Why I Will Vote for a Women in 2010
September 29, 2009
by Bruce Nahin
|The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.
In 2010 we will have a unique opportunity to vote for many women candidates, ultra-liberal and right wing- conservative, Democrat and Republican. I will vote for women this year irrespective of agenda and issues in order to finally achieve parity in office.
As many of you here are aware from my writings at TNA and Huff Po, I am a conservative white male, founder of Chippendales etc. I was involved in the woman’s movement from its beginnings of the 2nd wave (no I am not old enough for the first wave) and have remained a feminist throughout my life, notwithstanding my evolving politics on other issues.
I have no dog in the Massachusetts Senate race. I live way out on the left coast. What is abundantly clear is the disproportionate division of males and females in our seats of power. Men will not truly be free until women are our co equals, in our homes, workplaces, and in the seats of government.
I have developed a woman first voting philosophy that says in essence that irrespective of party or agendas, I will vote and support women candidates over men until equality exists, then I will vote based on issues and agendas. This means I support Coakley over her opponent, Palin over hers, Hutchinson over hers, Whitman (here in Calif) over hers etc. It is easy to do, hold your nose and push the button — it is easy once you practice it.
Women will never achieve parity until all women back women candidates. Division caused by issues will simply divide you and foil the attempts at parity. Men won’t vote for women over men, so if you vote for a man over a woman parity will fail. Many have used issues such as abortion or the economy to decide who to vote for- frankly the main issues to me is parity- the others can be put aside until parity is achieved.
I know many of you will disagree, and that is why parity will not be achieved. You will tell me that this issue or that is so important you can’t vote for a woman who supports, opposes etc a particular issue. My point is you would be wrong. Parity is the single most important issue there is, for until that happens, women will always be beholding to men.
Since you’re a man and will vote for women over men, you should have said “Most men won’t vote for women over men.” Some will, especially if women talk up the idea of parity and they “get” it. My husband voted for Hillary Clinton and I didn’t have to convince him to do so. A lot of other men voted for Hillary Clinton, some voted for Cynthia McKinney, and a lot would vote for Sarah Palin for president.
That nit having been picked, I agree that we need to vote for women over men and not sweat the issues. Politicians often change their positions on issues once in office, or give only lukewarm support to the issues we voted them in on, so let’s just get more women in office, then lobby on the issues. The 2008 candidacies of Clinton and Palin showed how much sexism and outright misogyny still exist in this country and the only way to change that is to give more women power, power in the workplace and power in politics. Parity is essential to power.
I believe Mr. Nahin is to be thanked for his courage in speaking out in a public way stating that he would vote for a woman over any male candidate. I agree with his analysis and extend my sincere gratitude for his speaking out a truth that women’s parity with men will NEVER happen as long as women keep choosing men over women to have power.
What women fail to recognize about women who seek higher office is that they are more likely, than men, to seek consensus over issues, rather than compete against each other for the sake of “winning”. Men usually are more inclined towards a win-lose scenario in politics, where, I believe, women are more interested in a “win-win” scenario. For example, even though Sarah Palin is pro-life, she still made the controversial move of appointing a pro-choice supreme court justice to the Alaska court. She was also the first to take on her own party in calling out corruption and ethical violations, rather than only pointing the finger at the democrats. I admire and respect her for doing this because she put doing what’s right for her constituents over political expediency.
This is exactly the kind of political courage that’s been missing from power positions since men have taken total control of it. Women bring a new perspective to the table that is desperately needed in order to keep checks on power. More importantly, we have yet to have female equity in power and I’m willing to accept Mr. Nahin’s suggestion that, first, we seek parity and then we worry about the policies and positions of those women we place into power.
Such a sea change (which Hillary said it would be to choose a woman as president) may actually be the kind of change WE’VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR! Don’t you think we’ve been waiting too long already?
Modem X – I completely agree that once a politician is in office – they either change their positions or move toward the commen consensus. Most end up voting the party line no matter what they promised to get elected.
I will also vote in 2010 female first, issues second. I never vote for a candidate based upon their issue on abortion or other social issues because any changes to current law end up for a ballot vote anyway. Instead, I look for candidates who can negotiate a win-win situation, have a clear understanding of state/federal budget issues, and can problem solve without catering to the highest paid lobbyist. Sounds like a perfect job for a woman.
Here in CA – we may have 2 women running for the US Senate – incumbant Barbara Boxer and Republican Carly Fiorina. If that does happen, it is worth celebrating a victory no matter who wins.
Right there with you Bruce! Great perspective and glad to hear that kind of thinking coming from a man.
Reminds me of Nancy Hopkins piece about the merit and gender argument. The argument for voting for women every time is “merit matters more than gender”. Others say “I vote based on issues, not gender.” Yet studies show most vote based on emotional reasons, not issues.
The truth is if women voted women every time, we’d have proportional representation for women and all the benefits that come along with it. Women have the power to make good things happen for themselves and for their country. They just have to do it.
Kathy- we in Calif also have a republican woman running for governor Whitman, of e bay- so we have two silicon valley ladies on the ballot
Bruce – Yes! I am looking forward to this coming election as we have some very viable women candidates this year.
As a white heterosexual man, I would like to applaud your vision. I too have decided that after voting for Obama (I was a Hillary delegate previously), I will NEVER, vote for another heterosexual man again.
Perhaps one day, when we achieve gender equity, I will be able to change my strategy, but until then… Women first; politics second.
While I’d love to get on this bandwagon of voting for women candidates no matter what, I still very painfully remember all the female elected officials like Kathleen Sebelius, Claire McCaskill, Janet Nepolitano, and my own governor here in WA state, Christine Gregoire, who backed an unqualified man over the first viable woman candidate for the presidency, Hillary Clinton. As you may note, most of them got paid off with positions in the administration. Voting in women politicians only works if they, in turn, will back another woman. Apparently, we can’t count on that!
Katherine B,
I understand your concerns, but you cannot be certain that any man you vote for will be any better either! It’s always a chance you take voting for anyone. Obama is a prime example of a politician saying things the people want to hear in order to get elected. He ran as a new kind of politician and people took him at his word.
Also, we’ve NEVER had equity of power between men and women. Such equity will play a major role in the kind of leaders these women will be. As it stands now, the women you listed are still under the male thumb, as far as power goes.
Let’s see how women perform when they are not totally under the control nor beholden politically to the men who appointed them into power and who can take it away from them just as easily, if they don’t do as they are told by the men. I think we will see a totally different type of leadership when women can stand on their own in power positions and are not dependent on male approval in how they wield such power.
Great post and great comments! Unfortunately for me, I live in Virginia, the state that gave the DNC pro-lifer Tim Kaine, so I probably won’t get many chances to vote for women, but when I do I’m voting for parity.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...