Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Shorten the 500 Years | Develle Dish | Develle Dish

Over the last couple of days I?ve been absolutely terrified. I?ve actually been kind of overwhelmed with worry. I?m not talking about anything ghoulish or ghostly. Halloween, like all other holidays, just makes me reach annoying levels of excited and plan over-aggressive theme parties (I spent all of last night making candy corn jello shots, so if this is incoherent, that?s why). No, my fear is more true-to-life. My fear is 500 years.

In 2010, women did not gain seats in Congress for the first time since 1979. Currently, 51% of the United States population is women. Nevertheless, women make up only 17% of Congress. The United States is currently ranked 80th in the world in women?s representation in government. We are behind China, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan. At the rate that women are making gains in Congress, we will not reach representative equality in government for 500 years.

500 years?! My initial response is ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! My secondary response is WHY?!

The 19th amendment gave women the right to vote in 1920 (although the last state to ratify the amendment, Mississippi, did not ratify the amendment until 1984, women?s voting rights were recognized nationally after August 18th, 1920). That means that we have been voting for 92 years. So why haven?t we achieved gender equality in government yet? And why might it take so long?

One of the problems, as presented in the film MissRepresentation, is that female children are given messages from a very young age that their place is not in government. Ruling, leading, and otherwise engaging in politics is a man?s job. Even when women reach high-status positions in government, they cannot escape that sentiment. They are still judged for their appearance more than their policies (think Hilary being chastised for aging or Palin being interrogated about plastic surgery). People still seem to consider government a boy?s club with a strict door policy: No girls allowed. Nothing makes this clearer as when people ask questions like ?What would the downside be to a woman president?? (a ridiculous question in and of itself, as if women are not as diverse a group and as functional in government as men) and commentators respond ?PMS.? I repeat: ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME.

The lack of women candidates is not the only problem. Women also fail to unite behind women candidates. Women did not unite behind Hilary in the same way that the Black community united behind Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential primary (and I know this from a personal level, living in a house with four females, two pro-Hilary and two, including myself, prObama).

Yet this is understandable. Women are a diverse group with many interests, and it could never be said that any woman could represent all women. We disagree on economics, foreign policy, and pretty much anything else. Why should a person?s womanhood be more important than their views?

Typically, I would be quick to say that it shouldn?t be. I do not think that gender is in any way the most important quality of a candidate. But this election has terrified me for my future and for how anti-woman politics is becoming. Congressmen like Akin and Mourdock attempt to tell women that rape can?t result in pregnancy, and if it does, then you should accept that situation (which, let me reiterate, is your rape and subsequent pregnancy) as a gift from God. Mitt Romney?s statements imply that he promises to appoint as many women in government as is politically correct, and that he will attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade and Obamacare, despite the hugely detrimental effects these actions would have not only on the United States political culture, but on women?s access to safe contraception. And, to top it all off, when asked if he would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act (which helps ensure equal pay for equal work), Romney did not answer.

I think that the reason that women have not achieved parity in government, the reason we keep electing candidates who say abhorrent things about contraception and rape and women?s issues is because women have yet to put their rights first on the ballot. We have become accustomed to the political culture as is ? where our reproductive and other rights are thought of as fodder for public debate and inequality is an unchangeable status quo. Yet with the current political climate towards women, we cannot allow this trend to continue. Given the outcome of this election, things could get a whole lot better for women, or they could get a whole lot worse. As America?s biggest electorate, it is up to us to decide.

There has never been so much at stake for women in an election in our lifetimes. When casting our ballots, we need to be sure of what future we are creating for ourselves, and it is right to be selfish. We deserve the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities afforded to men, and we need to elect candidates who not only believe this, but who take action towards equality. It is on that impetus that I urge you to vote pro-women in 2012, 2014, 2016, and every election to come, so that 500 years doesn?t become our reality.

?

Lillie Reed is a Trinity junior, and she is going to vote for whoever does the most to ensure equal rights for everybody. And that?s that.

Source: http://dukegroups.duke.edu/develledish/2012/shorten-the-500-years/

kc chiefs kc chiefs judy garland j r martinez j r martinez long island serial killer wizard of oz

No comments:

Post a Comment