With a title like this, the subject could be almost anything. In this case, the problem is the American inability to recognize that women are capable of being good leaders. We view ourselves as some sort of enlightened culture, the end all, be all of human evolution. Many individuals, especially those of the rich white male persuasion, are tempted by the notion that all manner of inequality has been transcended and we now enjoy a perfectly level playing field. Nothing could be further from the truth, and our lingering sexism, for example, is evident in the fact that in 200 plus years of history, we have yet to seriously consider a female candidate for president.
This suggestion, it would seem, can be dismissed by claiming that no good candidates have been female until now, and that Hilary Clinton is simply the first female candidate that actually does possess the appropriate skills to be the president. One is moved by the notion that we ought to select the best candidate, regardless of race, sex, or social class. I agree, but find it highly unlikely that the best candidate has never been any race other than white, nor a female. This is my confusion.
The explanation of this phenomenon is more likely a glass-ceiling type of scenario where women have not been given the opportunity to be presidential candidates regardless of their qualifications, but we will set this matter aside. I find it puzzling that no American woman has been deemed a good candidate, yet many other nations have not only considered but actually elected women to the position of world leader.
England elected Margaret Thatcher over twenty years ago. More recently, women have been elected in Germany and Argentina. Other enlightened nations that have elected women include the Philippines and Pakistan. Wait, what?
Somehow, nations that have a lower standard of living, fewer rights for women, and comparatively terrible education systems have seen fit to elect women to their highest national office. Yet we cannot see any reason to elect someone who is not white, male, fairly old, and a Christian.
The ethical implications here are that our culture is not one that truly respects the equality of peoples. Although we claim to do so, many institutions and practices indicate otherwise, with our pattern of presidential candidate selection one of the more glaring examples.
The source of this issue is unclear, but the fact remains that we are apparently not the enlightened and tolerant culture we claim to be. So when you cast your ballot to select your party’s candidate, think about what sort of values this selection represents, and try to learn something from the Germans, Argentineans, and Pakistanis.
Comments
Leave a Reply