I think your definition of feminism is exactly correct. But I believe the ‘women’s vote’ is a myth!

Senator Clinton and Governor Palin are proof that women can and do diverge on important issues.

Even on the question of whether women should vote!

Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won votes for women, and what life was REALLY like for women before they did.

Suffragettes were opposed by many women who were what was known as ‘anti.‘

The most influential ‘anti’ lived in the White House. First Lady Edith Wilson was a wealthy Washington widow who married President Wilson in 1915.

Her role in Wilson’s decision to jail and torture Alice Paul and hundreds of other suffragettes will never be fully known, but she was outraged that these women picketed her husband’s White House.

“The Privilege of Voting” is a new free e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 - 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.

It’s a real-life soap opera!  ALL true!

Suffragettes Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with TWO gorgeous presidential mistresses, First Lady Edith Wilson, Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan and Alice Roosevelt.

There are tons of heartache on the rocky road to the ballot box, but in the end, women WIN!

Thanks to the success of the suffragettes, women can support the candidates they choose—left, right, in-between or GREEN!

Exciting, sequential episodes are perfect to read on coffeebreaks, or anytime.

Subscribe free at

http://www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html

The reference to Alica Paul made by Virginia Harris is of extreme importance here.  Few people know of her role in the suffrage movie unless, by chance, you have had the opportunity to watch the HBO film, “Iron Jawed Angels.”  Personally, I find it rather disheartening that one must turn to HBO to learn about an individual who should be proudly included in middle school history textbooks around the nation—but that is largely the problem. Exclusion. 

This goes back to the arguments of many early feminists.  For lack of time and space (and presumably, reader attention!), lets just consider Mary Wollstonecraft. In “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” Wollstonecraft talked about the exclusion of women in formal education and the way in which this exclusion had shaped sociological thought and popular beliefs of the time.  Wollstonecraft lived in the period between 1759-1797, and this article was published in 1792, just five years prior to her death. She used this piece to argue that women had the capacity for rationality but had been denied the opportunity to express such rationality and build upon rationality through formal education.  Until this time, the basic assumption was that women lacked the capacity for rational thought.  Where did this belief stem from??? Previous sociological research which had ONLY taken into account the experiences of white men!  This idea was formed through the rationalist philosophy of modernism (in the mid 1600’s) which literally viewed “men” as rational beings that were capable of reason, logic, and the ability to make sense of the world.  This included the beliefs that reality is objective with its own essence and that this perception would not change the true reality.  Wollstonecraft challenged this belief in essentialism.  With the French Revolution having just occurred, she recognized the importance for women to have equal opportunity and access to education.  Her argument stemmed from the claim that women were rational beings who had been denied the ability to create and expressed that rationality.  She saw the real divider to be gender, not class, and compared this bilateral male/female relationship in society to that of the bourgeoisie and proletariat.

So basically, we have a Marxist argument.  Only, instead of looking at those who hold the means of production, we are looking at those who control the means of education, and therefore, power.  The ruling class ultimately control our social realities and popular belief of the time.  Will this theory find relevance in the upcoming election? Definitely.  Has it already proven itself relevant in the media-coverage of the election? Definitely.  Just as Hillary Clinton took blows based on her status as a female, Palin will take blows.  Just as Hillary was prided on her status as a female, Palin will be prided.  There are people from all sides, and ultimately, these sides will emerge and diverge over the next two months. The sad fact of the matter is that gender, or more fittingly “biological sex,” is still a factor on which we, as a society, divide and label.  What I personally view as a social construction (gender, rather than sex) brings with it certain constraints, limitations, and expectations, which will ultimately come to surface more and more often as the election coverage continues. 

Kudos to you, Felicia, for your honest urgings to “read the fine print on the labels.”  Better yet, I say, do away with the labels.  There need be no male/female, black/white, young/old dichotomy in this election.  The only dividing factor of focus we need is that of the positions.  Educate yourself. Vote. And be confident in your decision of a candidate – not a male, not a female— but a candidate.

Correction:
“Alice Paul”

typo! :)