Nicholas D. Kristof, an op-ed columnist for the New York Times wrote a column this morning that seems tailor-made for our unit on women, and speaks to many of the issues raised at the 1848 Seneca Falls convention, which we are simulating.
He makes an argument that historically, and for various reasons, being a female leader in a democracy has been much more difficult than a being one in a monarchy. Beyond that, however, and more important for Americans, he concludes that, "they [women] have to be twice as good as men to get anywhere" in our society.
The reason for this may surprise you: according to the "Goldberg paradigm", both men and women judge more harshly a speech delivered by a woman, than the identical speech delivered by a man. What gives here? Why the double (dual) standard applied to leaders of both genders?
Click here for Kristof's article, and please weigh in with your thoughts, particularly in light of Hillary Clinton's run for president.