Embracing Gender: It’s Debatable

shutterstock_287370743With the presidential election now in full swing, the Ms. Blog is excited to bring you a series presented in conjunction with Presidential Gender Watch 2016, a project of the Barbara Lee Family Foundation and the Center for American Women and Politics. They’ll be tracking, analyzing and illuminating gender dynamics during election season—so check back with us regularly!

After Tuesday night’s debate, Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank posted a glowing review of Hillary Clinton’s performance with the headline “Hillary Clinton towers over her debate rivals.” But, when he tweeted out his piece, Milbank drew from a single line where he called Clinton “a man among boys.” The backlash was swift in the Twitterverse, with peers including Soledad O’Brien tweeting to her 409,000 followers: “WTF: ‘She was, in short, a man among boys. And that’s why the debate was so important to Clinton’. *SIGH*”. (O’Brien followed up on her fury with a tweet on Wednesday, noting how much that characterization “pissed her off.”)

Slate’s Amanda Marcotte cited it among the multiple reviews of Clinton that demonstrated reluctance to see a woman as a political winner. In response, Milbank took to Twitter to “surrender” on Wednesday, writing, “Ok…She was a WOman among boys.” He did not, however, revise the article’s text.

Is the frustration directed to Milbank justified? And what’s its source? This is not simply semantics. The language that we use matters, and—when it comes to gender and politics—upholding men and masculinity as the ideal perpetuates power dynamics that have long worked to women’s disadvantage.

In his choice of a single word, Milbank associates the positive characteristics he credits to Clinton—experience, composure and appearing presidential—with men instead of women. Though likely unintentional, he strips Clinton of her role as powerful woman by implying that her power was earned by becoming more like a man. Her success, in this characterization, came in adapting to a man’s world instead of disrupting its masculine bias.

This speaks to a concept outlined by scholars Georgia Duerst-Lahti and Rita Mae Kelly, who define “gender power” as “power and power dynamics resulting from the practices of people performing gender within the normative constraints gender modes impose.” In politics, they note, the balance of gender power leans toward masculinity and men. In practice, that means that acting “like a man” is the most direct path toward earning political power and, relatedly, that holding power—whether the holder is a man or woman—is described in masculine terms.

But it’s not just Milbank whose post-debate commentary has raised questions about our comfort with attributing political power to women and, more importantly, the distinct experiences and attributes that being a woman may bring to political leadership. While some celebrated Clinton’s willingness to talk about the benefits of being a woman candidate, others, including moderator Anderson Cooper, expressed skepticism that her gender identity was a distinct asset to her leadership. Together with those who argued that Clinton overplayed her “gender card,” these reactions demonstrate our discomfort with presuming any gender difference.

We flinch at the idea that Clinton is expecting us to vote for her because she is a woman, resolutely stating that we vote on merits not chromosomes. The reality, however, is that the assumption of gender difference has long worked to men’s advantage. Women’s early exclusion from and continued underrepresentation in politics is rooted in perceptions that men are better suited than women to serve, assumed to have the traits and expertise we associate most with political leadership and are less likely to associate with women (just ask T.I.). While men may rarely say out loud that being a man is among their top political attributes, their display of masculinity—whether by touting traits like toughness and strength, appearing as the patriarch alongside wives and kids, or simply putting on a suit—cues a gender power advantage in the political sphere.

As she did on Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton has frequently assured voters, “I’m not asking people to vote for me simply because I’m a woman. I’m asking people to vote for me on the merits.” However, she adds, “I think one of the merits is I am a woman,” embracing her gender in a way she did not in 2008. Embracing gender as an—not the only—attribute for political leadership is evident in every moment that a male candidate touts his masculinity or discusses his experience as a man in American society, whether as a son, father or even soldier. By disavowing women’s ability to do the same, we disregard the reality that politics, just as society, is not gender neutral.

Sure, we can criticize Clinton’s argument that her gender somehow erases her insider status, as that characterization ignores that gender is only part of any candidate’s story. But arguing that gender identity means nothing to how candidates experience or perceive the world—or how others perceive them—seems equally problematic, especially for those who seek to shift gender power dynamics in American politics.

The “merit” of gender, as Clinton describes it, is not rooted in a biological determinism, but in how it shapes our lived realities. Electing politicians who represent diverse realities and experiences—gender or otherwise—can push the boundaries on the “normative constraints” that political institutions have so often imposed on women and men. Maybe then we will be less quick to celebrate women for meeting male standards of success—for standing out as the “man among boys”—and instead redefine those standards to favor inclusivity and diversity over the status quo.

Get Ms. in your inbox! Click here to sign up for the Ms. magazine newsletter.

Photo via Shutterstock

BSqsl3Bg

Kelly Dittmar is an assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University and a scholar at the Center for American Women in Politics. Find her on Twitter @kdittmar

    .

    Comments

    1. I agree with the underlying premise of the article, but I disagree with insincere statement that Clinton (and Democrats in general) don’t expect us to vote for her because she is a woman. If she gets the nomination, the media will pounce on articles, op-eds, and other blogs about “what it means to our daughters, sisters, and the next generation to have a woman president?” or “How do we explain to our daughters why Hillary lost?” (as there were TONS of these articles about President Obama).

      While the Clinton camp is paying lip service about experience, talent, and positions, there can be no serious doubt that a sophisticated political insider like Clinton knows that people vote superficially as well. She is a woman and there will be a narrative will be about “women’s issues” (whatever those are). The trick is not having Clinton herself say it, but rather have her agents, media, and pundits do it for her.

      A corollary to this argument that Clinton herself is latching onto is potentially bringing on mayor Julian Castro as a potential VP. For a camp to claim that experience is key, to seriously talk (and possibly actually) bring on someone with 0 federal experience but is a young, hip Hispanic belies claims that the Clinton campaign isn’t politically savvy or that experience should be key. No. Clinton would love to create a dichotomy with herself and at the same time tap into a youth, Hispanic vote (that went to Obama in 2008 primaries).

      Overall, good premise, but let’s be honest that there will be a narrative (and presently there is one) that women need to vote for Hillary because she is a woman. This same narrative follows any gender, ethnicity, or youth politician in any campaign across the country. Politics is politics and Hillary knows the game.

    2. I’m a lifelong feminist since I ws 14 & discovered Ms. in the mid-1970s and I certainly hope to see a woman as president in my lifetime (and a LOT MORE WOMEN AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT). Beyond identity, I hope actual POLICIES that candidates push is part of who we choose who we vote for. I DON’T AGREE with way too many of Hillary Clinton’s POLICIES of the last 25 YEARS. The Clintons claimed to be (and acted as) a POLITICAL TEAM: they PUSHED the hideous policies that BUILT the current prison-industrial complex with their “tough on crime”/War On Drugs policies from “3 STRIKES & YOU’RE OUT” to ADDING almost 50 MORE crimes eligible for the Death Penalty & NARROWED APPEALS for people on Death Row. The Clintons began the UNRAVELING of the social safety net with “welfare reform”, with Hillary saying, “The liberals will scream but we have to pass welfare reform to get Bill re-elected.” TO THIS DAY Hillary uses her (past) connection to the CHILDREN’S DEFENSE FUND in almost every speech she makes. But the CDF PLEADED with the Clintons to NOT pass “welfare reform”saying how it would throw the MOST VULNERABLE FAMILIES itno DEEPER PVERTY (& all their dire predictions came true). BOTH Clintons PUSHED “free trade” deals: NAFTA In the 1990s CLOSED 60,000 U.S> factories & EXPORTED A MILLION JOBS (especially hurting union jobs that created much of the new Black middle-class). One might say there was no way to know when NAFTA passed how bad it would be–but, NOW WE KNOW—yet, AS SEC. OF STATE, Hillary PUSHED FOR Trans-Pacific Partnership & spoke IN FAVOR OF it 45 TIMES (her recent “reversal” is obviously POLITICAL CALCULATION due to Bernie Sanders’ opposition & that EVERYDAY PEOPLE whoknow anything about TPP HATE IT). Finally, Hillary not only voted FOR invading Iraq—as Sec. of State she PUSHED FOR INVADING LIBYA. Result? Civil war, MORE terrorist groups, & civilian misery.
      I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON—-NO MATTER WHO THE GOP NOMINATES.
      I’m sick of the VOTE FORM FEAR Game: the so-called “New Democrats” ushered in mby Bill & Hillary Clinton in the late 1980s are REPUBLICAN LITE who SERVE CORPORATIONS, BIG BANKS, WALL STREET (ALL of whom are Hillary’s campaign contributers).—and ENDLESS WAR—which is what HIllary Clinton stands for.
      HAVE TO VOTE FOR A WOMAN? vOTE FOR AN ACTUAL Progressive woman: DR. JILL STEIN of the GREEN PARTY http://www.jillstein.org

    Speak Your Mind

    *

    Error, no Ad ID set! Check your syntax!