UPDATE: Lady Logician also has a good post up about this called “Identity Politics.” Head on over to her place to read it. It’s a very good read.

The Washington Post has a fascinating article up about the youngest generation of feminists and the 08 elections. One would think that feminists, in general, would support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy because she’s about to break the ultimate glass ceiling. However, although there are many who indeed support her, there are also many who do not.

The two students walked on the same paths across campus here this week, past the dormitory where Hillary Rodham lived for four years, past two dozen framed portraits of groundbreaking women in Alumnae Hall, past the banners on the quad proclaiming “Wellesley: Women Who Will.” But Katie Chanpong and Aubre Carreon Aguilar — feminists and political activists — arrived at contradictory conclusions.

“If you’re a woman, you vote for Hillary because of what it means to women everywhere,” said Chanpong, a sophomore.

Carreon Aguilar, a senior, said: “If I’m supposed to vote for Hillary just because I’m a woman, that’s kind of sexist.”

And that’s the main question today’s feminists face, at least with regards to these elections. If they’re truly equal to men - nothing less, but also nothing more - they shouldn’t be treated differently than men and they shouldn’t, it seems to me, support a woman just because she’s a woman.

Full emancipation will be achieved when people, men and women, simply don’t care whether a politician - or a person in general - is a man or a woman. It’s achieved when they consider gender to be completely irrelevant when it comes to whether or not someone can be a good employee, employer, manager, doctor, lawyer, judge or politician.

On the other hand, it’s undoubtedly true that the glass ceiling still exists. Not so much because we men don’t want to women to be in higher places, but because people often choose someone they can identify with. It’s, quite simple, easier for men to identify with men, and women with women.

When it comes to this issue, I always look at Jessica Valenti who writes for Feministing and who’s the author of “Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters.” Sadly, I didn’t find a post of her yet, but one of her co-bloggers did write about it. She writes:

You don’t exactly have to scrutinize to find examples of sexism against Clinton. Also, there is no article about which way men are voting, because it is assumed that they just do vote and have the authority to already know what candidate they are voting for and it is not to be questioned because of their gender. Women are seen as not only unjustly homogeneous, but also as “wishy-washy” in their choices, so their vote is a subject of much discussion. The same sexism that Hillary is facing through the sexist coverage of her campaign, is being reproduced in the coverage of how women vote.

I think it is a tricky assumption to make that because of her sexist coverage, women are changing their vote. Several feminist bloggers and writers (that we have even linked here) have said they were compelled and angered by the sexism, but her centrist philosophies count them out, again and again.

Young women of color are frequently angered when lumped into the category of “women voters.” The realities that make up the lives of young women today can’t be contained in a singular category and the voting behavior of young women of color is probably as diverse as young women.

To me, this is what it’s all about: with race, but also with women emancipation. We don’t need affirmative action, we need equality. In treatment at least. In how we look at each other.

Lady Logician also has a good post up about this called “Identity Politics.” Head on over to her place to read it. It’s a very good read.