Seven Villages, Janet Joakim

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. “   .. The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies     In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

Sure, we’ve come a long way since that first formal declaration of our independence from the Crown.

As this country matured, our government – through struggle and pain – finally recognized that ALL men who are citizens must have the right to vote.

It took almost 90 years and a lot of bloodshed to realize that if this country declared all men to be created equal at its inception, we must not allow one man to own another.  The thirteenth amendment was ratified in 1865 abolishing slavery:

“Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

  It took just five years to get to a place where this country , in 1870, recognized that men of all colors who are citizens of this country must have the right to vote.  That year the fifteenth ammendment was ratified:

“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

 Recognizing the other half of the US citizenry

But, it took another fifty years full of state-to-state debate, after generations of voices cried out insisting that they deserve the same rights as their husbands, their brothers, and their fathers, for this country to finally recognize in a constitutional amendment that the other half of its population should be given the right to vote. 

In 1920

- one hundred and forty-four years after our country declared its independence

 - fifty years after men of color were given the right

The nineteenth ammendment was ratified declaring that women had the right to vote.

Section 1. The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 (Did you know that Maryland didn’t ratify this amendment until 1941? see article)

Women have since struggled to find equal footing in a world where men still have the upper hand.  Slavery was abolished in the 1800’s. This country debated, fought, battled, shed blood to declare and recognize that no man can own another man, that all men are created equal. Yet for generations women have fought for equal rights. 

The Equal Rights Amendment came so close to passing. But the mantra that this would mean woman in the military would have to serve on the front lines and put their fellow male soldiers in danger …. or that woman would be added to the draft….. helped to stall and stop this effort in the past, will the weakening of the more conservative Republicans allow this amendment new consideration?

Women in this country, traditionally, give up their own name and take their husband’s name upon marriage.  I often ask men to consider what that would feel like to do just that — especially men who are proud of their generational history in a community. What if that identity, that tie that binds them to a family, is given over to an name that identifies you with someone else’s family? 

I have been watching this presidential election and have often wondered if it might have been different if Hillary Clinton ran as Hillary Rodham.  When George W ran, his identity with his father was not as strong as Hillary’s identity with Bill.  Even MSNBC, considered these days to be more progressive, often shows pundits and even reporters referring to Hillary Clinton as one half of a whole, “The Clintons” are moving in this direction; Obama is doing this and “The Clinton’s” are doing that.

Obama is married. Michelle Obama is a strong woman and clearly a presence in the campaign. Why don’t we refer to his campaign as “The Obamas?”

There is no question the media has treated Hillary Clinton differently. Occasionally, I watch Hardball with Chris Matthews, as I keep the news on in the background when I am working at home, and he comes on at 5 p.m.   More than once I have turned him off because his voice gets on my nerves.  His comments are surprising at times … 

Tom Brokaw put it the best when he was on a late night show, recently talking about working with Matthews on Super Tuesday,  “Chris Matthews has a form of Turrets, when it comes to political commentary, you never know what he will say when he opens his mouth.”

When Hillary announced last year, Matthews spent the first 6 weeks talking about her voice, the tone of her voice, the way she talked etc…. not what she said, but how she sounded saying it.

Since then she has been pounded for her choice of clothes. Neckline was to low. Suits are too manly.  Do we ever pan men’s suits?  What can we critique?  The color of a tie, the shade of blue of the oxford when they roll up the sleeves? She’s too fat, her face is too wrinkled…… For goodness sakes! The fact that Obama is stick-thin and has big ears is not considered appropriate to these discussions … but those standards don’t apply to Hillary.

 There are a couple of interesting articles that make note of the standards we use to assess these candidates.

 Most recently an op-ed noting that we refer to Clinton as the “first” woman to run for president.  Not true, there have been EIGHT.  The column also makes note of the press coverage:

“It is noteworthy that in January 2007, when Mrs. Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama declared their intention to seek the Oval Office, the top six circulating newspapers in the U.S. ran 59 articles with Mr. Obama in the headline and just 36 with Mrs. Clinton.”

Realistically, we can claim to be a progressive country.  The Democratic party can claim to believe women are equal.  But when it comes right down to it, perhaps this country isn’t ready to believe that a woman can be the captain of the ship. We will judge her as the woman married to her husband, not on her own record.  Regardless of the laws of nepotism, we cannot believe that her husband would not be close to an equal partner in the leadership role. 

 Well, its hard to judge Hillary as a separate entity from Bill when she took his name, has a screeching voice, has wrinkles on her face, wears her neckline too low, chose the wrong color earrings during that debate, dresses too much like a man, and pimps out her daughter…..right?

Future post …. percentages of women holding office by level of government - why do so few even run?

Janet Swain Joakim - 2/24/08