Skip to main content

F ³: The Dating Game



Vice President Kamala Harris, Democratic candidate for President, has chosen a running mate.

This post is not about him. 

I’ve noticed how much social media buzz there was around the fact that Ms. Harris was in the process of vetting and choosing. Something about the mere concept of that got tongues wagging, and fingers typing.

Why? Certainly we’ve seen candidates choose running mates before. This is nothing new. 

Yet this time people were rather giddy about the prospect, somehow. Others described the process in terms of the television show The Bachelor (or is it the Bachelorette?) 

Who will get the rose?

For some you could tell that the very concept of Harris choosing among an assortment of well-qualified professional men felt naughty,  somehow. It poked at what they have come to assume is acceptable behavior.

And that’s it, right there. What puzzled and fascinated and absorbed our attention during that time of selection was more than a horse race of who would be chosen. It was purely the stunning realization that a woman gets to choose. 

A woman gets to choose.

Yes, Hillary Clinton went through the same process in 2016 so you would think that this time around wouldn’t be so titillating. And yet it clearly has been. I’ve been pondering what might be different.

Popular culture is different, and the ages/generational identity of the people involved are different. The ages of the candidates are different. Of course the candidates themselves are different. All of this contributes to the stories people tell themselves about who is running and how the election process is unfolding. 

But, more than anything else, it seems to me that so much of this particular election is about a woman’s right to chose. Will women regain the right to make their own choices about their own bodies? Will we lose the right to choose birth control? Will no-fault marriage laws be rescinded forcing women to stay in abusive marriages?

Could the Supreme Court really contemplate and re-adjudicate whether women have the right to vote?

Onto that canvas, swirling with the angry colors of those whose fantasies involve power and control over women, Vice President Harris has the audacity to make a choice.

In fact, she has the authority to do so. 

That undoubtedly makes some folks angry. Others, as I have noted, have gotten a little bit giggly. Even as I have rolled my eyes a bit at the popular culture scenarios suggested on social media, the underlying message is clear: watching a woman have the authority to choose is a novelty. Things that are novelties get our attention, challenge our prior knowledge. We use whatever experiences we have to make sense of them.

The realm where most people see women being allowed to choose is in decisions of romantic attachment. (Hence, the images of The Bachelor and The Rose.) When you think about it, that’s ridiculous. Women have been in the workforce, owning and running businesses and even serving in elected office for years. Now a woman is running for president and all we can think of is the Dating Game?

And yet, that’s where we are. Social media and popular culture influence how we see and frame things for good or ill. Honestly, those viral images often come from deeply-held notions that people had already.

The right that women have in our country to exist as independent and valuable human beings with equal choices is under attack. In this election much of that hangs in the balance. So it is in that context that we watch a woman exercise her authority to choose a running mate for the highest office in the land and it somehow feels like the stuff of fantasy. 

Oh, how I hope that we are able to move forward in the confidence that there is nothing novel about it. That there is nothing innately different or challenging in seeing a woman get to choose.



Village Green/Town² Comments


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Teacher Gifts

Today is the last day of school before the Winter Break. It’s a good time to remember the far-reaching nature of our public school system. You may not have children. You may have sent your children to independent schools. It matters not. You will be impacted one way or another. Yesterday I read a long thread on Facebook about several waves of illness in the schools right now. There’s influenza A and norovirus, I believe. And of course there’s COVID. Apparently in some individual schools the rate of illness is high enough for school admin to notify parents.  When I was little the acceptable holiday gift for a teacher was one of those lovely floral handkerchief squares. (I don’t know what it was for male teachers. They were rare in my elementary years.) These days the range of teacher gifts is wider and I have fond memories of Target gift cards which I have written about before. I think it’s safe to say that giving one’s teacher Influenza, norovirus, or COVID is not the ideal holiday...

F ³: We Are Not Entitled

  A college student went missing. His family and friends were distraught. The community was encouraged to be on the lookout and spread the word.  Days passed.  They must have been agonizing days for those who cared about the missing student. Thoughts that foul play had been involved cannot have been far from their thoughts.  Then, at last, the student was found. Alive. The news was shared with the public.  So. Much. Relief. A family had been reunited with their child. Even though we know that life is complicated, I think it is okay to accept this as a happy ending and leave it at that.  But the world of social media says no. For every expression of joy at the news came questions and even judgement. It became clear to me that some folks felt entitled to an explanation. They wanted the backstory. It’s as though they felt that, by enlisting the help of the public on social media, the authorities now owed them all the details. Television dramas often weave curr...

Separate and Unequal

  Remember “Separate but equal”? Remember how that really meant that Black schools languished in  broken-down buildings without adequate heat or toilet facilities, with cast-off, ragged learning materials, underfunded and largely ignored? The Supreme Court struck that down in 1954. The evidence was clear that separate was not equal. Plessy v Ferguson had led to - - no, endorsed - - deeply unequal schooling and opportunities. We tend to think of Brown v Board as being purely about racial integration. It was not.  It was about the logical consequences of segregation. And they were not, not, not equal. The ruling in 1954 didn’t transform public education for non-whites into a land of milk and honey by any means. But it articulated some essential truths in a way that made including everyone a legal precedent which could be relied upon and built upon. It was better than what came before it but it rested upon unsteady ground. It did not necessarily change the hearts or minds ...