One more reason why Linda Hirshman should be ignored by rational feminists: When writing about the 2008 Presidential election, it’s ridiculous to think that women are a solid voting bloc who would choose a woman candidate based on her gender alone, even though she may not represent women’s social and economic interests strongly or well. Also, one should choose female interviewees that are more diverse than white, middle-class, stay-at-home moms. Not only is it more representative of the population, but it makes the writer look less like the elitist she is.
In 2008, working hoes vote too.
via Echidne
Oh, that’s a fabulous piece. I find it truly inspiring when other feminists suggest that women are too soft focus to worry about manly things like issues, but instead vote based on popularity - while their political husbands read the paper and become informed. Based on this article, I wonder why they let us soft fluffy mommies ever vote at all. Jeez louise. Like you couldn’t find dudes who voted because of “optics” and personality packaging? Bush clearing brush: for the ladies who like a Marlboro Man.
Linda Hirshman needs some more interesting female friends.
There have always been uninformed voters who are attracted to certain personality traits, physical characteristics, or the pure charisma of politicians and vote on nothing else, and those who vote blindly along party lines. From the article it seems these women vote going off of what their husbands have told them about the news and politicians. Ain’t it swell to be a woman with an informed husband?
I’ve talked to several gals in my classes who are excited about the possibility of voting for Clinton because 1) she’s a woman and 2) she seems ‘liberal enough’. But, they’re all waiting to hear some agendas.
I think it’s still too early to be talking about majority voting, especially when your talk is based on anecdotal evidence.
To be sure, I do sometimes vote based on what my husband has told me - and he does the same with me. Given how long California ballots are, with all the propositions and local races, it makes sense to divide up between the two of us which parts of the ballot we research, and then compare notes.
As for favoring candidates based on personality, charisma, etc., at this point in the presidential race it’s pretty much inevitable. How many people are already going to know Obama’s legislative record in detail? It may not even pay to find these things out early on, if your state has a late primary; better to wait and research only those candidates who survived the early primaries. Staying uninformed, I don’t think is any more a female trait than a male one.
With friends like Linda, feminism needs no enemies.
My husband always votes for who I suggest… he’s far less political and informed than I am.
Anna — ditto.