Poppin’ Molly – Voting for women doesn’t make you feminist
|
I’m pretty sure the last time I employed a coin toss in any sort of decision-making process was during a late-night beer run in my old dorm-style apartment in a converted warehouse. And, frankly, I was under the impression that was the only time (outside of a NFL kickoff) that a coin toss was ever really necessary. If you’re not already drunk and incapable of making an informed decision as to who is most fit to run to the dive bar down the road to pick up more Evan Williams, then you’re perfectly capable of figuring things out with words and logic – like a reasonable adult.
But then I woke up to hear the news that Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were locked in a “virtual tie” at the Iowa caucus last night and a number of districts were decided by coin tosses. Okay? Personally, I think a rap battle would’ve been a far more entertaining way to go, seeing as Bernie has proven his ability to talk over classic beats and Hillary is ever desperate to grab the youth vote. But sure, flip a coin. Every time I think I’ve figured out American politics, some new bullshit comes along to confuse me, so why not add this nonsense to the mix?
Through the scientifically-sound process of random chance, Hillary Clinton came out as the official winner in Iowa. That’s fine. I’m a Bernie Sanders supporter, so I was obviously rooting for him, but apparently that’s the way things go. So be it. Though I am learning that this casual attitude and slight confusion towards the political process apparently makes me a very bitter “Bernie bro” and borderline conspiracy theorist. I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, but that one is definitely new. What’s worse, I’ve been learning that there is a really dangerous idea that in order to be a proper feminist, I should be supporting the female candidate.
You can call me whatever ridiculous moniker you like to try to ascribe some sort of entitled douche bag persona to me, but don’t for one second try to tell me that voting for a woman is the obligatory feminist thing to do.
Look, I agree with the general concept that it’s about time for a woman to be President – with many, many caveats. It’s about time that we, as a society, accept that a qualified woman would make a great President. It’s about time that we stop casually discussing the possible issue of a woman going crazy with PMS and launching nuclear bombs at random – not only because it’s grotesquely sexist, but because most Presidential nominees are over the age of 50, making PMS a non-issue for most female candidates. It’s about time that we stop addressing female politicians in overtly-gendered ways – whether we’re constantly questioning their ability to balance work and motherhood or accusing them of being bossy and shrill.
There’s definitely a lot of progress to be made when it comes to feminism in politics and it’s amazing to see what women like Elizabeth Warren, Wendy Davis and Ruth Bader Ginsberg (just to name a few of my favorites) have accomplished. And no matter what you or I think of her politics, it’s pretty incredible to see how much Hillary Clinton has achieved. But voting for women does not inherently make you feminist and supporting male politicians does not make you sexist. It’s your reasoning behind those decisions that matters. It’s that kind of logic that gets Sarah Palin a vice presidential nomination.
Feminism isn’t about putting someone in power just because they share your gender. It isn’t about forcing others to support someone you like because their accomplishment would be revolutionary. It isn’t about voting for women because “it’s time.” Feminism is about creating equal spaces for men and women. It’s about treating Hillary Clinton as an equal to her male counterparts. It’s about questioning her ability to be a good President, not a good wife and mother. It’s about shutting the fuck up about her husband’s affairs and how this impacts her ability to lead a country.
Supporting someone solely based on their gender, sexuality, race or religion is, quite simply, pandering. And tearing down women for not supporting a female candidate is sexist. It’s not about blindly supporting women just because it would be progressive. It’s about allowing everyone, particularly women, to make their own informed decisions.
If that leads you to Hillary Clinton, that’s fine. I bet you’re having a pretty good day. If that leads you to Bernie Sanders, that’s cool too. I hope you’re not as bitter as Twitter seems to think you are.
If that leads you to Carly Fiorina, I seriously question your ability to make an informed decision.
Molly Regan is an improviser and writer in Baltimore. She likes chicken pot pie, Adam Scott’s butt and riot grrl.
Related Posts:
1. No, she did not win by coin toss. She just won. By caucus decision, by votes. The six coin tosses were for county delegates – 6/1300 or so. Even if all the flips went for sanders, Hillary still just plain won. Was it close? Yes. 23 delegates to 21. But that’s winning. Not virtual tie – just won. Period. Let’s put that particular myth to bed.
2. No one has said vote for Hillary cuz feminism, or cuz woman. This is the same straw argument that’s been popping up since last summer. That said, you can’t divorce gender from this election. In a patriarchy, gender matters. Better thinkers than I have been writing about this for a while now.
3. Twitter, along with the domestic and international press, oh yeah and sanders’ campaign. The verdict is in – the online supporters are toxic. For Clinton supporters and anyone who has the temerity to offer a critique. If you haven’t experienced it for yourself, well good for you. In the meantime, kindly don’t discount the lives experiences of hundreds of women and people of color.
[Reply]
Molly Regan Reply:
February 2nd, 2016 at 6:17 pm
“A total of 484 eligible caucus attendees were initially recorded at the site. But when each candidate’s preference group was counted, Clinton had 240 supporters, Sanders had 179 and Martin O’Malley had five (causing him to be declared non-viable).
Those figures add up to just 424 participants, leaving 60 apparently missing. When those numbers were plugged into the formula that determines delegate allocations, Clinton received four delegates and Sanders received three — leaving one delegate unassigned.
Unable to account for that numerical discrepancy and the orphan delegate it produced, the Sanders campaign challenged the results and precinct leaders called a Democratic Party hot line set up to advise on such situations.
Party officials recommended they settle the dispute with a coin toss.”
-desmoineregister.com
I wouldn’t exactly call that a clear win, but I also don’t really take issue with it. But let’s let bygones be bygones.
Gender absolutely matters in a patriarchy, I agree. And, as addressed in the column, the fact that Hillary is a woman has subjected her to numerous sexist attacks (she’s unfit to run the country because she couldn’t stop Bill from cheating being one of the stupidest). I’m not claiming that Hillary’s gender doesn’t matter, rather I am saying that voting for a woman based exclusively on that fact does not give you a feminist free pass. I do not believe that every Hillary supporter does this, in fact, I believe that most of her supporters are probably well informed. I have continuously seen people in my own life claiming that she is the best feminist candidate while writing off Bernie Sanders because he is just another old white man. I’d like to see more depth to the thought process of individuals who would write off a candidate or align themselves with someone based solely on gender, sexuality, race or religion. I’m sorry if you’ve encountered toxicity from the Sanders campaign. As addressed above, hurling sexist remarks at Hillary is a major issue – clearly it’s also one for her supporters. Hell, violent misogyny is a problem for any woman who makes her presence known. As far as writing off the experiences of other women and people of color, well, I’m not exactly sure what to say. If this is in reference to the “Bernie bros”, I am sorry you have encountered that. I take issue with being lumped into a category of people who are clearly badgering women online. I’m sure you can appreciate being irritated with people making negative assumptions about your character based on the candidate you support.
Go ahead and support Hillary. I think it’s awesome that you’re so politically involved.
[Reply]
I’m pretty sure Jenny9’s #3 is regarding this portion of your write up:
“I hope you’re not as bitter as Twitter seems to think you are.”
That is what minimizing the lived experiences of other women and POC looks like. I get not wanting to be lumped in with other very toxic people but at the least you could acknowledge that it is a problem instead of brushing it off like it’s just Twitter that thinks it…or *meh*
[Reply]
Is this comments section seriously going to turn into a “my specific demographic has had it so much tougher than yours that you have not right to have an opinion” pissing contest?
First, unless the stellar score that I received on the “reading comprehension” portion of the standardized tests that I took in elementary school was just another lie fed to me by the white patriarchy, the way that I read it, “I hope you’re not as bitter as Twitter thinks you are” was directed at other Sanders supporters. If that is the case, why did either of, Jenny9 and Alicia, even bother? If that wasn’t the intent of the sentence, I apologize; unlike some posters here, I’m not always right.
Second, It’s time that EVERYONE realizes that someone not agreeing with their opinion is not remotely the same thing as REPRESSING your opinion. Alicia and Jenny9 brought emotions about their lives to a logic fight; Molly brought insight culled from her personal experience and, oh yeah, a published report from a media source IN FUCKING IOWA. It’s great to have “the temerity to offer a critique”, but how about having a thick enough skin to accept one of your opinion in return?
I agree with almost nothing Molly writes. EVER. And I sure as hell wouldn’t vote for any of the pols name checked in this column. But Molly is 100% percent right about a few things: The Iowa caucuses tiebreaker system is hinky/worse than those used by any professional sports league. It is a horrible idea to vote for anyone based solely on how their junk is configured/color of their skin. No one should ever judge anyone else’s Feminist, Inclusiveness, or Liberal street cred lest their’s be judged.
No one is belittling anyone else’s problems, it’s just that, like it or not, the rest of us have our own to deal with. Sorry if we don’t all drop everything that we’re doing and make our lives about living in to your narrow vision of what it means to be… well, anything. There’s a lot more gray and a lot less black and white out there than most people care to see.
Good job on this column, Molly, you filthy, leftist, non-penis having communist 🙂
[Reply]