HOME / xx factor xxtra: Women writing about politics, etc.

You Can Keep Your Old Brass RingWomen should push for substance over symbolism in this election.

Read what XX Factor bloggers have written about Hillary's exit.

(Continued from page 1)

It's this mind-set, along with pure Hillary loyalty, that's presumably fueling the drive on the part of her supporters to propel her to the vice-presidential nomination. Maybe this push will prove short-lived, a last burst of Clinton campaign energy, a stage of grieving on the way to greater resolution. If that's the case, I don't begrudge Hillary supporters their V.P. ardor. If it took their candidate a few days to come to terms with her own loss, her supporters—who don't do politics for a living—are due a longer grace period.

And yet I'm surprised and disappointed that the voters and groups who had aligned themselves with Clinton's candidacy aren't using this moment of maximum attention to thrust into the spotlight the rest of what could become a larger agenda. What about choosing three priorities from my back-of-the-envelope list? Or creating another list, if you like, and then holding Obama to it? If women got behind and won national paid family leave or a big chunk of new federal money for expanding preschool, wouldn't that be a better test of collective voting power than the symbolic V.P. brass ring?

This is a lesson that comes straight from our foremothers. They're the ones who pushed as hard as they could for equal pay, who won legislative victories that aim to protect us against discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere. They wanted women at the top of every field, yes, but as the Cat in the Hat would say, that is not all, oh no, that is not all. Ruth Rosen, author of The World Split Open: How the Modern Women's Movement Changed America, points out that the 1970 Women's Strike for Equality, which culminated in a march down Fifth Avenue, was about legal abortion, equal pay for equal work, and child care. Rosen thinks that the broadening of the agenda in the four decades is as it should be. "There was a time when it was really important to point out the things that only affect women," she says. "Now it's important to point out how problems that affect everyone affect women worse. Like home foreclosures." At the same time, legal abortion is looking a little shaky these days, equal pay has been achieved more in theory than in practice, and child care hasn't really been on the national agenda since the Nixon administration.

So there's a real place now for women's groups that push legislation instead of candidates—organizations like MomsRising and 9to5, National Association for Working Women, to name just two. These groups didn't endorse Clinton or Obama. Their tax-exempt status doesn't allow them to, and they have that status because they're playing a different role than political action committees like NOW. The MomsRising and 9to5 Web sites are stuffed with information about which states are moving forward on paid family leave (New Jersey, lately) and access to preschool (Oklahoma and Georgia). "We do have Moms Vote 08," says Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, one of the leaders of MomsRising. "It's candidate bingo: You watch a debate and see who's saying what about our issues. The candidates get a point each time they mention one of them, because our goal is to get any candidate talking about the things our members care about."

And to listen to what they say. This spring, John McCain has opposed the Fair Pay Act on the probably specious ground that it will lead to frivolous lawsuits, while Barack Obama—as well as Clinton—voted for it. Women can still swing this election in ways that have nothing to do with the president's gender and everything to do with the pressing day-to-day needs of women. If it's a man who we get to give us what we want, hey, we'll take it.

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
Emily Bazelon is a Slate senior editor.
Photograph of Hillary Clinton by Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images.
COMMENTS

Remarks from the Fray:

I think the problem that I, and presumably other women have, is that although the Obama/Clinton campaigns ran virtually neck and neck, Slate ran about 95% Obama backers.

So, kudos to you, and you privileged family, but your choices, while wonderful for your personal career, are not necessarily representative of women and do not necessarily advance women.

Hillary Clinton has been mercilessly mocked and treated with enormous disrespect, but that doesn't seem to bother you -- you feel no need to bond with the bitter old chicks who see sexism everywhere. You are so beyond that.

The Blacks seem comfortable aligning behind Obama. A look at the campaign workers of the various campaigns (in 2007) showed Obama had only 20% women, and no Asians. Hillary Clinton had the most diverse group of people working for her. But, hey, that is so yesterday, actually looking at who people hire.

The Democratic party, that bastion of women's rights, has Reid, an anti-choice politician as its main negotiator. When men negotiate, women's rights seem to be one of the first things that get negotiated away.

But, hey, happy to hear how liberated, and unconstrained by sex you are when you vote. Sadly, everyone else is voting their tribe -and the tribe that fought for your rights is getting royally screwed. Thanks for saying, "No thank you, it wouldn't really look good on my resume," when the torch was passed to you.

--nywoman

(To reply, click here.)

I don't want to make my decision for president based on something stupid like hair, or fist-bumps, or suit collars, the way they laugh, or what some other random talking head said about whether they're a cat or dog person.

And I really don't want to have to think that millions of Americans out there who may not have access to the internet made their decision based on that garbage either.

I think that this sensationalist and trivialist trend in media coverage only fosters the inertia of the status quo by magnifying anything (gender and race come to mind) out of the ordinary into an "event".

This is, to my mind, why we had to have the "pant-suit" wars, the "cleavage" circus, etc. etc. as well as "muslim" wars, and "what-my-pastor said" gate.

It's just stupid. I'd like to ask that if you get a chance, please, when you're telling the media off, if you'd include something about the total lack of substance in most newscasts vs. the overabundance of shmuck, I'd appreciate it.

--TheVail

(To reply, click here.)

(6/10)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
It's like riding a bicycle. 18/090710_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on Russia.11/090710_TC.jpg
Gram's the word.56/090710_TD.jpg