The Paradox of Woman

Hello Antigone Readers,

Not to interrupt Amanda’s fantastic reports from New York, but rather to give her a day off from her hectic duties as delegate and blogger, I direct you to this article in this weekend’s Globe and Mail.
The piece is, I think, one of the more nuanced treatments of Hillary Clinton’s campaign efforts. It is also, thankfully, unwilling to write her off because of her s0-called “tearjerker.” Since Clinton is not often emotional in public, the instant she becomes so she is immediately criticized for stage acting–something her competitors certainly needn’t fear, particularly since it would be only too disaffecting for a male to cry on (inter)national television. I may be biased here–in fact, take this as a warning, I am biased–but I don’t believe that Hillary’s so-called performance in New Hampshire should a/effect her supporters’ votes. I personally am inclined to trust Clinton before Obama. In most cases, when I watch them debate, while Clinton is not the picture of authenticity–indeed, she is often reserved and difficult to read–she is always clear and forthright. I would call her “sincere” without much hesitation. If she isn’t comfortable with an idea, or can’t make a promise, she simply will not address the issue–she will tell you what she will do, not what she might do. Listening to her, I don’t feel like I’m being subjected to rhetoric at the expense of all else, which with Obama I sometimes experience.

What I appreciate about Sinclair’s treatment of Clinton here is his exploration of the community in which she was raised and the ideal of “woman” she grew into. In order to compete, Clinton developed an iron-clad public persona, and certainly, I would suggest this served her well during her career as first lady.
Another thing the article illustrates well is Clinton’s pursuit of her policy programs to the exclusion of all else. Sinclair observes that during her husband’s tenure as president she pushed her health care reform bill to the displeasure of some democrats, causing an internal division in the party and allowing the republicans to take the house. While such an attitude is certainly not good for party unity, it is refreshing to see someone stick to their ideals: Mr. Dithers Hillary is not.

“She doesn’t play the game — and I admire her for that — but it’s hurt her,” acknowledges Jo Luck, the head of Heifer International, a humanitarian aid organization whose eco-friendly office complex abuts the William J. Clinton Presidential Library on the banks of the Arkansas River. “She sees what’s needed in the world and she does it. She’s not running a popularity contest. She’s never run a popularity contest.”

…

One of the ironies in this contest is that when Ms. Clinton first plotted her candidacy, she doubtless viewed herself as the agent of change, a trailblazer in the mould of Ms. Ferraro who could make history by becoming the first woman to gain the presidency.

Instead, she encountered Mr. Obama, a charismatic and silver-tongued rival with a competing, and equally powerful, claim to history, which would put the first African American in the Oval Office. If he lacks her experience, he is also free of the burden of perceptions she has shouldered since her days in Washington.

“I wish she could come across as a little bit more of a ‘bring us together’ voice,” Ms. McCoy says. “But she is a litigator — you can’t change a leopard’s spots. … And is that necessary? To really like our leaders?”

Another skilled Democrat, Bill Clinton, might say so. He famously remarked that Democrats prefer to fall in love with their candidates, while Republicans prefer to fall in line. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, his words appear to be ringing true.

So what do we say now of Clinton’s flagging campaign? What does this mean for women’s future in American politics? Is this a reflection of her personal “obstreperousness” (to use her word), or is is indicative of a larger distrust of female leadership as “soft.” I would say it is probably a combination of both; Clinton has unfortunately come up against a silver-tongued, personable presidential hopeful whose claim to the office is equally as legitimate, if not historically more so, than her own–her timing could not be worse. However, it is unlikely we will see another woman candidate in the near future with credentials and experience akin to that of Mrs. Clinton’s. Gaining the “hearts” of democrats may prove to be ultimately illusive for female candidates while the double edged sword of American media dissects the woman’s public persona as inauthentic. The question is, who owns that stereotype in the first? Stereotypes don’t make for good lovers…

Advertisements

Hillary Clinton and Sexism…

Gloria Steinem wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times and Hilary, Barack, Racism and Sexism and it’s very interesting… and necessary for me to share it with you here.

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?

Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.

I think that perceptions of competencies are indeed skewed and that gender is one of the most exclusionary factors. As the photo above shows… some lovely fellows attending a Clinton rally felt the need to remind her that women’s proper place was to iron their shirts. Can we even begin to start imagining the outcry that would come if it had been a racist sign at an Obama campaign. Which is not to say that Obama has it ‘easier’ per se… but well… I’ll defer to Steinem:

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

And these are relevant worries. If Clinton’s campaign does anything, it will necessarily highlight a lot of ingrained biases that our society likes to refuse that it has.

Senator Clinton cries for the fate of America

As Hillary marches confidently (or so it seems) to the Democratic convention the media coverage is immense, allowing for opportune quips and 30-second CNN cut-aways. What Hillary provided was not the usual take-no-prisoners rational speeches about her experience and view for America; no, Hillary gave America tears. Nice, big feminine slide-aways down her cheeks, just before the New Hampshire primary that she won tonight. The moment happened when she was surrounded by other women, and as The Wall Street Journal reports of the moment:

“It’s not easy, it’s not easy,” Clinton said shaking her head. Her eyes began to get watery as she finished answering the question, “I couldn’t do it if I didn’t passionately believe it was the right thing to do. This is very personal for me. I have so many ideas for this country and I just don’t want to see us fall backwards. It’s about our country, it’s about our kids’ future,” she said softly crying, her voice breaking. The group of 15 women sitting around a table at the Cafe Espresso nodded understandingly. Clinton continued, her voice still cracking: “We do it each one of us because we care about our country, but some of us are right and some of us are wrong, some of us are ready and some of us are not, some of us know what we’ll do on day one and some of us don’t,” she said.

Although many news outlets are nodding in sympathy and sighing that Hillary is, after all, a human being, this reeks more of a set-up than a candid moment. Sure, maybe this campaign is something she is passionate about and the pressure is getting to her. But on the other hand, maybe this politically savvy woman who has been accused of taking whatever position the polls indicate she should take has realized the only way she will become the first woman president is if she plays up the woman part just as much as she has the president part. Just look at the speech: she talks about what she “feels”, she tries to connect to listeners through her role as a mother, and she cries.

I will not personally vote in the American elections as I am a Canadian citizen, but I watch these proceedings closely as both a curious person and a feminist. I have long admired Ms. Clinton, and wish to see a woman president of the United States. However, I wonder if that fight will be fairly won, if there can be such a thing in politics, if she gets to the White House not because she’s a ball-buster, but a bawler.