I was watching the Democratic debate just now, and Hillary Clinton suggested that having a woman President would “change the world.” Pretty obviously in response to the fact that the Obama campaign excites people because, hey, potential black president, that’s a big deal.
Look, I hate to have to be the one to say it, but outside of the United States, a woman leader of state just isn’t that big a deal, okay? Margaret Thatcher took office nearly thirty years ago! Like, two-thirds of the First World have already done it at one point or another, and those that haven’t have had female political party leaders for years and years.
This is why the Obama campaign impresses non-Americans so much more than the Hillary campaign does; most countries have managed to overcome sexism to an extent – I’m not suggesting anybody’s solved it yet or anything, but women participating in the political process as leaders isn’t even a novelty any longer. In comparison, the Obama campaign is unique because it threatens to overcome, at least symbolically (and some might argue that “symbolically” is half the battle right from the get-go), the racial power gap in America – which is something no country has done. European political parties, even with greater immigrant and increasingly nonwhite populations, are still pretty much white white white. Even in Canada, we don’t have a single nonwhite leader of a political party.
That’s why the Obama campaign is impressive. From a symbolic standpoint, the Hillary campaign is about catching up to the rest of the world. The Obama campaign is about lapping it.
Related Articles
22 users responded in this post
Meh. Canada’s non-white head of state hasn’t really been that big a deal. Thanks to Mandela and (spiritually, if not as head of state) Ghandi, a racial shakeup is also old hat within the civilized world.
How is Ghandi a racial shake-up? He was Indian. He was a leader in India. Was he part of the untouchables caste or something that I’m not aware of?
Nope. He was a Bania, which is in the Vaishya caste. Merchants and artists. Middle class.
Oh, and not to be pedantic, but there is no untouchable caste. Not having a caste is what makes one untouchable.
When has Canada ever had a non-white head of state? For that matter, Canada’s only female PM (yes, I know there have been other female party leaders) lasted mere months after Mulroney bailed. Poor Campbell.
We’ve had two – Adrienne Clarkson and Michaelle Jean. Canada’s head of state is the governor-general, not the prime minister, who is the head of government.
Of course, the GG wields next to no political power, but it’s still somewhat significant.
It’s not just the First World, a significant number of Third World countries, including ones supposedly with far less sexual equality than the USA, like Pakistan or the Phillippines or Liberia or so on, have had female leaders.
Actually, the Philippines is does pretty well with gender equality. At least, according to a news report I heard on the radio back in December. We’ve had two female presidents but neither have been particularly effective. But then Philippine politics is a joke, anyway. Our previous president robbed the country, was judged guilty in court and yet spent less than six years in jail.
I think PI does pretty well now but back when Corrie Aquino first took power it was over twenty years ago and things weren’t that good yet.
I was 4 years old when she got elected so I can’t really remember that time. :p
I do recall classes being canceled a lot because of all the coup attempts during her term.
Although non-white population is growing in Europe, it’s no comparison to the US – Maybe 5 to 10% of Europe are not-white. In the US….what? 60%? So it’s really no surprise that the US does it first. Actually, it would have been pretty darn ironic (and sad) if Europe, home of the white people, had a not-white leader before the US.
And I beg to differ concerning the female leads. Lets take the big 8: Half of them never had a female lead, while the other had a female lead ONCE. I can’t think of any First World nation that had a female president twice. So having a woman as president? Still very much of a big deal.
Having lived through the Thatcher years, I have to say that having a woman prime minister/president is not necessarily a good thing. Spitting Image used to take the mickey out of her by portraying her as more masculine than her cabinet.
Doesn’t mean that women heads of state are bad things, just that Thatcher was and dont beleive anyone who tells you different.
Being in Scotland I am watching the USA political race with passing interest. I would like to think that the best person will end up getting the job but thats the optimist in me.
What worries me about Clinton is this notion spreading around that we must have a woman president, that it’s somehow a moral imperative. I’ve never known Clinton to take any particularly strong lead as a feminist, so (in terms of the presidency) her gender is a purely cosmetic detail. Which means a bunch of the nation is convincing themselves to vote for a candidate because it feels right, because they like the candidate aesthetically. Maybe I’m wrong; maybe there’s serious potential in forwarding the women’s rights cause with a Clinton presidency. Maybe there’s some facet of her career I’m overlooking. Please, tell me if I am. But if she hasn’t been vocal in that arena yet, but I doubt she’ll pick it up with any gusto once in office.
[…] mightygodking mentioned last night how the rest of the world views this race — that woman in leadership is old (world) news, but a black man in office is still a rariety the world over. This isn’t why I am endorsing him, but he’s right — it would make me proud in a way that Hillary wouldn’t. […]
Just real quick here: Can we please fucking outlaw the use of the word “meh”? It makes me want to start punching people.
meh
Well, you have to remember the audience that Hillary is speaking to. Many Americans are not aware of politics outside America.
@The Imp:
That’s because politics outside the US are far less entertaining.
Re: Kim Campbell; she didn’t last because she was saddled with a horrible legacy from Bry-Bry, and ultimately proved a poor politician in a general election.
At the federal level, Canada’s not had non-white leaders, but there have been some at the provincial level, three as Premier; Dosanjh out in BC (who lost, like Campbell, because of his predecessor, not because of anything he did), and PEI (the whitest jurisdiction in North America, probably) have had two Lebanese Arabs, including the current Premier (and Joe Ghiz being Lebanese was a big deal in the 80s; Robert, following in dad’s footsteps, it wasn’t, because it had been done) (we also elected the first and only woman premier; go PEI!).
This is what bothers me the most of the Democratic elections. I get this huge undercurrent feeling that Hillary and Obama are getting attention partially because of the novelty of their gender and race. I actually like Obama (though I should do more research on the Democrat contenders in general), but I don’t want to vote for a guy just make America look better to the world.
I suppose this sort of thing is needed, though. It was only forty years ago when black kids coming into public schools was a big outrage. Maybe getting Obama or Hillary in will at least have token symbolism for political opportunity, and down the road we’ll get more options for candidates.
What I find funny about that comment is that in Argentina not only do we have a female president (which wasn’t that big a deal because as long as she knows what she’s doing no one would really care if she were pirate monkey zombie or whatever) but she is a former senator who… wait for it… is married to an ex-president
Wait, what if Condi was the GOP frontrunner? Would the U.S. lap the world twice?