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

the relative influence of women within presidential campaigns can be partially gauged by gender ratios among salaried operatives playing strategic leadership and advisory roles, the top twenty best-paid individuals, and staff who were paid more than $9000 in the last quarter.

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:

The campaign of Republican Mike Huckabee achieves the closest gender balance at a near 50% division between men and women on all measures (it is also the smallest of all the major campaigns). The campaigns of Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson, and Republican Mitt Romney are also fairly balanced, with Clinton's somewhat favoring women and Richardson's and Romney's somewhat favoring men. The most gender-skewed campaign, in contrast, is that of Rudy Giuliani.

In the campaign of the former New York mayor Giuliani, there is only one senior female staffer, who holds the title of Communications Director. Fewer than one-third of Giuliani's staff who earned $9000 or more in the last quarter are women, and just a quarter of his top twenty paid staff are women.

The Democrats' campaigns are more gender-balanced than Republicans'. Just over thirty percent of Republican senior staffers are women, compared to just under 33% of Democratic senior staffers. And there are ten more top salaried women in Democratic campaigns: 32 of 80 (40%) compared to 21 of 74 (28%) in Republican campaigns.

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,

one of the most important legacies of a Hillary Clinton administration would (likely) be bequeathing to the Democratic Party a network of powerful plugged-in insiders that winds up containing substantially more women in senior roles than we have right now, along with perhaps a higher number of men comfortable working with power female colleagues and superiors.

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.

ericwine

Charlotte Hall, MD

January 2007

OCT 29, 2007 04:39 PM

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?

emperorreagan

Baltimore, MD

January 2004

OCT 29, 2007 04:47 PM

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.

shapeshifter23

San Francisco, CA

September 2005

OCT 29, 2007 05:03 PM

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...