I was just a little older than my youngest daughter is now when I voted for a presidential candidate for the first time. Richard Milhouse Nixon was running for a second term. We were still in Viet Nam. The Committee to Reelect the President (or CREEP as it became known) was casing the Watergate. Many people my age were concerned, as people are now, about the environment, a war, the economy, poverty, jobs, and equal rights.
So, I watch with interest as my daughter works toward casting her first vote in this historic election. Periodically, my girl sends me links to articles, shares her opinion and asks me what I think. Almost all of the material that she finds to read focuses more on the anatomy or race of the candidates and less about the problems confronting this country and the candidates' experience, positions and approaches to solving those problems and leading this country.
Yesterday, she sent an Andrew Sullivan piece that suggested that feminists shouldn't vote for Clinton because her husband is helping her. He made sure to throw in the fact that she's teared up twice now during the campaign. I'm simplifying what he says, of course, but then his whole blog entry on this is a simplification.
I'll let the Clinton camp handle Sullivan's allegations about Hillary. And women more intelligent and eloquent than I have addressed those allegations. But, as a feminist, I must say I find Sullivan's article insulting and alarming in the context of my kids' reading it and perhaps forming an opinion -- first, in its implications that feminists would vote for Clinton merely because she's a woman and second, because attempts to pit women (and men -- because there are many feminists who are men, Andrew) against women is a tired "divide and conquer"approach when the status quo is threatened and where feminism is concerned. Third, though there may be some universal issues all feminists are concerned about, they often disagree on their positions about those issues. Feminists are not monolithic, just as people of color, people who are gay, people who are young, and people who are old are not. There are diverse constituencies among broad categories of demographics. We fight amongst ourselves and divide and conquer all on our own, thank you.
I try to remind my daughter that she should focus on the issues that are important to her and the rest of the country, where the candidate of her choice -- whomever he or she turns out to be -- stands on those issues, and whether that candidate can or will deliver on all the promises being tossed around right now.
Follow my logic here... if gender and skin color should not matter, then they should not matter. If you are gender and color blind, you are gender and color blind. See what I mean? Believe me, as a woman in this country and believer in equal rights , I understand the historical significance of the Clinton and Obama campaigns and I say "hallelujah."
But, I'd rather us all look at the candidates and say, "Wow... finally. A woman and a person of color running for president. How cool is that? Let's get on with it."
When in need of a strong, smart leader, a vision, or solutions a few years from now, I doubt I will be saying, "Gee, there is [insert "woman" or "person of color"] in the White House." I'm going to be saying, "WTF is the president going to do about this?"
We've done it. We've proved that in this country a woman and a person of color can become the nominee of a political party and run for president. Let's not minimize that by voting solely on the basis of whether someone has a uterus or is a minority.
