My husband and I had a long talk after HRC'S speech. One thing I wished she had done, when speaking about understanding women's equality issues, was say something like "and I know Senator Obama feels the same way. He has two daughters." My husband pointed out that there are many feminists who would've have reacted negatively to that - that there are some feminists who don't believe a man - ANY man - should be a part of their cause.
If that's the case, it might've done more harm than good in helping Obama's campaign - but, too, for those few feminists, would they vote for a man - ANY man - anyway?
These can't be the type of feminists who'd vote for McCain come November, though. Right? I'd like to hear from you all about this. Is my husband right? Will these women stay home rather than vote for a man? And if so, how many of them are there?
Here's my take on the issue.
I have trouble believing such hard-core feminists would vote for McCain, a man who, if elected, would try and repeal Roe v. Wade. I can't understand why, if there are such feminists, they would reject the help of anyone who supported their causes: equal pay, a woman't right to choose, women's health care, etc. If somone can shed some light on this for me, I'd be most appreciative.
When I was a young woman (I turned 18 in 1971), I often got into trouble for expressing the opinion that the most important thing the Women's Movement could do would be to make a woman's choice - on ANY matter - possible, viable and not a subject of ridicule or scorn. My opinion was (and still is) that whatever a woman chooses to do needs to be valued and accepted as HER choice, whether it be homemaker, mother, executive, firefighter, blue-collar worker or politician. For me, ensuring a woman has the right to choose what SHE wants is what true equality is all about. Back then, I was told that if a woman chose to be a housewife and mother, she hadn't really chosen anything - that such a choice wasn't really acceptable.
How does this resonate with others here? Are there those that think it's more important for a woman to get where she's going without help (unless it's from another woman) than it is for her to actually get where she wants to go? Is the destination an important factor in whether or not a woman should get where she wants to go? If a woman chooses something other women think is not in sync with feminism, is that a choice that should be denied? What about a case where a woman can give a man a leg-up? Is that still feminist?
And back to the politcal discussion with my husband that started this train of thought - would it be wrong of HRC to take the position that Barack Obama is just as much their champion as she is?