In this day and age the role of women is fast evolving. In less than 100 years women have gained the right to vote, spearheaded feminist initiatives redefined gender roles and parenting practices and almost a constitutional amendment passed to expressly guarantee certain rights. Women’s rights are at a new threshold and there someone strong is needed to take the reins and create a positive force for change.
The focus today needs to shift from feminism to creating a more equal playing field amongst men and women especially in the corporate world. Affirmative action is outdated and could use a little retooling. In the past women’s movements such as the feminism described by Nancy Whitter demonstrated a tendency towards separation tactics. Women would congregate and discuss things that were pertinent to them and evoke strong feelings of “girl-power” amongst themselves and left the men wholly out of the process sitting on their thumbs at home. In more recent years as the seperationist mentality has dissipated and adopted by lesbians simple women’s rights has taken a backseat to other social justice issues. What is needed is collaboration and openness between men and women and demonstration of the obvious fact that both genders are equal.
As much as I may not agree with her politics or her personality I believe that Hillary Clinton would be an outstanding choice for a women’s rights initiative simply because she was able to rally members of her gender and drum up impressive support for her bid for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, there is still speculation that she may be Obama’s vice-presidential nominee. The fact that she was able to make it so far in a presidential race is, in my opinion, undeniable proof that woman is equal to man; that proof is something she could use to her and her gender’s advantage.
Hillary is representative of the majority of women in America as far as age and demographics are concerned. Touching on Crenshaw’s intersectionality for a moment I believe that Clinton would be able to rally minority female populations as well simply because she is a woman and gives them something to identify on a gender level. What do old white guys know about issues unique to women? Not much. However, what does Hillary know about issues concerning minority women? I am not sure, but that could also be one of her great pitfalls. She has had a relatively privileged life and some of the women who fight for women’s rights or need to be informed of them are often not as privileged and may feel some resentment.
I believe that age plays a significant factor in women’s rights leadership and any social movement for that matter. The Civil Rights Movement was not exception. When Claudette Colvin was forcibly removed from the bus in Montgomery she went kicking and screaming. She was young; Rosa Parks was not so young. It is easy to manhandle an “insubordinate” high school kid of the bus, but what are you going to do with an old lady? Rosa made a point by simply being old, as ludicrous as that sounds. She carried the facade of a tired old lady who didn’t want to stand on the bus. She also carried the fire of want for social change and she did so by using her age and experience to her advantage to initiate the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Colvin and Parks were working towards a common goal but age and immaturity was working against Colvin. Rosa was able to conduct herself in a mature, cool and collected manner,
If Colvin was chosen to lead the bus boycott it would never have happened. It would have likely ended as soon as the steel of those handcuffs touched her wrists. She would likely have been viewed as a young “punk” simply causing a harangue with no good cause. She may have perhaps even been regarded so within the black community.
Hillary has age and experience on her side as well, yet I believe that she is still young enough to reach the youth of the nation much like Rosa mentored Claudette. If her residual campaign energy is channeled in the correct manner womankind, and mankind as well may be able to see some progressive initiatives and fresh ideas along with perhaps the revival of the ERA and maybe even its ratification. As I have introduced contemporary women’s right is not an issue to be dealt with strictly by women, it should be the duty of man to take a vested interest in the thoughts and ideas of the other half of the species whom he shares the planet with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dave,
I thought this post about the women's rights movement was very articulate.
I did, however, have to disagree with your prediction that "the bus boycott it would never have happened" if Claudette Colvin were chosen as a civil rights icon. Although Rosa parks was an effective leader and figurehead for the civil rights movement, specifically the bus boycott, I think Ms. Colvin could have offered someting equally meaningful to the movement. Her young age could have broadened the scope of the civil rights movement to include even more young people and students, a powerful social resource.
Well put. I do, however, disagree with you on the Hillary Clinton decision. Throughout her presidential campaign she exhibited signs of manipulation and deceit. Dating even further back, she endured the humiliation of the Clinton Scandal in order to remain in the "political" arena. None of these qualities portray womankind in a positive manner, let alone inspire us to stand up for our rights.
Post a Comment