In last week’s New York Times Magazine article 16 Ways of Looking at a Female Voter, controversial author Linda Hirshman pointed to many studies and analyses that supposedly support the premise that, even though there have been many attempts to rally and organize women as a voting bloc, there has been little success.
Why? According to Hirshman and those she interviewed, women focus mainly on issues that impact the household, but pay little attention to political campaigns or world events.
Women, she has long contended, just aren’t as political as men.
I know so many women who are politically informed and active, it’s just hard for me to believe that the studies cited in the article are conclusive. I know they support Hirshman’s less formal survey that she wrote about for the Washington Post, in which she suggested that Washington, D.C.-area women don’t care about politics and rely on their husbands to tell them what’s worth knowing in the news.
Others wonder about that idea, as well. Catherine Price at Salon questions Hirshman’s premise that women pay less attention to the news, including political news, than men:
… [A]mong the people who do pay attention to news, women do so less intensely than men. Why is this? One reason suggested by Hirshman is that women are more likely to know about a candidate or politician if she’s female — and since there are far fewer female than male politicians, it makes sense that women might lose interest.
I don’t know if I buy this reasoning. (I would think it’d have more to do with the possibility that women’s tendency — on average — to be the primary caregivers in their families would make them more interested in local rather than national issues.) If it’s true, it immediately leads to a Catch-22: Having more female politicians requires having more women who are interested in politics to begin with (not just as voters but as candidates). But if people seem more interested in the political process when a person of their gender is involved, and if there are still far fewer women than men, then it’s difficult to get more women interested.
As with all surveys or studies or polls, the outcome depends on the slant of the questions asked.
One study Hirshman points to in her article from the University of Michigan asked men and women about their interest in “government and public affairs.” 42 percent of the men polled said they were “very interested,” while only 34 percent of women were. The topic of “government and public affairs” is pretty abstract. If the survey had asked things a bit differently — say with a specific question about the level of interest in the economy, the war in Iraq or specific political candidates — I’m guessing the outcome would have been different, too.
Apparently I’m not the only one who questions the stats. At the blog Igniting Real Change, the blog of the Ms. Foundation, their President and CEO Sarah Gould wrote:
This is surely not all we know and don’t know about gender and politics. Hirshman’s reliance on disembodied data and minimal-to-no context—as well as her odd interpretation of some of the data—paints a pretty disparaging picture of women.
So, while giving a nod to women’s power by conceding that “when women do come forward they alter the political landscape,” the article’s less than one-dimensional picture of a “female voter” further marginalizes women’s participation in the political arena—particularly women of color and low income women—and undermines the crucial role women play in developing and implementing policy solutions on grassroots, state and national levels.
I really like the idea of electing a president whose very presence in office is likely to help women feel empowered and engaged in politics. Even before reading this article, I’ve been wavering. I love that if Hillary gets elected, then my little monkeys will grow up associating the presidency with a female.
At the same time, I really like Obama’s style and compelling leadership, which I think is something that our country needs right now, to pull people together and get us moving in a good direction. While I think Hillary would do a great job, I’m not sure she’d be an inspiring leader in the moment. But the very fact that she’s a woman could mean that she can inspire a whole generation of women — and help a generation of young men see women differently.
While Sarah Ruth at Piu Vino! found some of the article’s generalizations about women more disturbing:
What irks me … is that [the article] claims obviously women aren’t voting because of political issues, ideas, and plans like men are. They are voting because they have crushes on Obama or because they wish they could be as successful as Hillary or, as the commentators have seemed to agree upon, women are blindly voting for any candidate based on her vagina.
One thing is for sure. For better or worse, you can always depend on Hirshman to get women talking.
I also know from experience that Hirshman doesn’t like to be criticized on any level. So I fully expect to hear from her on this post when her name comes up in her Google reader! So hang on to your hats!
Cross-posted from BlogHer.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:50 am
If Linda Hirshman is the voice of feminism, count me out.
Oh, and Linda, I’m not paying back taxpayers for my college degree either, I worked 2-3 jobs at a time all four years to get it, so I get to keep it and I don’t owe anyone a THIN DIME.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I had a tough time getting through that article. It was just a laundry list of those miscellaneous (but carefully chosen) studies.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
“though there have been many attempts to rally and organize women as a voting bloc, there has been little success.”
Hmm. I think my answer is “so freakin what?”
Certainly I have met plenty of women who are not politically active and don’t make the connection between Washington or Beacon Hill and their daily lives. That’s too bad, I wish they would.
But, I have also met many, many others who are active, and do make time to support candidates or causes. They are not, and should not be monolithic.
Voting for a woman because she is a woman is not pimary in my difintion of responsible involvement, though I find that most women who have argued with me against that view are at least 10 years older and have a different perspective.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Yikes. That should be “primary in my definition of”
February 15th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Does anyone really care what Linda Hirshman says? It’s just a bad rendition of an old Paul Simon tune.
We like our own, Joan.
I don’t have my own brain, Jane.
I don’t know who I am, Pam.
Just look at me.
Let me go ask my man, Jan.
‘Cuz I really don’t know, Flo.
I’m just such a ditz, Mitz.
Just look at me.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Attached was an interesting fact find by another individual.
I think that Clinton should be questioned about her experience, and how providing a bunch of earmarks for her state gives her the right to claim that she is ready from day one and Obama is not.
When people talk about Clinton’s “experience”, consider the following comparision of their voting records:
Obama
During the first eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced:
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:
- the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
- The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
- The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
- The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
- The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee)
ClintonSenator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Hon
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O’Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
Only five of Clinton’s bills are more substantive:
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.
There you have it. The facts straight from the Senate Record.
Her Whitehouse schedule is under lock and key, so that is all that we have to judge her so called experience on.
http://www.thomas.loc.gov
February 15th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Obama is a special gift from God to our world. Hillary is impressive and deserves respect, but if elected, I believe that one day our children will speak of Obama the way we speak of FDR, JFK, Lincoln,Churchill, King, Mandella,Martin Luther,John Calvin and other great leaders and Reformers. He has a towering leadership competency like these great leaders of the past. He is also a very fast learner, and will grow into his new role. Hillary is not ready on day one. She has no executive experience, and even if she had Mitt Romney’s executive experience, she would not be fully knowledgeable of the current needs of the job. It is a ridiculous statement and what is most important is the ability to listen and the ability to learn. McCain has done everything that this country has asked him to do, and his party rejects him. If he can’t unite his own party, what are the prospects that he can unite the country. The decision is clear.
Obama’s unique background and even his name will give him credibility in places where previous Presidents have failed, and where Hillary would probably not succeed. Both at home and abroad. The world watches US news, and they know who voted to preemptively destroy a sovereign nation-to arrest one bad guy. Clinton and McCain are permanently handicapped in any negotiation. They are also tied to Bush’s Iran strategy, and will not effectively be able to negotiate. Obama is right to negotiate with our enemies, and his beliefs are more in line with great leaders from the past. Look at our relationship with China and Russia. Bush’s policy would never have yielded this kind of partnership.
Domestically, Barack understands the lifestyle in Hawaii, and the importance of tourism and the Asian community. He understands unions and Blacks and Hispanics due to his work in Chicago. He would also have a good understanding of Commodities markets and other local interest in Chicago. He understands heartland values from his ties in Kansas. He understands the Northeast, as he was educated at Harvard and Columbia. He also understands CA from his first years in college. He understands Muslims, and also understands Catholics and Protestants. He understands the rich, poor and the middle class. He is a Constitutional expert. Woe is us if we reject God’s unique gift to our country. At such a dark time, God has sent the light.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Why should women belong to one voting bloc any more than men should? Ridiculous premise.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I couldn’t get through the Hirschman article either. I’m sorry, we may be able to synchronize our cycles, but we’ve yet to do that with our votes. Why would we? Women’s opinions and politics are as diverse as our male counterparts. I would also venture to guess that women spend less time than men pouring over world events simply because we’re too busy taking care of everyone else.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Great entry! I agree that Obama has the ability to inspire, and I also think you should check out this AMAZING new website – http://www.digobama.com – which was created so people like you can submit your favorite articles, videos and podcasts about Barack and vote on them. This site is extremely new (created Monday, February 13th) and is already gaining momentum in spreading Barack’s message. There are already 79 users, 155 articles, and 868 votes! With your help, this website can play an important role in helping Barack become the clear People’s Choice as the next President. Thank you and Yes We Can make a difference!!!