Essential Estrogen

For those who aren't already aware, former Congressman Dave Nagle is blogging for the Register again. His latest post, Is Iowa Sexist? brings up topics I know the readers here find interesting. In short, why has Iowa never elected a female governor or congresswoman? In total, why is such a statistic of interest to the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Let me first say that I agree with Dave on the premise of his posting. While there might be small pockets of resistance -- in Iowa and in every other state -- to the idea of a woman running for public office, it isn't fair to judge the totality of our state (or nation) based on such juvenile ignorance.

Speak to any of the Iowa women who have come out for a candidate other than Clinton and ask them, "So, how many times has someone looked at you and said, 'But you're a woman...'" Although I've yet to endorse a candidate, at least twice a week I meet someone who assumes that because I'm a politically active woman that I support Clinton. The worst remarks about my failure to endorse, I'm sad to say, have come from other women.

"I cannot believe that you are turning your back on another woman."

"We will never have a more qualified or viable candidate."

"That's funny. I was under the impression that you were a feminist."

Recently, my friend Jennifer Lunsford, who serves on the Democratic State Central Committee and as chairwoman of Jefferson County, told the Christian Science Monitor that she didn't feel she should base her support of a candidate on gender. "I'm going to vote for someone who has the same convictions," she said. Amen.

Feminists, I think, have lost track of something important during this primary. We have always advocated the rights of women to have equal opportunities to those possessed by men. Think about that for a moment. We advocate women having equal rights and equal opportunities. To me, this means that I should do exactly what Jennifer has outlined above. Without regard to gender, race or any other bodily or biological difference I should have a serious look at the candidates and what they stand for and what they believe in.

If that is not the case and has not been the case, the slam isn't on Iowa's women. The slam hits our men -- Dave Nagle, Berkley Bedell, Chet Culver, Tom Miller, Micheal Mauro, Dave Vaudt, Tom Vilsack, Terry Branstad, Jim Nussle, Jim Leach, Tom Harkin, Chuck Grassley, Tom Latham, Dave Loebsack, Bruce Braley, Leonard Boswell and, yes, even Steve King -- squarely between the eyes. If we believe that Iowa is sexist and that a woman can't be elected based solely on the fact that she's a woman, then we are telling all these other men that their hard work, integrity and campaigning was useless, that the mere fact that God gave them a penis was reason enough for them to represent us.

And, if you think that's bad, what does this same belief then say about the men who ran against the women who have served or are now serving in the Iowa Senate and Iowa House? What does it say about the men who ran against former Secretary of Agriculture Patty Judge?

Dave is also correct on another point: this political strategy is a win/win for Clinton. If Iowans don't place Clinton well on caucus night, the spin room will race into action, proclaiming that Iowans are ignorant and sexist and that no woman can win here. If Clinton does come out favorably, watch for her campaign to claim victory on behalf of all womankind, that their efforts alone have soothed the savage, sexist hearts in our state and paved the way for what should soon be our first female governor or congresswoman.