Hillary Clinton's recent win in New Hampshire prompted a storm of speculation from the media and commentators about the impact of identity politics on the primaries. As a young, college-educated woman, I’m in a demographic group that is torn between the inspirational rhetoric of change and hope from Obama’s campaign and the equally exciting prospect of shattering the ultimate marble ceiling of US politics. The responses to Clinton's infamous 'crying' incident have angered me, not just because they are baseless attacks on the candidate herself, but also because they have resurrected the notion that women voters are irrational and vote based on emotion (the explanation given by many being that Hillary cried, so women ran out to vote for her). Much less press has been given to the suggestion that perhaps a lack of precedent for female representation in Iowa may have something to do with the Iowa/NH discrepancy.

I think the desire to 'prove' that women don't vote based on emotions has caused many young women to shy away from supporting Senator Clinton. Voting for Senator Clinton because, or at least in part because of her gender, is not considered to be a valid reason by feminists of my generation. This troubles me because I don’t think we’re anywhere near the point in US politics where we can say that the playing-field is equal for men and women. I really wonder how desiring to have my gender represented in government became an ‘irrational’ reason for voting for a female candidate. By trying to be gender-blind, young feminists are allowing the dominant male power-structure of US politics to continue. I am grateful for Gloria Steinem’s recent op-ed in the NY Times, but I lament the fact that many women my age no longer see Steinem’s views as relevant. I can only hope that the media backlash against the ‘crying’ episode, and the surge of excitement and possibility that Clinton’s win in NH produced, even among Obama supporters, will cause young women to pause and reconsider.