Sex and Politics

If we could brig her back it would have been interesting to see Emma Goldman on this panel. This is a quote I pulled from her essay on women's suffrage:

"Needless to say, I am not opposed to woman suffrage on the conventional ground that she is not equal to it. I see neither physical, psychological, nor mental reasons why woman should not have the equal right to vote with man. But that can not possibly blind me to the absurd notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed. If she would not make things worse, she certainly could not make them better. To assume, therefore, that she would succeed in purifying something which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit her with supernatural powers. Since woman's greatest misfortune has been that she was looked upon as either angel or devil, her true salvation lies in being placed on earth; namely, in being considered human, and therefore subject to all human follies and mistakes. Are we, then, to believe that two errors will make a right? Are we to assume that the poison already inherent in politics will be decreased, if women were to enter the political arena? The most ardent suffragists would hardly maintain such a folly."

I think that conversations about sex and politics erroneously frame the issue around gender when in actuality it's about personality traits. The political and financial systems that we live under cater to individuals who possess certain qualities. So while one may argue that women possess certain qualities as a whole (listening skills, honesty, openness, what have you), the point is that *any individual*, regardless of their gender, may find themselves at a disadvantage in our systems of power. Juxtapose Dennis Kucinich and Hillary Clinton: I think that the former possess more of the positive qualities that people talk about when they are discussing women in politics while the latter is more likely to rise higher in the political system (as Clinton has). Moreover, while I'm sure that Hillary would not have behaved as her husband did while he was in office in terms of interpersonal relations, I don't see that she would have been less likely to bomb the crap out of people or increase the executive encroachments on civil liberties that Obama has. Her behavior regarding macro-decisions regarding our country would have been similar and I doubt that any difference could be attributed to gender. Throughout history, regardless of the political system that is in place, it seems that women who are in positions of power are just as likely to be destructive in their own way. Perhaps women are less violent than men, but a woman in power is equally capable of wielding a mostly male army in oppressive ways.

I remember observing boys and girls in elementary school and noticing that the boys were very impulsive and violent towards each other, but the girls were also very, very cruel in their own way, equally capable of being dishonest, vindictive and (rarely) violent.

My point is that yes, diversity makes a difference, but it's not a solution. Power can be abused by anyone. The downward and destructive inertia of a political empire can't be swayed by diversity. It makes the downward spiral a more colorful one, though!