Mikalah Gribbell
Whetstone
AP Language
29 February 2012
Women in Government:
Their Involvement is Critical
In the wake of the win of women’s suffrage, another feminist movement came to
the forefront. Women were beginning to attempt running for and being involved in
government at all levels. It started small with women just holding minor jobs under the
‘real’ politicians, but soon some brave women believed they had ideas and policies to
propose that would be of benefit to the public. To date, the only offices women have not
held in our government system are in the presidency and vice presidency, and even those
positions seem obvious on the horizon. Although some may disagree, women are a vital
part of American government and should continue to hold offices at all levels.
Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman appointed as a justice to serve on the
Supreme Court. Appointed in 1981 by then president Ronald Reagan, O’Connor led the
way for women to become involved in government and the political system. Justice
O’Connor nearly instantly became an important piece to the Supreme puzzle. When votes
had to be cast it was said that, “O'Connor often became the swing vote on the Court”
(“Sandra” 1). Not only was she the first female justice, she was also a courageous
woman. She easily could have walked a smooth path, voting how others expected her to,
keeping under the radar, but she remained strong through blows the public and her
Gribbell 2
colleagues slung her way, standing by her values and setting the bar high for other
women in politics to reach (1).
The first female Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, was appointed in 1996 by
then president Bill Clinton and was unanimously approved by the senate. With this
honor, she became “the highest-ranking woman in the history of the U.S. government”
(“Madeline” 1). While in her prestigious position, “Albright reinforced the U.S.'s
alliances [and] advocated democracy and human rights” (1). Women in general have a
feeling of strength when surrounded by others and this could have been, subconsciously,
part of Albright’s drive to strengthen the alliances between the U.S.A. and foreign
countries.
One strong reason for women to continue being involved in government is that
they provide a different view because of biological differences. It could be called a
distinctively feminine characteristic. There are a number of anatomical differences
between men and women that contribute to this. On a blog from the “Masters of
Healthcare” website, it was reported that:
Women tend to communicate more effectively than men, focusing on how to
create a solution that works for the group, talking through issues, and utilizing
non-verbal cues such as tone, emotion, and empathy whereas men tend to be more
task-oriented, less talkative, and more isolated. Men have a more difficult time
understanding emotions that are not explicitly verbalized, while women tend to
intuit emotions and emotional cues. (Hensley 1)
It has been proven that women think for the general good and are more in touch with the
unspoken thoughts. This emotional intuition also allows women to be more aware of
Gribbell 3
feelings while communicating, often leading to more creative solutions to problems (1).
Knowing this, it is easy to see why women should pursue careers in government. In
America especially, aren’t the few people in government representing the population as a
whole? Women have that seemingly sixth sense to understand the feelings and thoughts
of a group without actually talking to them; that’s reason enough to be involved in
government, representing the citizens.
Anatomical studies of the brain show that women have more connectors between
the right and left brain and therefore: “Women have more efficient access to both sides
of their brain and therefore greater use of their right brain. Women can focus on more
than one problem at one time and frequently prefer to solve problems through multiple
activities at a time” (Conner 1). Everyone knows that in government, there is never one
sole problem. At any given time, there are multiple bills running through the branches
being passed and vetoed. With this in mind, it becomes clear that a woman’s unique
ability to multitask and solve multiple problems simultaneously offers a distinct
advantage when in political office.
Nearly every person in America has heard of former Alaskan governor Sarah
Palin. She started a firestorm and caused uproar with policies she enacted while
governor, things she said as the running mate of John McCain in 2008, and statements
she made as a leader of the Tea-Party movement. Media critics have incessantly attacked
her “ethics.” Her every move was criticized, and yet she continued on the political path.
After the announcement of resignation from her position of governor of Alaska, in an
interview with Time magazine, she addressed the criticism: “Other governors probably
could travel around and campaign for others and speak candidly, using their First
Gribbell 4
Amendment rights to express what they feel about a person, a candidate, a position. I get
hit with ethics-violation charges if I do that. I mean, literally, I do” (“Time” 1). Much of
the criticism easily could be linked to her being a strong conservative, but she also is a
woman in a continually male-dominated profession. Palin never got a break, and yet here
in 2012, three years after her resignation from governor, there is some murmur of her
joining the race for the Republican nomination for president. That alone shows the
strength of a woman to withstand the criticism that makes other political figures wilt.
Adversely, some antifeminists still believe that women should not enter or hold
political office (“Antifeminism” 1). This is obviously a very short-sighted, thoughtless
statement. People like this have been noted to say that women are too “emotional” to
work well in government. This however, has been disproved by research showing that
those same emotions make women have a sense of connection to the issue, therefore, they
will work towards the right choice to benefit the common good (Hensley 1). Some have
stated that other countries will see us as weak if we have women running the country. If
this were true, then how is it that the Israeli army, not shy about recruiting and
conscripting women into their defense forces as border police and soldiers, is one of the
most feared and respected armed forces in the world? (“Israel” 1). Though the numbers
are fewer, there are still people agreeing that a woman’s place is in the home. This has
been refuted in statements such as: “This mindset can be referred by some as being
primitive, and ‘politically’ incorrect” (“Women” 1).
There is a laundry list of biological reasons why men should not be the only
people holding political office. It has been proven that men’s “anatomical differences
have been associated with a uniquely male attraction to high speed activities and reckless
Gribbell 5
behavior that usually involve collisions with other males.” (Conner 1). Obviously, these
characteristics are undesirable in a career where tensions run high and conflicting views
are imminent. The reckless behavior and collisions do not have to be physical, but can
occur verbally. It is also stated that these collisions are with other males. This being
said, chances are that women could be peacemakers and act as a buffer zone in common
government, high-tension situations. There is also an instinctive necessity in the male
mind to be dominant. This is demonstrated in their problem-solving approaches: “For
most men, solving a problem presents an opportunity to demonstrate their competence,
their strength of resolve” (1). This too is a bothersome trait when it comes to politics in
that if men are always attempting to be the highest on the totem pole, isn’t it clear that the
problems at hand won’t be solved quickly?
The difference in biology between men and women alone proves that women
provide useful insight on controversial subjects and deal with stress of such events in
different ways. Women like Madeline Albright and Sandra Day O’Connor forged the
path in federal government and set an example for others like Sarah Palin. Men have
characteristics that can be detrimental to progress and therefore, women are necessary to
keep these characteristics in check. Women have the strength to withstand criticism from
their colleagues and media without losing their backbone. Simply the fact that they are
able to continue supporting their views through all of this proves that there is something
going for them and there is no reason to back out.
If anything, they should continue
bulldozing their way in and succeeding in ways only females can. It’s not to say that men
shouldn’t be in government also, but it’s critical that women continue gaining ground in
this field.
Gribbell 6
Works Cited
"Antifeminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2012.
Conner, Michael. "Understanding The Differences Between Men and Women." Oregon
Counseling, Psychotherapy, Counseling, Therapy, Information, Education,
Referral, Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2012.
Hensley, Amber. "10 Big Differences Between Men’s and Women’s Brains | Masters of
Healthcare." Masters of Health Care.com: Online Health Care Administration
Degrees. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2012.
"Israel Defense Forces." Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb.
2012.
"Madeline Albright." Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2012.
"Sandra Day O'Connor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.
"TIME's Interview with Exiting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin - TIME."Breaking News,
Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2012.
"Women and Politics: Why I think women should be more involved in politics | zim NET
radio." zim NET radio | . N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2012.