This has been bothering me since yesterday. For the life of me I can’t get my head round the thinking behind it.
There was a piece in BuzzFeed news about the upcoming election of the new rector at Glasgow University. A petition has garnered nearly 2000 signatures demanding that two people be removed from the list of candidates.
All fine and good. People express opinions and demand action via petitions all the time.
What I can’t understand is the stance the University of Glasgow’s feminist society has decided to take. Which is, they will NOT VOTE unless the list is altered and the two candidates are removed.
I know it’s a well worn and maybe at this point almost threadbare point to make, but do we still remember all those who went before us, who fought long and hard struggles to gain the right to vote?
In what alternative world do feminists not use their vote to amplify their voices, to push back against that with which they do not agree?
They have stated that they will boycott the election.
I’m seeing some confused thinking here. Boycotting and voting are two quite different actions.
Where we don’t have the luxury of a vote we can sometimes turn to boycotting. Don’t like a companies behaviour? Boycott them. Don’t like a particular candidate? Vote for someone else who does stand for what you believe in.
What happens if by not voting they inadvertently allow in one of the candidates they want removed. What if it happens by a tiny number, like 1, when their votes could stop it?
I wonder what the women of the world who are still fighting for the right to vote would make of this.
To boycot your own vote is to me, nothing more than silencing your own voice.