|
|
June 18, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Why Obama Owes WomenPosted on Feb 21, 2008BOSTON—On Tuesday, I got a sarcastic e-mail from a Hillary supporter. She forwarded a crack made by Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s media man, about Obama. “Senator Clinton,” he scoffed, “is not running on the strength of her rhetoric.” To which my friend added: “Unfortunately.” By evening, the Wisconsin blowout was serious enough that the posters in last-chance Ohio read: “We’ve Got Your Back Hillary.” Clinton’s speech sounded ominously shopworn: “One of us is ready to be commander in chief. ... One of us has faced serious Republican opposition in the past.” Indeed, her case for substance over style, for work over words, sounded worse when it was echoed that night by John McCain: “I will ... make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change.” These are disheartening days for Hillary supporters. Not just because of the string of losses but because of the kind of loss. This was nothing if not a careful campaign. Neither the strategists nor the candidate had illusions about the hurdles that would face the first woman president in American history. They knew women have to prove and prove again their toughness. They knew women have to prove and prove again their experience. Advertisement Something else happened along the way. If Hillary Clinton was the tough guy in the race, Barack Obama became the Oprah candidate. He was the quality circle man, the uniter-not-divider, the person who believes we can talk to anyone, even our enemies. He finely honed a language usually associated with women’s voices. Does this transmutation resonate with women who have tried to become CEOs of lesser enterprises than America Inc.? Women of Hillary’s generation were taught to don power suits and use their shoulder pads to push open corporate doors. In the 1970s, the lessons on making it in a man’s world were essentially primers on how to behave like men. As University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee political scientist Kathleen Dolan says, “They had to figure out a way to go undercover. They could only be taken seriously if they filled the male model with XX chromosomes.” But the next generation of advice books urged women to do it their own way. The old stereotypes that defined women as more compassionate and collaborative were given a positive spin. They were framed and praised as women’s ways of leading. Today’s shelves are still full of titles—from “Seducing the Boys Club” to “The Girl’s Guide to Being a Boss (Without Being a Bitch)” to “Enlightened Power”—that tell us to act like a man or act like a woman. But in many ways, the transformative, inspirational, collaborative “female” style has become more attractive. Especially to a younger generation. And—here’s the rub—especially when it is modeled by a man. Dolan sees Obama as “the embodiment of the gentle, collaborative style without threatening his masculine side.” But she adds, “He’s being more feminine than she can be. She is in a much tighter box.” This too is a bit like what’s happened in business. Whatever advice they follow, women are still only 3 percent of the CEOs in Fortune 500 companies. Meanwhile, it’s become more acceptable for a man to take an afternoon off to watch his kids play ball than for a woman. Ilene Lang heads Catalyst, which surveyed more than 1,200 senior executives in the United States and Europe. This research calculated the tenacity of double binds and double standards. It showed how hard it still is for a woman to be seen as both competent and likable. And it led her to the conclusion that “What defines leadership to most people is one thing. It’s male.” As for the Obama style? “Both men and women are much more likely to accept a collaborative style of leadership from men than from women. From women it seems too soft,” she adds ruefully. Hillary was quite right that she needed to be seen as the experienced, competent, commander in chief. Obama was quite right about the country’s desire to reach across boundaries and beyond divisiveness. We have ended up in a lopsided era of change. After all, how many of us wanted to see male leaders transformed from cowboys to conciliators? Now we see a woman running as the fighter and a man modeling a “woman’s way” of leading. We see a younger generation in particular inspired by ideas nurtured by women, as long as they are delivered in a baritone. So, has the women’s movement made life easier? For another man? Ellen Goodman’s e-mail address is ellengoodman(at)globe.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group  TAGS:
|
Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Ex-Employees Say
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Jack Huntingdon, March 21, 2008 at 10:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“Dolan sees Obama as the embodiment of the gentle, collaborative style without threatening his masculine side. But she adds, Hes being more feminine than she can be. She is in a much tighter box.”
I love this. He’s even better at being feminine than she is. Wow, he so good at EVERYTHING. My hero!
That’s a fainting sound you hear.
Report thisBy magouche, February 29, 2008 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Thanks for the excerpt and your summation. Well put!
Report thisBy Monte Asbury, February 28, 2008 at 2:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Germaine to this discussion is recent article in Newsweek: Obama: First Female President?. Here’s an excerpt:
The examples given there are thought-provoking. I would add that these are more characteristics of post-modernism than of femininity. Obama is the first candidate to work from a post-modern outlook - hence, the exuberance of the young and the puzzlement of the older voter.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, February 28, 2008 at 4:11 am Link to this comment
Huh? Ha ha…....
Report thisBy magouche, February 27, 2008 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment
Felicity:
I cannot agree that “her sex is beside the point”. Not in a race of “firsts”: a woman and a black man. This is not business as usual. And race and sex in many ways ARE or have become the point, albeit from many different perspectives.
I have long admired HRC and I do believe that if women ruled the world, there would be peace, or at least, less war.
As a pacifist, I cannot support anyone voting for war especially one entered into on false premises. As a woman pacifist, I find it disturbing that another woman has voted for war.
Still, mistakes can be made, and I would have been so much more impressed with HRC if she simply had admitted fully, at the start, that she made a big mistake and regrets it. However, I read somewhere that she would see that as “public humiliation” which, apparently, she does not handle well.
I know it is very hard for women to get to the top leading positions. We often have to work twice as hard. But becoming “a hawk” as you said, and then crying one day, promoting yourself as a “fighter” repeatedly, the next and in the process displaying behaviors like: being shrill, petty, pushy, and at times hysterical, in more ways than one, is not the way to go about it. It isn’t “fun” and unfortunately provides the stereotypes which men love to criticize and fault in women.
Part of being a good leader is surrounding yourself with the best advisers and she has not as evidenced by mishandled campaign strategies and finances and the often inappropriate comments of her husband. The unwillingness to disclose financial and other records and the frequently offered “time out for six months” “solutions” to problems, does not show me a person who will be a good manager/leader and ready on day one. And from a woman I had expected better.
Report thisBy barbarella, February 26, 2008 at 1:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
quote from Douglas Chalmers, February 21 at 12:47 am
“It will no longer be a chance for women unless they are young, glamorous and have big tits. You know what that era was like in the USA, uhh.”
“Women are going to work a lot harder at making equality happen conclusively. Hillary is doing her best. Why is she not getting more support. After all, this IS change!”
Douglas Chalmers, I am young and have big tits. Why don’t you like me? Just because Hillary hasn’t scouted-out Bill C’s penis for fifteen years is no reason to resent those of us who are not bitter, crusted warmongers. Shame on you, Douglas Chalmers!
Report thisBy Maani, February 24, 2008 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment
Paracelsus:
Every candidate (and some of their advisors) is affiliated with one or more of the “big five” NWO groups. So if that were the only thing of import here, then we might as well all stay home on election day.
Peace.
Report thisBy Maani, February 24, 2008 at 9:42 am Link to this comment
Hettie:
Nicely put. Brava.
I would add:
With his acceptance of as much business and industry money as Hillary, Obama represents the politics of yesterday (at least as much as Hillary).
With his reliance on many advisors who CLEARLY represents the politics of yesterday, Obama represents the politics of yesterday (at least as much as Hillary).
With his capitulation to Exelon over his own constituents, and his later acceptance of hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Exelon, Obama represents the politics of yesterday.
Re his alignment with the three oldest members of the Kennedy family - while the three younger members support Hillary - Obama represents the politics of yesterday.
With his cynical manipulation of people via campaign rhetoric that he knows has as much (or as little) chance of being implemented as policy as the non-rhetorical substance that Hillary has provided consistently, Obama represents the politics of yesterday.
I could probably think of more, but I’m too annoyed at the moment…LOL.
Peace.
Report thisBy Maani, February 24, 2008 at 9:12 am Link to this comment
Kath:
Nicely put.
Peace.
Report thisBy hettie, February 23, 2008 at 3:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillary stands for the poitics of yesterday? Yesterday where women still make only 70 cents for every dollar a man makes for equal work? Yesterday where women are still the primary caretakers of children and their aging parents? Yesterday where a woman is demeaned on TV and in movies as nothing better than a sex toy? That politics of yesterday? If you ask me with his condescending and rude ways Obama represents “yesterday.” With his ties to the Daley family in Chicago Obama represents yesterday. With his patron Rezko who has been with him since colllege Obama represents yesterday. With his backer Oprah who used to represents women’s issues on her show but now just showcases products and food we should all buy Obama so represents yesterday. With his pandering to the press and their love affair with him Obama so represents the recent past of George Bush.
Report thisBy Paracelsus, February 22, 2008 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment
Doesn’t her affiliation with the Bilderbergers have any weight with you?
Report thisBy jeronimo, February 22, 2008 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Yes Obama is the great unifier. He’d shown that talent while serving as Illinois State Senator by voting “Present” 133 on the Senate floor.
Report thisBy Aegrus, February 22, 2008 at 6:49 am Link to this comment
And here I thought I was a sick freak…
The institution of Marriage can burn, by the way. It’s a vestigial practice. My manly man fingers will never don wedding bands, and my children will know Odin before they know anything about Christ.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, February 22, 2008 at 3:15 am Link to this comment
By Monte Asbury, February 21: “In today’s news…. Obama’s record is his own…”
A quote from today’s news (Yahoo), MA - “Is Obama’s media affair ending?”:-
In an article headlined “The Obama Delusion,” Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson said the senator “seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story.”
“The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation’s major problems when, so far, he isn’t.”........
“But as it gets closer to the nomination, there is going to be more scrutiny of him. Reporters are going to examine his statements, his votes and his background,” he told AFP.
Some Obama supporters fret already that his campaign has the trappings of a messianic cult, as thousands upon thousands pack auditoriums to bask in his uplifting oratory.
“Obamaphilia has gotten creepy,” Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein wrote. “The best we Obamaphiles can do is to refrain from embarrassing ourselves.”...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080221/ts_alt_afp/usvoteobamamedia;_ylt=Ak87FxKLgqEZEBuZQzIMTYes0NUE
Pity that felicity, February 21 and Angry African still imagine that I am “for” Hillary alone. I have repeatedly said in the past that a combined Clinton/Obama ticket is a sure road to success and good governance and the survival of the Democrats.
That has become less and less likely in all respects now as a result of the intransigent and one-eyed either/or attitudes of the The Ring’s supporters who can’t see that they and Obama thus stand for the politics of yesterday.
It is equally obvious that ageism and sexism do play a part in your not wanting to vote for Hillary, whether you admit it or not. She is, after all, a Democrats’ candidate, not from some opposing party, uhh.
Report thisBy Joe, February 22, 2008 at 1:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
the author states:
“We see a younger generation in particular inspired by ideas nurtured by women, as long as they are delivered in a baritone.”
If “ideas nurtured by women” is a reference to Hillary, war against Iraq and now Iran (her recent vote six weeks ago) have become the feminist norm? Probably 1.5 million dead and 15 million wounded Iraqis in the Hillary-supported occupation, and this woman has the nerve to show her face on television?
Report thisBy Expat, February 21, 2008 at 11:52 pm Link to this comment
I really like the way you stated that….agreed.
Report thisBy Paracelsus, February 21, 2008 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment
Someday genetic engineering will reach a point where they will perfect hermaphrodites. These humans are self- fertilizing and fully fertile in both male and female organs. Right now the gender wars may be stoked into a firey morass, where marriage as family intitution will become quite rare. In many ways this is a culturally created problem, and as it is a problem created, there will be a solution created. The new humanity will possess genitalia resembling that of a female hyeina. There are will be certain problems with this as it will make masturbation among adolescents a dangerous activity from the risk of accidental self fertilization. But there will be advantages as space travel to distant realms will be simplified without the hazards of competitive drives in monosexually differentiated. It will be a brave noble future indeed.
Report thisBy GrammaConcept, February 21, 2008 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment
The Soul has no sex….(!)
The Work ahead for all humanity is increasingly clear:
...Redeem…..Metamorphose….Transform…
It is Time
to identify our Ideals,
roll up our proverbial sleeves, and
start sweeping…
all together now…..
And, oh yes,
Report thislet’s get together and make a really big broom
for the dragon of negativity…
Shall we?
By felicity, February 21, 2008 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment
Douglas: The movement into Obama’s camp is based on not what Obama is but what he isn’t. The majority of us have had it with the ‘is’ - dumping Biden, Richardson and Dodd are cases in point. Hillary has chosen to represent and campaign on the ‘is’. Bad move.
Rather tragic that she has spent her time in the Senate laboring to establish her ‘hawk’ credentials only to have us fault her for them. Her sex is really beside the point.
Report thisBy Monte Asbury, February 21, 2008 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
In today’s news, Hillary was quoted as saying, “I watched my husband. I know . . .”
Dare we admit that Hillary’s name recognition comes largely from the tie to her husband? Would she ever have become a senator from New York without it? Would New Yorkers have ever heard her name?
Obama’s record is his own. Hillary’s, to a significant degree, is a story of privileged access by right of marriage.
“I watched my husband . . .” is not a credential, nor should it be. There are women out there whose rise is entirely their own. They are still rare - but would that one of them were the candidate.
Report thisBy Angry African, February 21, 2008 at 11:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Douglas, maybe Hillary should look at herself and ask whether it is because people do not want to vote for her because of what she stands for. And not because she is a woman. You might think it is empty spin, but you thereby imply that people are stupid because it is obvious to you that Hillary is the right person, and anyone who doesn’t agree simply doesn’t know what they are talking about. I don’t think people are stupid. I think people are sick and tired of being treated as stupid. Sick and tired of being told the same old story election after election. They don’t want to vote for Hillary because they believe she stands for the politics of yesterday. A proven failure. Obama shows them a future. Maybe not in the detail you want. But they know they have a chance with Obama, and no chance with any of the alternatives.
I can’t vote as I am not a US citizen. don’t worry, I am here legaly. But having been to many elections in many other countries (developed and developing) I can see why people believe in Obama and not in Hillary. And it is not because they are stupid.
Report thisBy Aegrus, February 21, 2008 at 9:21 am Link to this comment
It is becoming increasingly offensive how today’s feminist desires to transcend their once-perceived gender roles while condemning men for behaving “feminine.” You can’t have it both ways. All of society is in a transition period in this new millennium.
What needs to be stated in response to this article is how gender roles are no longer clean-cut. Men are now more commonly seen as the kitchen-jockey, and fewer women even know how to boil water. It’s more commonly perceived as sophisticated for men to be sensitive and understanding. Contrarily, women are more commonly viewed as dominant and successful.
Are these perceptions universal? Not at all. Nor are they accurate. It is rude, however, to get angry at men for succeeding. Everyone has their own obstacles to overcome. It is unfortunate women still aren’t “equal” in career and business, but that just means you have to continue the fight harder and smarter.
The major disadvantage with feminine success has to do with their ability to adapt quickly. It didn’t really take long for men to figure out how to manipulate themselves to the sensitive, charing figure in order to win, but it seems to take much longer for women to find a way to fall in line in an ever-changing society that is increasingly confused as to what race and gender mean in relation to all aspects of life.
Maybe I’m just an ignorant little man, but this is the most honest way I can describe our current situation in America.
Report thisBy G.Anderson, February 21, 2008 at 8:18 am Link to this comment
There is another interpretation of all of this that I believe is much closer to the truth.
In the U.K., they are called the “Nigella Generation” after Nigelea Lawson, a chef famous for making in home receipes. They are women who aren’t interested in being CEO’s, or even really entering the work force. They are women who want to stay home with children and raise families with their husbands.
The have taken a look at what working for a living has to offer women and they have decided on different goals and values.
I suggest the same thing is happening here, a generation of men and women who have no stake in feminsim, indeed who see it in a different light.
In the United states the fastest growing Demographic is young men and women who have decided not to have children or to marry -ever. Why is this?
Maybe it’s becaues the culture wars here in the US, have left them bruised and battered re evaluating the previous generations views of things.
If this Demographic trend continues it will be fundamentalist Christians and Roman Catholics who will make up the majority of the elctorate, because they are the ones having families.
Hillary’s defeat may simply mean a backlash against feminism and it’s idealogy. An ideology that a significant number of Americans’ blame for the destruction of the American family.
Report thisBy kath cantarella, February 21, 2008 at 4:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
i cite Jesus Christ, the Buddha, etc.
The archtypal strong but masculine female is often also highly regarded, posthumously, after being burnt at the stake.
In my life i’ve found those decriptives, ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ to be inaccurate, obstructive and deforming to both men and women. All of us (when we don’t artificially develop the traditional traits through social conditioning) overlap the two gender adjectives widely. And we have the richest and most interesting characters, IMO, when we are being ourselves… let’s ditch the unnecessarily limiting mindset that created the words in question.
I really wish HRC had not made that vote on the Iraq War. I wish she wasn’t so buddy-buddy with the Shrub. But something still bugs me about Mr Obama: his noble anti-war speech notwithstanding, would he actually have voted ‘no’ or would he have voted ‘present’? Why does he keep voting ‘present’ on important issues? We want him to be better than that. Even if he’s just doing that as an election strategy, it is deeply dishonest. Show voters what they are voting for, by showing them what you are voting for.
Pull up your socks, Barack!
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, February 21, 2008 at 1:47 am Link to this comment
Ilene Lang - Catalyst: ”...the tenacity of double binds and double standards….. how hard it still is for a woman to be seen as both competent and likable…”
Yes, it may be for most sadly that “What defines leadership to most people is one thing. It’s male.” The USA is still living in the past in more ways than one.
But the problem is not “the Obama style”, though. It is in its success as a marketed product with an image and a jingle - and something supposedly ‘new’.
Thus the idea of “change” is sold to you as so much ‘loose change’ - or as a ready-made dinner. You don’t have to think, just open the package…...
But, Ellen Goodman, if you believe that “Both men and women are much more likely to accept….. leadership from men than from women. From women it seems too soft…”, then what does the future hold?
It will no longer be a chance for women unless they are young, glamorous and have big tits. You know what that era was like in the USA, uhh.
Women are going to work a lot harder at making equality happen conclusively. Hillary is doing her best. Why is she not getting more support. After all, this IS change!
Report this