Society Should Pay Attention to Competent Female Role Models

Haley Blanchette
Editor-in-Chief

We were 107 electoral votes away from the first female Vice President.

I had hoped that I would see headlines of the first black president and I always had the fear in the back of my mind that racial divides would prevent that from happening. This success for the Democrats is astronomical and I am proud to be an American during this incredible racially unifying moment in history. I just hope that a strong female candidate can cross similar boundaries in politics in the near future.

Senator Hilary Clinton attempted to do so only a few months ago and Governor Sarah Palin was Senator John McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate. In 1984, Geraldine Ferraro ran as Walter Mondale’s V.P. on the Democratic ticket. She was the first female Vice Presidential candidate.

Did Clinton lose the Democrat nomination because she is a woman?

Did Palin cost the race for McCain because she is a woman?

Did Ferraro cost the election for Mondale, a landside win for Ronald Reagan, because she is a woman?

Perhaps they are simply not good enough for us. If we are going to place a female in an extraordinarily important position in presidential administration, she had better do well. Maybe the problem is that we do not trust these women to represent us. If either of them had made it to office and screwed up it would be that much more difficult for a qualified woman to follow in her footsteps.

One of McCain’s main reasons for choosing Palin is because he wanted to get the female vote because many women were swaying towards Obama, and they ended up voting for him anyway.

Would the Republican count have been higher than 163 electoral votes had McCain chosen an inexperienced male rather than a female?

Palin is naturally held to a higher standard because of her stereotypical complications of being female. This results from the way men treat women in society and the way women portray themselves.

One example of this is the new video for a song titled “Womanizer” that pop icon Britney Spears released on October 7. It depicts how men care about women merely for sexual purposes, the reality that men have an unfair advantage over women in society, and the tendencies of men to exhibit imperious behavior upon women. In her video, Spears displays her hot new body by smearing baby oil all over herself and wearing no clothing, I mean none—she’s naked, in her birthday suit, “dancing” on a bench for the purpose of illustrating how men do not care about a woman’s intelligence, just how good she is in bed.

This is outrageous.

What were they thinking?

What was she thinking?

What are you thinking?

The record-breaking song jumped from number 96 to number one in one week on the Billboard Hot 100. It also beat out Mariah Carey’s “Touch My Body,” yet another song that demonstrates a woman’s worth, for most downloads in its opening week.

What is the logic behind introducing Britney’s new body for this song? Despite what the video may portray, this song is not about sex. It’s supposed to show that women are worth more than just sex—that women do not deserve to be disrespected.

As consumers, you should have the cultural literacy to understand the multiple aspects to this video.

It illustrates the definition of hypocrisy.

It’s degrading.

If you listen to this music or watch this video, I ask you to be critical. Pay close attention to what you hear and see.

It displays one of the ways a woman will make a bold statement. She is communicating that she has her great body back again, and that she’s good in bed.

Wait.

Isn’t that the opposite of the lyrics of the song? She says, “Got all the puppets with their strings up. Fakin’ like a good one. But I call ‘em like I see ‘em. I know what you are.” Then, “You got me going. You’re oh so charming. But I can’t do it. You womanizer.”

Maybe this is what she wanted. Maybe we are “the puppets” who will buy whatever music she “sings” and “dances” to just because she is popular and naked. Spears is selling herself and we are buying it. Sex sells.

Spears contributes to the stereotype that women are incapable of truly succeeding.

Women like Spears should not represent us. Though successful, they degrade everything that powerful women in the world stand for. Society accepts women who embrace their sexuality and display it for everyone to see.

You’ve seen the way high school girls dress in spite of the dress code. The reason may be that they need to validate themselves so they use their physical attributes to advance in the social realm. In our society, attractiveness plays a crucial role in success level.

We should not admire the Britneys, the Mariahs, the Madonnas, or the Christinas. We need to look up to the Clintons, the Oprahs, the Palins, and the Condoleezzas. These are women who actually change the stereotypical perceptions about women. They demonstrate that women are good for more than one thing. Women are more than just sexual objects. We are competent enough to handle an important job— such as running the country.

Women struggled for over 130 years to gain suffrage. In the 1800s, Susan B. Anthony fought for women’s rights and in 1920, the nineteenth amendment, allowing women the right to vote, finally passed. We have overcome many obstacles, but there is still much to do.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women earn only 75.5 cents for every dollar that men make.

I hope that one day soon we will have a female President. Palin came close to Vice President; however, I want someone who has political experience, someone who is strong and agile enough to represent an entire population of women.

Our society pays too much attention to people like Britney Spears. As young women, we need to look up to strong, competent, successful women as our role models.

Palin may have hindered McCain’s race because she was unqualified, inexperienced, and unfit to be vice president; however, when he first announced her as his running mate, there was hope—hope that a woman could make presidential history.

I am still hoping.

Return to top