Because apparently India is. It's a largely ceremonial position there, but historic nonetheless. Of course, India and neighbor Pakistan, despite what many in the west say about their religions and cultures, are no strangers to women who lead their countries. Opinions differ about the jobs they did, but it's an important point. Women can lead in places like Chile and Finland and even Liberia, and of course the UK, but for some reason we in the US feel compelled to ask the "are we ready" question.
The question I think we should be asking: why is it, whenever a woman is elected president in a country, she adopts the moniker "iron lady" of that country? I suspect that really says more about us than the women presidents. I think that's a question I may explore with PunditMom, one of the blogosphere's resident experts on things like that.
Posting will be light this week (just stuff I've drafted before that's waiting to be posted) because I have a lot going on, both personal and professional. But I'm still looking at potential Best Blogs EVAH and working on some things with Brad and the gang that will shake things up a little.
2 comments:
That's a really interesting question. I, too, had noticed the news articles about India's president. I always wonder when, and if, we Americans will be ready. But I love the question you pose about "Iron Ladies." I am definitely going to do some thinking about that one.
Aren't all of these "are we ready" questions basically sexism and racism hiding as rhetoric? How about "I'd like to vote for __________ but I'm just afraid s/he would never be elected?"
Or what about the remark that tops them all: "Maybe _________ isn't __________ enough!"
It's illegal to refer to race or gender in job interviews, I'd almost go so far as to say it should be highly restricted in public political discourse. What do you think?
Post a Comment