Emma Carpenter, Staff Writer
Ideology: Liberal Democrat | Writing From: George Washington University
Congratulations women of Virginia! You have successfully elected a governor who does not believe in your right to a choice or even birth control. Better yet, he actually thinks that you are detriment to society. All those wonderful barriers women have conquered have just been put back in place with the election of Bob McDonnell.
I am appalled by the women who actually supported a man who thinks a woman’s place is still in the kitchen. (I wonder Mr. McDonnell, what would you say if someone told your daughters that’s where the belonged?) How, women of Virginia, could you support a man who thinks so lowly of your intellectual capacities? 54% of women supported McDonnell, which is pretty surprising. Personally, I would rather have slightly high taxes than a man in power who doesn’t respect 50% of the population. But I’m not the one living in Virginia, thank goodness.
As appalled by the women who voted for him as I am, I am equally appalled by the men who voted as well. How dare you vote for a man who thinks so little of your wives and daughters? I know there are still people who believe in the inferiority of women, but can more than 50% of the state of Virginia really believe that? Surely the voters of Virginia are more reasonable and educated than that.
Bob McDonnell claims that his college thesis, which outlines all of these regressive beliefs, has no bearing on his ability to govern. He says that his thesis “was simply an academic exercise and clearly does not reflect [his] views.” But how can that be? He spent countless hours writing that thesis, and he’s going to claim that he really doesn’t believe what he wrote? I’m sorry, but that to me is just as illogical as the Supreme Court decision to give unmarried couples birth control. If you don’t believe it, don’t write it.
Yes, views change, but I highly doubt that views that powerful are likely to change. I cannot see how the women of Virginia could ignore this. I cannot comprehend the fact the majority of women actually supported a man who doesn’t support them, especially when his opponent, Creigh Deeds, had such a strong record of supporting women.
It’s like taking a step backwards. All of the stereotypes and opposition that strong, working women have faced and and have been fighting against over the years is now back. A vote for McDonnell and his thesis was like saying, “yeah I’m OK with living in a state that thinks one group of people is inferior.” A vote for McDonnell is accepting that women are inferior and should stay in the home. It’s playing into the unfair social norms that feminists have worked so hard to change.
It’s not just feminists who will be hurt. It’s all women who think they are equal. Sorry ladies, apparently you aren’t good enough because you were born a female. Do you deserve rights? Equal pay? Opportunities? Nope. So congratulations Virginia, on becoming the first state in the country to take a step backwards.
I would assume you think any pro-life candidate treats women as inferior. What a horrible misogynist!!!
And views can and do change. Basing your vote of a thesis the guy wrote 20 years ago is as bad as basing your vote on McCain because Obama did cocaine when he was in his twenties. Because he is obviously so pro-drug right now.
You assume wrong. I don’t think all pro lifers are bad. My biggest problem is with the statement that working women are a detriment to society and the family. I take offense to that.
Views may change, but you still cannot take something like this lightly. It should absolutely influence your vote. We’re talking about half the population that he’s speaking badly about.
This is a minor point, but I take issue with your generalization that spending “countless hours writing [a] thesis” implies believing what was written. Now, while I agree with you that McDonnell probably harbors private sentiments similar to those in his thesis, I don’t think it’s necessarily a rule.
If someone write a thesis that explores the positive correlates of theoretical fascism, for example, it doesn’t mean they’re fascist.
The thesis I am actually writing explores the structure of the international system and, while I certainly believe strongly in my overall argument, there are several points I make to endogenize my argument that I don’t necessarily agree with it. These happen not to be controversial at the moment, but if they came to be contentious and someone were to pull my thesis 20 years from now and criticize my fitness for a particular job/position because of them, my accuser would be horribly mistaken.
Bottomline: You, and Deeds, could have made the point about McDonnell’s thesis stronger had you both demonstrated the recurrence of its implications in his public life, and not just as an assumption of all academic work in general.
I think that the election of any Republican candidate, anywhere, tends to be a step back for women.
What about a female Republican?
Imma: I know aren’t we such ignorant chauvinists for supporting a child’s right to life? Besides abortion, how many Republicans promote legislation that will restrict a woman in any way?
Emma: I really don’t care about McDonnell’s personal beliefs or your speculation of what they are, as an elected official he represents his state which is half women. Even if he is a chauvinist as you claim, if he wants to seek re-election he obviously cannot try to keep women in the kitchen as you so fear. Repeating Adam’s point, the important thing is that we do not see his supposed subordinate view of women through his policy. Case closed, and it seems like the women of Virginia agree with me.
Om, the Governor of Virginia cannot seek reelection under their constitution. He can go crazy with no fear of retribution. He can put them in the kitchen if he wants, given there is no way they can get back at him in 2013.
He can be impeached.
Om-
Personal beliefs do matter. They matter quite a lot. I’m a little afraid of his record, he actually voted against equal pay. His campaign can spin that any way they choose (just like his thesis) But it does not change the fact that he has voted against women multiple times in his career. It’s not just his beliefs I take issue with, it’s his actions as well.
Emma,
(1) The Deeds campaign should have focused more on his vote against equal pay than his (albeit controversial) thesis. Similarly, your column would have been stronger had you taken this route.
(2) To echo some of the other voices here, what exactly do you fear McDonnell will do to harm women more than any other group? I’m just not convinced that there is really a set of issues that exclusively affects women and not, say, social democrats as a whole.
(3) “A vote for McDonnell is accepting that women are inferior and should stay in the home.” I’m sorry, that’s just ridiculous. I would not have voted for this guy either, but really?
(4) What are the demands of the 2009 feminist anyway? What will be the demands of the 2059 feminist? 2099? 3099? Does “progress” seek an end, or just serve itself and our invented notion of righteousness?
Now I voted for Barack because he’s genuinely a pragmatic intellectual, but his campaign definitely relied on some irksome demagoguery…It’s concerning to see my fellow social democrats (like you) swept up into the mantra of progress, not knowing where it is heading or why it is going there…Structurally, it’s no different from the attitude afflicting the birthers/deathers/teabaggers…Think about that.
Adam,
1. Maybe my column would be stronger is I chose to write about the votes etc. I agree with that statement, thank you for your constructive criticism.
2. I think McDonnell will continue to block legislation against choice,equal pay and other issues affecting women. I’m afraid he won’t sign concrete policies into law if they don’t match up with his political beliefs.
3. Supporting candidates with such awful and shallow views is a way of validating them, of saying even though you think these things, it’s okay for you to be in office.
4. The 2009 feminists demand 1 single thing: That women and men be equal. That we be paid equally, treated equal. That the size of our thighs aren’t mentioned in conjunction with out capacity to be president. We want equality, which we still don’t have. The feminists will be done once we eliminate social norms and stereotypes that keep us down. So it’s possible we wont need feminists in 2099 . But I don’t see that as likely, considering there are still many people who believe we are inferior.
5.I would call myself swept up in the mantra of progress. If you read my column next week, you would know that. I think progress is a good thing, but you can’t base a campaign off of that promise. I know what I want. I have tangible goals, my idea of progress isn’t going no where. So please don’t lump me in with mindless change seekers or teabaggers.
Okay so I see three issues that you mention: (1) Choice (abortion rights I’m assuming); (2) Equal pay; (3) and “Oppressive Social Norms.”
The first two are tangible, but I think only the second is an exclusively feminist issue to the extent that discriminatory pay still exists. OK, so that’s a platform.
The third issue, which I can tell is your real grievance, is this idea of an oppressive social structure. The problem is, when I ask you to cite instances of oppression, you only mention equal pay and the idea that Hillary’s candidacy was defined by her status as a sex object.
Equal pay aside (which I think is a feminist’s only real claim if it is in fact valid), there will always be some form of social discrimination against every single individual/group because inequality is inherent in our condition. The idea that we are equal was invented to rationalize a secular theodicy. Read my column from last Friday for more on this.
I consequently lump ardent feminists into the crowd of blind ideologues because they tilt at windmills without clear objectives, only sweeping ideological claims. The thing is, since we have invented political and civic equality, feminists might actually have a valid objective (equal pay) which they could seek specifically instead of making general claims about oppression indefinitely. The gay community, similarly, has a legitimate grievance over marriage discrimination and they are mobilizing.
The fact is, however, that even with constructed political and civil equality, social discrimination remains. Look at the black community, the Jewish community, even the Catholic community in America…To the extent that people expect to be treated equally in all social relations, there will always be tension. Modernity tells us that this is lamentable, but we must still accept it. Agitating against reality is perpetual and without yield. Seeking pragmatic reform, however, can be immensely successful.