Leonard Pitts: Sexism is still okay, why are all female politicians 'unlikeable'?

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/story/310595.html

What McCain reveals by ignoring insult
By LEONARD PITTS
Can you imagine if the Democratic front runner were Sen. Joe Lieberman and the woman said, ``So, how do we beat this Hebe?''

Here's the thing, though. I find that I can't name a single female national political figure I do like -- not respect, not agree with, but like. Oh, I can name many men who, their politics aside, strike me as likable: McCain, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, even cranky old Bob Dole. But women? Not so much. Nancy Pelosi, Janet Reno, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright . . . I cannot see myself -- we are speaking metaphorically here -- cuddling up to any of them. They all seem formidable, off-putting, cold.

Which suggests the problem here is not so much them as me. And, if I may be so bold, we. As in, we seem unable to synthesize the idea that a woman can be smart, businesslike, demanding, capable, in charge, and yet also, warm. There is a sense -- and even women buy into this -- that a woman who climbs too high in male-dominated spheres violates something fundamental to our understanding of what it means to be a woman. Indeed, that she gives up any claim upon femininity itself.

We demand certain ''feminine'' traits from women -- nurturing, caring, submission -- and the woman in whom those traits are either not present or subordinated to her drive, ambition and competence will pay a social price.

That's telling. The ostensible purpose of a campaign is to reveal the candidate. Hillary Clinton's campaign, it seems, is revealing a whole lot more.

Speak for yourself Leonard. Formidable and likable are not mutually exclusive.

and Valerie Plame all seem genuine. Although I do not know if she qualifys as a politician.

of the names he mentioned he doesn't like: Pelosi is the opposite of cold (seems quite friendly and warm-hearted to me); Reno seems like a good-ole Southern girl with an interesting background, smart sense of sardonic humor, and a drive to succeed; Rice is attractive, charming, and obviously intellectual; and Albright seems like a friendly, wise old grandma.

And Pitt says "We"(!) demand nuturing, caring, submissive women? So he wants beaten-down Christian fundamentalist wives as his womanly role models, does he (probably looking like Pam Anderson, and with her fake boobs, too).

On behalf of the majority of real men who like real women, I apologize to women for this moron, Pitt.

As for the men he mentioned, I think McCain is a mean-spirited jerk, Clinton is a snake-oil salesman pervert; and Dole is a grouchy old fart. Edwards at least seems likable.

What is wrong with this Pitt guy?

But he gets no gold stars for being honest in his misogyny. And yes, misogyny makes my blood boil more than anything I can think of.

trash her for being to tough - Kirk wasn't?
Too perfect all the time - Picard wasn't?
Killing someone deliberately - Sisko didn't?

Assets for them are negatives for her.

Many people have a hard time with women in authority positions because it takes them back to their school days - their first and formative experience with female authority.

There is a real problem with public acceptance of a powerful woman in the political sphere; I find Pitt's description worthwhile and useful.

Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are awesome. so is our female governor chris gregoire.

you want examples of likeable and formidable, there ya go.

and gregoire is going to stomp the crap out of that dipshit dino rossi in the next election as well :D

I can come up with reasons to dislike some of these people, but none of them have anything to do with gender.

Pelosi: I think she could be doing more to investigate corruption within the government, and certainly to end the war. I don't understand her obsession with not rocking the boat, especially when she has the support of the public (in majority, I'd wager).

Janet Reno: Obviously a very intelligent individual. Supervised the captures of people like the Unabomber and McVeigh. The Elian Gonzales incident could've been handled more delicately, but I (in my limited knowledge) have no major issues with her.

Madeleine Albright: Very intelligent person. Speaks seven languages. Survived very difficult times, came to the US and found great success. Pretty much what we once envisioned about our country. The first female Secretary of State and the highest ranking woman in the history of US government. She could never have been president because she was not a US native, of course. I dislike that she was supposedly gung-ho for use of military force, at least according to Powell's book.

Condoleezza Rice: You have to ask? Obviously very smart, a highly successful professional. I would go so far as to say that she's gifted. Unfortunately, she's using those gifts for the wrong causes and the wrong people. I have a hard time not seeing her as a corporate shill when she has an oil tanker named after her.

bitch (right here on DU) and I can't ever remember hearing a male politican called those things.

I've been reading stuff by him for years, so I know very well his heart's in the right place and he's eloquent about it.

It keeps coming up when people are uncomfortable with Hillary Clinton being so "ambitious." HelLO! She's running for President of the United States. That's not something that people who lack ambition generally do. "Arrogant"? Yes. Thinking you can run this massive, chaotic, frighteningly powerful country does imply that, doesn't it? But for some reason, in a woman these qualities become unforgivable flaws, rather than just being part of that "edge" we accept and admire in successful, powerful men.

When women want to cross that line and become powerful, they have to somehow PROVE that they are every bit as "manly/tough/hard/strong/decisive/ruthless/driven", as the least of any man who formerly had the job she wants..

Like it or not, women are always seen as the nurturing beings they have always been portrayed as.

To step into a "man's world", means she must somehow be LESS of a "girl" and more like a man..

The harshest bosses I EVER had were women, because they had to prove the "extra" that men never seemed to feel the need for doing.

Male bosses' main qualification was that they were a man, and therefore, deemed competent to do just about any job there was.. Women needed that little bit EXTRA just to be considered.. Once they got the job, they had to ramp it up, just to keep the job..

Times HAVE changed since the 60's and more and more women have powerful jobs, but the general public still has the double standard.

If men are workaholics, they move up the ladder and are perceived as go-getters, and doing great things for their family's future..

if a woman does the same, she's automatically suspect of short-changing her kids, satisfied with being a "bad-Mom", or she's a "ball-buster woman" out to get some poor man's job.

If she tries to balance the life, and spend time with her kids, she's looked down on at work, and often suspected of not having "it".

If she deliberately remains single and childless, in order to have the CAREER, she's looked at as either an angry woman who "can't get a man", or as a woman who doesn't WANT a man..

Women who set out to get power, have to give up the "likability" thing, and concentrate on what THEY want from the job or position..If they ever dare to seem like they want to be liked, it can be seen as a weak sign.

Male CEOs don't care who likes them. and many "successful" women have put that hat on as well..

Like someone famous once said..if you want to be liked..get a dog..

It really bugged Bo Schemb...of UMichigan.

Then, I think it was UArkansas that made lousy/lazy players wear pink jersies in practice.

I can think of a few very likeable female politicians here - I would give Estelle Morris and the late Mo Mowlam as examples. I can think of lots of horribly unlikeable male politicians. And one outstandingly unlikeable female one - Maggie Thatcher!