July 23, 2007
· Filed under body, cleavage, clothing and makeup, sex
This Washington Post article: “Hillary Clinton’s Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory” explores the meaning of Hillary’s clothes, past and present, and the subtle ways in which her style of dress may be changing.
One sentiment that I like:
“Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn’t necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed.”
July 17, 2007
· Filed under Angela Merkel, Hillary's platform, Obama, corruption, female voters, female vs. male politicians, feminism, gender, iraq, pioneer, sexism
I recently received some interesting and timely correspondance from a questioning reader. She writes,
“I have spent some time this summer talking to my mom and her friends about politics. These older women, mostly of Hillary’s generation, say that they see her as the most unethical of the candidates, someone who would lie and cheat and stop at nothing to get her way. No matter how much they would like to see a female in the White House, they would never vote for Hillary. I think that most people would agree that political candidates in general are far less moral than we would like. Is Hillary really any worse than the others?”
These questions are timely because they remind me of a recent cover story in The Nation, which focuses exclusively on the way women, and more specifically feminists and/or her generational peers, view Hillary Clinton. The article addresses many of the questions that my reader asks.
So, is Hillary really more unethical or ruthless than the other candidates?
Read the rest of this entry »
July 12, 2007
· Filed under Hillary vs Obama, Margaret Thatcher, Obama, campaign strategy, democratic nomination, female voters, female vs. male politicians, gender, insider, sex
To start off today’s lesson: the difference between ’sex’ and ‘gender’, as defined by academia:
Sex = the biological signification of femalehood or malehood
Gender = a social construct that exists outside of biology and the body; has more to do with subjective terms like ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ which can be applied to a person regardless of sex
so why is Salon saying that Hillary is the male-gendered candidate while Obama is the female one?
Read the rest of this entry »
July 9, 2007
· Filed under campaign strategy, democrats, religion, republicans, the issues
When you think of religious voters, what party affiliation comes to mind?
It’s certainly not Democratic. Hillary Clinton, like other Dems, has realized that the Republicans have had a hold on the religious demographic for far too long, and is trying to change this. Obama has already been talking more openly about the role his Christian faith plays in his life for a while now, and it seems Hillary is now following suite.
The New York Times recently featured an article about Hillary’s faith. The article states that Hillary’s new religious overtures just might work to win over centrist voters, but will do very little with religious conservatives. Some of the tactics that Hillary is trying include talking about her faith (ie, how she carries a bible with her when she travels), hiring Burn Strider, an evangelical christian to do religious outreach, and speaking to religous opponents of abortion to show her respect for their stance, while still being a firm supporter of abortion rights.
So how is the public reacting? Read the rest of this entry »
