I was at a training last night hosted by the Marin Women's Political Action Committee. We're an organization helping women run and win elective offices. We endorse, give money and train our candidates. Men are welcome at our trainings and may be recommended if they meet our criteria (pro-choice, will help with women's issues, will help mentor women running for office and so forth), but only if no qualified women are running. Qualified means meets the above stated criteria.
Is this the "Cabal" or maybe it's a Coven some men are so afraid of?
A woman who is running for a local board told this story:
"I met with a man yesterday from one of the local agencies and asked for his support. Smiling all the while, he said, sorry, I cannot support you because if you win there will be a female majority board."
Taken aback, she said, "Why is that a problem for you?"
Still smiling the man said, "Because then you would be able to put in your agenda."
"Our agenda?" she asked. "Did you feel this way about the male majority board? Is there a male agenda?"
He just kept on smiling. One of the two women presently serving on that board said, "I bet he was just picturing us gathering in the woods, stirring our brew and singing "Double double, toil and trouble, let's reduce the men to rubble." Then she cackled and we all had another glass of wine.
This is the most overt example of male bias against women in office (women in power) that I've encountered in this supposedly liberal bastion I call home. But really, don't we see it all the time? Why do they call women "sluts" for doing what they (men) think is perfectly normal for them - having sex, having power.
Power is what it's all about, and women seizing political power may be just one step too far for many men.
No comments:
Post a Comment