Women Manning Up for Political Gain
Women who seek political office must work against both the cultural and the linquistic association of political leadership qualities with the masculine. However, they must not over-sell their toughness because nobody wants a witchy out-of-control ball buster who will let her vendetta against men get in the way of her leadership responsibilities.
The Slate article, 51 Ways to Be a Woman gives a few examples of how some of today’s high-profile female candidates are creating their images with this fine line in mind. Usually, the result is some matching of traditional femininity, such as family pictures taken in the kitchen, with the use of tough language, think Christine O’Donnell telling Mike Castle to “get his man pants on,” and with accomplishments that prove big boy equality, such as the former CEO status of Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman. The goal is to design a female image that out-toughs the guys but still knows how to bake cookies too.
While I could care less about baking cookies, stories where women co-opt male language and subversively undermine male power often pleased me when I was younger. But now, I wonder how much such stories are only examples of power performed rather than power actually gained. As such, I feel deeply conflicted by what seem to be the image requirements for women who are running for office today.
I worry that perpetual focus on keeping up with and undermining the boys’ power dilutes the real strengths that women bring as leaders – strengths that would lead to a real and not just an apparent increase in influence. Telling guys to “man up” only reinforces the idea that strong ideas and strong leadership come from men and women acting like men. This idea, not the relative masculinity of a male opponent, is what needs to be undermined.
Furthermore, I bristle at the connection between “breaking through the glass ceiling” and a preparation for political office. It suggests that only women who have managed to compete within the constructs of a male constructed economy are prepared to be successful political leaders; as such it further connects successful leadership with masculine qualities and an ability to achieve male-defined power. Certainly, the skills demonstrated in a business career that capstones with CEO status are potential assets in political leadership. But “breaking through the glass ceiling” as a highlighted qualification subversively equates the potential success of women with overcoming disadvantages of womanhood. As such it reinforces a basic assumed inequality when it comes to leadership.
Now, I recognize the universal requirement that all involved in modern politics think tactically in order to forward agendas, some of which I vigorously support. Furthermore, I understand that creating an image that appeals to voters who hold a certain set of biases is necessary. Still, ideally, I wish that female accomplishments weren’t always discussed against a backdrop of overcoming an assumed misfortune of being born female; and I wish that female competence was not always tied to a demonstrated ability to outpace the boys. Good ideas and the leadership qualities necessary for political effectiveness are not solely male; and until female candidates refuse to reinforce the idea that they are, women will continue to struggle in the quest for real political influence.
