Because you can't have depths without surfaces.
Linda Grant, thinking about clothes, books and other matters.

Friday, 9 November 2007

Hillary and the shoe question

The Guardian writes:

. . . the journalist and women's rights activist Gloria Steinem says support for Clinton generally breaks along class lines. "They say you can tell a Hillary supporter by her shoes. If she is wearing nurse's shoes, or waitress's shoes, she supports Hillary," Steinem told me. "Overwhelmingly, women of colour, single women, poor women who have a better sense of their interest in issues, are for Hillary."

1 comment:

Meg the Florida Bargain Queen said...

O.k., this is a topic I can get pretty riled up about.

Let's start with "who have a better sense of their interest in issues".

So few of the articles I've read about Hillary's run for president have anything to do with issues! (To be fair, that's a problem with all the candidates it seems.) Instead, they focus on her being a woman.

While I would love to see a woman president in my lifetime, I'm not sure yet if she should be the first. I worry when I hear women talk about how she should be president because she is a woman and therefore, according to them, would best represent our needs.

I think it's insulting to women to assume that we all have the same needs and interests! Maybe a guy will better represent my needs and interests, though not because he is a guy, of course. (And yes, I hate the insinuation that voting for a guy makes me less of a feminist.)

And what about the women who are married, or middle class, or not 'of colour'? Don't they have an interest in issues, too?