![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Making history
You've probably noticed that I've written very little about this presidential primary season -- my last and so far only post on the subject was in November. That doesn't mean I don't have thoughts, of course. I've shared plenty on Twitter (by far my most active social media presence these days), and sometimes Tumblr posts as well, and it's all but taken over my Facebook feed (although I took a break from posting election-related content myself from about March through Clinton mathematically clinching the nomination). But my journal hasn't really seemed like the venue to share them. Until now.
Because there's no way I'm letting a milestone like this go by without marking it down for posterity. On Thursday night, July 28th, 2016, I had friends over to watch Hillary Clinton become the first woman to accept the presidential nomination of a major political party, giving her a very real shot to become the first female President of the United States of America. We cheered and we cried and we broke out a bottle of champagne. As I watched her speak, I thought about the generations of women who worked and fought and died for this moment. I watched women and men basking in the glory of a victory they may have never expected to see. I looked at the faces of girls in the audience, rapt with attention and brimming with possibility. I took it all in, and I relished it. Sure, it's not exactly a surprise -- this has been the anticipated outcome of the 2016 Democratic primary since at least 2008 -- and yet there's a part of me that couldn't believe it was happening, that still can't quite believe it's real.
I've always hoped to see a woman become president in my lifetime, but for many years I assumed that the first female president would be a Republican. My reasoning? It seemed more likely to me that a moderate Republican woman (think Elizabeth Dole, or Christine Todd Whitman) could attract support from moderate Democratic women than the other way around, and that such support would be necessary to offset the people who simply couldn't vote for any woman as president. Also, any viable female presidential candidate would need to project a tough image: in particular, be a strong supporter of the military. And until not so long ago, those were policy positions associated with the Republican Party. So I thought it made sense that a centrist Republican would be more likely to break through this particular glass ceiling.
And the truth is, I would have raised a glass to that theoretical Republican, too. Chances are I wouldn't have voted for her, but I still would've cheered her accomplishment. The fact of a woman, any woman, being poised to take the highest office in the land is a blow against sexism. A small one, to be sure, if the woman in question campaigned on a regressive platform. But a blow nonetheless. And whatever you think of Hillary Clinton, her policies, and the trajectory of her political career*, you cannot argue that she hasn't made promoting equal rights for women and girls a priority throughout her life.
This isn't the end of the battle, of course. Electing a female president wouldn't end sexism any more than Barack Obama's election ended racism. We need more women and people of color -- especially women of color -- at all levels of government, from local positions to the White House and beyond, before we can truly say that we've won anything. (I think of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her vision of an all-female Supreme Court.) But just as Obama's candidacy was an important step along that path, so is Clinton's, and I hope we can hold this progress going forward.
*Which is not something I intend to argue about here. I'm happy to have substantive debate about Clinton as a politician and a candidate on another day, but that's not the point of this post. This is a moment to celebrate, for me and millions of others, and I intend to make the most of it.
Because there's no way I'm letting a milestone like this go by without marking it down for posterity. On Thursday night, July 28th, 2016, I had friends over to watch Hillary Clinton become the first woman to accept the presidential nomination of a major political party, giving her a very real shot to become the first female President of the United States of America. We cheered and we cried and we broke out a bottle of champagne. As I watched her speak, I thought about the generations of women who worked and fought and died for this moment. I watched women and men basking in the glory of a victory they may have never expected to see. I looked at the faces of girls in the audience, rapt with attention and brimming with possibility. I took it all in, and I relished it. Sure, it's not exactly a surprise -- this has been the anticipated outcome of the 2016 Democratic primary since at least 2008 -- and yet there's a part of me that couldn't believe it was happening, that still can't quite believe it's real.
I've always hoped to see a woman become president in my lifetime, but for many years I assumed that the first female president would be a Republican. My reasoning? It seemed more likely to me that a moderate Republican woman (think Elizabeth Dole, or Christine Todd Whitman) could attract support from moderate Democratic women than the other way around, and that such support would be necessary to offset the people who simply couldn't vote for any woman as president. Also, any viable female presidential candidate would need to project a tough image: in particular, be a strong supporter of the military. And until not so long ago, those were policy positions associated with the Republican Party. So I thought it made sense that a centrist Republican would be more likely to break through this particular glass ceiling.
And the truth is, I would have raised a glass to that theoretical Republican, too. Chances are I wouldn't have voted for her, but I still would've cheered her accomplishment. The fact of a woman, any woman, being poised to take the highest office in the land is a blow against sexism. A small one, to be sure, if the woman in question campaigned on a regressive platform. But a blow nonetheless. And whatever you think of Hillary Clinton, her policies, and the trajectory of her political career*, you cannot argue that she hasn't made promoting equal rights for women and girls a priority throughout her life.
This isn't the end of the battle, of course. Electing a female president wouldn't end sexism any more than Barack Obama's election ended racism. We need more women and people of color -- especially women of color -- at all levels of government, from local positions to the White House and beyond, before we can truly say that we've won anything. (I think of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her vision of an all-female Supreme Court.) But just as Obama's candidacy was an important step along that path, so is Clinton's, and I hope we can hold this progress going forward.
*Which is not something I intend to argue about here. I'm happy to have substantive debate about Clinton as a politician and a candidate on another day, but that's not the point of this post. This is a moment to celebrate, for me and millions of others, and I intend to make the most of it.
no subject
And now for a women's leadership timeline with a timeline graphic:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/17/first-female-presidents_n_7052066.html
...
I have noticed a definite uptick in women, including solidly progressive women, running in US primaries right now for local, state, and congressional seats. Just for congress, here is the current list of elected congress women *and* the list of all the (many many more) women who have thrown their hat into the ring: (both links can be gotten to from here - http://www.wipp.org/?page=2016CongWomen)
Depending on how the current round of summer primaries go and how the Nov election goes, this could quite a moment for changing how america's government looks.
no subject
That's an interesting list, although it doesn't seem to reflect primaries that already happened. According to that site, there are currently 100 women in Congress, and it would be nice to see that number go up. One of CA's female senators is retiring (Barbara Boxer, sniff), and the two candidates that made the general election ballot are both women (and both Democrats, as it happens, thanks to CA's new open primary system).
no subject
Agreed with your original sentiment to raise a nonpartisan glass to any woman on the presidential ticket of a major american party. Their existence normalizes the idea of women as either POTUS or Veep, and normalizes this in a nonpartisan manner. Perhaps the time will soon come when every US election has at least one and often two women on the top two tickets for POTUS+Veep. After all, the batting average is getting a lot better as of 2008.
But I think the real embarrassment for the US is lack of legislation that supports women's rights and economic well being. After all, if we want to talk about the US being a late comer to certain clubs, laws that guarantee maternity leave, paid maternity leave, and overall parental leave is where the US belongs to a verrrrry exclusive club that no nation in today's world should ever brag about being a part of.
I would like to think that Hillary as POTUS plus a fresh new wave of incoming congress women joining the women already there might be both the symbolic and ideological force to work together to get a variety of laws passed that bring the US more in line with much of the world (in some cases, just about all of the world) regarding laws that support women's rights.
One can hope.
Barbara Boxer: I remember hearing this on my news podcast a little while back and thinking "oh shit, she's retiring" and then "OH GOOD CALIFORNIA HAS CHANGED THEIR ELECTION SYSTEM and hopeful choices appear to be on the ballot for the general." Open primary systems really do seem to bring forth a bumper crop of candidates who reflect the sentiments of the voters.
no subject
Absolutely true. And I genuinely believe that having more women in positions in authority can only help, although of course by itself it's not enough.
I'd be okay with either of them, although I have a distinct preference for Kamala Harris -- Loretta Sanchez is a bit of a hawk for me, and very Orange County upper class Democrat. But she's not terrible. And either way, California is sending a woman of color to the Senate, which is pretty terrific.
no subject
I was on vacation with the in-laws (who are quite conservative) during the DNC and so I haven't had a chance to watch all the speeches etc, but I'm just so profoundly grateful that this exists.
no subject
no subject