There’s an interesting Diary up right now that posits the following as a reason for supporting Hillary Clinton:
In addition to the moral imperative to stop the global, millennia-long oppression of half the population — and having a woman like Hillary as the leader of the free world will inspire young women around the planet and help deflate the idea that men are superior...
Now obviously electing the first woman as President of the US would be a historic milestone. But would it materially advance the cause women’s liberation? That’s a different and more doubtful question.
Why? Because despite the prevalence of Patriarchy throughout human history, there is literally nothing new about having a woman as head of state. No, not even as the head of a literal super power.
The first such instance occurred over 3,000 years ago in ancient Egypt with the rule of Pharaoh Hatshepsut. By all accounts she was a remarkable and effective ruler but there’s little evidence that she had any effect on the general status of women in Egypt and following her death there was a massive effort to extirpate the memory and record of her rule.
There are other examples scattered throughout history. Notably Elizabeth I of England, Empress Marie Therese of Austria and the Empresses Elizabeth and Catherine the Great of Russia. Needless to say, none of these, while world historical figures, signaled anything like the end of the oppression of women, either inside or outside of their respective countries.
If all that seems like ancient history, we can bring it up to date with the examples of Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher. Neither of whom signaled the end of women’s oppression, particularly the latter.
Moreover, just as we saw with the election of President Obama, being the first can actually inhibit a leader’s ability to speak and advocate for the interests of a particular constituency.
Now it’s possible that Hillary Clinton might prove an exception to historical precedent. Possible but by no means certain.
So if you believe that electing a woman to the Presidency is the overarching goal in the current race, clearly HRC is your candidate. However, if that judgement is based on the assumption that her election by itself will stop the global oppression of women or even significantly inhibit it, you should probably examine past historical experience before setting your hopes too high.
Further, it would be wise not to encourage unrealistic expectations for a HRC Presidency, if she should win the primary and general.
Monday, Apr 4, 2016 · 10:20:11 PM +00:00 · WB Reeves
If you look at the comments you will notice that there were a number who complained that I omitted the words “In addition to..” from the excerpted quote. None of those complaining can explain how this changes the meaning of the quote even one iota. However, in order to remove a pretext for diversion as well as to demonstrate the ludicrous nature of the criticism, I’ve edited the diary to include the three words.