Judith Warner appears today in the New York Times, opining on the siginificance of the relatively ordinary politician that is Sara Palin.
As I've said before, I don't think the choice of Palin was significant for the fact that she didn't have to be stellar and over the top with qualifications in order to be considered (although I agree with Warner's general point that it's a good thing when women with mid-level, work-a-day qualifications can be considered). Rather, I think McCain's choice highlights the very subtle sexism that still exists - women are in helper roles, and should never actually challenge the male for the power.
So the question is: Does Palin's nomination prove women are accepted in the workplace and in leadeship roles sufficiently that it is no longer necessary for them to be "better" than their male counterparts to succeed, or does it prove that being "better" than their counterpart is still too much of a threat to choose highly qualified women for the top roles?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Very interesting question. I think you'll get different answers depending on the age of the person answering. There are still pockets of very limited thinking, but for the most part, women are treated as "equals" in discussion, but biases prove out once the rubber meets the road.
Post a Comment