Another Milestone For Women

Picture it--Philadelphia, 1795. Sarah Waldrake and Rachel Summers were given 50 cents a day to weigh gold coins at the Mint. They were the first women to become employees of the federal government.

Little did they know then the process they were beginning, one in which the female sex would trickle its way into the policy arena. If only they could have lived another 122 years (1917) to watch Jeannette Rankin, a Republican from Montana become the first woman elected to the House of Representatives. In 1931, Hattie Ophelia Wyatt Caraway (this was obviously not a time when a woman could opt merely to keep her own name) became the first female U.S. Senator. Frances Perkins led us into the White House when she was appointed Secretary of Labor by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933, becoming the first woman cabinet member.

It is now 1996 and well, ladies, we have passed another milestone. On December 5, President Clinton announced the appointment of U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State, marking the first time in U.S. history a woman has been chosen to fill this position. The State Department is the head of the U.S. foreign affairs team, which formulates, represents and implements the President's foreign policies. The Secretary of State is the highest ranking member of the department. That is, a woman today stands on one of the top rungs of the foreign policymaking ladder. If Albright had been born in the U.S., she would now be fourth in line for presidential succession. We have come a long way since weighing coins.

Albright's appointment is a new step for women. Considering a woman capable of handling issues of labor, education or health is different than depending on her to preserve our reputation and strengthen our abilities as the world's superpower. While much of Albright's work will involve economic foreign policymaking such as promoting the advantages of NATO and negotiating new treaties on trade, this is not the realm in which the selection of a woman is so mind-breaking. I am not suggesting that economic issues are light, requiring little strength or intelligence. The point is merely that there is a greater concern over national security, for these issues are most likely to pose a direct threat to our lives. It is therefore entrusting a woman with leadership in such matters as defense which is indicative of our overcoming a deep-seated chauvinism. Ever since they played "Cops and Robbers" or "Cowboys and Indians" and we played with dolls, the assumption has been that men are typically stronger, that men are better fighters.

When Lady Macbeth wished to fight, to help her husband seize the throne, she said to the spirits above "Unsex me here." Today, a woman need not be unsexed, need not be masculinized in order to exhibit qualities of assertion and aggressiveness. No, we are not sending off Madeleine Albright to challenge Saddam Hussein to a wrestling match, but we are asking her to help us decide at what times we should wrestle. How tough to be in Bosnia? How to lessen the never-ending tensions of the Middle East? How to confront the emergence of China? How often should the U.S. come to the rescue of struggling young democracies? We are handing over a significant portion of power to a woman--asking her to provide insight and judgment on matters which frequently mean life for some and death for others.

But women are passive, right? Women like to "talk things out." Not this woman. Madeleine Albright, as many are quick to point out, is not "soft" on foreign policy issues. She was raised the daughter of a Czech diplomat, Joseph Korbel, and was forced to flee Czechoslovakia, first from the Nazis in 1938 and then later when the Communists came to power. The result, Albright said, is that "My mindset is Munich; most of my generation's was Vietnam." In a day and age where many political leaders are pushing for a more limited use of force, Albright is a fervent believer in using U.S. power overseas, assisting in the overthrow of repressive regimes and punishing human rights violators. She went so far as to ask General Colin Powell, "What's the point in having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Clearly then, it does not seem Albright plans to solve most of her foreign policy endeavors by "talking things out."

Some political players emphasize this tough, aggressive and hardline approach to world politics as somehow masculine. Referring to Albright's attack on Fidel Castro, one former State Department diplomat explained that "we have a Secretary of State with cojones." (If you don't know this word, ask someone who speaks Spanish.) No, Madeleine Albright is not afraid to break her nails. She is not introducing a stereotypically feminine or pacifist influence in foreign affairs. Yes, Albright can play hardball just like the boys.

But, let us not write her off as merely "just one of the guys." One of the negative consequences of our era of political correctness, of affirmative action and of the drive for civil equality is a fear of acknowledging one's classification in a minority or discriminated group. One cannot publicly say, "Wow, she's a woman and she's the head of an investment bank." Or "Wow, a Black student has been elected a class marshal." Neither of these would have happened 30 years ago. Let us not pretend these groups have always enjoyed positions of authority and leadership. Let us not pretend such accomplishments have come easy. Let us not take the erosion of racial and sexual prejudices for granted. Let us instead celebrate their long awaited and well earned arrival.

President Clinton did so when he said "Am I proud that I got a chance to appoint the first woman Secretary of State?--You bet I am." But, as soon as he acknowledges that her womanhood is a part of her, he must explain that his decision is not an affirmative action project designed to attract more women voters. "But that is not why I appointed her," he added. No, it is not why she has become Secretary of State. She was chosen because, as Clinton explained, she "has the instincts, the intelligence, the skill and the strength to lead American foreign policy in this time."

While we cannot identify her womanhood as the reason behind her appointment, we must also not overlook it. Madeleine Albright has done some significant work for the sake of women. She was the director of the Women in Foreign Service Program at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service. There, she urged women to take a more active role in foreign policy. She was a foreign policy advisor to Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and was an encouraging force in the latter's campaign for the vice-presidential nomination.

And on a more personal level, she is an inspirational reminder to us women of a fusion we sometimes doubt actually exists--that of fulfilling familial bonds and satisfying intellectual pursuits. Madeleine Albright was married as soon as she graduated Wellesley College, proceeded to have twin girls and then a third daughter six years later. But included in this picture was a master's and Ph.D. at Columbia, serving as a legislative aide and congressional liaison, an adored and well-respected Georgetown professor and an ambassador to the United Nations. Many others have juggled the two worlds--but not many of them were playing with a foreign policy ball. Madeleine Albright has demonstrated and will hopefully further demonstrate that even in foreign affairs, with all its geopolitics, missiles, terrorism and embargoes, a woman's voice can be heard and her touch felt. And yes, she will be bringing her womanhood with her--for as she said as she bid farewell to past Secretary of State Warren Christopher, "I can only hope that my heels can fill your shoes."