Ending years of speculation and coy denials of presidential ambitions, Hillary Clinton officially announced her 2016 Presidential bid on April 12th. Clinton had garnered a major support base long before her announcement. According to a CBS News Poll 81% of Democrats said they would consider voting for her. So far none of Clinton’s potential Democrat rivals, including Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, even come close to touching her.
With few challengers, and few strong Republican candidates on the horizon, and no shortage of what we know political campaigns really come down to (money), Clinton has a strong shot at the presidency. Even as a female. What is concerning is not her ability to be elected with respect to her gender, but rather the incessant rhetoric surrounding her gender.
I already feel eyes rolling – another feminist scolding the media for focusing on Clinton’s gender instead of her ideas and qualifications. Yes, this point has been belabored, but because it has to be belabored. Because the media still doesn’t get it.
As expected from the far right, many outlandish comments have been made surrounding Clinton’s ability to lead as a woman, including marketing CEO Cheryl Rios who told CNN, “With all the hormones we have there is no way we should be able to start a war.”
If it stopped with comments like this I’d be willing to brush off the right-wing crazies. But perhaps even more off-putting are articles like Time Magazine’s which argues that Clinton, as a postmenopausal woman, is at a perfect age and is “biologically primed” to lead.
The long phase of perimenopause is marked by seismic spikes and troughs of estrogen levels, which can last for more than a decade in many women. But afterward, there is a hormonal ebbing that creates a moment of great possibility. As a psychiatrist, I will tell you the most interesting thing about menopause is what happens after. A woman emerging from the transition of perimenopause blossoms. It is a time for redefining and refining what it is she wants to accomplish in her third act. And it happens to be excellent timing for the job Clinton is likely to seek. Biologically speaking, postmenopausal women are ideal candidates for leadership. They are primed to handle stress well, and there is, of course, no more stressful job than the presidency.
Are we really going to legitimize the discussion of Hillary Clinton’s hormones and menopausal status? Psychiatrist Dr. Julie Holland probably thinks she is doing a service by defending Clinton’s much-discussed gender and age through scientific jargon. Instead it implies that tying a woman’s competence to her hormones is a valid construct. An article would never be published concerning the testosterone levels of any male politician, despite that men experience a cycle of hormonal fluctuations as well. Forget about Clinton’s experience as a former first lady, senator, and secretary of state, her hormones are why you should vote for her.
Times are changing and white-male centric society is beginning to be challenged. In 2008 the nation was mostly energized by the idea of electing a black man to the presidency. While there was a segment of right-extremist bigots who fixated on Barack “Hussein” Obama, the majority of America saw right through radical Islamist conspiracy theories. For those consciously and subconsciously off-put by the color of his skin, he acted “white enough” for most.
But Hillary Clinton is a female – no way of easing into it. Outright prejudice won’t be the most dangerous in this election. What is more dangerous is the mainstream media validating our comfort in a male-dominated society through legitimizing discussions of irrelevant subjects such as gender biological differences.
If hormone talk is what we have to look forward to this election, our state of politics in the U.S. needs major repair. Let’s keep wisdom and gender separate, all I care about is Hillary Clinton’s wisdom and I challenge the mainstream media to do the same. But the sad truth is that if Clinton is elected to the presidency, we can probably look forward to years of hullabaloo over her outfits and how she is wearing her hair.
I am so shocked by the block quote you included from Time Magazine. I think I see what they were trying to do- they were trying to shift the narrative surrounding her gender so that they wouldn't be just another news organization criticizing coverage of her gender, just as you said above. But the way they went about that only exacerbates the issue, as you also said. The point is that gender has nothing to do with leadership, and the two should not in any way influence one's opinion of the other. This points out an ever greater issue of why it is that women have to fight for a seat at the table while their male counterparts are often invited and welcomed there.
ReplyDeleteIt is extremely poignant and disturbing point you bring up. The fact that the author of the Time Magazine author genuinely finds her claims substantiated with any "biological" evidence, is disconcerting to say the least. What I would love to see, is someone in the mainstream media to show the American public how far behind the U.S. is, by reviewing how many foreign countries currently have successful female leaders. Something I think is worth noting in addition to what you have discussed is the way that the media, especially from the right, have tied Hillary to her husband and the mistakes he made; how "we've already had the Clinton's in office and know what to expect." As Argentina's Kirchners have indicated, just because a husband rules one way, does not necessarily mean their spouse won't completely change policies which seemed central to their husband's agenda. Hopefully the media will drop the gender agenda, and if they don't, they will recognize the potential benefits and changes that could come from having a woman in office.
ReplyDeleteI share your disgust and disappointment in the media’s gender-driven discussion of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate. It seems to be such a disturbing, albeit greater reflection of our American fixation on the intricate details of our representative’s appearances, family lives, hobbies, etc. Yet again, we are shifting the discussion away from determining merit and practical experience, and focusing on materialistic and trivial aspects of our future leaders. I applaud you for highlighting how the media is only strengthening our male-dominated society, and obsessing over details of the female body. How has this become so rampant in our discussion, and why are we constantly distracted away from her capacity for leadership? It is an act of active belittling, and what I find most disappointing is that much of these critiques come out of women’s mouths themselves. I am a bit embarrassed by the political debates that we engage in, and I encourage all of us to shift the conversation back towards the true qualities we want in a leader, not the frivolous debate over Hillary’s menstrual cycle.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with you that gender should not come into the discussion in terms of Hillary Clinton’s presidential race, I do not believe that the gender-based attacks coming from the right are the only form of discussion solely based on gender that need to end. Here is an interesting video where a man asks college students if they would vote for Hillary Clinton and why: http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6452 . If the left and right want to start an actual discussion about Clinton becoming the next president, they need to both get better informed on her stances and viewpoints. Otherwise, both side will just continually spouting out gender-based nonsense whether it is that the should be elected or shouldn’t be elected simply by being a woman.
ReplyDelete