WHEN IT DOESN'T COME DOWN TO GENDER

[babylonsister]

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=when_it_doesnt_come_down_to_ge

WHEN IT DOESN'T COME DOWN TO GENDER.

There's been a lot of thought-provoking analysis this election season of the role of gender in the political process, much of it written by women. It's proof, I think, that I was onto something way back in 2006 when I argued that as women ascend to positions of prominence in government, women's interest in following politics, whether as producers or consumers of the news, increases.

But one of the risks of focusing so heavily on gender is failing to see some of the other factors at play. Take, for example, Tina Brown's Newsweek essay asserting that female solidarity accounts for Hillary Clinton's electoral successes in Ohio and Texas. Brown, like so many boomer women writers, assumes that younger female Democrats' preference for Barack Obama over Clinton is all about an aversion to older women's leadership, and not at all about issues. She writes:

What saddens boomer women who love Hillary is that their twentysomething daughters don't share their view of her heroic role. Instead they've been swept up by that new Barack magic. It's not their fault, and not Hillary's, either. The very scar tissue that older women see as proof of her determination just embarrasses their daughters, killing off for them all the insouciant elation that ought to come with girl power in the White House.

She might have a chance of winning them over yet, if she set about dividing the Obama girls from the Obama boys. Maybe start with some mother and daughter rallies in Pennsylvania, summoning an audience that would mirror the winning image of Chelsea onstage at her side on Tuesday night in Ohio.

This is reductionist thinking. Younger women are more likely to support Obama than Clinton for a host of reasons, including a distaste for dynastic politics, an interest in Obama's past as an urban community organizer, and yes, the inspiration they feel from his rhetorical flourishes. But one issue cannot be overlooked: The Iraq war. In 2003, the daughters of many feminist boomers (this one included) were dismayed watching the rush to war. Those younger women who supported the invasion of Iraq were some of the first Americans to turn against the occupation. Obama and Clinton's different histories on Iraq matter deeply to young women, and to young people in general. As Courtney Martin and Deborah Siegel wrote in this weekend's Washington Post, "Generation is an equal-opportunity divider. You wouldn't know it from the media coverage, but this difference is not confined to women."

The way I see it, Americans under 30 today had three formative political experiences in their adolescence and young adulthoods: The 2000 recount, 9/11, and the Iraq invasion. Put together, my generation is one that is profoundly concerned about foreign policy and America's place in the world. Obama's entrance on the national stage, with a message built around diplomacy instead of militarism, was perfectly timed to attract wide support from Generation Y.

--Dana Goldstein

[HockeyMom]

1. I am Hillary's generation

I am not ashamed to admit that it was my 20 something daughters who brought me to the Democratic Party (30 year Independent) and to Obama.

Wisdom doesn't come automatically with age.

[pollo poco]

2. I am the same age as Obama

I think young people want him because they see him as youthful. They see him as belonging to their generation. But, he doesn't.
Also- men are awesome. Women aren't. All generations are equally committed to this belief. Gen Y women just don't recognize this fact at play, because, just like the boomers, they think their generation is way more evolved than those who came before.

Barack is tall and of youthful proportion (slender and elegant). He says hope is more important than experience. What person under thirty doesn't resonate with that?

Hillary has fat knees and speaks with the voice of a woman. Just like Mom!

Neither one of them has won on the strength of their arguments. That's why they are in a dead heat. Both have positioned themselves according to their brand-but neither has advanced a radical or compelling vision that would stand the test of reality.

That's why neither has pulled ahead. Because their brands are equally popular, but neither can offer a guarantee that their product will work when you plug it in.