Why have women broken glass ceilings in smaller nations???
I was watching Shashi Tharoor's speech at TED conference on India's soft power (Video). He said in India, a nation of 81% "Hindus", a "woman" of "Italian" origin and "Catholic" was chosen by majority to lead the nation. She then made way for a "Sikh" man to be sworn in as the prime minister by a "Muslim" president. As compared to a nation like US that took 200 years to elect an African-American as their President and have yet to see a female President. And really if you think about it, the smaller, poorer nations that we say are way behind developed countries like US have had female prime ministers. So how come these women in countries that are still "developing" were able to break the glass ceiling (List of women prime ministers)??? And what is stopping women in USA??
Is it double standards?? In a nation that has almost 50% divorce rate (divorce rates in America), divorced candidates don't stand a good chance in elections... People say that the only reason Hillary Clinton never left Bill Clinton inspite of the Monica Lewinsky affair was because she wanted to contest the Presidential elections and the idea of a divorced President is apparently not the best image a candidate can portray...
Also, another point to think about is what do you need to achieve that level of success in a country like India... With all due respect to Indira Gandhi (she was a fabulous woman, a very strong personality), would she have been able to break the glass ceiling had she not belonged to the Nehru dynasty? If she was the same strong, smart woman, but came from the same background as Obama, would she have been the prime minister of India in 70s? Same about Benazir Bhutto? I don't know anything about Kumartunga (Sri Lanka) and Hasina Wajed (Bangladesh), so can't say much. And this is not to discredit these women. I am just trying to see if I can find an explanation.
Women everywhere have made tremendous progress and achieved a lot, but why do the Condolezzas and Hillarys stop at Secretary of State position and not be the Commander-in-Chief?
Is it double standards?? In a nation that has almost 50% divorce rate (divorce rates in America), divorced candidates don't stand a good chance in elections... People say that the only reason Hillary Clinton never left Bill Clinton inspite of the Monica Lewinsky affair was because she wanted to contest the Presidential elections and the idea of a divorced President is apparently not the best image a candidate can portray...
Also, another point to think about is what do you need to achieve that level of success in a country like India... With all due respect to Indira Gandhi (she was a fabulous woman, a very strong personality), would she have been able to break the glass ceiling had she not belonged to the Nehru dynasty? If she was the same strong, smart woman, but came from the same background as Obama, would she have been the prime minister of India in 70s? Same about Benazir Bhutto? I don't know anything about Kumartunga (Sri Lanka) and Hasina Wajed (Bangladesh), so can't say much. And this is not to discredit these women. I am just trying to see if I can find an explanation.
Women everywhere have made tremendous progress and achieved a lot, but why do the Condolezzas and Hillarys stop at Secretary of State position and not be the Commander-in-Chief?
Comments