Why Female Politicians Are Not Always Heroines
16 December, 2020
In her speech, Vice-President Elect Kamala Harris thanked the generations of women who paved the way for her. “While I may be the first woman in this office, I will not be the last, because every little girl watching tonight sees that this is a country of possibilities,” Harris said in a speech that was applauded as empowering and influential and was regarded as a win for women world-wide. Simultaneously, in Egypt, President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi assigned 20 seats out of the 300 seats in the Egyptian Senate for women in a move that was hailed as progressive and inclusive. But what if these instances are not as empowering and progressive as we think they are? What if these cases are counterproductive to women empowerment as a whole?
People, especially feminists, hold the notion that in order achieve true gender equality, we need to prioritize women in politics. Women in powerful positions. Women in office. They believe that in the spirit of feminism, women should support other women, especially when they are in places filled with sexism and misogyny. The argument then goes that since women in politics are facing extra struggles to succeed, their ascension to office should be regarded as the utmost triumph, and it is our duty as women to offer them our full support whenever possible, even if our agendas do not align.
But why do we automatically assume that women in political positions of power are automatically feminist heroines? Should their status be more important than their actions? It matters not what positions they acquired, it matters what they do with their positions and whether their policies and legislations are sensible and beneficial to other women as a whole.
Condoleezza Rice was a black female who was the United States’ National Security Adviser and Secretary of State, and she is a war criminal with the blood of thousands -including women and girls- on her hands. Margret Thatcher, the former prime minister of the United Kingdom was famously known as the Iron Woman. However, she was also dubbed “The Milk Snatcher” and people took to the streets to celebrate her death. Amy Barret, who is now serving as the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, is being hailed by Republicans for being a working mother. But at the same time, her new reign threatens abortion and reproductive rights and marriage equality for American women.
Currently, Harris, whose Twitter bio displays a simple act of transgender solidarity where she mentions her preferred pronouns, is also the same woman who denied gender reaffirming healthcare to a transgender woman in prison. Harris was also one of the senators who helped draft and co-sponsor the SESTA/FOSTA bills that closed down a dozen of sites and online forums that provided sex workers with life-saving techniques of approaching their work. This consequently endangered sex workers. Workers who are often women of color, disabled workers, or survivors of sex trafficking.
In Egypt, a similar situation has been taking place. The Egyptian Senate appointed seats to 20 women as per a decree issued by President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi. Increasing women’s quota in the senate was celebrated as a radical move. But the issue is that it is a quota, and feminism is not a mere numbers game. Increasing the quota of women in the senate, while blatantly ignoring basic women’s rights in a country where they cannot even be judges in the State Council, is nothing more than an act of tokenism. Wikipedia defines tokenism as “a practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to be inclusive to members of minority groups, especially by recruiting people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of racial or sexual equality within a workforce.”
Tokenism is done with the aim of appearing socially inclusive to avoid any accusations of sexism or discrimination. But appointing 20 seats to women is not going to magically solve the problem of rooted gender inequality in Egypt. However, this does not mean that those women in the senate are not qualified to be there, or that having women representatives in the senate is not a positive move. This is simply stating that such a move only relies on feel-good feminism rhetoric while ignoring systematic sexism in the system that shuts out women from certain aspects of life and does not guarantee them a safe or dignified life. In the end, appointing women just for the sake of having women in your senate can be counterproductive to the feminist movement. This is because people can perceive these women as undeserving of their spots having acquired them on the base of their gender alone.
This is not to say that it is a bad thing that there are women in power because yes, representation matters. It matters because it indicates that women now have the freedom to run for office if they want. It matters because it shows that women’s status in the society is improving. It matters to all the young girls who can see someone like them in politics and know that they can indeed achieve anything that a boy can. This is also not coming from a place of rooted internalized misogyny, where women are hateful towards their own gender. No one is saying these women are not powerful, and no one can deny that Margret Thatcher was indeed an extraordinarily strong woman. But in the end, what matters most are the concrete bills, legislations, and decisions taken to help elevate the status of women in society, and not just the privileged rich ones who have access to their rights, but also the less unfortunate ones from middle and lower classes who do not have the needed resources to access the same rights.
We cannot live on inspiration alone. It does not matter how many women with “girl power” are presented to us if they do not improve our lives with the power they have. While women should not be put on a pedestal, those with higher platforms should raise us all higher. Ultimately, there is nothing inherently feminist about being a woman, and there is nothing inherently feminist about being a woman in politics. An in the end, voting or supporting a candidate on the base of their gender alone is a sexist act. Candidates should enter a fair competition where their qualifications and proposed programs and reforms are taken into consideration and are the determinants of their win or lose, and may the best man -or woman- win.
People, especially feminists, hold the notion that in order achieve true gender equality, we need to prioritize women in politics. Women in powerful positions. Women in office. They believe that in the spirit of feminism, women should support other women, especially when they are in places filled with sexism and misogyny. The argument then goes that since women in politics are facing extra struggles to succeed, their ascension to office should be regarded as the utmost triumph, and it is our duty as women to offer them our full support whenever possible, even if our agendas do not align.
But why do we automatically assume that women in political positions of power are automatically feminist heroines? Should their status be more important than their actions? It matters not what positions they acquired, it matters what they do with their positions and whether their policies and legislations are sensible and beneficial to other women as a whole.
Condoleezza Rice was a black female who was the United States’ National Security Adviser and Secretary of State, and she is a war criminal with the blood of thousands -including women and girls- on her hands. Margret Thatcher, the former prime minister of the United Kingdom was famously known as the Iron Woman. However, she was also dubbed “The Milk Snatcher” and people took to the streets to celebrate her death. Amy Barret, who is now serving as the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, is being hailed by Republicans for being a working mother. But at the same time, her new reign threatens abortion and reproductive rights and marriage equality for American women.
Currently, Harris, whose Twitter bio displays a simple act of transgender solidarity where she mentions her preferred pronouns, is also the same woman who denied gender reaffirming healthcare to a transgender woman in prison. Harris was also one of the senators who helped draft and co-sponsor the SESTA/FOSTA bills that closed down a dozen of sites and online forums that provided sex workers with life-saving techniques of approaching their work. This consequently endangered sex workers. Workers who are often women of color, disabled workers, or survivors of sex trafficking.
In Egypt, a similar situation has been taking place. The Egyptian Senate appointed seats to 20 women as per a decree issued by President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi. Increasing women’s quota in the senate was celebrated as a radical move. But the issue is that it is a quota, and feminism is not a mere numbers game. Increasing the quota of women in the senate, while blatantly ignoring basic women’s rights in a country where they cannot even be judges in the State Council, is nothing more than an act of tokenism. Wikipedia defines tokenism as “a practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to be inclusive to members of minority groups, especially by recruiting people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of racial or sexual equality within a workforce.”
Tokenism is done with the aim of appearing socially inclusive to avoid any accusations of sexism or discrimination. But appointing 20 seats to women is not going to magically solve the problem of rooted gender inequality in Egypt. However, this does not mean that those women in the senate are not qualified to be there, or that having women representatives in the senate is not a positive move. This is simply stating that such a move only relies on feel-good feminism rhetoric while ignoring systematic sexism in the system that shuts out women from certain aspects of life and does not guarantee them a safe or dignified life. In the end, appointing women just for the sake of having women in your senate can be counterproductive to the feminist movement. This is because people can perceive these women as undeserving of their spots having acquired them on the base of their gender alone.
This is not to say that it is a bad thing that there are women in power because yes, representation matters. It matters because it indicates that women now have the freedom to run for office if they want. It matters because it shows that women’s status in the society is improving. It matters to all the young girls who can see someone like them in politics and know that they can indeed achieve anything that a boy can. This is also not coming from a place of rooted internalized misogyny, where women are hateful towards their own gender. No one is saying these women are not powerful, and no one can deny that Margret Thatcher was indeed an extraordinarily strong woman. But in the end, what matters most are the concrete bills, legislations, and decisions taken to help elevate the status of women in society, and not just the privileged rich ones who have access to their rights, but also the less unfortunate ones from middle and lower classes who do not have the needed resources to access the same rights.
We cannot live on inspiration alone. It does not matter how many women with “girl power” are presented to us if they do not improve our lives with the power they have. While women should not be put on a pedestal, those with higher platforms should raise us all higher. Ultimately, there is nothing inherently feminist about being a woman, and there is nothing inherently feminist about being a woman in politics. An in the end, voting or supporting a candidate on the base of their gender alone is a sexist act. Candidates should enter a fair competition where their qualifications and proposed programs and reforms are taken into consideration and are the determinants of their win or lose, and may the best man -or woman- win.
Mariam Mamdouh
Journalism student
© 2020 Mariam Mamdouh. All Rights Reserved.
maryam.mamdouh@msa.edu.eg
maryam.mamdouh@msa.edu.eg
