NEWS: It's Who You Know

CULTURE: It's Who You Know

So which of the current presidential candidates is probably going to be best for women?



Now, blah blah it's possible to have the utmost respect for women, of course, without actually, you know, giving them jobs. And as we all know, there really just aren't that many women out there who really understand politics or who've reached the very top of their professions, and this fact has nothing to do with discrimination, necessarily--maybe women just choose to do other things with their time. Like shopping and cooing over infants, for example. And it certainly isn't the candidates' fault if, for reasons of their own, women are happy earning less than $9000/year or doing things other than being interested in who governs the nation.



Still, though, with all those necessary caveats in place, it seems reasonable to assume, as a starting point, that

Right? I mean, even though there's no reason why men can't represent women's issues just as well as women, and it's nothing more than rampant reverse sexism to assume otherwise, it doesn't seem entirely crazy to guess that probably, on average, women are probably slightly more likely to care about women's concerns.



Of course, we all know that ideally, there'd be no such thing as "women's issues". And I'm sure we all know enlightened individuals who are completely indifferent to gender and think that paying attention to this stuff just undermines equality.



Okay fine.



Now let's talk about the real world.



For those of us who haven't entirely evolved past noticing that people have bodies and that these bodies actually make a difference in the world, the Huffington Post released some interesting information a few days ago:

Kudos to Mike Huckabee. Still, given his hostility to women's reproductive rights, well, nope.



Romney? Nope.



Richardson passes. So, needless to say, does Clinton.



If you're one of those hyper-enlightened souls who thinks that caring about gender in politics is just as sexist as the fact that, oh, every president throughout American history has been a white man, then fine; vote "purely on the issues." (Actually, in all seriousness, OnTheIssues is a good site for that kind of research.) If you're a straw woman who "only" votes based on gender equity, then hey, cast your ballot for Huckabee.



If, however, you live in the real world, realize that a given candidate's issues will flex (or not) in the context of party politics and actual day-to-day governance, and give a shit about women's equality, then consider Richardson if you like. If you're only paying attention to the frontrunners Obama, Edwards, and Clinton, then keep in mind that, as Matt Yglesias points out,

That shit matters, people.



Bitch_PhD has put herself on the record as leaning towards Edwards, actually, but keeps thinking she might change her mind. If not, though, she'll console herself for voting for a white man in the primary by voting for Clinton in the general election.

Huckabee's reputation as a conservative is mostly due to his views on social issues, which you note. On many other things, he's centrist and sometimes liberal, so it makes sense that gender equity is something that would matter to him, just like he talks about poverty and global warming. (it's odd that someone can be so clear-eyed about these things and still reject evolution and fail to see the flaws in his views about abortion.)
It's also interesting that the most socially liberal Republican candidate has the most unbalanced gender ratio.
Kudos to Richardson, though - and he's probably best prepared to actually be president should he get the job. However, like Huckabee, he's really running for vice-president.
What would you say about Romney if he hadn't done his flipflopping on abortion?

I'd take a much more favorable view on Hillary if she talked as tough about limiting executive powers as she did about going to war with Iran.

Giving thought and consideration to how well the candidates stack up against one another in terms of advancing equal rights for women (as well as gays, immigrants, etc) is surely worthwhile. But...

*sigh*... I wish that others shared my central, fundamental, and overriding concern for the paramount issues of energy and the environment. For it is the looming mega-crises of Peak Oil and Climate Change (as well as deforestation, pollution and the litany of other ecological woes) that threaten all of us, irrespective of race, gender, class, sexual preference, and all the other things the official culture of the ruling class uses to keep us divided. But I guess that's easy for me to say... since I'm a straight white male who hasn't had to endure the systematic oppression women and others have.

'At the end of the day,' I prefer to give attention to problems that might better unite us all as opposed to divide us and keep us entrenched in a consciousness that often defines itself in terms of victimization...

Shapeshifter, don't forget that you're (presumably) also not someone who works land for a living or (I'm assuming, since you live in SF which has a hellaciously expensive cost of living) who has to put price above all other considerations when it comes to providing basics for yourself or your family.

See, because people who are, in fact! victimized by poverty and inequality often literally can't *afford* to "give attention to problems that unite us all." Because you know, deforestation sucks but I need to clear some land to plant some crops so my family can eat, so tough shit. Or yeah, overpopulation's a concern, but frankly my own personal ability to get birth control is the way that issue really comes home to me. Or, you know, whatever.

We definitely need the brain trust to figure out how to address these issues. It's just remotely possible that getting a class of people that have been largely excluded from power and influence into positions where they can do something might provide some answers, you know.

Or you can overlook these "victimization" issues and just wring your hands, I guess.

Don't vote for Hillary. Just don't. 28 years with only two families in the White House? No thanks. Not what this country stands for.

Very good point. I concede to your views in that respect.

As for Hillary, I loudly second the others' opposition to her bid for Presidency. She is the most conservative of all the Democratic candidates (and utterly two-faced in her repeated betrayals of her avowed constituency). It makes perfect (though lamentable) sense that the women who stand the best chance of advancing in patriarchal corporate society are those who are most conciliatory to the ideology and policies of the oppressor. Which is not to say Hillary is as reprehensible as your Condi Rices or Maggie Thatchers. But I wouldn't put it past her to attach herself to such reactionary positions if she thought it would advance her chances politically.

I agree. It sickens me that a country as fucked up as ours would have the audacity to play vigilante and decide for other countries what's best for them.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a president (and a government) who actually let the U.N. do its job instead of taking on these problems foolishly by ourselves?

I am voting for Ron Paul, he is the only worthwhile candidate. You can't agree with all of his stances, but by far he is the only candidate I trust or will fight for.
The other candidates all say the same thing, fix healthcare, social security etc, how long do we have to wait? Come on.

Why does everyone seem to have a blind spot when it comes to recognizing the vitally refreshing campaign of Mike Gravel? It's disheartening to me that Ron Paul has taken in so many progressives with his Libertarian decentralization of government con. It doesn't help that Gravel has been excluded from the latest Democratic debates by the corporate media (see above link).

...and why is it that this cursed SG comments function does not seem to like my Firefox browser and forces me to log in using Explorer if I'm to be permitted to make use of the "INSERT" codes, dammit?!

nice

Word.

I really like Gravel, but it's his schtick about the "criminality" of the income tax that just pisses me off. Paul says it too, and it's nonsense.

I've decided on Bill Richardson. For now. Once he got over that bullshit about stealing other states' lake water to irrigate his barren backyard, he cleared the last hurdle for me.

I really do not suppose that peasants farming land for subsistence are the main culprits behind things like deforestation (try US multinational agribusiness if it's a question of assigning blame). Availability of birth control? Condoms are pretty cheap and easily obtainable in most developed countries. In the absence of such, one can always resort to 'pulling out.' Neither method is 100% foolproof, of course, but if practiced conscientiously could significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies.

People of all classes and sexes are always ready to find excuses for failing to make responsible choices in terms of their own behaviors. Blaming others is a perennial psychological defense. If I wanted to take a position of intellectual arrogance, I could say that "po' folks jest don't know no bettuh" but I don't believe that's true.

But... "you know, whatever."

The guy who authored one piece of legislation to equate abortion with murder and another to effectively overturn Roe v. Wade? You're right, I can't agree with all of his stances. In fact, he's a misogynistic fuckbag.

It's true that Margaret Thatcher voted in favor of a bill to legalize abortion.

Indeed.

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS!? The use of birth control is more than just about *gasp* preventing pregnancies. Do you know how many women in the world rely on the usage of the pill or the shot, or some other form of non condom contraceptive for reasons other than preventing pregnancy? MEDICAL REASONS? To imply that condoms or "pulling out" are a suitable option is more than retarded and ignorant. And what self respecting woman, or even an non self respecting woman should be forced to put her own health, wellbeing, and safety in to the hands of a) another human being, or b) a man (depending on how you wish to see it. I'm not man bashing). Both "methods" that you suggest leave the choice in the hands of a man, and some men do want kids when women don't. Seriously. I get what you're saying, sort of, but it took me about five minutes before I was able to see through the haze of red. It's not a matter of knowing better, it's a matter of being able to reach those resources and have them available to you.
/end rant

Barack Obama offers tolerance, persuasion, cooperation, and negotiation. He has my agenda, my vote, my cash, my time.

I'm also going with Obama, and hoping bitch doesn't keep going off the deep end.

He also believes in pushing for federally-recognized civil unions instead of marriage.

Those civil unions would be available to people of all races, religions, and sexes.

Pretty fucking cool.

+1