Hillary and the Feminine Gaze, Up Close and Personal
Let’s imagine this book’s concept—30 well-known women writers talk about how they “feel” about Hillary Clinton—applied to 30 male writers and a male presidential candidate. Adjusting for gender, the essay titles would now read: “Barack’s Underpants,” “Elect Brother Frigidaire,” “Mephistopheles for President,” “The Road to Codpiece-Gate,” and so on. Inside, we would find ruminations on the male candidate’s doggy looks and flabby pectorals; musings on such “revealing” traits as the candidate’s lack of interest in backyard grilling, industrial arts and pets; and mocking remarks about his lack of popularity with the cool boys on the playground (i.e., the writers and their “friends”). We would hear a great deal of speculation about whether the candidate was really manly or just “faking it.” We would hear a great deal about how the candidate made them feel about themselves as men and whether they could see their manhood reflected in the politician’s testosterone displays. … And we would hear virtually nothing about the candidate’s stand on political issues...
...THE VERY PREMISE of Thirty Ways invites us to disparage Hillary Clinton as a political candidate and induct her instead into a reality show pageant. More often than not, the contributors take the bait, passing judgment on Clinton’s femininity (“unnatural” and “contrived”), looks (“passably attractive”) and sensuality (“it is difficult for me to imagine her in an embrace, motherly or otherwise,” Susanna Moore writes). Reading through these pages, I wished for a companion volume, Thirty Ways of Looking at Women Looking at Hillary, which answered this question: Why do so many of these women writers—who have shown themselves to be graceful essayists and well-reasoned analysts in other contexts—resort to unfactual and illogical thinking and, in many cases, downright 13-year-old cattiness when the topic is Hillary?
...For all the hosannas over young women advancing in competitive sports or Katie Couric snagging the CBS News anchor slot, we continue to have no tradition and no real image of public female authority. As Ms. Bennetts observes in her essay, “A woman can become Speaker of the House, but Nancy Pelosi has to cloak her authority in gender mufti by describing her ability to order congressmen around as using her ‘mother-of-five voice.’ A female can’t just be strong and forceful and direct in her decision making; she has to revert to being a mom, which we all know is her primary role anyway.”
This masquerade induces suspicion and mistrust, particularly in female observers. Does Hillary really just want power and is only pretending to be driven by maternal instinct? If she really is “just a mom,” why would she be chasing the presidency? For all the tributes, mothers are just not powerful in this country, and women know it. Ms. Kramer notes in Thirty Ways: “It has been said ad nauseam that motherhood could be considered the most demanding form of leadership, calling for skills in salesmanship and negotiation and persuasion that are arguably beyond most of the backroom boys in Washington. The problem is that this is invariably said with condescension.” And said, by the daughters, with eye-rolling contempt. Recalling Hillary’s speech about protecting citizen privacy, in which the candidate jokingly referred to the lack of her own, Dahlia Lithwick concludes: “I have had no privacy but I will fight to protect yours. Oy. Who else but a mother could say such a thing?”
...
by Susan Faludi
http://www.observer.com/2008/hillary-and-feminine-gaze-close-and-personal
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
