Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
I’m a Woman and Don’t Need a Female President to Empower Me
Will that doggone glass ceiling ever break? Will women finally get their champion in The White House?
This was the much-repeated question for many in 2016: Hillary Clinton, the long-awaited heiress to the presidency was ready to make history, giving millions of young girls the role model they deserve, because as she explained at a NYC luncheon in 2017, “You can’t be what you can’t see.”
Hhhhmmm, this bothered me. Both during the 2016 election and still today. Not just because I didn’t want to see Hilary become president, but because I disagree with this sentiment entirely.
Yes – women have made monumental strides since the early suffragists, and for that I am grateful.
Yes – role models are important and can give life to a deeply seeded dream longing to break through.
And yes – I believe the United States will see a female president in my lifetime (and when Condoleeza Rice decides to run, she will definitely – get my ‘yes’.)
I disagree because I grew up thinking that I could do anything, even become the president of the United States. This confidence was fostered and nurtured as early as I can remember, not because of someone I read about in a book, watched on TV or an elected official.
But because of my dad. That’s right: my male, white, Christian, straight dad. He was my biggest cheerleader – then and now.
“What do you want to be when you grow-up,” he would ask while I sat on his lap or driving in the car. Over the years my riotous mind never ceased with ideas: teacher, writer, athlete, singer, fashion designer, VJ (can you tell where I hit my MTV phase).
No matter what I shouted at him, he made me believe it was possible. He constantly encouraged me along my journey: be it to pursue sports, college, a break from college, become a teacher, travel the world, write, stay-at-home-motherhood. Whatever I tried he pushed me to work harder, taught me limits and his encouragement has never stopped.
The impact a father has on his daughter is far-reaching. As one researcher from Wake Forest University explains, “…well-fathered daughters are usually more self-confident, more self-reliant, and more successful in school and in their careers than poorly-fathered daughters…”
Conversely, “research has shown that daughters who are dissatisfied with their communication interactions with their fathers are more likely to be involved with bad peer relationships, have unpleasant romantic endeavors, and make poor or life-threatening decisions,” that includes becoming pregnant as teens and continuing the cycle of fatherless children and poverty.
Imagine with me for a moment, America elects its first woman president; indeed, a landmark milestone once thought impossible. Young girls coast to coast solidify the moment in their minds forever: the moment they saw someone like them become the most powerful person in the country, in the world! The impact would be colossal, I agree.
Now let me give you another scenario. Every little girl in our country, every little girl, grows up in a home with her father. A father that is committed to her, just as he is committed to her mother. A father that loves her, compliments her skills, her achievements, and her beauty. A father who models how a woman should be treated by a man, who supports her goals and dreams, who teaches, motivates, comforts, and guides.
I ask you: which of these two scenarios would have the greatest impact?
Most would argue that the former is more realistic. Seeing as 1 on 4 children in America live without a father in the home, sadly, I have to agree. For more than half a century father absence has become a widespread plague in our nation, and the idea of a society where all fathers are present and active in their children’s lives seems impossible.
I’m not saying we need dads who are perfect, my father is far from that. I can rattle off a list of his shortcomings longer than his Italian schnoz, and he can think of more.
But we need dads who try. Dads who are present. Dads who are committed.
As Hilary Clinton advocated:
“We have to teach every girl that she is valuable…powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity to pursue and achieve her own dreams.”
On a societal whole, I agree that is important. But even more important is that every girl is taught this in her home, day in and day out. How grateful I am that I had that, thanks to a loving father.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
-
Educate yourself on the importance of fathers and ways to be a better dad. These are some wonderful resources:
National Fatherhood Initiative
-
Speak positively about fatherhood; people need to hear that there are good men trying their best to be good dads.
-
Don’t support shows that portray loser dads. The Homer Simpsons and Ed Bundys of television demean the role of fathers and portrays all men as such losers. Take a stand and refuse to watch.
A good post, AJS! Well chosen video clips, too.
The proposition, “[Group] won’t be whole/actualized until [member] is President,” bugs me. I’m a white dude (and older and straight), so sure, I don’t have to wonder if someone like me can be elected.
Obama was President. I don’t think black people are more empowered thereby. Perhaps some feel more empowered? Is that close enough?
I was not yet born when Kennedy became President. Were Catholics empowered thereby?
I’m not a fan of role models. They always let you down. And it’s not their fault. They’re just flawed human beings like the rest of us, trying to live their life as best they can.
And those who accomplish great things are often highly flawed individuals. Great men are rarely good men, as they say. I greatly admired Pete Rose when I was growing up, because I loved how he played baseball. But even then, as a child, I knew that I did not want to be like Pete Rose.
Does Hillary Clinton really believe that it is important that she becomes president, so she can teach young girls all over the world that you should stay in a horrible marriage to gain political power, drink like a fish, personally destroy those who disagree with her, and treat her subordinates like filth? Even if you admire Hillary’s politics, I can’t imagine admiring her as a person. She’s a vile human being, and this is not a secret.
But again, if I drink too much and fall up the steps, leaving a shoe on the sidewalk, I don’t get that unfortunate episode replayed on the national news for weeks. She does. It’s not easy being a role model.
But the idea that you can’t accomplish anything without a role model – I just don’t understand. That means that you can only do what has already been done by somebody else.
What a remarkably uninspiring message…
“You can’t be what you can’t see.”
If that statement were true it would mean that there can never be a female president because there has never been a female president.
Actually, yeah, we were. Almost every exaggerated Obama election-era claim that “now we’ve finally got a piece of the pie” was made by us, white Catholics, 48 years earlier. Every Black barbershop in 2009 had Obama’s picture up, and in 1961 half the barbershops on Queens and Brooklyn had JFK’s up on the wall.
I’m sure Hillary just meant that for the little people; not superior persons like herself.
I am glad to hear this message about the importance of fathers for girls from the girl’s perspective.
As a father of one girl I have long believed that, and have emphasized it to other men when they have daughters, so there is some confirmation bias at work. But as I have watched fathers and daughters interact over the decades, I became convinced that most often the biggest factor in developing a strong woman was an encouraging father.
Hmm. OK, I shall reconsider my assumptions.
I hate reconsidering my assumptions.
Quibble: Homer Simpson always supported his daughter’s aspirations. He bought her the saxophone. He took her to the museum. Etc. Etc. It was Marge who told Lisa to keep her opinions to herself and to always smile and be pleasant and whatnot.
Similarly, as a girl I always thought “man” as in mankind included me. When I heard “What a piece of work is man!” Or “Turn back, O man, forswear thy foolish ways” I did not think “But what about me?” Sheesh.
Dads matter to boys too, of course.
I like your response: the rarest statement on the internet followed by the most honest statement on the internet.
Absolutely. From the statistics it is clear that too many fathers are neglecting their responsibility to both boys and girls.
But I think fathers of daughters may need to be reminded more often of their importance to their daughters. Since sons are genetically more similar to fathers, many fathers tend to find it more natural to relate to sons. Daughters are girls. And girls are weird to us boys. :-)
This is a good point. You can have a role model, but realize at the same time they’re not perfect, nor do you want to be exactly like him. A role model can take many forms: your favorite rock guitarist, your favorite athlete, your favorite author . . . heck, it might even be your parents! You don’t even have to like the role model. You can admire a great actor for his work but not his politics or personal life.
Then there are negative role models, the kind that make you think, “I’m never gonna be like him.” (Hopefully none of my daughters feel this way about me.) To me, Hillary Clinton was a bigger negative role model than Trump. However, Trump can be a role model for how to get things done and how to fight back, something I wish more Republican politicians would emulate. However, many have difficulty separating Trump’s actions from his personality.
A lot of my role models were men. I think it’s odd that the same people who say that gender is a social construct nonetheless firmly believe that only a woman can inspire other women.
Among the many fascinating features of the book I’m listening to—The Great Influenza—is the social history of the time. Women were among the “medical detectives” stalking the cause of the pandemic. Not many women…but women nonetheless. Where did they come from? Who were their role models?
Another note—the really fanatical scientists, the ones who basically stood at the lab table 24/7, often did not have families. In other words, the trade-off between success and family that we are to suppose only women must make in order to achieve at a high level may be more gender-neutral.
Oh man, is this a home run or what?
“You can’t be what you can’t see.”
Naturally, Hillary Clinton is wrong. Its quite common for adults to be working at jobs that didnt exist when they where children. They didnt see what they’ve become.
I just can’t care about electing a woman president. Maybe because I had a father who told me I could do whatever I wanted in life, I have never felt oppressed. I can think of several women whom I happily would vote for and many more I’d try to keep away from the Oval Office. And that sentence works just as well if you substitute “men” for “women.”
There is a not-very-fine line between having a role model and being a groupie.
My contempt for Hillary flows naturally from being nearly diametrically opposed to her politically, but it has been nurtured by her pathetic flailing about for relevance, her not-quite-human reactions and behavioral tics, and the combination of both of these things in her pause-for-applause moments when she imagines she’s hit a rhetorical home run and the ball is bouncing off of her head.
@robtgilsdorf did you see her latest tweet about the coronavirus? She really is just the worst.
Exactly @suspira, I’ve found when people are so eager to prove themselves (or by extension bolster someone else for a shallow reason: elect Hilary or Warren because they’re women) they are masking insecurities. If you are so confident and independent and strong, that won’t change if a woman or man is president.
@misthiocracy never thought of it that way. Good point. I was looking at him as the sit on the couch drinking beer not helping Marge character, from my recollection he wasn’t a top notch dad.
Not top notch, no. But at least present and involved.
But Homer Simpson is a bad example – he’s been written from a lovable buffoon to a base level villain. He’s a much better dad to Lisa than Bart. At the start the Simpsons was very much created to be the Anti-Cosby show. Homer is the Anti Cliff Huxtable.
If that’s true, then why was she running for President?
If you are old, then I am ancient, but yes, I do just barely remember people wondering out loud if the Pope would be in charge if JFK were elected. Although I can’t remember this part, it had been reported that he drew some criticism from the Vatican for saying something suggesting his religion would not dictate his actions as President.
You don’t have to be that old to remember WFB, Jr. suggesting that it was not a good thing for any group to feel that its members were never going to be near the levers of power because of religion, race, sex, etc. He actually suggested that it was a good idea to vote for a member of such a group just to help discredit that perception, subject to the condition that the member’s views weren’t too objectionable.
I guess Hillary never saw Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Angela Merkle, Isabel Peron, Corazon Aquino, Benzir Bhutto . . . I’ll stop because my fingers are getting tired.
No, there are plenty of female leaders out there to inspire young women. Some are better role models than others, and we wisely chose not to add Hillary’s name to that list . . .
@goanddo – I applaud your comments and perspective. The life/career journey for women is vastly different than men and you will never get a disagreement out of me regarding such. Being a father of two college age daughters I, like your father, have frontline experience with what the world is/has been like for them these past 10 years. I have witnessed the highs, lows and the things that just defy logic or explanation.
An interesting element has emerged over the last 10 to maybe 15 years, which is sometimes defined as helicopter parenting. I tend to define it a tad more “politically incorrect” and call it the “Jesses Jackson” factor. What I mean by that is that Dr. Jackson is so “Pro-Black” that he can come off as “Anti-White”, and frankly I don’t think that is his approach or perspective, not remotely, but one can easily come to such a conclusion. And what we have been witnessing for a tad too long is that parents become so pro their child that it can come off as being anti other kids. These parents mean well, they want to do what is beneficial for all, but our educational system, youth sports and general societal aspects have driven a large portion of our population toward competitive standards and behavior that does not teach leadership, compassion, sacrifice or selflessness and instead drives perceived excellence and a whole bunch of individuality.
The harsh reality with such things is there are truly stark differences between girls and boys in each of those environments I referenced (education, youth sports, societal/social media). Having coached for too long I realized a couple of very distinct differences, one of them is; “Girls need to feel good to play good” where as, “Boys need to play good to feel good”. And maybe most of all, each person be they female or male, requires one to see them as individuals and develop a rapport with them on their level and within a framework that enables them to understand the objectives, develop the means or fundamentals to succeed and understand intimately that failure is an important learning process to finding success. There are obviously corporate aspects but we can never lose site of the individual and in particular investing in the development of individuals.
A final element that you left out of your discussion/observation is the lone and entirely unique element that is purely the domain of women. And that is the ability to produce, carry and bring forth life into this world. Societally we have made incredible advances on the social peer level between men and women, are we at a perfect point, absolutely not and we will never attain such. But the element that is not considered and is a very critical core foundation to our world is the incredible value placed on being a Mother. And frankly, I would never want to preclude any woman from having that blessing in their life and in particular have the right to just raise their child and be with them throughout those early years, dare I say from birth through to high school.
The equality movement has come at a cost and with consequences. I speak of this first hand because my wife is a highly accomplished individual with incredible academic accomplishments and equal impressive career accomplishments. We collectively made choices and I never was one to ever consider that she would need to stay home and raise the kids. I saw her as an equal and frankly her academic accomplishments and career pursuits easily rivaled and surpassed mine. In the end, by making the choices we made and low 2o plus years later, that mother-child journey was abridged to meet the standards society has set forth for women to be both mom, wife, worker and overall contributor to society. Some pretty challenging stuff to stay the least.
My point, albeit a rather long winded one, is societal advancements can create false narratives that distort (for some) a life pursuit that might not be in the best interests of the woman, the family or our society as a whole. I don’t know what is the right answer, but I can sure attest to the reality that despite my amazing wife being the consummate 20th/21st Century Woman those years when my daughters and son were infants to HS students, will never be recovered. Yes we were always present and engaged, but as we stand on the other side, we’re not entirely sure that it was worth it. The greatest gift that our God provided us was women for without them there would be no life on this planet and in truth no order in this world, albeit that men tend to want to constantly disrupt that order.