Presidential Spouses: A Conversation Worth Having…But Not at the Democratic Debate

Presidential Spouses: A Conversation Worth Having…But Not at the Democratic Debate

. . . . .

Is it time to change the role of a president’s spouse? When Martha Raddatz posed this question at Saturday’s debate, the reactions were swift and the ridicule real. Not only was this question viewed by many debate-watchers as irrelevant to the substantive issues facing the nation, but many critics pointed to the particularly gendered way in which the question was posed.

Amanda Terkel called Raddatz’s question “awful,” April Siese referred to it as a “major letdown,” and Rebecca Traister wrote, “The degree to which this question sucked is hard to describe.” Many more commentators and critics emerged in the Twittersphere, expressing frustration with the focus on first ladies (or gentleman). The frustration is justified in part due to the significant opportunity cost of asking this question. Critics noted that the moderators underemphasized or overlooked issues such as systemic racism, climate change and reproductive rights, while spending time on spousal influence. And, of course, posing this question first to the only female candidate in the race demonstrated the gender bias inherent in our expectations for the presidential partnership: if a woman wins the White House, how could a man possibly fulfill the feminine duties expected of first spouses?

These criticisms, however, do not negate the potential value of Raddatz’s original question, one that was quickly undermined by both Clinton’s answer and David Muir’s gender-biased follow-ups to the men on stage. Disrupting the role of a president’s spouse—or, more accurately, gender expectations of that role—is directly related to disrupting the dominance of masculinity in perceptions of the presidency itself. While Raddatz emphasized the ceremonial roles that first ladies have played to date—choosing flowers and china among them—first ladies also play a less overt role of helping their husbands meet the gender-stereotypical demands of executive office. As Dr. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell wrote two decades ago, the U.S. presidency has long been a two-person career, where an “appropriately feminine first lady is needed to complement her chief executive husband and serve as a testament to his masculinity.” A female spouse reflects the masculine credentials of her male spouse—strength, independence and heroism—and positions him as the patriarch and protector of both his family and the nation.

As Drs. Shawn and Trevor Parry-Giles argue, the masculinization of the presidency casts women in the role of supporter rather than active participant, which is why the idea of women disrupting that role has generated such significant backlash. Recall New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd’s criticism of Michelle Obama for emasculating her presidential spouse by citing his weaknesses and faults on the campaign trail, or the ever-present reminders of Hillary Clinton’s discomfort in a supporting role—whether rejecting the idea that she should simply have “stayed home and baked cookies and had teas” or would “stand by her man like Tammy Wynette.” When women have rejected the responsibility of reflecting the masculinity of their male spouse, they have not only challenged gender expectations of their role, but have also, according to critics, created doubts about their husbands’ power and dominance.

. . . .

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2015/12/22/presidential-spouses-a-conversation-worth-havingbut-not-at-the-democratic-debate/