Recently it has called attention that feminist women called on women to vote for Hillary Clinton because she was a woman and women had to support Hillary on her struggle for power. Men were not going to give their power, women would have to take it and part of supporting Hillary was about taking that power. From this perspective, it does not really matter if one agrees or disagrees with her political perspectives or her way of doing things, as long as one is a progressive woman, voting for Hillary is a no-brainer. The discussion - if there is going to be any- about her policies, how they can and cannot benefit the country are not relevant. She is a woman and she deserves to be supported by women because the fact of having her on the White House will empower women around the world and show that women can do it. However at the same time that these self-declared feminist were reclaiming from their fellow women unquestioned support to Hillary they were denouncing how the black community was openly supporting Barak Obama in South Carolina. For them the open support that Obama received in South Carolina only showed that he was the candidate of the black, as opposed to the candidate of the Democratic Party. However if on the other hand, Barak Obama hadn’t won the nomination for South Carolina their argument would probably be that he was not even the candidate of the black people.
From this perspective, one can easily imply that it is ok for women to request support from other women to vote for Hillary Clinton, but is not ok for the black people to ask support for the black candidate. It is true that over time political power has been held from the hands of women only from strictly chauvinistic reasons. It is true that as much as any men, women deserve the opportunity to exercise political power, challenge and modify those structures that are opposed and diminish their conditions as human beings. However, this does not necessarily mean that only because women have been oppressed, a woman is per se a good presidential candidate just for the fact of being a woman. In fact, if one considers types of personality, one could argue that Hillary is a woman with a masculine personality that promises to be “tough on crime” and “go to war” if she has to, whereas the male candidate shows what academics have depicted as feminine characteristics of personality. The point should not be blurred here. It is not that is not ok for Hillary to run for the nomination, win it and eventually go over the White House. The point is that trying to overthrow the paternalistic oppression that still is held in society, women are doing precisely what their fellow male have done; gender alone is a reason to determine for whom one should cast its vote and it should not even be a factor to consider. What should be considered is the coincidence in ideas between you and the candidate for whom one is going to cast its vote. The other alternative, that gender per se can determine the appropriateness of a candidate is feminism, using the tools and strategies of those who have oppressed them. May be it is about time to do this differently. Especially if one claims to be opposed to the patriarchal values that have dominated societies for so long. The problem is not what the gender of the oppressor is; the problem is that there is an oppressor.
Hollman Lozano
