How do Women in Politics Survive?
The socially
constructed ideas of femininity often greatly limit how we as citizens view the
role of women and what they are, and are not capable of. Biologically, men and
women are constructed to carry out the same, basic tasks (go to school, go to
work, have the ability to think critically).
However, it is the history of unequal treatment of women that has greatly
impacted society’s views on what women are capable of doing. For example,
Tickner brings up Pat Schroeder’s crying incident as a question of whether or
not women are able to handle the responsibility of pressing “the nuclear
button” if necessary. Why is this question even being asked? This socially
constructed idea that femininity causes people to be more emotional does not
have anything to do with our genetic make up and thus should not be considered
when deciding on, for example, a presidential candidate.
When Patricia Schroeder announced that she would not be running for the democratic nomination during the 1988 presidential campaign, she started to cry. The media immediately went into attack, and some even went so far as to say that women would not be able to run for President in Schroeder’s lifetime. In stark contrast to Schroeder, who even today is largely remembered for her tearful address, during Hilary Clinton’s campaign for the democratic nomination in 2008, the public criticized her for her hard demeanor, which some may characterize as un-feminine. In April 2008, Clinton knew she needed to appeal to women in order to gain their support so while on a campaign stop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, she spoke to a small group of undecided voters (mostly women) in a café. Clinton got teary-eyed as she spoke about how she “doesn’t want to see us (the country) fall backwards.” The moment Hillary got choked up in the café was the exact bit of emotion she needed to stay in the race, and more importantly, this was her way of appealing to those voters who found her to be “too masculine.”
So I must ask the
question: how do women in politics survive? On the one hand, women are attacked
for being too emotional, which society views as an overtly feminine quality
that has a negative connotation and is often seen as a sign of weakness. On the
other hand, Hillary Clinton’s lack of emotion, and the criticism of her
“masculine traits” during her 2008 campaign were viewed negatively by the
public. So I ask again, how can women in politics win this battle of being
scrutinized for being “overly-emotional” or being “emotion-less?” I do not
believe there is a clear-cut answer to this question. I think that it is going
to take a long time for society to
come to terms with the fact that just because a person is a woman, does not mean
that she has all the qualities that would characterize her as feminine; and
this is ok. It is also ok for women to have qualities that are considered
“masculine,” this doesn’t make her any less of a woman. In order to accept
women as leaders in politics, it’s important that we stray away from the
socially constructed limitations that we have inadvertently put on women based
on there sex. It is important to take a holistic view of who the political
candidate is as a potential world leader,
and not view them as fitting into stereotypical gender norms.
Okay, I don't want this to come out in an insensitive way, but males and females are designed for fundamentally different biological tasks. And while, when it comes to the activities mentioned, you are right, they are equal, when it comes to more physically demanding tasks males are for the most part more proficient. In harsher, more psychically demanding societies, masculinity is stressed to insure survival (learned this in psych). And while this may have been necessary for our survival, it has led to some serious draw backs; namely strongly internalized gender roles. Which is why it is so impressive to me that Hilary is such a strong candidate. Despite her impressive and well-rounded resume and experience, she is still a women. And while that does not make her less competent as presidential candidate in terms ability to deal with policy and work her agenda, is does affect her ability to be president simply due to these internalized gender roles. When we look to a presidential candidate, we want to see someone that looks like a leader. And typically when we think of a good leader, we are more likely to look for male traits because of this long standing bias. We want a tall, strong, confident president we can turn to when times are tough. And a women often don’t have these characteristics. In times of fear, people almost always turn to a male. On top of this, we have never had a female president, so there is lots of confusion about what we want in a female candidate. All of this has led to an almost impossible situation as you have mentioned where no matter what stance she takes she will be criticized. However, despite this she is still by far the leading democratic candidate. So while, I agree with your stance about the uphill battle female politicians’ face, Hilary Clinton is proving us both wrong. This also shows the suddenly rapid shift the new generations have had on overcoming personal bias.
ReplyDeleteWill,
DeleteClarification: When you say that Clinton's gender, "does affect her ability to be president", do you mean it affects how she will do the job or that it provides more obstacles for her to climb over than if she were male?
Honestly both. Primarily I think it presents more obstacles for her to overcome. There are many people in the public who vote simply down party lines, or by what they see, this has happened before in the past. "An Ohio admirer, Harry Daugherty, began to promote Harding for the 1920 Republican nomination because, he later explained, "He looked like a President"' ("Warren G. Harding." The White House. The White House, n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2015.). Then there is the famous “five o’clock shadow” case with JFK and Nixon. "According to the Museum of Broadcast History, radio listeners considered Nixon’s answers to questions to be more substantive and gave Nixon the advantage over Kennedy after the first debate. By contrast, television viewers gave Kennedy the edge, as their impressions were based on how the candidate looked as much as what he said" ("Kennedy and Nixon Square off in a Televised Presidential Debate." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2015.). Clearly we can see from these two examples that what a candidate looks like can influence their vote. And Hilary does not look anything like our previous presidential candidates. But perhaps she looks exactly like the public wants now.
DeleteOn the other side, Emily touched on this, critics can effect change. I don’t know if this carries over to Hilary as much but I did see it with Fiorina. I thought some of her policies were overly harsh and brutal, I think she was over compensating for the fact that she was a women. I personally think it will be a distraction and possible have negative effects if we can have a president that is constantly under criticism and occasionally allows them to dictate their policy. And finally, you want a president that radiates, calm, control and relatability. Personally, I am dissuaded from voting for candidates that profusely sweat during a debate. The last thing I want is a sweating president when the nation is in a time of turmoil, and as silly as it sounds these physical characteristics I hit on before are huge. Does Hilary need to compensate for being a women to stop critics? Probably. And is the way to do this to act more harsh? Probably. So is her ability to be her own president effected by this? I think yes. And does “stone cold” Hilary radiate the reassurance and relatability I want in my president? No. Will that effect a lot of people? Yes. Does it affect me? Yes. But is she still the best candidate? I think so.
Will,
DeleteInstead of seeing Fiorina’s policies as harsh and brutal, maybe the public is perceiving them to be that way when in reality she may just be trying to compete with her strongest opponent, Donald Trump; who is extremely harsh and forward, often incredibly offensive, and frequently hits below the belt (going so far as to make fun of Fiorina’s looks.) Personally I found Trump's remarks on Fiorina incredibly offensive and frankly, you would not hear a woman at the Republican debate making fun of a man’s looks. Why is it that women are so susceptible to this criticism? In your response to my post, you say that Fiorina’s policies are brutal and harsh, too much so, but you also say that women need to make up for their gender by being more harsh, so which is it?
I would also ask, if Hillary’s “stone cold” demeanor doesn’t radiate the reassurance and relatability that you personally look for in a president, does her tearing up at that café in Portsmouth make her more relatable? Or is it because she is a woman that makes her difficult to relate to? I do not mean to sound critical when I ask these questions, however my point in this blog post is that women in politics seem to be fighting this up-hill battle. It’s clear that women have more obstacles to over come when trying to appeal to the American public. Even though, we seem to both agree, that intellectually speaking, women and men are equally capable of handling the job as president. However, you said it yourself, the role of president seems to be associated with masculinity, so how can we change this?
Ultimately the stance that I am taking here, is yours. I do think that they are fighting an uphill battle. I thought that was clear. To your question, "In your response to my post, you say that Fiorina’s policies are brutal and harsh, too much so, but you also say that women need to make up for their gender by being more harsh, so which is it?", that's my point. There is no clear cut answer, it's an impossible balance to maintain. That being said, No, not a fan of the tears at all. Tears are when you are overwhelmed and you allow emotion to overcome you. I believe that you must use your rhetoric and not your demeanor to show this powerful emotion. That being said, I have not really followed Clinton recently, and a quick google search did not clear up the matter to me.
DeleteAlso, while my reply may seem harsh, that's the way it is. Look at what Trump is doing, he is being crude, and yet, many Americans have no problem with what he is doing. And that is still where a lot of our nation is. On the other hand Clinton is killing it in the polls, so there is still hope for our nation.
Also, I fear that you have fallen into your own trap. Are you being dismissive of male candidates because they are male? Obama got a lot of support from black voters. And while I understand what he means to them, and his potential to help them, many people voted for him voted for him simply because he was black. So while women have a tough climb, they also have over half the nation that is very partial to them. Are there many women making these criticisms? I don't think so. Are you considering Clinton just because she is a women? While her difference is polarizing, it might actually be to her advantage. Plus I'm sure many men people will jump on the band wagon just to not seem anti-feminist. So is this steep hill she is facing, are we so sure it's so steep?
Yes, I think it is associated with masculinity, no I honestly don't think we can easily change it, however the new generations are very malleable. On top of that, there are already plenty of strong female world leaders out there. It's not like America will be the first nation led by a women. Which just proves, that maybe the only thing holding American women back are American women.
I wanted to clarify your question asking if I am being dismissive of male candidates because they are male; because I do agree with you that often times many people vote on a candidate because of their race, gender or religious affiliation, and I whole-heartedly agree that this should not be the case. I personally do not agree with many of Hillary Clinton’s policies, I think the way she handled the whole email scandal was not very well-done and after doing my research (that I based my blog post on) I found her tactics used to appeal to the public to be quite manipulative (however, I recognize many politicians do things that are manipulative/sneaky in order to appeal to the public.) So while I defend her in my post, I simply do so because I don’t believe she was represented fairly by the media. I would have defended a male politician in the same way that I defended Hillary Clinton. However, the main difference is that from my research on this topic, women are more publically criticized than men, and less so for their policies and more so on their appearance/traits and this is something that I do not think is just.
DeleteEmily,
ReplyDeleteClear clear clear argument. You have a strong opinion that may definitely spark disagreement, but that in part is because people these days still aren't willing to listen. While society is moving towards embracing female politicians more, that's not to say that women have it easy. They certainly don't. Way back in the day, when the males would hunt and the females would take care of the young, the male was perceived as the dominant figure who did the hard, "dirty" work I guess. That perception carried on over hundreds of years and it wasn't till the 20th century when people started to really want to change this perception. It really annoys me how people think that men are superior figures. I mean, why? Because we're STRONGER? We don't have EMOTION? We're TOUGHER? These perceptions are absolutely ridiculous. If anything, women are more passionate than males and they care more about others than men. That's a good thing, right? Women are intelligent, studious, caring human beings who would excel in the political sphere. However, they are afraid to run because of the public. How can we call ourselves a democratic, free nation when women are AFRAID? I see no reason as to why women can't do the same job, if not a better job, than males in politics. You are right, Emily, in that you imply something must be done about this. I credit you for not getting heated about this like I am. Thank you for writing this - this is an issue that needs to change. Quite frankly, I think it is starting to change. Let's see what happens as the time rolls along.
Why should sex matter? It honestly doesn't. For those who think I'm biased, I'm not. I am just an individual who cares about everyone in this world and think everyone has the capability to contribute to society in a positive way.
Great job!
Alex,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your positive comments. I wish that more people in our society felt as strongly about this topic as you seem to. I completely agree with everything that you have said in your response to my post. The point that you make about the hunter/gatherer society, the roles of men and women in this society, and how this perception has carried over to this day is extremely valid.
I also think your emphasis on women being afraid to run for political office is very true and I honestly hadn’t thought about it in this way. If I had the resume that would make me an apt candidate to run for political office in today’s society, I’m not sure that I would. Women running for office are essentially signing up to be scrutinized by the public, largely for their looks and appearance, and their views/policies seem to be given less attention. Who would want to voluntarily sign up for such scrutiny? I think that you are right, our society is definitely moving towards embracing female politicians, however, I still think that we have quite a long way to go.
While it's great to acknowledge what women are doing now, but weren't there also theoretical first men to do the same thing. Don't men also face constant scrutiny everyday as well? Giving women an edge because they are women is actually laughable. Alex, you said that they should be better politicians then men. Because they are more passionate and more caring then men, you are falling back into stereo types and the words that usually follow that statement are "and belong in the kitchen". Your argument instead plays up stereotypes and takes feminist edge. The goal here is to eliminate that. So instead of looking at them as women and men. Look at them as candidates and dissect what you want from the leader. Gender should not matter. But for this to happen we must move away from these stereotypes and stop treating them like women who need help and instead like any other candidate otherwise you are simply adding to the difficulties that exist within genders.
DeleteHi, Emily, great job on your post! The question you pose needs to be asked; as you point out, as it is, women are stuck in lose-lose situation politically. I particularly appreciated your identification of the relationship between stereotypical gender norms for women and their disadvantage in politics. Like you said, in our society “feminine” traits are devalued and seen as weak. Thus, when Patricia Schroeder cried, it was seen as a bad thing and a sign of her incapability to be a good politician. In your conclusion, you bring up how it’s okay for women to break from gender stereotypes (like crying when under stress) to succeed in politics. What about women who have more stereotypically “feminine” traits? I think that women should be allowed to succeed in politics whether they have “masculine” or “feminine” traits; therefore, I agree with you that women should not be judged for having “masculine” traits in politics but I also think that “feminine” traits should be recognized for their potential value in the political world. If women are stereotypically caring, nurturing, and feel the full weight of consequences (like Schroeder did with the question of nuclear warfare), is that such a bad thing to bring to the table? I think it would add a whole new and valuable dimension to political conversation and action.
ReplyDeleteKatherine,
DeleteI think you are absolutely right. I believe that traits that are associated with femininity (such as being caring and nurturing like you mentioned) absolutely add value to the political world. For example in Tickner’s article, she says that these kinds of “feminine” traits could help resolve conflicts (by means of negotiation rather than turning to war) among great powers. I agree that a woman should be able to succeed in politics regardless of whether she has more “masculine” traits or “feminine” traits. However, it seems like the only way that women will be able to succeed in politics (and be accepted by the public) is when the socially constructed views that determine what traits are "appropriate" for men and women to have are no longer of importance in the minds of the people that make up our society.