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?
Hillary’s campaign rhetoric is traditional, playing herself up as an assertive leader ready to take charge. Although she urges America to elect its first-ever female president, she also very carefully avoids representing anything close to ‘the weaker sex’. In order to be a viable candidate as a female, Hillary has had to forge her own unique woman-power which plays to voters who want a strong candidate and also those who want to see a woman in the white house. Just take a look at these cotnrasting quotes from speeches Hillary has made:
“We have the chance to make history together and elect the first woman president of the United States,” but then ”I am not running because I am a woman. I am running because I think I am the best qualified and experienced person to hit the ground running in January 2009.” Lastly, “America needs a president with the strength and experience to end this war. I will be that president.”
Obama’s campaign, on the other hand, “has been devoid of macho symbols”. He is seen as the softer, more conciliatory candidate. According to Salon, he is “self-consciously inspirational” as opposed to take-charge.
It makes sense. To be a woman in this presidential campaign Hillary has to act tough (think: Margaret Thatcher), probably much tougher than she would in a gender-free society (though it’s impossible to even begin to divine what this campaign would look like in that sort of imaginary vacuum). Barack, on the other hand, has more leeway to be gentle and diplomatic before anyone questions his strength. It is also a smart move for him to try and present an alternative to Hillary’s bold demeanor, for many of her critics are saying that although she’s a woman it does little to negate the fact that she’s a Washington insider who offers little in the way of change. Obama, on the other hand, can afford to be the alternative candidate, the breath of youthful fresh air, and the non-Hillary for those who don’t like her have-it-both-ways campaign.
The Salon article concludes with “May the best woman win”, while a similar Progressive article ends by saying ”Remember, during the Reagan years, when you heard people argue that a woman couldn’t be President because she would not be able to bring herself to ‘push the button’ and start a nuclear war? No one suggests that Hillary wouldn’t push the button. You could say that’s evidence of how far women have come . . . I guess.”
I must say, the catchy endings are endless, entertaining, and surprisingly thought-provoking. And since I’m in the mood for open endings and untimely digressions, I leave you with some silly and serious quotes:
My theory is that men are no more liberated than women. ~Indira Gandhi
Macho doesn’t prove mucho. ~Zsa Zsa Gabor
The true republic: men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less. ~Franklin P. Adams A little more matriarchy is what the world needs, and I know it. Period. Paragraph. ~Dorothy Thompson If it can’t be fixed by duct tape or WD-40, it’s a female problem. ~Jason Love
