a long time, I couldn't make the decision. The answer easily came to me in early September, and my decision never wavered after that.

I chose to vote for Barack Obama because of the introduction of Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice Presidential pick. When I initially heard rumors of McCain's choice, I thought two things. 1) He is using her gender to get the female vote, and to compete with the fact that the democrats had a historical nominee. 2) It could be nice to have a female as second in command for a change. The second thought disappeared as soon as I discovered Sarah Palin in no way represented the values that I do, as a female, and Barack Obama absolutely did.

When I heard Palin say things like, "I'd oppose abortion even if my own daughter was raped," my feelings about guns and the free market were no longer important. When I found out about her desire to push an abstinence-only sex education on the nation's youth, it was like I had not even read The Fountainhead. Sarah Palin opposed expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation (I believe homosexuality is included in women's issues), and advocated making women buy their own rape kits, and just in general, seemed to oppose everything women activists have fought for for the past century.

2008 was my first presidential election, and it was certainly very interesting. What I took from it, more than anything, was that the economy will rise and fall as it normally does. I am always open to my political views changing, as they have in the past. I was not born a republican, but a woman, and I will die a woman, so I am a woman first, and my rights need to be protected. My right to govern my own body, my right to marry who I want, my right to not have to take out a loan to find out who raped me, my right to the knowledge about safe sex - all of these made Obama the right choice for a female who finds these issues important. Most of all I learned that the gender of an individual doesn't make them a feminist, their actions and choices do. If Sarah Palin had become the Vice President of the United States, I believe feminism would have lost a lot of hard-earned progress, and that is why I voted for Barack Obama.

Hard times help women in politics?

Sexism is a double edged sword, and in every imaginable situation, women seem to be getting shortchanged due to this concept. In a recent news article, the author suggests that in the political world, we see that in some cases, voters will point to a woman running for office and consider her to be weak because she doesn't live up to the masculine expectations society holds of effective leaders. In turn, voters refuse to accept her as a viable candidate. In other cases, a female politician might be looked upon as a caring individual that would be more concerned about the people and their issues. The latter seems to be the case with Queensland's Anna Bligh, who is on her way to becoming Australia's first elected woman premier. The article insinuates that during hard times such as those being faced by Australia seem to be the perfect conditions for a woman to come and and "clean up the mess" left behind by her male predecessor.

PhD researcher Mary Crawford was quoted saying that "research suggests that while women politicians don't pursue a different style, voters perceive their interests are different - that they are more likely to be concerned with the daily concerns of people, like jobs, food prices, education and so on." Unfortunately, the situation isn't that simple, especially when we take the recent United States presidential election into consideration. Taking into account the weak state of the economy and the hard times we are facing as a society today, why is it that Crawford's theory didn't hold true? Americans had two opportunities to elect a female candidate, and chose to cote for males in both situations.

Preconceived notions about how a female candidate would lead as a politician continue to thwart any progress our nation can hope to one day achieve in terms of gender equality. Women have always been looked down upon by men as the "weaker" gender. As much as the people of this country go on talking about equality and acceptance, the truth is that even though we are living in the 21st century, our underlying ideals and stereotypes seem to resemble those which Americans held almost a century ago. If we truly want to see ourselves taking a step in the direction of equality, we have to set aside this discrimination.

Steinem on HRC and Palin

Gloria Steinem wrote a couple of high profile op-ed pieces over the course of the election. Here are excerpts from two -- one about HRC and one about Sarah Palin.

This appeared on January 8, 2008, after Hillary lost Iowa and before she won New Hampshire. It was titled, "Women are Never Front-runners," and it cleverly juxtaposed female gender with some of Obama's biographical details to make the point that Obama's credentials might be subject to greater scrutiny and skepticism were he a woman. Here are the first few paragraphs:

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate?

Steinem says that if you answered "no," you are hardly alone. She goes on to call gender "probably the most restricting force in American life." She notes a study which found that the United States "polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy."

The second Steinem piece appeared in the Los Angeles Times after Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate. It is titled "Wrong woman, wrong message." After labeling John McCain the "real culprit," Steinem argues that he chose Palin to curry favor with "right-wing ideologues." She continues:

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions . . .

Gloria Steinem, long-time editor of Ms. magazine, is a so-called second-generation feminist who is famous for saying, "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Do you see any inconsistencies in the positions she takes in these two editorials?

What women are saying about Hillary's new role

Don't miss Jodi Kantor's story in the New York Times here. I particularly like the parts that focus on being one's own boss versus working for, well, the most powerful man in the world. Of course the parts that speak to her power and influence, whichever role she chooses, are also very heartening. Here are some excerpts:

As [HRC] pondered this week whether to trade her hard-won independence and elected office for a job working for a more powerful man, mothers and schoolteachers and law partners mulled in tandem with her.

* * *

As news spread on Friday evening that Mrs. Clinton had decided to accept the job, so did a basic consensus: the assignment was probably a triumph for Mrs. Clinton, if a costly one.

This part about (some) women relating to HRC and her experiences as a professional woman really resonates with me. That is, I am definitely one of the women who relates, both to showing emotion in the workplace and to accumulated sexist slights!

Throughout Mrs. Clinton’s presidential run, women across the country saw in her a mirror of their own career fortunes: when she teared up just before the New Hampshire primary that she was expected to lose, they remembered their own workplace humiliations, and when she lost the Democratic nomination, many saw it as an accumulation of all-too-familiar sexist slights.

The story is well worth a read for the sense it conveys of Hillary's past, present and future. Kantor summarizes what she calls Clinton's "feminist triumph" by tracking where she's been. In short, the decade reflects the adage, "you've come a long way, baby." A decade ago, Hillary was a first lady whose hairstyles were fodder for comedians. Now, however, she is poised to become the "world's top diplomat." Plus, working for a President is a whole different ballgame than being married to one.

Kantor's report features lots of thought-provoking quotes. Gloria Steinem, who lauds Hillary's decision to take the Secretary of State job, is quoted as saying, “The question of whether one has one’s own political power or goes to work for someone else is not only a feminist question” I guess it may be "not only" a feminist question, but I think it certainly is a "feminist question." I guess I am unsure that anything about Hillary can, after all these years, not be a "feminist question."

I am heartened by Kantor's conclusion that Clinton "is such an esteemed figure, no one will see her as a mere emissary." Certainly, I am delighted for Hillary, though I would also have been pleased had she chosen to stay in the Senate and continue to work on health care reform.

As a related matter, I wrote this post last week on my feminist legal theory blog. It discusses Hillary's then-prospects to become Secretary of State, as well as changing perceptions of her over the years since Bill Clinton ran for President.