THIS ELECTION cycle marks the year of the primacy ofwomen's issues -- i.e. job security, health insurance, foreign conflict. One hundred and thirty-six women are nominated for seats in the House of Representatives this year. Nancy Pelosi, D-Ca., could very likely be the Speaker of the House. Chauvinistic men must be shaking in their boots, especially since most of the women running in competitive races are Democrats. But political ideology isn't paramount here. What matters most is that women stand the chance no longer to be the sideshow in politics and no longer to look like a minority hoping to pipe in politically every now and then so Americans don't feel embarrassed about under-representation. As female candidates become as status quo as their male counterparts with ideologies just as diverse, women candidates will cease to be a political curiosity -- they'll be the ones calling the shots.
In the power vacuum that is Washington, D.C. today, a nearly unprecedented number of womenare seeking to jump into the fray. From California to right here in the former capital of the Confederacy, women are running competitive campaigns. Why the jump? David Wasserman, deputy communications director of the Center for Politics and House editor of the Crystal Ball, attributes the trend to the fact that "women in 2006 have more professional opportunities than ever before, which means more women can accrue the credentials and build the resumes they need in order to be taken seriously in the political arena. In addition, women constitute a slight majority of the electorate, which provides an incentive for party committees to recruit qualified women."
Geographical diversity parallels ideological diversity among these candidates as well. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat, lost both legs in Iraq and has no regrets about her service, but she believes Iraq (the Sequel) was a policy mistake and wants American troops to come home as soon as possible. Conversely, House incumbent Katherine Harris, R-Fl., who is running for the U.S. Senate, supports permanent tax cuts, the "rights of the unborn" (according to her official Web site) and received an "A" rating from the NRA.
This isn't to say, however, that women don't care about traditional "women's issues." Of course they do. For instance, Democratic challenger Patty Wetterling of Minnesota does not hesitate to discuss the fact she is a mother of an abducted child. This makes sense, since one of her main concerns is better legislation for child protection. The important trend to notice is that women are voicing their opinions on the specific issues they care about, be it national security or better child-care services for working mothers. They no longer feel the need to posture a concern for stereotypical women's issues.
Not only are more women running in the most recent election cycles -- they are holding onto their seats better than any other group. Of the 65 women running as incumbents, only six are considered vulnerable to challengers. It has long been acknowledged among political elites that once a candidate wins office, he or she is golden. The incumbent is like the default option on the ballot, and rarely will the average American feel compelled to go against the status quo (and the better known candidate) by voting for the challenger. Having more women run and win will increase the number of incumbents, which in turn will create a more stable, constant presence of women in office. This will also lead to more seniority in Congress and the even more important windfall for women in their quest for equal voice in Congress -- committee chairmanships.
The inability to categorize women will increase the likelihood of both men and women to vote for women candidates as well. Increased visibility of women in office will persuade voters to choose the candidate with whom they agree most, be it a woman or a man. Women will be seen as candidates, not as women candidates.
As more women run on all variations of political platforms, it will harder and harder for reactionary, or simply uncomfortable, men to pin down what a woman wants or what she thinks simply due to her gender, or her ability to handle the intense pressures of "real" jobs like careers in business or politics.At the very least, there will be better eye candy on CSPAN.
Marta Cook's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at mcook@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
