OPINION By Joe Fitzgerald Boston Herald
WWR Article Summary (tl;dr) Joe Fitzgerald of the Boston Herald has an interesting look at gender equality and uses Hillary Clinton's candidacy for President to make his point. Fitzgerald says, "Ask yourself: If it would be wrong for a guy to vote against her because she's a woman, why would it be any more reasonable for a woman to vote for her because she's a woman?"
What better day than Labor Day to point out what should be obvious by now, which is that women can do just about any job a man can do.
In board rooms, operating rooms, newsrooms across this and every other city, you will find abundant evidence that gifts of skill, wisdom and leadership are no longer defined by gender.
One of this writer's personal heroes was a sixth-grade teacher named Nancy Roberts who told his daughter long ago: "Katie, when we were your age, we all wanted to marry the rich doctor. But times have changed. Don't marry the rich doctor; be the rich doctor!"
What women can accomplish no longer constitutes a bulletin.
Women have been mayors, governors, members of Congress, even members of the Supreme Court, and when they're sworn in it is no longer an occasion to stop the presses.
Back when Bill Russell was named coach of the Celtics in 1966, becoming the first black coach in pro sports, he was asked if he viewed his appointment as progress.
"It'll be progress," he replied, "when a black man gets a job like this and no one mentions his color."
In almost every aspect of public life in America women have now experienced that kind of progress, save for one job, as Hillary Clinton keeps reminding us.
She longs to be our first woman president.
A woman president is the last thing we need.
But a president who's a woman? That could be different.
It should be obvious by now that neither race nor gender offers any indication of character or competence, yet Hillary, shamelessly appealing to the flip side of misogyny, still thinks she has a hit in "I am woman, hear me roar!"
Is this the best she has to offer, that her chromosomes are her primary qualifiers?
If so, it's pathetic.
Ask yourself: If it would be wrong for a guy to vote against her because she's a woman, why would it be any more reasonable for a woman to vote for her because she's a woman?
To paraphrase Russell, progress would be taking no notice of gender.
Clearly, we're not there yet.