Women may be elected for the wrong reasons

By Jackie Womack
The Collegian

THIS ELECTION YEAR is supposed to be another good year for women in politics. Like 1992, 2006 is supposed to be another “year of the woman,” where more female candidates are elected to office.

Experts predict that the war in Iraq and Congressional scandals are going to make voters tired of the usual suspects — i.e. men — and they will elect women.

With this election, Congress may get closer to resembling the actual make up of the United States population. After all, women are only 15 percent of the Congress’ membership but 51 percent of the population.

Other countries, such as Sweden, already have legislative bodies that are 50 percent or more female.

The thought of a representative body actually being, well, representative is a happy one but the thought of how it might happen is kind of disquieting and disappointing.

Being chosen simply because you’re the opposite of who was there before is disturbing. Shouldn’t everyone have gotten past this kind of thinking already?

It’s as if female candidates have forever been reduced to being the political equivalent of a diet food — a nice alternative when you want to get rid of those extra, corrupt politician pounds.

But this attitude implies 1) that women’s participation in politics isn’t normal — being the alternative choice and that 2) women are somehow morally superior to men, neither of which is true.

Clearly, it’s not normal if only men are considered fit to be leaders and it’s not normal for women — half the population — to have little or no power.

And women cannot — and should not — claim to be morally superior to men to gain political office.

Doing so only perpetuates a double standard where it’s okay for the guys to be a little crooked, a little rowdy because, hey, they’re guys but should a woman do anything even a little wrong, she will be excoriated (some female candidates have been harshly criticized for hairstyles, let alone any unethical behavior).

This is pretty much the way it is now and it’s not a system that should be reinforced. The double standard is probably why there haven’t been that many women accused or convicted in the current lobbying scandals and while fewer corrupt politicians of any gender is a good thing, it’s not really fair.

A woman who is a candidate or political officeholder should have the same freedom and opportunities to sell out that a man does, and when she’s caught, face the same punishments.

An additional drawback to this women-candidates-are-more-honest tactic is that women politicians could wind up being expected to be the ethics enforcers — essentially becoming the hall monitors for Congress (though, come to think of it, maybe that’s what they need to keep the male politicians away from the pages).

And being the enforcers would leave little time for women to do actual lawmaking.

Whether or not it will be another “year of the woman” is up to voters.

But what most voters would probably much rather see is a day of being able to elect politicians who are honest and will think of people, not corporate donations, when they vote.

Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>