"Nasty Women" by: Samhita Mukhopadhyay, Published October 3, 2017
Samhita Mukhopadhyay’s essay “I’m a Woman, Vote for Me” in the collection of essays "Nasty Women"is a passionate look into the reality of identity politics. She begins her essay by describing the loss she and her friends felt after Hillary Clinton lost the election. She explains that Hillary’s loss was based on the fact that her identity politics were unique and unlike that of other political candidates in the past. Hillary Clinton’s identity politics primarily surrounded minorities and the disadvantaged, while trump catered to the white upper class. Trump’s identity politics primarily surrounded white fear of the ‘other’ and spoke to ways of securing white power. Mukhopadhyay describes how the dislike for Clinton ran deeper than just a difference in political opinion. Hillary was antagonized because of the way she talked, dressed, and seemed untrustworthy, or in other words because she was a woman. Mukhopadhyay ends her essay by stating that questions need to be raised about the discrimination that exists in politics in order to begin to reverse it.
Throughout her essay, Samhita Mukhopadhyay raises many thought-provoking questions to her readers in order to make the point that identity politics should be a way that politicians campaign and should impact who citizens vote for. She first asks her readers in the beginning of her essay “Do we recognize that different groups of people experience unique challenges based on their identity and organize round and embrace those differences, or do we ignore them in service of a more universal, uniform understanding of Americanness?” (Mukhopadhyay 2). She is making a point that it is not beneficial to our society for identity politics to continue to leave out the consideration of entire populations in order for America to continue to remain universal and unchanging. Politicians need to embrace the different cultures, ethnicities and races in our united nation and give support to all people in the unique ways that they need it. After elaborating more on the importance and necessity of some identity politics, Mukhopadhyay explains to her readers that it is sometimes difficult to definitively decide “What issues should be included? How can we include all of these issues and still stay focused on a common goal? How do we prioritize our agendas with so many different factions involved?” (Mukhopadhyay 8) when considering identity political agendas. She includes this to get readers talking about what issues they may think are important and to consider looking into a politician’s identity politics before casting their ballot.
Comments