Print This Post
Nov
9
Read Part I here.
Evil exists in the form of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. How do we know this? Because we were told so. Marie Wilson, of The White House Project, explains in this November 6, 2007 entry on The Huffington Post blog:
It’s as old as Eve and pretty predictable: the power of a woman to tempt us to disaster. Political pundits and candidates have created their own “October Surprise” by identifying the real dangers in this election–not terrorists or nuclear bombs–but two women: Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.
The latest reason to get out the vote is the threat of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House (should the Democrats win today) and the frightening specter of Senator Hillary Clinton as president.
Their power continues to be perceived warily, even as it is acknowledged by Pelosi herself that most Americans have no idea who she is, and as Hillary’s polls give her the highest favorability rating of any possible Democratic candidate for ‘08. We’ve seen this kind of demonization before. A review of the literature on Elizabeth Dole when she ran for president shows that the press and her own husband (who spread public doubts about her ability to win) took her from a top contender to a drop out within months. More recently, New York Attorney General candidate Jeannine Pirro has been cast as the devil on several mainstream blogs.
Although Wilson says that she sees positivity as women come into political being, in addition to severe responses, the severity of reaction to driven women, or simply women who want to drive, isn’t new. She says backlashes seem to occur in ten-year cycles.
“In the mid-1980s, the backlash got framed as women going back home because they didn’t like the workplace. Well, that wasn’t the case. Then, the second backlash, in the 1990s, was about how working women had more of a chance of getting struck by lightening than getting married. And that was false.
“Now we’re into the next 10 years and we’re into another phase of backlashes. I believe it was Carol Gilligan who said that we’re at the end of patriarchy. Not that its’ all over for men, but it’s all over as a system that assumes that a country has [and has to have] a certain order.” [You can read more about Gilligan's assertions here.]
But how is it, then, that other countries have or have had female heads of state, and the United States is still the bridesmaid?
Wilson points to how the United States, although never highly ranked internationally when it comes to the number of women in power, has actually dropped in status. In January, 2000, the US ranked #24. But, as of October 31, 2006, according to Women in National Parliament, Rwanda ranked first among 189 countries, while the United States came in at #67 in terms of the percentage of elected seats in a single house of parliament held by women.
Other countries ahead of the USA?
Cuba -#8
Vietnam – #25
Australia – #32
China – #47
and
Iraq – #28
We’re #67, and Iraq is #28. [You can read more on women in politics from the group that produces this ranking here, including archived statistics. More generally, you can read here.]
Sadly, Rwanda, and other countries with gender imbalances in the general population, owe their women’s positions to the death and/or killing of the men. Given the situation in Iraq, the same factor may contribute to its higher ranking as well.
Does this mean, as Shakespeare wrote about lawyers in Henry VI, “First thing we do, let’s kill all the men?” Hardly.
Wilson says that the top countries have at least three things going for them:
1. They have the history of a queen.
2. They have had matriarchical ascension, as with Ghandi. She adds, “We’ve not had that. There are no political families producing women as heir apparents.”
3. And, according to Wilson, most importantly, “the countries that have made women leaders more frequently and in greater numbers have legislated quotas.” Wilson cites South Africa (ranked at #13 ) as a country that implements legal requirements for how many women must be included in the country’s legislature.
To Wilson, there is no avoiding the irony that, “We have said to other countries that they have to have that [the quotas], but we’re adverse to that here.” Global Database of Quotas for Women tracks countries with electoral quotas. Countries that have no such quotas, such as the US, are excluded from the tracking.
Just how many countries have electoral quotas? Nearly 110. But not the United States. [Read here for more information on the quota effort.]
Can the United States’ women do better? Can the United States’ men do better? Can the United States as an entity do better, in accepting and allowing women to be in power? Do we need to do better? Why should we try to do better? And how do we accomplish doing better, whatever the term “better” might imply?
Wilson concludes in her pre-election day Huffington Post blog entry:
I’m not suggesting that a rebellion is needed. But, women should realize their power, and join together. My hope is that women in other countries will serve as an example and lead us to into realizing our own strength. Women in Chile, Liberia and Germany, countries formerly torn by torture and war, have taken on their country’s highest office. Women in Norway constitute about 50% of government positions, about 60% of college graduates, and have enacted a rule that requires 40% of all board seats of publicly traded companies be filled by women.
This year may present just such an opportunity for American women to join together. There are 2,582 women on the ballot across the country seeking seats in the US Congress and state legislature. The only “October surprise” here is the number of women who are hungry for change, and ready to lead. If Americans would stop demonizing our female leaders, and choose power over our fears, women just might turn out to be the best promise our country has.
Up next in Part III: What are the issues important to women and what can you do now, as in, immediately
By Jill Miller Zimon at 6:28 pm November 9th, 2006 in Politics
Comments
4 Responses to “Backlashed and backwards, not barefoot and pregnant; Part II of exclusive interview with Marie Wilson, Founder, President, The White House Project”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
The Senate percentage will go up from 14 to 16 in January. I’m not sure about the House.
Thanks, Jason. So, what do you think – issue? non-issue? Men can do women’s interests fine – no need for quotas or more women in leadership – just asking anyone who’ll answer.
I was amazed to hear that Nancy Pelosi had raised the second-largest pot of campaign funds, after (you guessed it) Hilary Clinton. Why don’t women get more kudos for their fundraising prowess?
I donate to EMILY’s list candidates, when I can. That’s one good way to support the emergence of female candidates. Any suggestions on other ways to do so?
-Sandy Piderit
Wow – is that right, about the $$ raising?! Amazing. I’m not surprised though. EMILY’s list is a huge power.