Soapbox Moments: Sisterhood

image: sfgate.com

Pardon me I as step up on my soap box, but I thought I would share my personal views on sisterhood. It is defined as a feeling of kinship or solidarity amongst women, a bond.  And like with all sisters, there can be differences of opinion, catfights, arguments, etc. However, when we look toward common goals like equal rights or trying to obtain a sense of empowerment we stick together like glue.  We all feel we should be able to do what we want with our bodies, but we may differ on issues of abortion.  We all feel we should have any job we want, but we may differ on the value of what each job may hold.  It is because of this that all women, whether they admit to it or not, are feminist (except those who truly believe men are their superiors, which is a whole other soapbox moment). 

Collectively, we wholly advocate the equality of women on some level, and just because you aren’t burning your bra or marching on Washington it doesn’t exclude you. You are a feminist. The term has been diluted through the years, but nowhere does it imply hate men, be a bitch or bring down others for your own personal gain. It’s about using your individual autonomy and having that right without any restrictions from society – in its simplest terms. If there’s anyone who doesn’t like to be told what I can’t do, it’s me…actually, it’s probably every woman on earth.
 
When it comes to sisterhood, even if we don’t like the same things our 'sisters' do, on some level we can still be proud of their accomplishments…or jealous, whichever.  For example, I may not care much for Hilary Clinton’s view of politics, but I think it’s fabulous she's the Secretary of State and ran for president!  I was genuinely concerned for her when she was being pelted with shoes and called “Monica” while visiting Egypt. Shoes, what woman doesn’t love them? But, being called by the name of your  husband’s mistress? Not so much.  Would I vote for her? Probably not. Would I insult her or her accomplishments? Never.  

I mention this because I came across an article in Vanity Fair about Condoleezza Rice being one of Augusta Golf Club’s first female members.  I don’t really care much for golf, yet I do recognize the importance of this private men’s club finally tossing aside their misogynistic rules. However, the female writer chose to introduce our former Secretary of State as Muammar Qaddafi’s love interest. Seriously?  Where is the sisterhood in that? Or, how about an “Atta Girl?” Why isn’t the shame on Augusta for taking so long, instead of it being given to a woman who was our country's Secretary of State? It wasn’t Rice’s fault Qaddafi was a very sick man with an unhealthy obsession. Which this writer also wrote about  using phrases like “love affair” that only demean Rice, not Qaddafi.  Shouldn't we be proud of any woman who handles herself with class when faced with the infatuation of a sadistic dictator? Talk about lack of focus on the real issues. Aren’t there enough things that divide us and not enough positive things to bring us together?  Fortunately there are other female writers who agree with my point of view about giving credit where credit is due, like Elisabeth Bumiller, who writes for the New York Times. Her article was positive and uplifting for women everywhere.

So, I say congrats to Condoleezza being able to play golf in her new green blazer at an exclusive male-dominated club if she wants to.  Praise to Hilary for holding her head high in tough situations time and time again at the expense of her husband. Oh, and kudos to the female writer who has the freedom to post articles for a prestigious magazine that provides her the opportunity to express her sardonic accolades to women of accomplishment.  Atta girl!

---