Thursday, January 31, 2013

A better world?

In class last Wednesday this guy I sat close to said the perfect utopia would be a world in which primogeniture was abolished. I found this to be quite interesting since the United States is one of the few industrialized countries in the world never to have elected a female leader. Women such as Margaret Thatcher in Britain, Golda Meir in Israel, and Indira Gandhi in India have all proven to be capable leaders in their respective countries. My analysis as to why the United States has yet to elect a female head of state is rooted in what I see as an unwritten rule that continues to plague the thinking of many people of the USA. That rule is conformity with the "good ol' boy" network which is not unlike the old rules of primogeniture. Growing up in a small rural Pennsylvania town, Indiana, PA, I unfortunately have seen this bucolic practice first hand. There has never been a female mayor of that town and both of the state representatives are males and have been in office for more than ten years. Though it would not be a wise move to place women in politics simply to have them there (imagine Snookie being president) it is time to start looking for reasons to explain why more women do not run for political offices at all levels of government.
It is widely accepted that it would be beneficial to giving all women more of a voice by having women take a more active role in politics and not shy away from running for certain offices. A study done by Political Scientist Richard L. Fox of Union College starts with the premise that as women enter law and business occupations more will achieve the status needed to run for higher political offices. He then sought to learn the reasons men and women run for office. He asked the question, “Have you ever thought about running for office?” of men and women in law, business, and education. The results were less than surprising. Men across the board were far more likely to respond that they seriously had considered it while women were more likely to indicate that they never thought about it. A further question was, “Have any of the following individuals ever suggested that you run for office?” with the result that more men replied that people did indeed ask this question of them while few women responded that they had been asked by others.
 
These facts are interesting given that women make up 51% of the population and thus the voting bloc. If all women voted in unison men’s votes would count for nothing in any election. Now clearly not all women think alike, and one of the great things about this country is our diverse range of ideas. Yet women will realize one day that it is they who can change the predominantly male political landscape. Also to be noted I am a man so I do not wish to start pontificating about women’s issues but it seems to me that women are less likely to run because of thousands of years of second class status among all of the world’s nations. This can be hard to overcome but once women start to band together and realize their potential to be in charge they will demand real change. The world will radically change for the better by allowing for another voice to be heard and to help offer solutions to fix the world’s problems.

1 comment:

  1. You may add to your list another name: Julia Gillard, the current Australian Prime Minister. The first five minutes of her 'Misogynist Speech' (http://youtu.be/ihd7ofrwQX0) outlines a lot of attitudes in Australia that back up what you say in your post regarding women considering running for office.

    It also, albeit obliquely, explains why the action of women realizing their potential is so difficult.

    I agree that women could change a predominantly male political landscape. But I hope that it would be to create a more collaborative environment (that would be a step toward my utopia) rather than the same adversarial environment that currently exists in this male dominated paradigm.

    ReplyDelete