"Elect Women for a Change"
by Suzanne Reisman

Of the many annoying clichés that I read on bumper stickers, this one always gets my goat: "Elect women for a change." Sure, it’s a vaguely amusing little play on words, but it rankles me to no end because it assumes that all women are alike. I do think that we need more women in office, but I am not sure that it would in fact change anything other than prove that we are human beings prone to our ideas, opinions, successes, and mistakes.

At any rate, the irony of the situation is that the "Elect women for a change" bumper sticker is sold by NOW ($2, along with much better bumper stickers that say things like, "A Woman’s Place is in the House and the Senate," but I digress), which is not endorsing a woman candidate in her bid for a seat in the New York State Senate. (To be fair, they haven’t endorsed her male opponent either as far as I can tell.) Maureen O’Connell is a Republican running for a seat vacated by another Republican when he was appointed to be the head of anti-terrorism for NYS. In some ways, she is the perfect candidate for women's groups to get behind. As the New York Times wrote:

Ms. O’Connell, 56, began as a nurse and designed home care for cancer patients. She became a lawyer, served as deputy mayor of East Williston and was elected to the Assembly in 1998, succeeding Mr. Balboni. In 2005 she won the county clerk’s race. She has the Conservative and Independence designations and is endorsed by 1199 United Healthcare Workers East, the heath care workers union, and several government unions.

But she is not pro-choice. (Craig Johnson is the Democrat running for the seat, and he is pro-choice.)

I think this election is a nice little microcosm of what is wrong with these maxims and how endorsements are doled out. It is assumed that female candidates have progressive agendas. Yet time and time again, women are elected to national office who push for very conservative legislation. I think this is fine; people should promote what they believe in and obviously they were elected to do so. But the very idea of supporting women candidates over men just because they are women and thus automatically kinder and gentler and more liberal is absurd.

Another thing that strikes me about the O’Connell-Johnson election is how it is covered. The area has traditionally been a Republican stronghold; every State Senate seat from Long Island is held by a Republican. O’Connell should have an excellent chance to win. But it looks like it will be close on the Feb. 6 election date, and as of now she is losing, at least when it comes to blog coverage: 44 blogs cite Johnson, only 3 mention O’Connell on a technorati search performed by The Daily Gotham. They note:

There actually are pro-republican blogs in New York, such as those listed in our blogroll. Problem for…O'Connell is that they don't seem to care about her. So you do have to wonder: have the rightroots in New York given up?

Or are they not wasting their time on her because she is a woman? (Incidentally, I saw a story about the election in the paper edition, and when I searched for it online so I could link to it for this post, it did not appear under the search term “Maureen O’Connell” although older articles did.) The other measley coverage I found mocked her.

I know this special election is very small (although it is likely to be extraordinarily expensive) and regionally specific, but I am curious if people think it reflects other trends for the 2008 election in terms of how women candidates are covered and by whom, and more broadly how people determine who to vote for in general.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

Submitted by Suzanne Reisman (view blog) on Mon, 01/22/2007 - 02:03

Comments

 

I think one reason I'm so

I think one reason I'm so thrilled by Sarah Palin carrying on Hillary's blow against the glass ceiling, is that they both have fought their way up against strong opposition, much of it from their own parties.

My impression (perhaps unfair to some women) is that a woman usually rises in a party by being useful to the Establishment, being a sort of secretary to men further up -- then is rewarded by being chosen as a token; and, that such women usually represent a very safe, orthodox faction within their party.

In spite of her personal choices, Sarah's official actions have been pretty moderate, tolerant. She seems to embrace what we'd call separation of church and state. And she seems very reasonable about sex education ("should include condoms") and evolution (accepts it as established, thinks God's hand might be in there somewhere).

If Sarah can make a fighting, bouncy woman (like herself and Hillary) acceptable in politics (as President especially!) -- that seems to me more important than their policy differences.

Submitted by shellie on Sat, 10/11/2008 - 21:56
 

Cliches

Now I'm all for more women in elected positions. But I don't like cliches like this one.

We will not be successful if we are being elected JUST because we are women.

We WILL be successful if we are being elected because we are the best candidates for the position. When our country gets to that mentality, and only then, will we truly have succeeded.

Submitted by connysmom on Mon, 01/22/2007 - 04:49
 

Cliches

Now I'm all for more women in elected positions. But I don't like cliches like this one.

We will not be successful if we are being elected JUST because we are women.

We WILL be successful if we are being elected because we are the best candidates for the position. When our country gets to that mentality, and only then, will we truly have succeeded.

Submitted by connysmom on Mon, 01/22/2007 - 04:50
 

Cliches

Now I'm all for more women in elected positions. But I don't like cliches like this one.

We will not be successful if we are being elected JUST because we are women.

We WILL be successful if we are being elected because we are the best candidates for the position. When our country gets to that mentality, and only then, will we truly have succeeded.

Submitted by connysmom on Mon, 01/22/2007 - 04:50
 

She is not just

She is not just not-prochoice. The woman basically is an extremist who wants to ban all abortion and throw into jail all reproductive health providers who even discuss it with their patients.

liza sabater
Culture + Politics + Technology
www.culturekitchen.com

New York grassroots news and activism
www.dailygotham.com

Personal Blog
www.lizasabater.com

Feminist Bloggers Network
www.blogsheroes.com

AIM - cultkitdiva
SKYPE - lizas

Submitted by liza on Tue, 01/23/2007 - 06:00
 

Glad it's not Sarah you're talking about!

Whew, I was skimming this thread and for a moment got ready to defend Sarah against those charges. I'm glad I followed your link and found you were talking about someone else. :-)

Submitted by shellie on Sat, 10/11/2008 - 21:59
 

We're not all the same

I want to elect people who represent my beliefs and are qualified. I think sometimes in the excitement of the possibility of electing a woman, it can be easy to forget that although as women we may all have the same anatomy, we definitely do not all think the same. To me the idea that women all have the same political agendas is just as idiotic as the notion that all women want to be mothers or all women want to get married.
A Elliot

Submitted by A Elliot on Tue, 01/23/2007 - 18:36
 

It is assumed that female

It is assumed that female candidates have progressive agendas. Yet time and time again, women are elected to national office who push for very conservative legislation.

Just think about Margaret Thatcher. The problem is that there isn't a critical mass of women who feel confident enough being themselves to operate in a manner that's different from the way things have always been. Women are starting solo businesses more than men, just so they can be their own bosses and decide how they want their businesses to look. It's tough being a woman in corporate America -- still. And I bet it doesn't hold a candle to being in the Senate.

We need more female representation (and blacks, and Latinos, and Asian, and everyone) so that we can have a more balanced look. But don't think that things will change overnight. It will take a while before women decide that their style and viewpoint has value and it's safe to be average. That's when we'll really see if there's a difference.

But, I'd sure like to see a woman in the White House in my lifetime.

Casey Dawes
Wise Woman Shining
www.WiseWomanShining.com
http://cdawes.blogs.com/wisewomanshining/

Submitted by CaseyDawes on Wed, 01/24/2007 - 16:14
BlogHer

© Copyright 2008 BlogHer | Terms of Service