An Acceptable Female Candidate (TQP0084)
[Brought to you today by special Threat Quality guest columnist Sarah Crane, who I think is pretty rad. --ed]
Shrill, emasculating, ball-busting, feminazi, lesbian, calculating, ugly, fat, bitch.
For decades, Republicans (and some Democrats and apolitical folks) have used these slurs against Senator Hillary Clinton. During the 2008 primary season, the media treated her as a side-show freak: a woman who came very close to becoming the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.
How could a woman possibly handle such an office? Can a woman be as effective a governor as a man (as though men are naturally suited for, and successful at, governing)? Would her hormones cause her to irrationally catapult America into World War Three?
Now that Clinton is safely out of the race, a new woman has been launched onto the national landscape. But the same Republicans who rabidly attacked Clinton with misogyny and sexist double-standards have warmly embraced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. In fact, they are defending her against the sexism as though their eyes have suddenly and magically been opened to gender-based prejudice and discrimination.
Both women are mothers. Both are ambitious politicians. But “ambitious” has only been used as a slur towards one. What sort of woman is allowed to be politically ambitious in this country?
“Through Sarah Palin, the definition that has been painted by the liberal media of what an acceptable female candidate has been shattered. An acceptable female candidate for the Democrat party and the liberal media is an angry, shrill woman who doesn’t see a child as a blessing, but as a burden. A woman that puts her career first. Who is on the fringes of a lot of issues. And what we are seeing in Sarah Palin is essentially Ronald Reagan in heels. And a woman who puts her family, her god, and her faith first. A woman who is able to juggle her profession and smile and be kind and compassionate. We are witnessing the revolution of what is going to be acceptable to be a female candidate right now.”
- Robin Smith of the Tennessee Republican Party, 9/4/08
Ignoring the sexism and inaccuracies apparent in Smith’s description of “some” female candidates (and her own candidate), she herself is defining her version of the acceptable female leader.
In the eyes of many Americans, Republicans in particular, a female leader is acceptable only if she wears a permanent smile, comes in an attractive package, and most importantly, supports the white male power structure. She can be tough as nails, but she mustn’t threaten the powers that be by challenging the status quo.
In exchange for advocating extreme right-wing policies, she will receive a pat on the head and cynical defenses of her honor by those who oppose “sexism” only when it’s one of their women. Simultaneously, her supporters will wear pins with demeaning slogans such as “Hoosiers for the hot chick,” worn by Indiana delegates and visitors to the Republican Convention. They will cite her beauty and the number of children she’s had as credentials. They will use sexism to prop her up rather than to tear her down.
A woman’s “likability” is a key component of her acceptability. In order to be viewed as likable, a woman’s power must be perceived as the result of chance rather than ambition. She must market her success as effortless rather than the outcome of determined hard work. People are skeptical of driven women. A woman mustn’t want political power; it should fall into her lap whilst she cheers her son’s hockey team.
Sarah Palin’s party is using her as a token because they know that the combination of her biography, her politics, and the novelty of her sex is a selling point to low-information voters. But Palin is no feminist; she is a Palinist. She wants the best for herself, but opposes policies that would elevate and liberate other women.
And that is exactly what makes her the Acceptable Female Candidate.
