Should Women Vote for Women?

Back in October, I had the opportunity to attend a political rally for Hillary Clinton. Being a liberal independent and a feminist, there was something special about a real female presidential contender. The rally would be my first ever, and it didn't disappoint- there were protests, counter-protests, shouting matches, camera crews galore and a lot of vote lobbying...and all that happened before we even entered the building. Inside, the rally was all pomp and circumstance. The music, the colors, the light show, the speeches-it drew me in big time. In just minutes, I had decided that I would vote for Hillary. I mean, she was a woman. She was a mother and wife with a career. She was knowledgable and spoke rather eloquently-AND she was ultimate FOB, afterall. However, once the rally was over and I began to take a closer look at her platform, I came to realize that I was in a bit of a fix. What arose was the following conundrum: As a woman, is it more important to support the woman candidate, or the candidate whose platform and policies are most "woman-friendly?" This question has kept me awake at nights, and I wonder whether there are other women out there who feel the same way I do.

At the rally, I remember overhearing a conversation between two elderly women sitting in front of me. One of the women remarked "When I came into this world, women couldn't even vote yet- and now I might just live to see the day that a woman actually becomes president!" When one looks at the plight of women in the political world, it seems only logical that women should vote for women candidates. Think of how our agenda could be advanced. This might change the way our country views and subsequently treats women in the workplace, at school, and even at home. Former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright once said that "if women and government do their jobs, they will improve the lot of women and girls everywhere. They will raise issues that others overlook, pass bills that others oppose, put money into projects others ignore, and seek and end to abuses others accept." So it seems only wise to assume that having women in significant positions of power would help bring women's issues to the forefront. And a woman president would be a good start. After all, today only about 16% of our Congress are women! As an advocate and a student of women in politics and public policy however, I have had the opportunity to look closely at the platforms/agendas of the candidates. And what I've discovered is that there are other candidates out there (of the male persuasion), who are far more women-friendly than Hillary. In fact, many have argued that Hillary has divorced herself from her gender rather than embraced it. This sadly is the plight of many women in government. American politics, as it is, still is largely a man's game. Thus, there is the sentiment that if you want to play with the big dogs, you've got to learn how to bark. But women voters don't necessarily want to vote for women who come across as unfeminine...or rather, as women take on the desired characteristics of male leaders (i.e. assertiveness, strong-willed, pushy, etc.), they actually become less desireable to women who vote. But, a woman who is too feminine is assumed to be weak and comprimising--thus she loses votes as well.

So, now the Iowa caucuses are over, and Hillary came in third to Obama and Edwards. Despite all her money and connections, it seems that the one thing that she has tried most carefully to avoid, has become her greatest shortfall. As women, we cannot divorce ourselves from who we are- nor should we expect our women leaders to. So, should women vote for women? I fear that the most common answer to this question is: "Only if she is the best man for the job!"