ifeminists.com: A central gathering place and information center for individualist feminists.   -- explore the new feminism --
introduction | interaction | information

ifeminists.com > introduction > editorials

Why Hillary Won't Be Elected the First Female President
October 21, 2003
by Carey Roberts

Things are looking bleak for advocates who are pushing for a woman president in 2004. Hillary Clinton is still making up her mind whether to enter the race. And the polling numbers for Carol Moseley Braun are about to fall off the radar screen.

But the real reason for their angst is that after three decades of steady growth in the number of female elected officials, the trend has stalled out. In the US Congress, the number of female elected officials has remained steady at 59 Representatives since 2001. In state legislatures, the number has actually fallen slightly, from 22.5% in 2000 to 22.3% in 2002.

There are many reasons for this leveling-off. And none of them can be blamed on sexism.

The most controversial explanation comes from Ellen Sauerbrey, US ambassador to the United Nations. During a briefing held at the State Department a couple weeks ago, someone asked her why there aren't more women in politics. Her answer: Because women are innately averse to risk-taking.

Of course, that response deeply offended the radical feminists in the room. But Ambassador Sauerbrey, who is our representative to the UN Commission on the Status of Women, doesn't care what feminists think anymore.

But the reasons for low numbers of elected female officials actually run more deeply than a fear of taking risks.

First, female politicians are too often guilty of feminist groupthink. They stake out a one-sided women's agenda, while ignoring the legitimate issues of men. Sometime go visit Hillary's web page at http://clinton.senate.gov/ -- you won't find much there about paternity fraud or false allegations of rape.

Second, female politicos are all too willing to bend the truth -- even to the breaking point -- to advance their pet causes. For example, women like Rep. Patricia Schroeder and Sen. Barbara Mikulski made the shrill, but unfounded accusation that women had been excluded from medical research.

Third, female politicos seem to have a problem with women accepting the consequences of their actions. When Andrea Yates admitted to killing her 5 children, Patricia Ireland of NOW claimed this was an example of patriarchal society where "women are imprisoned at home with their children". The refusal of female elected officials to counter this feminist rubbish was disturbing.

But what most rankles male voters is the accusation by gender feminists that male officials do not act on behalf of the interests of their female constituents.

Think about the major entitlement programs passed by the US Congress in the 70 years: Social Security, Medicare, and a variety of welfare programs. Each of these programs were enacted by almost entirely male legislatures and signed into law by a male president. The money for these programs comes mostly from male taxpayers.

And the beneficiaries of these programs are predominantly female. Collectively, these programs represent a transfer of billions of dollars annually from male taxpayers to women who are elderly, sick, or living in poverty.

Don't get me wrong -- Social Security is a good program, and I want my grandmother to be comfortable in her Golden Years. But to claim, as feminists do, that male legislators aren't looking out for the needs of women is a gross mischaracterization of the truth.

So here's my advice to persons who want to see a woman elected as president: cut the whining, stop playing the gender card, and start acting like a man.

ifeminists.com > home | introduction | interaction | information | about

ifeminists.com is edited by Wendy McElroy; it is made possible by support from The Independent Institute and members like you.