Sunday, February 7, 2016

Will Any Woman Do?

There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other.

So said the first woman to become the United States Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, at a rally for Hillary Clinton. Surely I am not the only one disgusted by the implication of that statement, that every woman has a moral obligation to support one of their own gender in her quest for the presidency, no matter how odious or inappropriate that woman might be:
While introducing Mrs. Clinton at a rally in New Hampshire on Saturday, Madeleine Albright, the first female secretary of state, talked about the importance of electing the first female president. In a dig at the “revolution” that Mr. Sanders often speaks of, she said that the first female commander in chief would be a true revolution. And she scolded any woman who felt otherwise.

“We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done. It’s not done,” Ms. Albright said of the broader fight for women’s equality. “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”



Not to be outdone, veteran feminist Gloria Steinem got into the act, somewhat ironically, on Bill Maher's show:
Explaining how women tend to become more active in politics as they become older, she suggested younger women were just backing Mr. Sanders so that they could meet young men.

“When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,’ ” Ms. Steinem said.

Realizing that this was potentially offensive, Mr. Maher recoiled. “Oh. Now if I said that, ‘They’re for Bernie because that’s where the boys are,’ you’d swat me.”

But Ms. Steinem laughed it off, replying, “How well do you know me?”
Take a look, starting at about the 4:00 minute mark:



One hopes, as one does with men, that critical-thinking will determine how a woman votes, not gender-identification.

8 comments:

  1. Things are getting pretty petty down there, Lorne -- on all sides.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as spectator sports go, Owen, U.S. politics seem to offer the most bang for the buck for the cynically inclined, which is why I generally avoid getting too immersed in them. We had more than our share of that nonsense during the Harper years here.

      Delete
  2. Tribalism. I think I understand what's going on with these women pretty well, being a woman in the trades and having had a certain amount of struggle to be and remain a respected carpenter and trades/safety instructor. But like all tribalism, it's wrong. Absolutely it is important for women that women are treated like they can competently do any work they like. Women treating each other like none of them are ever wrong is not progress. Flipping the status quo on its head is not progress. Treating one another like people and recognizing skills and talents, in whomever they happen to appear, that might be progress. I'm not really holding my breath.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Karen. I agree with your criterion for progress. Albright reminds me of a department head I once had who established these criteria for a Grade 10 novel: it had to be by a woman, and it had to be by a Canadian. That kind of ghettoization never sat well with me. Literary merit was the only thing that in my mind counted, and the same should apply to all those aspiring to any position. May the best woman or man be chosen.

      Delete
  3. I'm becoming both bored and sickened by this endless lunacy. This is a nation whose people have taken leave of their senses. Their abandonment of fact and logic eventually filters into every recess of public life. I don't want to draw analogies to social disorders of regimes past but it's been a good long time since reason held as little currency as it does today in the United States.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I mentioned to Owen above, Mound, the spectacle of a dysfunctional America is something that I am not interested in following too closely, lest it give rein to an intrinsic cynicism that is deeply embedded in my character.

      Delete
  4. The appeal to woman to vote for Hillary because she is a woman, tells me that Hillary is not doing that great with voters. It actually sounds desperate, the appeal of last resort. As far as Gloria Steinam, she may be the face of feminism, but Betty Friedan was the mind of feminism. Some one who Steinam never mentions when she's interviewed about feminism. It was Betty Friedan who laid the intellectual groundwork in defining feminity and consequently feminism rose from Friedans ideas. In other words no Friedan, no Steinam. As a woman I find it offensive what Albright and Steinam are saying.I could not imagine shutting down my mind about what I know about Hillary Clinton and voting for her because she is a woman.It tells me their hoping there is alot of unthinking woman out there, because any thinking woman out there knows that Hillary was a lousy Secretary of State, she is very corrupt and likes power more then anything and she will do everything she is told by the powers that be. This gender mindset tells me they have run out of ideas. Almost all of the Presidential Nomination Campaigning has turned out to be a pathetic farce and has been that way for many, many yrs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A very interesting analysis, Pam. Without question, suggesting that women suspend their critical faculties and just for her because she is a woman, demeans everyone. It does speak of desperation, as you suggest.

      Delete

I seem to be having problems receiving comments right now, so if you have sent something, know that I am not ignoring you.