The recent debate on campus, Every Woman Counts, gave the Democratic candidates an opportunity to address "women's issues." Although it was a worthwhile endeavor, the debate failed to acknowledge the end goal we should all have in mind when discussing women and politics in the United States today: the gender equity that would render debates like this wholly unnecessary. Of course, I support having women's voices heard in the political arena unconditionally. But the fact that it takes a Lifetime special to do this doesn't say much for the progress of women in politics.
Dr. Martha Burke, political psychologist, claims, "The women's vote will decide the next election, as it has since 1980." Clearly, since women comprise half the population, our votes do matter. In this same vein, so do the votes of brunettes, overweight people, people with STDs, etc., but no one's telling those constituencies that they're going to decide the next election. No broad-based consensus exists amongst women on key issues; women never have and don't now vote as a block. There is much more heterogeneity amongst women voters than the title "women's issues" implies. For example, just as many women are pro-life as pro-choice. The implication that women base their votes solely on issues like the pay gap, domestic violence, or Roe v. Wade is incredibly disparaging. The women that I know are voting on issues of foreign policy, the economy, education and the war with Iraq as well as the so-called "women's issues;" we want the same things that men do. So why the division?
An illustration of my point: I trekked over to Sig Ep at some ungodly hour of the morning in "872 degree weather to see Gen. Wesley Clark a couple weeks ago. Students were packed into two rooms, waiting for Clark to speak, and after he came in, I overheard a conversation between two women nearby. They had just shaken hands with the general himself and were discussing the virtues of his grasp; one demonstrated by holding her hand as if she were descending from a horse and in need of support -- classic "damsel in distress" style. Apparently the general treats the ladies a little differently, even though it may be something so subtle and ingrained (as much gender bias is) that he wouldn't even recognize it. The other student agreed with her, replying, "he has different handshakes for men and women."
Indeed, when I later had the chance to speak with Clark, he held onto my hand in the same "sidesaddle" fashion for about five minutes while I spoke with him about the abysmal lack of women in the U.S. Congress. Evidently this is thought to be a method of engaging women voters; I know he wouldn't have held a man's hand like that. Frankly, I wasn't swooning, and his answer wasn't any more gratifying. He spouted something along the lines of "women will get there" and pointed to his wife as the best politician he knew. This says something about his diplomatic abilities, but let's be honest here, Clark. Your wife is known for being your wife; she's not in Congress, or any other political position for that matter.
So, how are we going to get there? The latest numbers show that women, who make up 52 percent of the population, comprise 13 percent of the Senate and 13.8 percent of the House. Howard Dean's policies as governor of Vermont impress me the most out of a pool of candidates that may be able to spew rhetoric about the need to instill "feminine values" into the Oval Office, but who have few concrete plans on how to do so. Gov. Dean's cabinet and Supreme Court appointees were both split equally between both genders. He didn't use quotas, but he did employ affirmative action to ensure that the most qualified women were being considered. Dean sums it up, "I'm tired of being divided. I'm tired of being divided by race, I'm tired of being divided by income, by gender, by religion. If this country is ever going to work, we have to acknowledge. . . that we are responsible for each other and to each other."
Since I'm not a Dean fan, the concordance between this statement and my own beliefs really surprised me. That's exactly it; I don't want to have a separate debate for women -- a separate handshake. I'm tired of the rhetoric. The United States isn't going to magically "get there" when it comes to gender equity. We need a Democratic candidate who acknowledges the enormous lack of one of this country's greatest resources in its own government -- women. We need a candidate who doesn't pander to women. The blanket term "women's issues" divides us and implies that these are somehow issues that apply only to women, which women care about above the others. Funny how fiscal responsibility or national security are never seen as "women's issues."
Whomever the candidate may be, I challenge him to rise above divisive politics. Clark's handshake is just a fitting analogy of how I see the gender division in politics -- outdated, patronizing and a little creepy. The Democratic candidate needs to make "women's issues" everyone's issues. Women are individuals, and no candidate's going to get the support of all of us. Yes, every woman counts, but not in the sense that we're all of one mindset.
And a bit of advice for the candidate on the campaign trail: Try not to make women suppress gag reflexes when you shake hands with them. We can handle a firm grasp.
