As of recent times, in the last 10 years, we have seen a change in our society. Women's roles in positions that require strong leadership qualities have increased more and more, not only in business, but also in national and international politics. Strong women have shown the world what we as females can be, what we can do, and how our input into society can strengthen us as a whole.
Condolezza Rice, Hillary Clinton, Angelina Jolie, Michelle Obama, Laura Bush, Nancy Reagan - all strong women that represent a variety of difficult positions that women have filled - UN Ambassadors, First Lady, Secretary of State. These are women that not only hold their homes together, take care of children AND handle major roles that not only aid in the welfare of our country (or even the world), but also push the glass ceiling a little higher. There's that LAST frontier for American women tho - the Vice/Presidency.
Several women have attempted and dropped out early on, but the question remains, when will a woman occupy one of the top 2 positions in the country? My answer - when a deserving candidate can stand up and earn the spot.
I felt that in the last election the only reason that Sarah Palin was chosen for the Vice President candidacy was that the Republican party was trying to pick up the "Women's Vote" - ie. - the people that were only going to be voting for Hillary because she was a woman. Since Hillary was knocked out of the race by Obama, the then most deserving, endearing woman that they could find was Mrs. Palin - the mother of a handicapped son, pregnant daughter and who ran the state of Alaska. (This is in NO WAY slamming on her family, but the facts are the facts) Not only is she endearing - being a mother, wife and strong female figure in government, but she does it with flare and a style all her own. It was obvious that she would be a front lines activist for the rights of handicapped people, against abortion, pro-sex education, and support strong family values, as well as gun rights because these are all things that have made a personal impact in her life.
However, I would like to make the point that
"Law is reason free from passion" - Aristotle
That does not mean that you can should not have a passion for law, that it should be only the boring and mundane people of the world that practice law. You should have a passion for the work that you do, the people that you work for, the lives that you change. However, your passion should not have an effect on the outcome of the legal process. If it is written in stone, it is written in stone. No amount of tantrum throwing should change the outcome.
At times, I feel like that is what Sarah Palin is doing. Personally, I would call her "Tea Party" nothing more than a radical form of Republican. Whereas a traditional Republican represents conservative values - a "Tea Party Activist" displays Republican values in a radical way. We're not talking book burnings or violent rallies, but a theoretical "table flipping" - making a scene with words instead of actions - pointing out flaws in a manner that attempts to correct an individual publicly, at times using degrading words in an unprofessional quality.
I personally wouldn't vote for Sarah Palin because I'm not interested in "getting a woman to the White House." I want a competent individual with a strong AND sensible head on their shoulders, but not a person that appears to just want to walk in and turn the government upside-down. I want a person in office that is willing to work across party lines in order to accomplish the goals of everyone, not just the ruling party. I want flexibility in people stances, and the realization that an individuals emotional preferences should not be held as the main influencing factor to development of policy. People who want to outlaw abortion because it's against their religious values, or people that want to outlaw gay marriage because they aren't comfortable with it - need to stand on the other side of the fence and consider what that means for the people who's lives they are affecting. This is the type of passion that should NOT influence the law. Women more than men have an issue with this concept.
Until I see a woman run for office that is obviously able to put aside emotions and focus on the law and how it affects Americans as a whole, not just a group of them, I will vote for a man every time. I do not vote along party lines and I don't vote for people based on sex, religion, race, etc. I vote for someone because I see them as a representative of American values as a whole and an open minded person. When I see a woman that can be open minded, seperate emotions from politics, and not mudsling their way to the top - I'll vote for them.
Condolezza Rice, Hillary Clinton, Angelina Jolie, Michelle Obama, Laura Bush, Nancy Reagan - all strong women that represent a variety of difficult positions that women have filled - UN Ambassadors, First Lady, Secretary of State. These are women that not only hold their homes together, take care of children AND handle major roles that not only aid in the welfare of our country (or even the world), but also push the glass ceiling a little higher. There's that LAST frontier for American women tho - the Vice/Presidency.
Several women have attempted and dropped out early on, but the question remains, when will a woman occupy one of the top 2 positions in the country? My answer - when a deserving candidate can stand up and earn the spot.
I felt that in the last election the only reason that Sarah Palin was chosen for the Vice President candidacy was that the Republican party was trying to pick up the "Women's Vote" - ie. - the people that were only going to be voting for Hillary because she was a woman. Since Hillary was knocked out of the race by Obama, the then most deserving, endearing woman that they could find was Mrs. Palin - the mother of a handicapped son, pregnant daughter and who ran the state of Alaska. (This is in NO WAY slamming on her family, but the facts are the facts) Not only is she endearing - being a mother, wife and strong female figure in government, but she does it with flare and a style all her own. It was obvious that she would be a front lines activist for the rights of handicapped people, against abortion, pro-sex education, and support strong family values, as well as gun rights because these are all things that have made a personal impact in her life.
However, I would like to make the point that
"Law is reason free from passion" - Aristotle
That does not mean that you can should not have a passion for law, that it should be only the boring and mundane people of the world that practice law. You should have a passion for the work that you do, the people that you work for, the lives that you change. However, your passion should not have an effect on the outcome of the legal process. If it is written in stone, it is written in stone. No amount of tantrum throwing should change the outcome.
At times, I feel like that is what Sarah Palin is doing. Personally, I would call her "Tea Party" nothing more than a radical form of Republican. Whereas a traditional Republican represents conservative values - a "Tea Party Activist" displays Republican values in a radical way. We're not talking book burnings or violent rallies, but a theoretical "table flipping" - making a scene with words instead of actions - pointing out flaws in a manner that attempts to correct an individual publicly, at times using degrading words in an unprofessional quality.
I personally wouldn't vote for Sarah Palin because I'm not interested in "getting a woman to the White House." I want a competent individual with a strong AND sensible head on their shoulders, but not a person that appears to just want to walk in and turn the government upside-down. I want a person in office that is willing to work across party lines in order to accomplish the goals of everyone, not just the ruling party. I want flexibility in people stances, and the realization that an individuals emotional preferences should not be held as the main influencing factor to development of policy. People who want to outlaw abortion because it's against their religious values, or people that want to outlaw gay marriage because they aren't comfortable with it - need to stand on the other side of the fence and consider what that means for the people who's lives they are affecting. This is the type of passion that should NOT influence the law. Women more than men have an issue with this concept.
Until I see a woman run for office that is obviously able to put aside emotions and focus on the law and how it affects Americans as a whole, not just a group of them, I will vote for a man every time. I do not vote along party lines and I don't vote for people based on sex, religion, race, etc. I vote for someone because I see them as a representative of American values as a whole and an open minded person. When I see a woman that can be open minded, seperate emotions from politics, and not mudsling their way to the top - I'll vote for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment