Gender Politics
I would like to conduct a thought experiment.
Suppose a woman who wanted to run for president had the following life experiences:
While in her second marriage, had a widely publicized, if not actually public, affair with a staffer.Appointed that staffer to a patronage job when the affair was apparently over.
Conducted another affair, this one publicly--literally parading her lover, ten years younger than she, through the streets.
As a result, went through an acrimonious divorce, and was thrown out of her government lodgings.*
Moved in with a lesbian couple after being thrown out of those lodgings by a judge.
Has been not on speaking terms with her children for some time.
Does this woman stand a chance of nomination to anything?
We've been suffering through two weeks now of Clinton and gender issues, amid claims that she is raising them as a campaign tactic.
I don't think there is a clearer illustration of just how resilient is the double standard in US elections. Giuliani is the frontrunner (not talking here about the apparent irrelevance of values to "values voters") in a presidential race with a personal history that would disqualify a woman from running for Selectman in Old Saybrook.
To watch pundits parse every Clinton phrase in looking for her to take advantage of her gender, while saying nothing about Giuliani's personal life is nothing short of brazen sexism. Seeing Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson (okay, reading transcripts of Matthews and Carlson) figuratively reaching for the smelling salts, while saying nothing about the gall of that hussy Giuliani running for President is really a little beyond belief.
Reading Dowd run column after column on Clinton's behavior and, frankly, unobjectionable personal life, while not even mentioning Giuliani is really remarkable.
Really, can you think of any woman in American politics who comes close to the shameful way Giuliani has conducted his life?
-------------
(*sidebar: I guess we really don't need those lodgings, do we? Bloomberg doesn't live there either.)
Results of your thought experiment: No Way!
(I did a really fast survey. And the statistics are impeccable! But classified.)
November 12, 2007 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Very interesting!
I wonder if Pat Robertson would endose Rudy if
it was Ruby instead. I don't think so !!!
Bonnie http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/pupart@cox.net/
November 12, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with your assertion that women are treated differently, with different standards politically, than men.
However, I would have to question this particular exercise.
See, we on the left (men and women) are hounding Rudy for those very hypocritical problems.
The problem, as I see it, is more about gender equality within the GOP. Not to mention it's more about the morality (or lack thereof) of the GOP.
If the Dems had two equal candidates, one male one female, with the exact same "moral" failings, then I believe Dems would attack both just as strongly.
If the GOP had two equal candidates, one male one female, with the exact same "moral" failings, then the male GOP candidate would be allowed to run after proving he could theoretically beat the Dem candidate. Pragmatism trumps moralism. I would imagine the female GOP candidate would not run for President, but could very well run for the House (see: Katherine Harris).
~~~~~~~~~~~
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
November 12, 2007 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that a woman could not even consider running for lesser political office with this baggage.
This isn't about gender equality. This is about a double standard that applies, in the case of my example, to acceptable personal behavior in one's sex and family life. But it applies across the board--Clinton is being treated in ways that no male candidate would ever be treated, with derision and derisiveness part of the package.
For me, the most offensive part of this is, as digby has pointed out several times, that these campaigns are suffused with male candidates playing the red pickup driving, hunting, codpiece wearing gender card. But because Clinton isn't of the "normal" gender, her actions are examined through that framework. You can make fun of her clapping style, but then you'd better make just as much fun of swaggering Fred Thompson ("He so TALL!").
UPDATE:
Also, by and large, republican women have been at least as, if not, more successful than democrats. I can't count on my fingers as fast as I used to be able to, but it seems to me that there are more republican than democratic women in the senate--and that Margaret Chase Smith was the first I can remember, (This may be biased recollection stemming from being originally from Maine, where Snowe has also been around since the mid 70s.)
November 13, 2007 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes....but so many of them remind me of Livia Augustus -- always in character as Caesar's wife.
November 13, 2007 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink