I’m trying desperately not to get caught up in the election furor. When NPR gets too electiony, I change the channel, but I still want my news, so I listened to this story today. As the clip from another news show says, most of this story’s point is “Lo & behold, she won! But why?” [not NPR’s words, but their intent].
This was a story read by a female reporter, but the script still says, “well, you know how women can change their minds at the last minute.” Ho ho! How funny! Fickle, changing woman, how inconstant you are!!! Their expert, whose name I missed, “attributes most of yesterday’s shift to women. In Iowa, Obama won among women, narrowly.” Which is a statement that is making me happy and sad at the same time.
At least “women” are a bloc of voter, rather than “soccer moms”, “single women”, or a racial/gender split. But must we remind you [the media] that we [women] are a majority? Perhaps a slight majority, but a majority none the less. I am happy that women are voting at rates that demonstrate this, although the fact that they’re voting for an “Oprahesque, vulnerable” woman makes it feel like a shallow victory.
I hope that women continue to be political participants, at every level. I also hope the media stops treating women like they didn’t get the vote, oh, about 85 years ago!!!
5 responses so far ↓
1 John // Jan 9, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I think the “she won, but why” narrative comes from the fact that she was the underdog going into the primary this week. Going into NH Obama had an overall lead in the double-digits in some polls. The story on the Obama side is a mix of “why did he lose in spite of polling so high” and “well, a month ago he was trailing Clinton in NH by almost 10 pts.”
Just listened to the NPR story and I’m conflicted. It plays the stereotypes while delving into the nuances of the appeal to women of Clinton’s so-called “Oprah-esque” moment. (Ironic in the light of the actual Oprah’s campaigning for Obama).
2 xJane // Jan 10, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Yeah, I’m sure that’s a major part of it (the underdog effect), but it all seems to be couched in gendered terms.
3 Kevin // Jan 11, 2008 at 3:38 am
When my google news generator turned up this story (Hilary winning, Obama not) more than one article attributed her winning to her having cried on TV. The crux of the articles were: This display of emotion drew empathy from fellow women, thus giving Hilary more votes and the win.
The articles continued by pointing out that this display of emotion most likely turned away male voters but pulled in more women undecided voters.
I thought it strange that the news was attributing her win to this event (maybe it is true?). And it almost seemed insulting that they would say that women voted for Hilary because she cried. That women respond to emotion and men to cold hard facts.
4 xJane // Jan 11, 2008 at 8:19 am
It’s the classic dilemma: if you have emotions, you’re too emotional; if you have none, you’re a cold-hearted bitch.
5 xJane // Jan 11, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Bitch, PhD has some great things to say about the gender issues this election, echoing my comments: “This obsessive focus on how the women will vote makes me feel like I’m back in fucking 1920. You know, women have been voting for 87 years now.” As well as a discussion of the sniffle heard ’round the world.
Leave a Comment