Grossly Stereotyping Female Leaders Does Not Count As Political Discourse

I thought to post this after reading this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7363742

http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/grossly-stereotyping-female-leaders-does-not-count-as-political-discourse/

Grossly Stereotyping Female Leaders Does Not Count As Political Discourse
posted by: Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux

This has been quite a week for the Washington Post. First there was yet another pointless and divisive article about generational differences between younger and older women (which Jessica Valenti, Jillian Hewitt and I all responded to), and then this came out - a breakdown of the "leadership styles" for successful female politicians.

Excuse me? The article is just a sorry excuse for trotting out a lot of tired stereotypes. Even the first line is problematic - saying that there are certain "kinds" of men who run for political office would never fly in a major newspaper, because it's so laughably untrue. But the stereotypes for women actually illuminate a lot of the problems with how women are perceived in politics generally, even though I'm sure the WaPo did not mean for this article to be a biting satire.

For your consideration: the five "types": the "Iron Lady," the "Young Mom," the "Grandmother in Pearls," the "Prosecutor," and the "Businesswoman." Hillary Clinton, of course, is perceived as the modern archetype of the first (Margaret Thatcher "invented" the role): "a tough, tested woman who...persuades voters to set aside historic suspicions that women are weak executives." Well, suggesting that only "iron ladies" can be strong executives certainly adds to the perception that most women can't lead, doesn't it?

But it gets worse: the WaPo writes that Sarah Palin sent off "shockwaves" when she brought her entire family onto the stage at the Republican National Convention - although the authors of this article seem unconvinced that this model can, in fact, work for people who aren't Sarah. And if they do, the fact that they're mothers has to color everything that they do - as the quote from Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz disturbingly proves. “Everything I do is through the lens of being my children’s mom,” Wasserman Schultz said, when accused of being "frazzled."

..more..

Madonna/whore options. Just another attempt at injecting divisiveness among women. The churches already serve that role.

me want to throw up.

We still associate women leaders with being supervised nearly entirely by women when we are kids - our mother, our teachers. We feel it belittles us as we associate it with being little kids.

You can't get a break with that guy.

Bryant

weird issues. How do they put up with it?

MSNBC was the real criminal on this. Mike Barnicle wasn't any better. His describing Clinton as "sounding like your first wife in divorce court" was disgusting.

No one - certainly not Matthews - called McCain "Captain Queeg" even though it is apt on several levels. But Matthews called Clinton "Madame DeFarge," "Lady MacBeth," and referred to "Fatal Attraction," etc.

(I wonder if he lets his wife talk, he sure doesn't let his guests get a word in.

EVERYONE gets categorized, judged, labeled, stereotyped, etc, and yes it SUCKS.
Thats life so get over it and quit acting like victims.

But as long as stereotypes stand in the way of having good women in leadership positions they need to be discussed.

If he is incapable of discussing that, his stink bombs aren't welcome.

Quelle surprise. :eyes: I'll "get over it" when they stop trying to poke their nose into my reproductive system.

that is a real issue of inequality.

:eyes:

which happens to be true about McCain.
Politics is dirty and why does anyone want to censor political language?

runs the world, or haven't you noticed?

"Let's boogie."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

if we don't pay attention to language and stereotypes we enable ignorance.
The way we evolve towards equality and justice is through self examination.
Language is key.

I don't think humans are anywhere near evolved enough and censorship isn't the answer.
We are passing a health care bill that is not equal to women.
I think stopping such a bill is more important than political language.

the learning process seems terribly slow, but we don't learn at all if we don't take the time to examine our preconceptions and language.

And yes, as a male I am aware that there are plenty of male stereotypes also.
I'm for thoughtfully addressing them all.

Perhaps if you were not male you would place more importance on political language that affects women. Instead, you come here to dismiss any concerns or discussion, tell women who it DOES affect to "get over it."

:evilfrown:

or the wrong board. :thumbsdown:

Although any politician needs to have a thick skin, women politicians are subjected to some attacks that men just aren't, notably the "How can she take care of her children?" crap: a naked and shameful implication that women belong at home, not in politics.

been mostly male dominated for millennia.

If they weren't judged differently, it would not have caused an uproar when a Senator requested that a General call her by her title, not his colloquialism.

if one believes in equality, then one must look at what that means. Equality is more than someone waving a magic wand, passing a law somewhere.
It's also in the way we conduct our lives and treat each other, how we speak to each other, our frames and language.

it requires conscious behavior.

Your last line reminds me of the Buddhist way.

and the anti-woman, anti-feminist, misogynistic antics continue.

:thumbsdown:


If it's appropriate to treat the GLBT community with kid gloves and extra protections, why is that policy not extended to women and feminists and other non-bigots on the board? Or the African American community. Or the spiritual community?

Just imagine this type of candidate: For 40 years John Fallow lived as a man. He married a wonderful woman named Susan and together they have three wonderful, beautiful intelligent children. After running a successful business and deciding to retire early at the age of 35, John decided to become an ordained minister and eventually his church grew to encompass roughly 100 active members. Five years later, John had made a tough decision... something had been haunting him since he was a child. He came forward and told his wife, and then his congregation that he was living a lie, and that he intended to transition from male to female; becoming Johanna Fallows. Although it was shocking to everyone at first, eventually everyone embraced Johanna; including his wife who admitted that she was bi-sexual. As a result, Johanna and Susan remain deeply and passionately committed to each other and decided to continue their marriage and raise their children together.

Encompass all of the above... and to add spice to it, Johanna is black and Susan is hispanic!


Haha... I'd love to see such a candidate run for office. If for no other reason than to watch heads explode as they desperately search for stereotypes that fit. Would the Cosmos ever be that kind to me?

If that fails, just give me a witty Drag Queen (Rudy Giuliani doesn't count!) for Governor of a major state or for President. "I don't fit into your boxes, honey! Sashay your stereotypes away from me!" :P