If we Democrats truly believe that women can and should aspire to higher office, then the subtle message being made by the Massachusetts Democratic Party through these awards is exactly the opposite of the example we should be setting. Here’s a thought, why not award both people, regardless of their sex, the “Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt award?”
Please share widely!
All that is different is the name. Besides Eleanor ranks among the First Ladies who could easily be considered co-President in all but name. Think of her as Queen Consort, being crowned and acknowledged along with her husband.
The “Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Awards. I agree it does leave an uneasy feeling in my stomach…what if two men or two women deserve the award? Quotas are a…heavy-handed way of ensuring equality, though it’s a fair worry that we would see a parade of men receiving these awards otherwise.
Don’t we claim to be the champions of equality? So is your concern that “we would see a parade of men receiving these awards otherwise” really valid? Does the Democratic Party really need a quota system in order to be fair about who receives an award? I am shocked!
I prefer solutions to sarcasm, myself.
That is why I suggested that the award be called the Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt Award in my main post. Not sure what you are calling sarcasm…
The fact is Eleanor was not the President of the United States nor was she even close to being a “co-President.” So the awards by definition are not equal. But if your rationalization is the same rationalization that the Mass. Democratic Party would use, then maybe next year they will award the male recipient the First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt award and the female recipient the President Franklin Roosevelt award.
…does not make them so. I haven’t seen the criteria, but I suspect they are exactly the same. Circumstances of history in no way require the interpretation that the modern awards are anything other than exactly equal.
<
p>”The Franklin Roosevelt award is awarded to the man who (insert criteria),” and “The Eleanor Roosevelt is awarded to the woman who (insert exact same criteria as previous).” If Eleanor HAD been President rather than Franklin I would still say give the women the award named after her and the men the award named after him.
<
p>Agree to disagree, I guess.
If one award gets a greater money award that the other, it should be equalized.
<
p>If there is either no money award or an equal money award, then it is a “distinction without a difference.”
<
p>One award for a man and one award for a woman doesn’t sound bad, as men and women are equal but different. It is also not healthy to have things skewed too much towards one gender, as a “war of the sexes” is a bad and self-defeating idea.
<
p>And, not to get off subject, but FDR and Eleanor did not do it alone.
<
p>There were different cabinet officials involved with making policy, such as Henry Wallace.
<
p>Realize that if Henry Wallace became our president in 1948, there is a good chance that we would have socialized medicine like Great Britain, and we would not have the Taft-Hartley slave labor bill on the books.
<
p>Another great influence from the great depression years was Huey Long, governor of Louisiana. Talking heads to this day portray him as a “fascist dictator”. Yes, he did what he had to do to get power in Louisiana. But, because of him, roads were paved, schools were build, and public school children recieved books for free instead of having to pay for them.
<
p>Huey Long, and his “Share the Wealth” program of wealth redistribution put GREAT pressure on FDR to go to the left on economics. Without this pressure, perhaps social security would not have come along as it did. There may not have been as many government jobs created without that political pressure.
<
p>Long helped poor people, white and black. The REAL BIGOTS of the Klan hated him and tried to stop him, but he won until he was assasinated. And yet, these KKK bigots, who kept both poor whites and blacks down, are portrayed as “nice freedom advocates” while Governor Long is a “fascist dictator”.
<
p>Doesn’t this sound like some teabaggers today?
Sending a strong message that anyone can aspire to the highest office in the land regardless of sex is treating people equally. I have no problem with picking one man and one woman to receive an award. The aspect that seems antithetical to Democratic principles is giving a different award to each awardee based on that person’s sex. There is a subtle difference between the awards by definition: Franklin was president; Eleanor was not. If the awards are truly equal, then why doesn’t the Massachusetts Democratic Party award the First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt award to the male and the President Franklin Roosevelt award to the female recipient?
Or better yet, the Massachusetts Democratic Party could simply award both recipients the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt award.
<
p>Massachusetts has long had a reputation of being a difficult place for women to attain higher office. Look at how long it has taken for us to get just one woman in Congress. Maybe that should not be a suprise. After all the most predominent religious institution in the state (the Catholic Church) still treats women like second class citizens and men and women seem to accept it as okay. But subtle messages matter as well and giving an award named after a president only to a male and an award named after a first lady only to a female sends the wrong message.
Betcha betcha that the most powerful religious institution in the state is one founded by a woman, not the Catholics?
…some young girl is going to see this award and think she can’t be President because whom an award is named after?