When Men Are For Women

It seems we’ve strangely decided that our gender does not does not predispose us to being a better advocate for it. Example: The idea that certain male politicians can advocate for women’s rights just as well as if not better than women. But I think that when we discuss this we need to ask ourselves if women’s status can ever be the same imperative for a man that it is for a woman?

This question has come up lately in the prolonged race between Obama and Clinton. Obama’s female supporters at times argue that just because Hillary Clinton is a woman does not necessarily mean she is a better advocate for feminist issues than Barack Obama. At one time I might have agreed, but I’ve since changed my mind.  

The New Republic recently published an article called “Wife Lessons,” which discussed the Obamas’ marriage. The article describes Michelle Obama (Barack’s wife), as initially distraught at the way she’d felt thrust into a traditional role, doing most of their family’s childcare and housework, even at one point telling Barack “I never thought I’d have to raise a family alone.” The situation became better however, although not because Barack began to help out more, but instead because she accepted the situation and decided not to be bitter about it, and found more help on her own. 

I’d just like to take this moment to say that I will not vote for that. That kind of unintentional ignorance can continue without my eyes wide open support of it. I’ve decided that, for the first time in my life, I’ll have to vote for someone who has no chance of getting elected, because I will not throw my support behind that.  

I’m now going to present you with the reasonable excuses for Obama’s behavior. The relationship between Obama and his wife is not necessarily an example of Obama’s legislative plans for women. Their relationship does not necessarily reflect his beliefs about women. That's his private life, not his public life. After all, Jefferson had slaves, but he didn’t think it was right.

Maybe there’s something to be said for these arguments. But I find it all too similar to the way we accept imbalances in the roles of women all the time, simply because they’re not outrageously bad. And so, because of our own acquiescence nothing changes. I know far too many older women in my family and elsewhere, who are overwhelmed by having to take care of the kids and the housework without their partner’s help. And it’s not because their husbands are jerks, it’s because it’s never occurred to either of them that it could be different.  

I don’t believe Barack Obama is sexist, and doubt he intentionally wanted his wife to be a “wife,” so that he could be the traditional breadwinner. Rather, he was probably just too wrapped up in his career to notice.

Still, although this behavior may be unconscious, that’s no reason for us to indirectly condone it. I will not vote for Obama because I get an image of a group of overwhelmed women waving goodbye to their husbands on the porch, saying it’s o.k. honey, don’t worry about me.  And I feel like voting for Obama is the same as saying yes, I am o.k. with that. Don’t worry about them, don’t worry about me.  

One of the reasons these default yet oppressive behaviors occur is because it’s difficult for women’s issues to have the same imperative for a man which they have for a woman. As a man suffers less from this behavior, he’s that much less likely to want to understand it. I’m not coming down on men for not caring more about feminism, although they should, I’m just looking at this as a practical concern for feminist activism. And if women’s issues can’t mean as much to a man, can a man represent’s women’s interests as well as another woman? I think we need to stop ourselves the next time we suggest a male candidate can support a women more adequately than a woman. There’s something about living life as a woman that gives a woman a better perspective on what it’s like to experience life as a woman. That may sound glaringly obvious, but it’s a fact that seems to have gotten lost. I realize there are women who advocate traditional policies and a few dramatically liberated men, who I’d rather have represent me then say, Ann Coulter. But this is the exception not the rule.

We shouldn’t overlook the way Barack Obama has embraced traditional gender roles, and believe we can still reject the same gender roles while voting for him. In accepting his acceptance of conservative gender roles we elevate that position. I think Barack Obama's candidacy is an important case study in male politicians and women's rights. I have to doubt that someone who has been at all affected by feminism would fail to incorporate it into their private life. And I think it is only right that we see it as indicative of how he will act as president.