![]() |
|
||
|
The Gender TrapPosted on Nov 8, 2007BOSTON—Can anybody tell me what a gender card is anyway and where you buy one? After last week, I’m beginning to think that none of us is playing with a full deck. Let me review the long, winding, XY-rated aftermath of the Oct. 30 debate in which most candidates focused their, um, attention on the front-runner. The Clinton folks had the gall to put up a video called “The Politics of Pile-On.” For revealing the hitherto unknown fact that Clinton’s opponents were all men, the campaign was accused of saying that the boys had ganged up on the girl. That was followed by a campaign e-mail that called Hillary “one strong woman,” when everyone knows they should have called the senator “one strong person.” Next Hillary went to Wellesley, and told the undergraduates that “this all-women’s college prepared me to compete in the all-boys club of presidential politics.” She actually mentioned that presidential politics has been a male preserve. Has she no decency? What ensued was a media-driven gender-fest in which Hillary was accused of playing “the gender card.” Not to mention the victim card. Not to mention trying to have “it” both ways. Of course, Hillary never said—in Obama’s words—“don’t pick on me.” She even agreed that “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” But she added, “I’m very much at home in the kitchen.” She mentioned the kitchen! Oooh, that cheater!Up to now, this has been a remarkably degendered campaign. For once, the female candidate has been seen as the establishment candidate. She’s also been the tough guy in the race. But that doesn’t mean people haven’t noticed she’s a woman. Nor does the fact that she’s been pretty adept mean that women aren’t still in a double bind. As a recent Catalyst survey of corporate leaders said, women are still “damned if they do and doomed if they don’t” meet the expectations of gender stereotypes. Linguistics professor Deborah Tannen describes the fate of achieving women this way: “Our image of a politician, a leader, a manager, anyone in authority, is still at odds with our expectations of a woman. To the extent that a woman is feminine, she’s seen as weak. To the extent that she puts it aside and is forceful, aggressive and decisive, she’s not seen as a good woman.” And now, anyone who complains about all that is playing the gender card. Should we call it a triple bind? I am trying to remember whether any man has ever been accused of playing the gender card and what it looked like. Remember Ronald Reagan when he asked Walter Mondale to arm-wrestle? Remember the first George Bush when he told the longshoremen he’d “kicked a little ass” in his debate with Geraldine Ferraro? John Kerry in the brush shooting small birds? Arnold Schwarzenegger ridiculing “girlie men”? George W. in his flight gear? Rudy Giuliani cross-dressing? No, scratch that last one! Appealing to masculinity is the pandering norm. But notice that 15 out of the 16 presidential candidates are male? Notice that 2 percent of the Fortune 500 CEOs are female? Notice that Hillary was the butt of half the late-night comedy jabs at the Democratic candidates? No fair! You’ve got that old gender card up your sleeve. It’s now official. A woman can be accused of taking unfair tactical advantage of her disadvantage. Who made the rules of this game? Peter Glick, a Lawrence University psychology professor, calls this the contemporary version of sexism, if we are still allowed to use that word. Men who would never say that women don’t belong in the workplace will say, “Women want it both ways. They want to be treated like a man but they can’t take it. They cry foul or discrimination.” The end result is that a woman moving into the power structure is expected to behave as if it’s a fair and level playing field. Any woman who cries discrimination is likely to be decried as a whiner. And women cannot whine their way to the top. So, these are the cards we’ve been dealt. “Having it both ways” is the flip side of the “double bind.” A woman can’t project herself as a strong leader and complain of mistreatment by men. Even if it’s true. Under these rules, women are often silenced. Especially from complaining about bias. We have come all this way, and the woman who wants to get to the top is the one now required to be the strong, silent type. Do you ever get the feeling that the deck is still stacked? Ellen Goodman’s e-mail address is ellengoodman(at)globe.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By Michael Shaw, November 11, 2007 at 3:04 pm #
I’d like to see the day when people can simply be themselves, despite of gender and despite of the A-Z political play book mapped out by power happy kooks like Karl Rove and Dick Morris. It is a sad day indeed when people feel they cannot be themselves, lest they will become unacceptable. This explains why the presidential debates, which used to be managed by the League of Women Voters are now controlled by the leadership of both respective party’s. Today’s debates reek of pageantry rather then substance. That’s why the Woman’s League gave them up long ago. No small wonder since podium height and the proper lighting are far more important than relevant argument.
Report thisBy nils cognizant, November 11, 2007 at 3:27 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Goodman’s overall message is that there needs to be gender equivalence and fairplay in the Democrat primaries, if not in the general campaign to come. All of Goodman’s work at insulating Hillary and her womanly race from unfairness or imbalance trips over one fact which, if ever recognized by women, will finally make them fit for leadership. Senator Clinton is asking citizens to place her in charge of the world’s most destructive nuclear arsenal, one capable of deep-frying every female in the known universe. If she is serious and up to that task, she needs to screen the B/W film “The Bedford Incident.” Everything she will conceivably face as President is there for her to see. If she’s not up to the task of killing up-close (literally) or, preferably, fighting up-close to save someone, she has no business asking to be our leader.
Report thisBy lawlessone, November 8, 2007 at 3:05 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Maybe we should demand a “macho” test for all presidential candidates. Let’s have them all kicked hard in the crotch at the end of the next debate and vote for whoever manages to stand back up first.
Report thisBy RdV, November 8, 2007 at 1:33 pm #
Another inside-the-beltway female journalist of the Katha Pollitt class of upper-middle class women who advocate for other women of their social mileau in indignant and self righteous tones.
Report thisAs a woman, Ms Goodman, you don’t speak for me, so quit the pandering and sucking up to Clinton based on her gender.. I don’t like Clinton based on the issues. I like Cindy Sheehan based on the issues—it has nothing to do with her gender. You sound like you are whining about the treatment Clinton got on late nightt comedy—but did you happen to notice the cruel depiction of Mike Gavel while your vision was so blindered? The late Molly Ivins, who spoke out against Hillary Clinton, based on the issues, speaks for this woman.
By Douglas Chalmers, November 8, 2007 at 12:37 pm #
Ellen Goodman: “Can anybody tell me what a gender card is anyway and where you buy one? After last week, I’m beginning to think that none of us is playing with a full deck….”
Its the one that wasn’t in the deck when the USA invaded Eye-Rak and went looking for Saddam…...
It is the truth though that most men still aren’t “playing with a full deck”. Sad. They are a few cents short of a dollar in some other respect too as a result.
Report thisBy G.Anderson, November 8, 2007 at 11:23 am #
Hillary, as been “selected” by her Cash donors, much as W. was selected by the supreme court.
Yes, they will allow her some of the things on her wish list. But only because she will continue the Globalist Agenda, of dismantaling the American economy, just as her husband did. Weakening oversight over corporations, as Ralp Nader so eloquently pointed out.
Go ahead focus on trivalities, it keeps you distracted, from that agenda of her backers, establishing a North American Union, in which America’s interests are subserviant to the corporations.
Report thisBy Hammo, November 8, 2007 at 10:18 am #
Some people don’t want Hillary as president for an issue that is both male and female ... they don’t wan’t Bill Clinton back in the White House.
That said, many people don’t like Hillary because of her positions, the person she seems to be, who her supporters seem to be, who is giving her money and her positions on Iraq and Iran.
And, she may very well not be electable in a general election, for some of these reasons as well as perhaps, because America is not ready for a female president.
Food for thought in the recent artice ...
“Democrats risk self-sabotage in presidential race ... again”
AmericanChronicle.com
November 5, 2007
http://americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=42271
Report this