Solidarity among women--as reflected in common supporters of Clinton and Gillibrand

Read Nicholas Confessore's story in today's NYT, "Old Clinton Hands Line up Behind Gillibrand." It reports that many Hillary Rodham Clinton staffers and supporters are now working with or for Kirsten Gillibrand, who was appointed to fill the U.S. Senate vacancy for New York after Clinton resigned to become Secretary of State.

The story features this quote from Karen Finney, who was a deputy press secretary for HRC in the White House and who is now an advisor to Ms. Gillibrand: “Kirsten has inspired the band to get back together ... It’s nice to be working for another great woman from New York.”

Here's an excerpt from deeper in the story, amidst many examples of women supporting Gillibrand:

Ms. Gillibrand’s back-to-back campaigns will also provide an outlet to the energies and enthusiasms of Mrs. Clinton’s ardent grass-roots supporters, especially in feminist circles.

One member of Ms. Gillibrand’s kitchen cabinet, for example, is Ann Lewis, a longtime Clinton confidante and a senior adviser on the presidential campaign. Ms. Lewis recently launched NoLimits.org, a Web site and blog, to allow Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to network and stay in touch.

One Clinton supporter who spoke on the condition of anonymity said:

Hard-core Hillary supporters are fully expecting her to run again in 2016 ... That is one reality. Kirsten is a more local reality. But for folks in New York, she gives them a focus.

So What Exactly are the Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates?

Warm, gentle, kind and passive versus aggressive, tough, and assertive.....which are the women stereotypes and which are the men? I can figure it out can you? Women and Men have certain personality traits that most people agree with. However when it comes to being a higher office leader which traits are social allowed in a leader and which are not? According to a scholarly article, masculine personality traits are more acceptable for an ideal leader then feminine personality traits are. They found voters weren't willing to back up a female candidate for president or vice president, because they felt as though women weren't capable of handling "traditional male issues." However this article goes on to find that there are some issues that females are capable of handling more then men. Issues such as arts, education, and health, while a male could handle issues on war, economy, and military.

female candidates can win national office if they convince voters that they possess masculine traits and are competent on 'male' policy issues.

So then a female should be okay for running for higher office if she possesses masculine traits, right? Think again. Hillary Clinton tried to play this role of being more masculine and it backfired. People accused her of being stuck between a double bind. She was conflicted upon whether to show her femininity or to be more masculine to show she was strong enough and capable of handling being President of the United States.

So then what should female politicians do then? If they are too feminine they can't handle being president, but then if a female tries to posses some male traits they get accused of being stuck in a double bind. Why are our female traits so degraded upon?!

Don't miss Maureen Dowd on Michelle Obama

Read Dowd's column, "Should Michelle Cover Up?" here. Yes, we're talking about Michelle Obama's recent baring of her biceps--among a wide range of weightier topics that Dowd also touches on in the column.

Here's an excerpt from near the end of the column:

I love the designer-to-J. Crew glamour. Combined with her workaday visits to soup kitchens, inner-city schools and meetings with military families, Michelle’s flair is our depression’s answer to Ginger Rogers gliding around in feathers and lamé.

* * *

Her arms, and her complete confidence in her skin, are a reminder that Americans can do anything if they put their minds to it.

I'm purposefully omitting the next sentence because there Dowd (of course, once again, never miss a chance . . . ) slams HRC.

I agree with Dowd's assessment of Michelle's confidence and competence; I'm not so sure I buy the Ginger Rogers comparison.

Strategically Taking The Beaten Path

In the latest episode of The Secret Life of the American Teenager, the mother of the pregnant teenager, Anne, is dressed in business attire preparing breakfast for the family when her husband, George, saunters in. George gives her the one-over and scoffs something along the lines of: "What, just because you're the mother of a pregnant teenager you think you can be mayor now?" Whether this was an innocent remark or a sly dig at Sarah Palin, I drew a connection and later decided to check in with the "First Mother" of the United States.

In an article titled "Michelle Obama takes well-trod path in first lady role", the Chicago Tribune discusses how Michelle seems to have taken the position of "First Mom" over that of "First Lady" in the beginning days of the new presidency. Apparently Michelle Obama has been reading books, scheduling games, meeting with chefs, and getting to know the neighborhood.

There is doubt expressed over the fact that "First Mom" is the largest role such a high-powered woman will take. Hillary Clinton is discussed and the journalist writes that Michelle is probably trying to avoid Hillary's mistakes as First Lady:

First Lady Hillary Clinton suffered a backlash for barreling straight to the role once termed "co-president" after joking that she had chosen professional fulfillment instead of cookie-baking and tea-hosting.

Michelle Obama is clearly taking the opposite approach, starting with hearth and home and venturing outward. It's a more familiar route for the experienced six-figure professional with a reputation for sizing up the waters before diving in.

In that quote the journalist claims the "First Mom" strategy is just a way for Michelle to ease into the role of First Lady, but I have to wonder: Is Michelle truly going about this in a "professional" manner, or is she just doing her best to conform to the "undefined role of the first lady?" Michelle is an advocate of the "work-life balance." Is it a true lifestyle or just a way to sooth the Social Conservatives?

"She is looking and learning and isn't going to make the same mistakes because she's aware of what the mistakes were," said Letitia Baldridge, the author who served as social secretary to Jacqueline Kennedy when she was first lady.

Isn't it possible that Michelle is just making sure her husband's transfer into office is as smoothe as possible by giving the public what they expect and desire?

While I don't necessarily fault her for it, I have to question whether I, as a feminist, would rather have had a First Lady who barrels straight for co-president, or a First Lady who will "help women realize that a woman can juggle the two, that she can find that division between family and job, and experience joy in both places."

What do you think?

"Gender Affinity Affect", Major or Minor Play in the 2008 Election?

Gender was one of the play cards used in the 2008 election; however, to what extent did it work? According to a scholarly research article, the gender affinity affect is when women voters are most likely in support for female candidates. This article found women do actually feel positively towards a female candidate because of the "shared sex identity".

In this past election Hillary Clinton was a female candidate up for running as president. The Washington Post conducted a survey and found that 51 percent of women supported Hillary while 24 percent supported Obama and 11 percent supported John Edwards. Here is a clear example to the gender affinity affect. However how far does this affect go? Far enough for women to cross over parties? Interestingly, John McCain was the main candidate that tried to used this phenomenon for his advantage, and it somewhat worked. He felt as though having Sarah Palin as his vice president nominee would switch women supporters of Hillary Clinton over to support his campaign. However this article states otherwise:

......women often evaluate female candidates through the lens of political party. That women respondents feel more positively toward female Democratic candidates than do men, but do not have the same affective feelings for female Republican candidates, suggests that any gender gap in evaluations of female candidates should take into account partisan differences as well as sex-based identity.

Overall John McCain's pick for Sarah Palin as his running mate made a difference, but not a drastic difference. A poll conducted by Newsweek found that only 14 percent of female Hillary Clinton supporters wanted to switch and support McCain. This was an affect on McCain's campaign, but not substantial change enough to help him win the election.

The gender affinity affect, in my opinion, played a major role for Hillary Clinton. There were huge numbers of Hillary Clinton supporters that were female and this did help her in the election. On the other hand, McCain thought he could use this affect to his advantage, but it ended up only playing a minor role and not helping out as much as McCain wanted. The gender affinity affect did exist in this election as much as we did not want it to. This article has found that with the number of women increasing in office, we as women are getting a greater understanding and becoming more complex in our thought patterns, when choosing a candidate to support. To some this affect may play a minor role, but the gender affinity affect does exist sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst.

Rationalizing the Democratic Primaries

  I did not decided who I was going to vote for in the democratic primary election until I got into the voting booth.  I researched both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama thoroughly, comparing their stances on many issues, ranging from education to the environment, to the war on terror.  However, when I prioritized my views, it all came down to classic women's issue, such as abortion, equal pay for men and women, and gay marriage.

  Both Obama and Clinton both supported me views, and as I realized that all other issue paled in comparison to these, I felt both ashamed and confused.  I was ashamed because I knew that there were many other issues that these two candidates differed on that were very important for the whole country as well as the rest of the world and confused because I still had no idea which candidate I preferred.

I worked as a poll worker during the 2007 and 2008 elections, so I was very closely tied them, having experienced them from both sides.     Photo: http://www.pollingplaceproject.org/

While I was not present during the presidential election because I was here at school, I spoke to my mother about her experience late that November night.  She told me that when we opened our garage to allow voting to begin at seven, there was already a line forming down our street.  We were not alone as this was a trend all around the country.  

Being a poll worker has given me a new perspective on elections.  I remember during the primaries, watching people come into my garage to vote.  Some looked self-assured, others mirrored my own confusion, but everyone appeared to understand the implications of their decisions.  Knowing that there were others who had feelings that were just as confused and muddled as my own were gave me a feeling of unity.  Before then, I never felt, and for the most part, still do not feel that democracy is unifying, as I imagine it ought to be, but in that moment, I was proud to be an American.

Perhaps that was what stirred the memory that decided the election for me.  As I entered the voting booth, I was stuck by childhood dream.  As a child, I wanted to either be a veterinarian or the first woman president.  Deep in the throes of college applications, I knew I was already following one of those dreams and politics was not involved.  Perhaps it was the stigma of being able to see both of my dreams achieved, I took my "special" ballot marking pen and drew a line connecting the arrow next to Hillary Rodham Clinton's name and did not look back on my decision.  

I was not upset when Obama won the nomination and I eagerly voted for him in the November election from my dorm room, and was ecstatic when he won later that night. 

Looking back on it, I did not have a large preference between Obama and Clinton, and my decision came down to a childhood wish.  Would I be hypocritical and judge other people for making decisions for similar reasons? Yes.  Do I feel that this decision was rash? Probably.  Do I regret my decision? Not at all.

The Election Is Over; Now It Is Time to Analyze It

Yes, the election is over, and Obama is already taking his first few footsteps in the White House, but we cannot leave this noteworthy election behind.  This past election was important to us in so many ways.  It marked the beginning of many opportunities for change.  It was the first time a serious woman candidate was in the running, and it was also the first time an African-American was running to be president of the United States of America.

As a very aware and intellectual society, it is our calling to analyze the results of this 2008 presidential election.  As a whole, as a country, we need to work together in trying to understand the twists and turns of this election-- who voted for whom, possible influences on voters' preferences for a candidate, etc.  Our class has been pondering this all quarter long now.  It is very hard to know exactly what caused specific events or situations to happen and how much of an effect certain influences did have.

Our class sent out an online survey that included questions about the reasons why voters voted for whoever they chose.  People's reasons varied immensely; however, it was interesting to see and note that some women voted for Clinton (in the primaries) just because she was a woman.  Interestingly enough, some African-Americans voted for Obama for the same reason-- just because he was an African-American.  They wanted to see "their kind" take foot in the White House.

The New York Times has posted a very interesting interactive graphic on "How Different Groups Voted in the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primaries."  You can click on the boxes underneath the graphic to see how different demographics of voters voted.  I examined "Women" and "Blacks."  When I clicked on the "Women" box, I noticed that there was a pretty even split-- about half the states had stronger Clinton support, and half had stronger Obama support; however, when I clicked on the "Blacks" box to see how African-American voters voted, all 28 states represented in the graphic were on the right-hand side.  They all had stronger Obama support.  This really sparked my interest.  Did African-Americans feel a greater need to support an African-American candidate than woman did to support a female candidate?

There are so many factors that probably influenced the election.  There was a range of different influences that could have affected voters' decisions-- from media to voters' perceptions.  There is no way to perfectly analyze the election results and the reasons why everyone voted the way they did, but we should look at all the results and hard proof that we do have to better understand this 2008 presidential election.

My Flirt with Sarah Palin

A feeling of relief inundated my mind as the results of the November 4 presidential election were announced. No longer would I have to debate others over who I voted for in the presidential election. My decision was made and now the election season was finally over.

I am a Democrat. I have been since the presidential election that occurred when I was in second grade. I support a woman’s right to choose, the freedom to choose one’s life partner, the environment, and helping the poor. I was against the War in Iraq from the beginning. I supported former vice-president Gore for president in 2000 and United States senator John Kerry in 2004. In 2008, I wholeheartedly supported Hillary Clinton for president.

After Hillary conceded the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama, I became disappointed and even depressed. I could not recall a time when I had so fervently supported one candidate. To me, Hillary was a hero, an inspiring politician, and a champion. I decided to commit my support to Hillary in January 2008. When Hillary won a primary or a caucus, my spirits were lifted. When she lost a contest, I voiced frustration but also heightened support for her to remain in the race. Just like Hillary’s other supporters, I was angry at the media and the Democratic Party establishment. In my opinion, they were biased toward Barack Obama.

Once Hillary’s loss became a reality, I turned to Obama to see whether he would do all he could to raise money to retire Hillary’s campaign debt. I looked to see if Obama would choose Hillary to be his running-mate or someone who had supported her. Neither of these things happened.

John McCain chose Sarah Palin, a dark-horse candidate and little known governor of Alaska, to be his running-mate on Friday, August 29, 2008. During the days leading up to vice-presidential announcements, I suggested that Obama choose Evan Bayh and McCain choose Palin. To say I was surprised when I found out would be an understatement. I screamed and jumped all around my apartment. McCain did it! McCain did it! He actually chose Sarah Palin. (Never did I think McCain would take a gamble by selecting Sarah Palin!)

McCain made a political decision when he selected Sarah Palin. It was clear McCain was sending a signal to disgruntled Hillary supporters and disappointed women that a woman may still have an important role at the White House. I think McCain was playing the gender card and he was smart to do so. His campaign was struggling and dying. McCain desperately needed a game-changer.

Sarah Palin brought to the McCain campaign three things: a new image for the McCain campaign, expanded support among voting demographics, and a revitalization of a failing presidential campaign.

Palin, 44, brought her youth to McCain’s campaign, invoking a refreshing and new picture. The image of Palin’s family brought family issues such as teenage pregnancy and special needs children into the presidential debate. Palin’s conservative credentials shored up support among factions of the Republican Party. Her executive experience coupled with McCain legislative experience added to the presidential ticket.

I did not agree with Sarah Palin on a wide-range of issues including the right to an abortion and keeping ANWAR off limits. I did not agree with many statements Palin made. I thought her debate performance with Joe Biden was awful.

So why was I attracted to the McCain-Palin team? It’s simple, the McCain-Palin ticket reached out to me. While I realize McCain was just trying to earn votes, he appealed to me when he praised Clinton’s historic candidacy. He appealed to me when he chose Sarah Palin, a political newcomer and maverick.

Do I think the choice of Sarah Palin as vice-president was a smart and risky decision? You betcha!

Did Sarah Palin cause more damage to or reinvigorate support for McCain’s candidacy? That’s debatable.

It was a difficult choice when it was time for me to fill out a vote-by-mail ballot. As attractive as the selection of Palin was to the McCain campaign, I did not vote for McCain. I also did not vote for Obama. Who did I vote for? I voted for Hillary Clinton.

Something (else) Michelle Obama and HRC have in common?

A story by Rachel Swarns in today's NYT reports that Michele Obama is raising eyebrows in Washington by weighing in on some policy issues. The headline is "'Mom in Chief' Touches on Policy, and Tongues Wag." Swarns characterizes Mrs. Obama's plan to visit all cabinet-level agencies as "a notably different approach" than Laura Bush's, who tended not to discuss legislation and policy, like most First ladies before her. Yet, Swarns reports:

Some observers praised Mrs. Obama’s foray into the legislative debate, saying the new first lady, who is a Harvard-educated lawyer and a former hospital executive, was eminently qualified to promote the president’s policies.

Others expressed surprise, saying they had expected Mrs. Obama to focus on her daughters and on the traditional issues she had emphasized in the presidential campaign, like supporting military families and working parents.

Swarns quotes a scholar who studies first ladies, Myra Gutin:

"She went to some lengths to say she was going to be first mom in chief . . . . I don’t think we ever really imagined her edging toward public policy like this. It’s not like she’s making public policy. But it’s a little less neutral than some of the other things she’s talked about focusing on.”

Swarns suggests that Mrs. Obama's recent forays into policy still don't rise to the level of the role Hillary Clinton played in her husband's administration, and she may be right. But tongues certainly wagged about Mrs. Clinton's role as something other than White House hostess. (See these 1994 columns here, here and here by Anna Quindlen about HRC).

Perhaps Mrs. Obama will evolve into a more HRC-esque role, which wouldn't bother me. After all, we are occasionally (often?) reminded by the media that Mrs. Obama is a Harvard-educated lawyer coming off a high-powered career as a hospital executive. We would not want her intellect and experience to go to waste, would we? And what's so controversial about her supporting her husband's policy positions -- maybe even having some independent positions of her own--and making those heard? Why shouldn't she add her influence to debates about issues of the day?

Obama's Plan to Revolutionize Politics

As we all know, Obama has proven to the world that fully utilizing the internet as a campaign tool can yield incredible, successful results. But how will he continue to engage the American public now that he has taken over as president? A New York Times article called "Melding Obama's Web to a YouTube Presidency" provided a description of how the White House plans to implement its goals using the numerous mechanisms the internet has to offer. 

Obama, a former community organizer, has made it clear from the beginning that turning his campaign's unprecedented usage of immensely popular new media into a functional government tool is one of his most important ambitions for the administration. By involving the public with its government through social networking websites and directly reaching Americans with YouTube videos, Obama hopes to break through the middle-man media and connect with citizens more directly and efficiently. 

However, legal barriers apply; the White House is unable to use the 13-million-person email list compiled during the Obama campaign due to the fact that it was created for political purposes, so instead the huge undertaking of updating American politics to a nation of YouTube and Facebook users has been delegated to the Democratic Party. The group in charge of assembling Obama's upcoming machine of video messages, blogs detailing administration policy, and other political resources is still fundraising and has not fully developed a website but has ambitious plans for implementation. 

While it's certainly important to keep up with the mainstream technology and news-gathering habits of America, it is also necessary to consider those who are being left out of Obama's project. The internet is expansive, but it's also not readily available to all American citizens, particularly those who don't own computers. Older generations who have computers but don't necessarily go online on a regular basis are also not being included in this internet-based political system.

Moreover, communicating information directly from the White House to the public eliminates the media as a moderator. If citizens rely unquestioningly on this discourse alone, they miss out on the press's criticisms and may interpret the administration's characterizations of events and policies as the absolute truth. 

So far, Obama's moves to convert the country to a pop media-based age of information have been incredibly effective (after all, he got elected). I was interested to see if this issue might be somewhat gendered, so I found another article printed by the New York Times almost a year ago regarding Hillary Clinton's contrasting political strategies. Entitled "The Audacity of Hopelessness," this article chastises her tendency to "[keep] to the Bush playbook," playing it old school throughout her campaign and failing to engage the public the way Obama did. The article reads:

Clinton fans don't see their standard-bearer's troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naive young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones's Kool Aid.

Once again, the media blames Hillary Clinton for playing the gender card. While Clinton certainly didn't employ innovative campaign tactics like her rival Obama, it seems unfair to blame her failure on whining about sexism. In this way, it seems that candidates' strategies for promoting themselves is at least somewhat tied up in gender. 

President Obama's plan to change popular politics and engage citizens to influence policy and increase their civic participation is certainly ambitious, but judging from the way he revolutionized the 2008 election, the administration's goals seems entirely possible. One just has to wonder if such formidable goals could have been accomplished by a woman with her own political strategy. 

The new U.S. Senator from N.Y. -- as mother

N.Y. Governor David Paterson hinted that the U.S. Senate seat for New York, held until recently by Hillary Rodham Clinton, has become a woman's seat when he announced yesterday that U.S. Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand will fill the position. Caroline Kennedy, considered by many the front runner, had withdrawn her candidacy a few days earlier.

There is a lot I could comment on regarding Ms. Gillibrand's politics, but I want to focus here on the media's portrayal of her as a mother because this is a topic that keeps cropping up in our discussions of gender and the 2008 Presidential election. It is deep in the NYT story by Michael Powell and Raymond Hernandez before we learn that Ms. Gillibrand is the mother of young children -- including an infant. Here's an excerpt:

Ms. Gillibrand is indisputably intense; a rising corporate lawyer before entering Congress, she worked until the day before she gave birth to her first son, Theodore, now 5 (and received a standing ovation on the floor of the House when she did the same before the birth of her second son, Henry, who is now 8 months old).

The accompanying slide show on the NYT site also includes two photos of Ms. Gillibrand as mother, but they are the final two in the group of ten images.

So, it seems, Ms. Gillibrand's status as a mother does not loom large, at least not in the NYT coverage.

The Effects of Gender and Race in Politics: What Effects?

From observing politics for the past few years, I came to the conclusion that there are no dramatic effects of gender or race unless a politician provokes such effects. Now, I do know that voters do tend to choose candidates according to who they can relate more towards, but I don’t think that such impact is so profound that it’ll change votes single handily.

During the 2008 presidential election, I was surprised that gender had a much bigger impact on the election than I had initially thought. According to the New York Daily Times on May 2008, one of the six reasons Hillary wanted to be president was because of the “women in their 90s who had told her they were born before women could vote, and they wanted to live to see a woman in the White House”. When Hillary lost the Democratic nomination, McCain saw the opportunity to win over disgruntled Hillary supporters due to the emphasis that Hillary put on feminism in addition to Hillary’s slow and cautious backing of Obama. Surprising the world, McCain picked Palin to be his VP, an action which he would later regret. Palin made her central campaign theme focused on how she was just like any ordinary “hockey mom”. She fortified her campaign theme with subtle parts in her speeches such as calling herself a “Pitbull with lipstick” in addition to twisting her role as mom to be a qualification for being a VP. For example, during the VP debate, Palin continuously described her role as a mom when she stated:

But it wasn't just that experience tapped into, it was my connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills?

The full VP debate transcript can be found here.

Unfortunately for Palin, her choice of using the theme of being a mom also had a disadvantage. Because Palin thought that being a mom was something worthy of being in the spotlight, the media naturally also focused on her theme of being a mom. So in today’s society, what does the normal “hockey moms” do? They take care of their kids, do daily household chores, and go to PTA events. All of which were topics that the media focused on. Many complained such treatment was sexist, but then again it was Palin’s own choice. She could have ran on her executive experience as governor, but instead she chose to run on being the first women to the white house.

I have also come to notice that just like gender, race doesn’t affect politics unless the politician makes race a key factor. For example, when Governor Blagojevich controversially appointed Burris to take Obama’s seat, many senators (including the democrats) initially objected to his appointment and wanted to block him from the senate. However, Senator Burris defended his appointment with a variety of reasons. One of the reasons, according to his good friend Representative Bobby Rush of Illinois, was because Burris is black! During the last few minutes of the press conference Gov. Blagojevich held regarding Burris’ appointment, Rep. Rush stated:

Let me just remind you that there presently is no African- American in the U.S. Senate. Let me remind you that the state of Illinois and the people in the state of Illinois and their collective wisdom, have sent two African-Americans to the U.S. Senate. That makes a difference. This is just not a state of Illinois matter, although it’s (INAUDIBLE) to appoint and (INAUDIBLE) — which is in the state of Illinois, but it (INAUDIBLE) — it has tremendous national importance — national importance. We need to have not just one African-American in the U.S. Senate. We need to have many African-Americans in the U.S. Senate.

So I applaud the governor for his decision. And I will ask you to not hang and lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer. Separate, if you will, the appointee from the appointed. Ronald Burris is worthy. He is the only one, I believe, that could stand in the gap (INAUDIBLE) time, and gather the confidence — reestablish the confidence of the people of the state of Illinois.

(…….)

This is a matter of national importance. There are no African- Americans in the Senate, and I don’t think that anyone — any U.S. senator, who’s sitting in the Senate, right now, wants to go on record to deny one African-American for being seated in the U.S. Senate. I don’t think they want to go on record doing that. And so, I intend to take that argument to the Congressional Black Caucus.

The full transcript of the press conference is here.

Currently, there is heavy speculation that because Burris played the race card, many senators were afraid to block Burris’ appointment since the senators were afraid that they would be labeled as racist. Burris’ strategic usage of race heavily differed from Obama’s position with using race in his campaign. Surprisingly, Obama never mentioned race and gender in his campaign despite being the first African American presidential nominee. Even when issues about Obama’s race were brought up by his opponents, he brushed off the accusation and focused on the main issues campaign issues. Obama’s decision to never use race or gender in his campaign just shows how a politician is able to control whether or not race or gender will be an issue.

Gender Roles: The Mother

While stumbling across the internet, I found this website: www.teenmomsforpalin.com. At first it looked like another site in support of Sarah Palin, but upon closer inspection it turned out to be a typical satire site, ironically supporting Palin for all the wrong reasons. While quotes like "Because Women Have Suffraged Long Enough" were intended to make the audience laugh, they also brought up the role motherhood had to play in the election. Note: I know this issue has already been addressed in this blog, but I thought I might try to take a stab at it.

Hillary Clinton made history by being a woman running for president, but one of the many criticisms she received was that she was not feminine enough. Going along with this theme, it could be determined that with her lack of femininity she also didn't fulfill the gender role of mother, and if she didn't act like enough of a mom, then she wouldn't appeal as a mother figure to the country.

Picture from www.gov.state.ak.us
Sarah Palin took the opposite approach during the campaign: she largely depended on her role as a mother to earn votes for her party, constantly referring to herself as a "hockey mom," as well as calling upon her experience raising a family as if it were something to put on her resumé. Palin's progeny were on display immediately after she was announced as the VP nominee, attracting many camera shots during the Republican National Convention. Even though Hillary Clinton does have a daughter, Chelsea did not receive nearly the same amount of press time as the Palin kids, as Hillary didn't use her experience as a mom to assure the people of this country that she could also mother them.

The idea of having a matriarchy was (and still is) novel, but also distracts from the importance of having the person elected to the presidency be the best one for the job, not simply male or female. But elections are long and people can only talk about the economy or Iraq for so long, and so "relatability" becomes a key factor in who people will vote for. When Hillary didn't use her motherhood to define herself, she may have lost votes, and because Sarah Palin did the opposite, she may have earned votes. Either way, this election brought up the issue of women having to be stuck in certain gender roles, and highlights the distance women still must cover in order to escape them.

Race versus Gender

I just found a news article on Politico, a great news site for those interested in politics. The title of the article is "In politics, does race trump gender?"

Here is an excerpt from the article:

How come Roland Burris has had such an easy time getting to the U.S. Senate while Caroline Kennedy has had such a hard time? Could it be that the race card trumps the gender card in U.S. politics? Well, yes. It could be.

The article makes an interesting argument about how easy Roland Burris, the Senator-designate from Illinois, made his case to win the fight against congressional Democrats who had refused to seat him in the Senate. Burris was appointed by scandaled-tainted Illinois Governor Blago. Because Blago ignored warnings against taking such an action the Senate Democratic leadership threatened not to seat any successor. If sworn in today, Burris will officially take over President-elect Obama's seat.

In contrast, the author claims how difficult a time Caroline Kennedy is having in obtaining Hillary's seat. Kennedy has publicly announced that she is interested in Hillary's seat and even did a tour in New York a few weeks ago. Unlike Burris, who would be the sole African American in the US Senate, Kennedy cannot use the claim of being the only woman in the Senate to her benefit, because there are plenty of women Senators.

It's a great article and the author does make some interesting arguments (i.e. The Senate is 17% women, while women compose of 51% of the United States)

A helpful resource about Hillary Rodham Clinton

See the New York Times interactive feature here, with links to video clips about different stages of her life.

A new academic article on our seminar topic!

I saw this posted on ssrn.com. The article is by Quinetta Roberson and Gregory Scott Parks. Here's the abstract:

Scholars, and even the presidential candidates, have described the 2008 election as an extended interview process for a high-ranking job. Following that characterization of the Presidential race, questions about sexism and gender bias along the campaign trail implicate the law. Title VII protects individuals from sex bias in the workplace. And while modern conceptions of how such bias actually operates, largely drawn from social and cognitive psychology, aids legal decision-makers in determining whether such bias indeed took place in any particular case, greater insight into the intersection of psychology and the law is needed. Here, we explore the role of sexism and implicit (subconscious) gender bias in the Presidential race through the lens of Title VII. Further, we buttresses the proposition put forth by a growing body of legal scholars that the role of implicit attitudes in decision-making has significant implications for Title VII jurisprudence.

The full article is not posted for downloading, but I see on their author page that Roberson and Parks have also written about Michelle Obama.

Some year-end rumination about gender and the election

I just saw these over at blogher.com.

One post is titled "Feminism and Gender in 2008: The Good, the Bad and the Election" and is by Suzanne Reisman.

The other is under the headline "Politics: We Always End up Talking about Hillary, Don't We?"

They both provide some food for thought.

The election is over, but talk of sexism persists in relation to the open U.S. Senate seat for NY

Caroline Kennedy formally requested this week that NY Governor David Paterson consider her for the U.S. Senate seat for that state, the seat that will open when Hillary Rodham Clinton resigns to become Secretary of State. (Photo Jean-Pierre Muller/Getty Images).

Here is the NYT story. Kennedy had only just put herself forward for consideration when commentators started throwing around words like "sexism" and "nepotism." Here's what Nicholas Kristof had to say yesterday in his blog:

Caroline Kennedy strikes me as a very impressive woman with all the right priorities, such as education. But I also find it unseemly and undemocratic that she seems to have vaulted to the top of the Senate list by virtue of who her dad was. * * * Isn’t that sexist?

I'm not sure how it is sexist . . . unless he is drawing some analogy to McCain's selection of Palin --which many argued was just because Palin was female. Also, there is the argument that since Hillary Rodham Clinton has held the seat, it has become a "woman's seat" and should be filled by another woman.

Kristof continues in a way that implicitly acknowledges the latter argument by saying that choosing Kennedy would be "disrespectful" of other female NY politicians with more experience and public service. He then again asserts sexism:

Isn’t it sexist to rush to support a woman because of her father, while ignoring other women who have earned their own substantial credentials in their own careers in Congress?

I appreciate his acknowledging the fine work of congresswomen and other female politicians from NY, but I don't know that it's sexist to support a woman with a famous father when, as Kristof himself acknowledges, various political dynasties in our nation's history have anointed sons. The Bushes are a fine example.

Don't miss readers comments on Kristof's post. More than one notes that if an "ism" is at play, it's nepotism, not sexism.

In her column today, Gail Collins also takes up the "fairness question." She begins by observing that New York is taking Caroline seriously and suggests it is with good reason. Collins notes Kennedy's extraordinary success as a fundraiser, while also distinguishing between the good causes for which Kennedy has raised money in the past and the distinct challenge of political fundraising. She also views Kennedy as having other important political skills, saying, "it's easy to imagine Kennedy doing a Hillary-like 'listening tour,' having round-table discussions about the dairy compact or broadband access."

Collins acknowledges that picking Kennedy may not be "fair," but then life rarely is. Collins seems a bit more positive than Kristof about the prospect and potential of Caroline Kennedy as U.S. Senator. And, hmmm, Collins doesn't mention sexism, perhaps because she does not see it as a force or issue in Paterson's decision.

Advice pours in for Michelle Obama

According to Rachel Swarns' story in the New York Times, the advice is coming from around the world, including some from Cherie Blair, who proffered hers in her regular column for The Times (London). Like French President Nicolas Sarkozy's wife, Carla Bruni, Blair continued to work while her husband was the leader of the United Kingdom. (Of course, they have very different careers: Blair is a senior barrister; Bruni is a singer). Blair wrote in her column:

You have to learn to take the back seat, not just in public, but in private . . . . When your spouse is late to put the kids to bed, or for dinner, or your plans for the weekend are turned upside down again, you simply have to accept that he had something more important to do. * * * It is something of an irony that in these days of pushing for equality those of us married to our political leaders have to put their own ambitions on hold while their spouses are in office and keep their views to themselves. I, at least, had my career. That is not an option for Michelle Obama.

I have recently recalled here Hillary's 1992 adjustment to becoming first lady. Swarns' story informs us that Hillary is the only first lady prior to Michelle Obama to have an active career until shortly before her husband became President. The only other first lady to have an advanced degree was Laura Bush, and I believe that degree was in the rather lower profile subject of library science.

Also of great interest for purposes of our seminar on gender's role in the 2008 election is the observation that Michelle Obama became more popular (or at least more "celebrated" by the media) once she quit her job and fully embraced the role of "mom-in-chief."

Leslie Morgan Steiner, editor of “Mommy Wars,” an anthology of essays (Random House, 2006), argued on the NPR program “Tell Me More” that Mrs. Obama had been “put in a box” and was only celebrated in the news media after she decided “to put her family first.”

In the online magazine Salon, Rebecca Traister bemoaned what she described as the “momification of Michelle Obama,” criticizing the news media’s focus on Mrs. Obama’s search for schools for her two young daughters, her fashion sense and her pledge that her No. 1 job is “to be Mom.”

Traister laments the lack of "curiosity about how Michelle will adjust to the loss of her own private, very successful, very high-profile and very independent identity." Leaving work that one enjoys is a huge adjustment, and Ms. Obama's last job was a $300K/year Vice Presidency at the University of Chicago Medical Center. Nevertheless, as one commentator points out, unlike most women who leave work to be a trailing spouse, Ms. Obama's career won't suffer long-term consequences. She will be highly sought after for law firm partnerships and other roles as soon as his Presidency ends.

Steinem on HRC and Palin

Gloria Steinem wrote a couple of high profile op-ed pieces over the course of the election. Here are excerpts from two -- one about HRC and one about Sarah Palin.

This appeared on January 8, 2008, after Hillary lost Iowa and before she won New Hampshire. It was titled, "Women are Never Front-runners," and it cleverly juxtaposed female gender with some of Obama's biographical details to make the point that Obama's credentials might be subject to greater scrutiny and skepticism were he a woman. Here are the first few paragraphs:

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate?

Steinem says that if you answered "no," you are hardly alone. She goes on to call gender "probably the most restricting force in American life." She notes a study which found that the United States "polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy."

The second Steinem piece appeared in the Los Angeles Times after Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate. It is titled "Wrong woman, wrong message." After labeling John McCain the "real culprit," Steinem argues that he chose Palin to curry favor with "right-wing ideologues." She continues:

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions . . .

Gloria Steinem, long-time editor of Ms. magazine, is a so-called second-generation feminist who is famous for saying, "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Do you see any inconsistencies in the positions she takes in these two editorials?