Young Feminists Vote for the Woman?

There is an interesting, though slightly infuriating, argument brewing among feminists.

Should feminists vote for the woman “just because” she’s the woman? (As if U.S. Senator or successful attorney are not great qualifications.)

Even though she’s not as “likeable” or “passionate” (passionate is what we’re calling the man, while cry-baby is what we’re calling the woman for showing emotion apparently) as the black man?

Or are we judging the candidates on their politics and voting for the best one?

My oh my, what’s a good feminist to do?

Here’s a link to an article about the young feminists at Hillary Clinton’s own alma-mater Wellesley, an all-women’s college, in the Washington Post. Not all of them are voting for the female candidate.

The addition of Barack Obama, a younger, sexier, more charismatic candidate with less personal and public history to overcome, has seriously challenged the feminist dream of a female president. And he’s a black man - which changes the dream altogether.

Do voters go for Martin Luther King’s dream or Gloria Steinham’s? Most of us who will vote Democratic have embraced both dreams as our own.

In fact, it’s probably fair to say that without feminists Obama wouldn’t be a good contender and likewise, without ethnic minorities Clinton wouldn’t be either.

It’s just not how we, women, pictured it is it? We pictured the woman, when she finally got there, confronting all the while male candidates and for many of us – that would have been easy choice.

It’s a good problem to have though. Several very good choices sure beats the alternative of choosing between the lesser of two evils.