Women's Leadership
Editor's Note: Once again, an unrevised column that will be featured tomorrow in the DM. Many gracious thanks to Erin for the idea.
As a budding feminist, I look at the recent evolution of world politics with fresh eyes. Chile, Germany, Liberia, and Jamaica have installed or will install women to top leadership positions in their respective governments. The U.S. (along with several other “developed” nations) hasn’t elected women to top leadership positions at all. Sure, we have had women placed on the Supreme Court and in the Cabinet, but we haven’t elected any woman (or any minority, for that matter) to the presidency. Why is that? Do we not trust women to be in charge? Do we think women don’t deserve the positions for some reason? Or do we simply think women can’t get the job done? I’m hoping the answers are no, but sometimes I’m not really sure.
I realize that both Condoleezza Rice and Hilary Clinton are heavily favored to win the nominations for their respective parties for the 2008 presidential election. I’m not entirely sure it will happen, but I guess I’m asking a bigger question here. I want to know why we haven’t elected a woman to office before now. We’re the leader of the modern world and we can’t get past basic equality issues.
No one will be able to fully convince me that, on some level at least, it isn’t an equality issue. It’s just that no one admits that it’s true. Personally I believe we haven’t elected a female candidate because there are very few out there who have the right credentials to make it. It’s like my rejection letter from Ole Miss graduate school that said I didn’t have competitive credentials. It doesn’t mean I’m not smart, it’s just that I couldn’t compete with applicants who had better credentials. It just means that I have to work harder, that’s all. Women, on the whole, are smart enough, but they aren’t being given the chances they need (and rightly deserve) to get to the point of being a competitive candidate. It’s still an equality issue, still a serious issue, but one that’s much less obvious.
We teach our young women that they can do anything they set their minds to and then slam doors in their faces. We teach them that they are every bit the equal of a man and then pay them much less for the same jobs. We talk, talk, talk, but don’t follow through on anything we say. That sends a ridiculously foolish and wrong message to our young women.
Then there’s the religious aspect (and you can’t tell me there isn’t one): most fundamentalist groups (I’m not using this term in a derogatory manner, but in its original definition -- Biblical literalism) take their scriptures and deny women leadership positions in the church, limiting how they can serve God. Many, but by no means all, teach that a woman’s place is in the home, ignoring what a woman could have to offer both her society and her church. This in turn creates uncertainty in young women trying to find their place in life. In the one place all should be equal, inequality reigns. I know this isn’t true for all cases, but it’s true for many of them.
The solution isn’t as simple as I’d like it to be or as simple as it sounds. To again use a phrase I’ve championed multiple times this semester: freedom of choice. Someone else is making choices for generations of young women. It sounds simple to say that women should be encouraged to enter politics if they choose to do so, but the reality is: they aren’t. Just as engineering and mathematics have reputations as “men’s fields,” politics looks the same way to many people. It’s a stereotype and stereotypes are wrong -- that’s simple enough. Women can and should do anything they choose to do career wise. It doesn’t matter if it takes them to the presidency or not: if they want to try, they should have the same chance as all the men.
As a budding feminist, I look at the recent evolution of world politics with fresh eyes. Chile, Germany, Liberia, and Jamaica have installed or will install women to top leadership positions in their respective governments. The U.S. (along with several other “developed” nations) hasn’t elected women to top leadership positions at all. Sure, we have had women placed on the Supreme Court and in the Cabinet, but we haven’t elected any woman (or any minority, for that matter) to the presidency. Why is that? Do we not trust women to be in charge? Do we think women don’t deserve the positions for some reason? Or do we simply think women can’t get the job done? I’m hoping the answers are no, but sometimes I’m not really sure.
I realize that both Condoleezza Rice and Hilary Clinton are heavily favored to win the nominations for their respective parties for the 2008 presidential election. I’m not entirely sure it will happen, but I guess I’m asking a bigger question here. I want to know why we haven’t elected a woman to office before now. We’re the leader of the modern world and we can’t get past basic equality issues.
No one will be able to fully convince me that, on some level at least, it isn’t an equality issue. It’s just that no one admits that it’s true. Personally I believe we haven’t elected a female candidate because there are very few out there who have the right credentials to make it. It’s like my rejection letter from Ole Miss graduate school that said I didn’t have competitive credentials. It doesn’t mean I’m not smart, it’s just that I couldn’t compete with applicants who had better credentials. It just means that I have to work harder, that’s all. Women, on the whole, are smart enough, but they aren’t being given the chances they need (and rightly deserve) to get to the point of being a competitive candidate. It’s still an equality issue, still a serious issue, but one that’s much less obvious.
We teach our young women that they can do anything they set their minds to and then slam doors in their faces. We teach them that they are every bit the equal of a man and then pay them much less for the same jobs. We talk, talk, talk, but don’t follow through on anything we say. That sends a ridiculously foolish and wrong message to our young women.
Then there’s the religious aspect (and you can’t tell me there isn’t one): most fundamentalist groups (I’m not using this term in a derogatory manner, but in its original definition -- Biblical literalism) take their scriptures and deny women leadership positions in the church, limiting how they can serve God. Many, but by no means all, teach that a woman’s place is in the home, ignoring what a woman could have to offer both her society and her church. This in turn creates uncertainty in young women trying to find their place in life. In the one place all should be equal, inequality reigns. I know this isn’t true for all cases, but it’s true for many of them.
The solution isn’t as simple as I’d like it to be or as simple as it sounds. To again use a phrase I’ve championed multiple times this semester: freedom of choice. Someone else is making choices for generations of young women. It sounds simple to say that women should be encouraged to enter politics if they choose to do so, but the reality is: they aren’t. Just as engineering and mathematics have reputations as “men’s fields,” politics looks the same way to many people. It’s a stereotype and stereotypes are wrong -- that’s simple enough. Women can and should do anything they choose to do career wise. It doesn’t matter if it takes them to the presidency or not: if they want to try, they should have the same chance as all the men.
posted by Lacey Holley at 13:47
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home