In a Washington Post article, Young Feminists Split: Does Gender Matter?, posted in 2008 the author discusses the feminism of this years presidential election with college students at an all-women college, Wellesley. The article encompasses the two different views of a feminist in this years election. With a woman running for president many other women began to feel empowered. It was a progression for all women everywhere. But, the election stirred up a debate at the all-women college. "Do you vote for a woman to shatter the glass ceiling and further the cause? Or do you make an empowered, individual decision that is not confined by gender?" (Saslow) Many of the students, like sophomore Katie Chanpong, at Wellesley gave Clinton, an alumni, their full support. Thinking up different ways every minute to help her win the election. But there were others, like Ona Keller, who felt that being a woman was simply not reason enough to gain her vote (Saslow). She decided to base her decision less on her feminist instincts and more on her opinions of the candidates' ideas and plans. "Keller said, 'I don't think gender is a good enough reason on its own to vote for or against anybody. I'm sure there are going to be other women in my generation, soon, who are able to run for president. This isn't like our only chance' " (Shaslow). Keller and other non-Clinton, democratic voters, decided that because both Clinton and Obama were minorities, it would be a giant step for minorities everywhere if either one of them were elected. They determined it sexist to base their votes on gender rather than opinions and promises. But, for others, it didn't seem sexist, it seemed right. Keller's classmates teased her at her support for Barack Obama and the school was powered by "clinton pride". But with the battle for equality continuously being fought is it right for a feminist to base their vote towards supporting their gender rather than their opinion?
Since the beginning of time there has been a fight for equality. And in our era we are starting to accomplish this goal; with a black president, laws about integration, females being able to vote and hold the same jobs as men and so much more. Sometimes though, ignorance allows us to take a step back in our fight towards equality. The article clearly demonstrates how our powerful opinions may sometimes get in the way of our practical judgement. The feminists at Wellesley may have felt empowered by the idea of a female president, but it raises the question that their votes may have been based more on Clinton's gender than her political values. If Clinton was a republican would some of these democratic feminists still have supported her? I totally the support the idea of a strong female mind in the white house one day, but there is no rush if the candidate is not the right one. Like Keller said, gender is not a good enough reason to give support to a candidate. A person's decision should be based strictly on the candidate's ideas and promises rather than their gender (Shaslow). Even basing a decision based on the candidate's political party should be ethically wrong as well. The idea that a person should always support the "group" that they belong to even if they don't agree with it isn't right. A person's opinions should not be based on the groups they associate with, but on their morals, gut feelings, and what they feel is right.
In conclusion, my vote, in four years, will not be based on the fact that I'm a girl, a liberal, or white, it will be based on what I think is right for our country at the time. That is what everyone should be doing. No one should have to follow the crowd they are in just to satisfy others. Do what you think is right.
