Hillary Clinton made remarks about “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling.” Potential VPILF Palin referenced Hillary’s remarks in her acceptance speech and also mentioned Ferraro’s nom 20 years ago. I ask is the ceiling cracked or broken? I say broken, but I have a penis.
I say that it is broken because we had a female candidate who would have been the nominee except for another history making candidacy. We have a female Speaker of the House. And now we have a VP nom with a vagina (and a busy vagina at that. 5 kids!) Slightly over half of the delegates at the Dem Convention were female, matching their percentage in the general population. It seems like every time I watch the conventions there is a woman speaking.
Some would say no, since the Palin nom reeks of tokenism. They would argue that McCain only picked her because he thinks PUMA and its ilk will vote for Palin(and him) because of what is between her legs and not what is between her ears.
Some would say no, because of my sexist comments in this OP(“VPILF,” “busy vagina”),but I would say that’s just me.
Others would say no, because Hillary did not get the nom, and will not be POTUS. I already argued that she would be the nom if Obama didn’t represent even more of a history making candidacy. The next qualified woman to run will get the nom, IMO, and that is why it is broken. To me it is broken because feminism should be not voting for someone because they have a vagina, but voting for someone because of their stances on the issues regardless of whether they have a penis or vagina.
I think that the Republicans are running Palin in much the way the Democrats ran Geraldine Ferraro: as an attempt to generate some excitement and momentum in a pretty bleak election (bleak for the Republicans in 08; bleak for the Democrats in 84). So I don’t see Palin’s candidacy as particularly groundbreaking.
In regions of the country that have or have had female Senators, Representatives, and Governors, there is a general willingness to vote for a woman as President. Those areas have limited or no existing glass ceiling–although the women may still have problems getting into the “Old Boy’s Club”.
In regions of the country where no Senators, Representatives, or Governors have been female, there is a general disinclination to vote for a woman as President. In those areas, the Glass Ceiling is either intact or cracked.
Overall, I will not believe that the Glass Ceiling is gone until a sizeable fraction of Senators, Representatives, Governors and Presidential candidates are female. Sizeable fraction means at least 1/3.
(Note, I base these claims on something I heard on NPR back during the Primaries, when the question of whether whichever candidate won the Primary election would be viable in November was still under discussion. )
I agree with Eureka – perfect equality has not yet been achieved, but we are moving closer to it. And every step – including both Senator Clinton and Governor Palin – helps.
Senator Clinton helped, because she didn’t lose simply because she was a woman: she lost because she brought a fair bit of past history with her, including her husband, and because a younger, more charismatic candidate came along.
Governor Palin is an example of how it’s become more common for women to be elected as state governors in their own right, and not just to fill their husband’s shoes. And she’s even an example of how, in some contexts, it is seen as advantageous to be a woman running for office. If she loses, she and Senator McCain won’t lose because she’s a woman, but because the other team is seen as being a better choice for reasons quite separate from gender (and race).
Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither will gender equality in the United States.
Except that Hillary is the wife of a former president who never had a political career until Bill was out of office. She’s a very intelligent and motivated person, and maybe she would have had a brilliant political career on her own, but we’ll never know. I think that if someone is going to truly break the so-called glass ceiling, she has to do it on her own. Hillary has proven only that an ex-president’s wife can run for the highest office in the land and be taken seriously. It’s not her fault, of course, but the facts are the facts.
It’s pretty obvious, too, that Palin is an affirmative action pick for VP and almost certainly wouldn’t have been picked if she were a man. I’m looking for someone to break that glass ceiling on her own, but maybe that’s just me…
I’m not sure any of those are valid. Were there better female candidates at the time?
Whatever happenned to being the best person for the job? If the best person is male, then that person should get the job; it’s sexist to act otherwise. Clinton lost fair and square, Ferraro lost fair and square, Myers was offered but not appointed. Being female didn’t stop Palin becoming a Governor and now VP candidate. Plenty of female judges. There are plenty of female bosses of firms. And so on.
When you say this, what do you mean by ‘in the first place’? Do you mean this electoral cycle? If so, I’d say yes, it’s still there, but I’d see it as debatable. If you really mean in the first place, though, there’s no question the answer is yes.
This is partly an artifact of a previous, much lower glass ceiling.
Part of the reason that the ceiling is called glass is that there’s nothing really tangible to point to as the reason why X sort of person is not found in certain positions. How do you know when the intangible has become the absent? The most certain way to know that the glass ceiling for the US president is gone is the election of X sort of person to the presidency. That hasn’t happened yet.
It’s not just about choosing a candidate in the election, but about the whole process leading up to the election. Why did Franklin Roosevelt have a political career, when Eleanor Roosevelt (coming from the same family, and at least equally talented) did not. It’s because women didn’t have political careers, and the closest they could get was being the wife of a politician. Similarly, Hillary Rodham could have set out after college to be a politiican in her own right, but chose instead to marry a man with a career as state governor in his future. She wanted to be part of the action, but being a political wife was the best route back then.
Sure, but you also have to see that women are not offering themselves as candidates, even now, in the same numbers as men, and you also have to see that women have not reached the highest political office in the US. That’s not because women are inferior to men: there are social reasons behind the imbalance, which continue to cause the imbalance.
Correct. And I’ve had my share of female bosses, both good and bad. I’ve seen women be promoted by being the best person for the job. And I’ve watched a number of my female friends and acquaintances work their way up the career ladder. I’ve seen Margaret Thatcher become PM. I saw Geraldine Ferraro campaign.
It seems to me that the only glass ceiling is the one in people’s minds. It’s the culture of victimhood.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission recent Sex and Power report said that women hold hold just 11% of FTSE 100 directorships and account for only 19.3% of MPs.
It goes on to say that in the 55 years it will take women to achieve equality in the senior judiciary, a snail could crawl nine times around the M25. The snail could get from Land’s End to John O’Groats and halfway back again in the 73 years it will take for women to equal men as directors of FTSE 100 companies, and could almost manage the entire length of the Great Wall of China in the 200 years it will take for women to get equal representation in parliament.
A woman working full-time earns, on average, 14% less than a man in an equivalent job - for part-time workers, the gap increases to 34%.
But is that meaningful? Perhaps men are more suited to such jobs? I don’t see anyone complaining about the lack of male nurses, for example. Didn’t stop Margaret Thatcher rising to the top. Nor Anita Roddick. Nor Carly Fiorino. Nor Sarah Palin. Nor Dawn Primarolo, nor Nancy Pelosi, nor many others.
Ah yes, ‘the equivalent job’. I don’t have that report; what does it say about the same job?
Remember, equality of opportunity does not mean equality of result. You’re surely not suggesting women be given preference, are you? That would be sexist.