Hardly the Year of the Woman in SC

Share

Much is being made about the “Year of the Conservative Woman”!  What a crock.

“...South Carolina ranks last in the nation for the number of women who hold elective office, according to the Center for American Women and Politics. There are no women serving in Congress, in statewide elected executive position, or in the S.C. Senate. Of 124 S.C. House lawmakers, 17 are women…”

The Pink Flamingo is afraid that all the noise being made about a handful of high-profile women in the GOP running for office is hurting the role of other women.  In South Carolina, Nikki Haley DID NOT help other women who were running.

I have repeatedly stated that the very real problem is now that we have our high profile women running, other women who are just as deserving will be given the shaft.  It sure looks as though that is what happened in South Carolina.

In South Carolina the following GOP women lost:

  1. Susan Gaddy (US Senate)
  2. Eleanor Kitzman (Lt. Gov)
  3. Christina Jeffrey (4th Dist Congress) – deserved to lose
  4. Katherine Jenerette (1st Dist Congress)
  5. Dea Baldwin (SC House – North Augusta)
  6. Susan Swanson (SC House – Warrenville)
  7. Maude Wilkes (SC House – Horry County)
  8. Kate Keep (SC House – Hilton Head

The following GOP women won:

  1. Rita Allison (SC House) – re-elected
  2. Sheri Few (SC House)

The following Democratic women won:

  1. Jane Dyer (3rd District Congress)

SC GOP Women in a runoff

  1. Nikki Haley
  2. Elizabeth Foffley (Superintendent of Education)
  3. Nancy Harrelson (6th Dist Congress)

I have a new article up at Blogcritics. Article first published as The Good Old Girl South Carolina Political Double Standard on Blogcritics.

“…If South Carolina gubernatorial hopeful Nikki Haley were “Nick” Haley he would be political toast. Instead, because she is a Republican woman, in the post-Palin world she is the victim. She is to be treated with kid gloves by the men. They are to be gentlemen when it comes to Haley.

As a Republican woman I find this latest development with women, propelled by the Tea Party “patriots” (of which I am proud to say I am not among their ranks) troubling. Sarah Palin was treated like dirt. Because she was treated like dirt, other Republican women, who may deserve closer scrutiny, are not getting it.

Gresham Barrett, Third District Congressman, is being asked to be a “gentleman” and let Nikki have the victory. If we were dealing with “Nick” Haley, you would hear none of this. There would be conversations about finances, practicality, and numbers, but you would not hear the world “gentleman.” I’ve been involved in politics all of my life and have never heard the requirement that a male candidate act like a gentleman and give in to the demands of the female candidate in order to be a … gentleman.

Thanks to Sarah Palin there is now a double standard with women in the GOP. It is a very disturbing double standard that bodes ill for the future of women within the GOP. If our male candidates cannot go at it on an equal footing, how long do you think they are going to put up with it?..”

Share

3 thoughts on “Hardly the Year of the Woman in SC

  1. Oh, I could not agree more. The whole Year of the Woman thing makes me cringe. But some indies and less grounded righties seem to need a bandwagon of some sort. Whatever, but I’m not buying a ticket.

    As for Nikki Haley, I’m far from informed. I’m trying to hold my powder because I will back her if she wins the runoff. But from what I’m reading here she sounds less than desirable.

  2. Ha!

    That is not what this is all about–by a long shot.

    I advised Nikki early on to keep out of that “first woman governor” mindset–and she has made this whole campaign about principles not gender.

  3. OK, SJ, why does the dubious distinction of only SC woman designated as deserving to lose, apply only to Dr.Christina Jeffrey. If you mean because of a badly run campaign, then you probably also think OJ Simpson deserved to win. Indeed, he did, if Justice is a game.
    Dr. Jeffrey’s campaign, like the prosecution’s case in the example above, was poorly executed and if politics is a game, she deserved to lose. But it’s not.

    But perhaps that’s not what you meant. Perhaps you think she deserved to lose because she is wrong on the issues, ill-prepared for the job, wicked, slutty or otherwise unqualified to serve. Can you make the case for your contention?

Comments are closed.