But, honestly, I really don't think that one chooses a solid candidate capable of appealing to a wide variety of voters based on "who deserves" it more (Bob Dole comes to mind), nor do I think fighting over which traditionally marginalized group has it worse accomplishes anything. On that score, my hero Katha Pollitt puts it best again:
"Even if it were true that white women were more oppressed than black men" -- as Steinem suggested -- "that still doesn't mean you should vote for Hillary Clinton," Pollitt said. "It might mean you should fight for better enforcement of anti-sex-discrimination rules, but it doesn't mean you should vote for the candidate most likely to wage a war. "
And when both candidates have 100 percent ratings from NARAL, we're splitting pretty fine hairs on who's "best" for women.
Finally, while I understand this at some level,
[Billie Jean] King, the pioneering women's professional tennis player, was dismayed about Clinton's vulnerable candidacy. "I see my whole life going down the drain," Roberts recounted King saying. "A cute young guy comes in and sweeps away all the hard work that the older woman has done."
It makes me think we're projecting all sorts of expectations and interpretations not at all based on reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment