skip to main |
skip to sidebar
“When was the last time that you cried?” “What did she wear
to the debate?” “How are you going to balance being a grandmother and running
for office?” “She seems so cold.” “Why is she being a bitch?”
Within society, women are constantly being examined under a
sharper lens of public standards. In a society where women in the professional
world still “startles” the norm, any woman in a professional environment undergoes
far more criticism than their male colleagues and experiences sexist biases on
a number of different grounds or topics. What clothing she is wearing, how
short/long her skirt is, the amount of makeup she wears on a typical day, how
she carries her weight, her physique, questions pertaining to her personal love
life, her family life, her parenting choices, there seems that no area is “off
limits” for intrusive questions and every area of her life is open to criticism
or remarks. But why has this become a
standard of accepted behavior? Why should female candidates prepare themselves
for debate on an additional front: their appearance?
The idea of having a candidate that is personable and
likeable is not a foreign concept or one that is only applied to female candidates.
Voters want to have a “feel good” vibe towards their elected officials, trust
that their vote is being cast towards an individual that they would not mind
being “friendly” with. Maybe it’s in contrast of dictatorship or communism; the
“spirit of democracy” is friendly, warm and personable. Maybe “warmth” is some
indicator of the quality of politician that the candidate is, I’m not too sure,
but for whatever their reasoning, voters want somebody who is “likeable.”
Achieving a status of “likeable” is very much so an easier task for male
candidates than female. The patriarchal power structure and “traditional”
gender roles for men and women are very much to blame for the expected
perceptions we have of politicians.
When men assert typical “masculine” qualities, wit,
intelligence, and assertiveness, they are identified with terms such as “ a
strong leader.” When women attempted to breech the gender- role binary and
exhibit those exact same qualities, she is instantly demeaned with the labels
“abrasive” “rude” and “cold.” Gendered expectations of behavior are coupled
with the coinciding behaviors and qualities. On the opposite side, men are also
subjected to scrutiny for exhibiting “feminine” characteristics, showing
emotions, crying, or appearing too “soft.” In the world of political
presentation, to be feminine or exhibit those feminine qualities is to be weak
and not taken seriously. The stark difference between the male and female
candidates that are scrutinized is that females are already a minority in the
field and are already at a disadvantage because of their gender. Women are
already “playing in the wrong game” and need to prove their worthiness far
before any stance or platform is ever discussed. Amongst a stage of male
candidates, any female will already stand out starkly, she’s already on the
radar of criticism and any side step away from the expected behavior, will
cause a storm of feedback.
The discriminatory standards for female politicians are not
exclusive to one side of the aisle or another. Former Secretary of State and
current presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is subjecting herself to the
same wrath of criticism as republican hopeful Carly Fiorina. Experience in the
game does make a difference in handling the comments, but both Clinton and
Fiorina have pioneered as women in traditionally male-dominated fields. This
hurdle, preparing to be subject of extreme criticism, can prove to be a deal
breaker for younger women; they change games. This barrier is one entirely
constructed by society and its gendered behavioral expectations. Fortunately,
it is one that can be changed, but not simply overnight.
One stride towards improvement stems from a mutual respect
for the battle that other female candidates are facing. GOP Presidential
hopeful Carly Fiorina has recently stated that she would not make any “low
blows” or “personal comments” about female Democratic opponent, Former Secretary
Clinton. Vowing to only question legitimate facts and records, Fiorina is
offering an olive branch of sorts to her fellow colleague. However, these peace
understandings only extend so far. If November 2016 comes down between these
two women, the gloves will come off and the rounds will be messy. While it is
comforting to believe that women can be above the bloody fray of “men’s
politics,” it is impractical and naïve to believe that these women will not do
everything in their power to win the election and become the next President of
the United States. Everybody in this sphere, men and women alike, understand
that when the “rules of the game” are written by and standardized by men, women
have to make sacrifices to be able to play.
-Anastasia Yogas
