Years ago I wrote an article about the “personality cult” in American politics: where style trumps substance ; charm stumps content and savvy communication overtakes sensible depth. Now lets add “ideology stumps ideas” ; “religiosity trumps reason” and “swagger overtakes sense” to that list.
While the world looks on at the possible US Republican candidates for the 2012 Presidential election and their campaign statements with “curiosity, amusement or confusion”, Americans are looking at their emerging Conservative President-wannabees and their campaigns promises with “excitement and enthusiasm" or "trepidation and revulsion”. These two distinct mutually exclusive social reactions tell you how divided American people are...not just the Congress.
Behaviors exhibited and language used by many Republicans today border on “disrespect”, as many political observers and critics note, towards the first bi-racial Black President and the party he represents. Ronald Reagan Junior (son of a popular Republican President Ronald Reagan) admits that he, having grown up in a very partisan political environment, never saw as much animosity, acrimoniousness and “disrespect” in American national politics as he sees today.
Pat Schroeder, a Congresswoman from Colorado, wrote an enjoyable book aptly titled, “24 years of House Work...and the place is still a mess” (1998), using the analogy of traditional house work, that never ends for most women, to the Congressional House work that did not achieve what feminists, women activists and liberals have been advocating for nearly forty years. In hindsight she must think, “We did not get a lot of things done - but at least we did not kill each other. Now they are close to doing just that!”
Combat Congress, Retributive Representatives and Acrimonious Adversaries are labels that do not come close to describing the level of division and animosity in Congress today. Much of this animosity is directed at the President himself. If asking for a President's birth certificate, while he is in office, is not bad enough, we now have some Congressional leaders refusing to even come together for a Presidential address to the Congress on a "job creation plan". Some in Congress and in the media feel that such behaviors are disrespectful to the office of the Presidency itself...and not just the guy who occupies the office. While one has to admire those who stand by their convictions, be they Republicans or Democrats, and are willing to go very far for them, one wonders when conviction becomes mere convenient political showdown?
If it is not worrisome enough that a controversial rating agency like “Standard & Poor” has lowered America's triple A rating (mostly because of the way the Congress behaved during the debt ceiling debate), we now have Congressional leaders that do not want to fix the very economy they keep complaining about. This is certainly a “oolta” world - where up is down, inside is out, a leg is an arm, a torso is a toe...all very bizarre.
Amidst all this Congressional rancor we have a "Marlborough Man" emerging as the front runner for the GOP Presidential primaries from the Lone Star state of Texas: Governor. Rick Perry. He has all the charm, swagger and suave of George W Bush Junior, and his very same ambition, determination and shrewdness. He is rising in popularity. A well known Texas liberal Molly Ivins once jokingly said, "Please listen to me when I say 'Don't elect a Texas man!'." I guess nobody heard her! It is also possible that a large number of Americans today don't want to hear her.
American feminists who have been fighting to get more women into political office for decades are wondering if Ms Michele Bachmann and Ms. Sarah Palin are the best out there, or the best that “big guys with big bucks” are willing to endorse. What is driving their popularity? Is it the media attention, is it the pretty face, is it the attractive clothing that is pleasing to the eyes...or is it true grit and content covered up “as sweetness, charm and female approachability” that might have some political clout and success?
The Republican debate, scheduled for Wednesday September 7, 2011, will indirectly be about gender and class within the Republican party, and its establishment, as much as it is directly about economic and social issues. This unspoken gender and class warfare within the Republican party is a slice of the larger America that has denied these gaps for too long. We can see how Anglo women are evaluated, judged and treated by their Anglo men (within their insular social and cultural clubs – political or non-political), not just when they sit on the sidelines listening, assisting, applauding and supporting their men!
As feminists, social activists and political reformers often say (around the world), "You really see patriarchy, racism or classism in action from the status quo, when those who were marginalized, disenfranchized, discriminated and oppressed demand equality, fairness, peer relationship and deserved power. That is when ugly thoughts, feelings and faces come out! And some will be brutal!"
It will be important for women around the world, and women of color in America, to watch how women in their own communities, cultures and political environments fair relative to “American women in politics”.
The questions I have been asked by women interested in "gender, power and politics" are:
Could Indira Gandhi, the first and only woman Prime Minister of India, have become a Prime Minister if she had been born in a middle class non-political family, and had not had a political stalwart like Jawaharlal Nehru as her father and mentor?
Could Benazir Bhutto, the late Prime Minister of Pakistan who was attractive and was unfortunately assassinated, run for high office and rise to power if she was not born wealthy, politically connected and later married? (Rumor has it that she married just to win respectability and acceptance in a highly traditional and gender divided Pakistan).
Would Golda Meir, one of Israel's early Prime Ministers, have been considered, let alone accepted, to high office among her male peers and countrymen without showing herself to be “firm, tough and hard as a nail"...just like traditional men? (She was a leader who dramatically increased the military budget of Israel, and constantly displayed its prowess).
Could Hillary Clinton consider running for a political office in the United States, even as a liberal Democrat, without the wife-of-a-President status or the connections that come with it, and a Mrs. degree - in spite of her amazing intelligence, policy expertise and a law degree?
What would have happened if Ms Clinton had chosen to divorce her husband, raise her daughter as a single mother, remarried a non-political man, or a less politically powerful man? Could she have gotten where she did...without all the personal and marital compromises and sacrifices that men pursuing power rarely even have to think about?
If Indira Gandhi rode on her “dutiful daughter” and later “grieving widow” image for sympathy and support, Michele Bachmann is running on a “good Christian woman and wife” image for trust and support.
If Hillary Clinton ran on “tough on political issues while traditional on personal marriage” platform, Sarah Palin is running on “pretty and feminine on the outside but tough and masculine on the inside” platform (with some of her supporters even asking her male opponents to “man up”).
If German Chancellor Angela Merkel can be sweet and girly in her frumpish man-suit, her Socialist colleague, all the way down and under, Dilma Rousseff - the first woman President of Brazil, is a single mother, twice divorced, who has kept her personal life personal...and so has the mature Brazilian press.
Both these women have been fortunate enough to be surrounded by men and a public that did not care to impose “matrimony, marriage, motherhood and traditional female roles”, in the narrowest of sense, on women candidates so they can be “accepted, trusted and deemed feminine or masculine enough” for public office.
What is different about their party, their media and their country?
Other than the fact that these women belong to a Socialist party and adhere to its philosophy in their own unique way, they are living in a country that has psychologically and socially matured in its understanding of gender and male-female relationship. They know toughness has nothing to do with appearance or clothes, and femininity is more than clothes and lipstick. They also know that like men women are diverse and unique in their personality, individuality, complexity, thinking, philosophy and politics. And so does much of the society they come from and represent. And many of their personal experiences and struggles have helped these political women get stronger, smarter, shrewder and more successful. Their female self, experiences and struggles have either assisted them...or has not hindered them. Unfortunately much of the world is far from that kind of reality - including the US of A.
Merkel and Rousseff are lucky to be surrounded by men and a media that judge a male and a female leader by the same yardstick - even on personal matters, while paying attention to some of their unique challenges as women, particularly as women leaders in a male world.
Angela Merkel is twice married, and her second husband is a Chemistry professor (far away from politics) who rarely appears in public with her. She has no kids of her own but is close to her step sons, and has chosen to keep her last name from her first marriage in her political career. Can you think of an unmarried woman, divorced woman, childless woman or a twice married woman (who is not just a wife, or a mistress, to a male politician) running for high office in China, India, Pakistan, the United States or Saudi Arabia? I don't think so!
Dilma Rousseff married a young revolutionary and was part of a radical political group that led to their frequent arrests and detentions. She later divorced him and lived with her common-law husband, much older than her, for nearly thirty years. She had one child with him, divorced him after a long partnership and has had many dating partners and lovers since then. Could you see a woman like her running for office and winning successfully in India, England, Pakistan, United States or Saudi Arabia? I don't think so!
It is not just about being communist or capitalist, democratic or theocratic and conservative or liberal that determines whether a society is able to accept “diverse women with varying abilities, capabilities, experiences and expertise”, and support women candidates beyond a narrow "is or is-not". There is a cultural, social and structural element to the economic and political theories a system follows that also contributes to certain "isms"...or its disappearance.
We need women candidates who are not just ultra-women or masculine-women, passive women or excessively aggressive women, traditional women or pretending to be traditional women. We need women candidates who do not have to spend a life time defying traditional roles to succeed in politics, or give up politics all together because it is so hard just to manage life as a single or a divorced woman...let alone succeed in politics as one! It is a combination of many social, cultural and psychological factors, with a matching economic and political system, that ultimately helps reduce or eliminate patriarchal influences and bias in our society and in our politics.
Hillary Clinton proved that working on a marriage in spite of its trials and tribulations is a “choice” she made in spite of her cheating husband. On the other hand, Dilma Rousseff divorced her second common-law husband of thirty years (thirty years!) for cheating on her once. That too was her choice. Two women with two different personalities and approaches to marriage, infidelity and faithfulness. But in a mature society both these women could run for office and would be equally supported. Their success would not depend on their marital status or marital decisions.
Angela Merkel decided to divorce her first faculty husband for “irreconcilable differences, and growing apart in their interests and priorities” before passionately running for high office. Sarah Palin's husband made things easy for her by becoming more of a full time house husband and a house father (to their five children). Both of these women should be appreciated and admired for the personal adjustments they made for their political ambition and career. Some women would have given up their ambition to save their marriage, some would have felt uncomfortable with a young attractive house husband who carries their purse.
Angela had no children, Hillary and Dilma had only one, Indira and Benazir had two and three each, while Sarah and Michele have five and over-five respectively. But why is it still easier, not easy but easier, for unmarried or twice married, or childless women to run for office elsewhere...but not in the United States?
Being single, never married, divorced or widowed, should not stop one from running for office, or being accepted into office. Dilma showed that in spite of a common-law husband she could run for office, divorce, run again and actually become a President of a country. Merkel kept both her husbands private and separate from her political life and chose not to have a biological child. These women are lucky to have had wonderfully supportive families, friends, peers, fans, followers and a mature sophisticated public that supported their political ambition and careers, irrespective of their personal relationship choices or sacrifices. They also had a political philosophy that believed in people and women as more than productive robotons and reproudctive angels.
On the other hand Hillary Clinton needed her husband on her campaigns, both to establish her marital respectability and her power-through-male-connection, to convince the American public that she was "feminine enough and a proper family woman enough" to be considered for the highest office. That is unfortunate!
Though Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are showing that women can run from the grassroots, no matter how controversial, without a rich or a well connected husband, their constituents still want “a husbanded woman” to find them acceptable, respectable and electable.
Constituents, citizens, residents, voters and a media that can pick on a woman candidate's policies and personality, without picking on her personal looks or personal life – be she in a salwar, a veil, pant-suit, dress, mini-skirt or a bikini, and not focus on her marital status or relationship status – be she a heterosexual single woman, divorcee, widow with or without lovers, a mother with biological or adopted children....is a mature society with a sensible media.
Many countries and cultures are far from such social and gender maturity. While Asia is emerging, it is still lagging behind on this matter. And imitating the United States these days only makes it worse!
While the world looks on at the possible US Republican candidates for the 2012 Presidential election and their campaign statements with “curiosity, amusement or confusion”, Americans are looking at their emerging Conservative President-wannabees and their campaigns promises with “excitement and enthusiasm" or "trepidation and revulsion”. These two distinct mutually exclusive social reactions tell you how divided American people are...not just the Congress.
Behaviors exhibited and language used by many Republicans today border on “disrespect”, as many political observers and critics note, towards the first bi-racial Black President and the party he represents. Ronald Reagan Junior (son of a popular Republican President Ronald Reagan) admits that he, having grown up in a very partisan political environment, never saw as much animosity, acrimoniousness and “disrespect” in American national politics as he sees today.
Pat Schroeder, a Congresswoman from Colorado, wrote an enjoyable book aptly titled, “24 years of House Work...and the place is still a mess” (1998), using the analogy of traditional house work, that never ends for most women, to the Congressional House work that did not achieve what feminists, women activists and liberals have been advocating for nearly forty years. In hindsight she must think, “We did not get a lot of things done - but at least we did not kill each other. Now they are close to doing just that!”
Combat Congress, Retributive Representatives and Acrimonious Adversaries are labels that do not come close to describing the level of division and animosity in Congress today. Much of this animosity is directed at the President himself. If asking for a President's birth certificate, while he is in office, is not bad enough, we now have some Congressional leaders refusing to even come together for a Presidential address to the Congress on a "job creation plan". Some in Congress and in the media feel that such behaviors are disrespectful to the office of the Presidency itself...and not just the guy who occupies the office. While one has to admire those who stand by their convictions, be they Republicans or Democrats, and are willing to go very far for them, one wonders when conviction becomes mere convenient political showdown?
If it is not worrisome enough that a controversial rating agency like “Standard & Poor” has lowered America's triple A rating (mostly because of the way the Congress behaved during the debt ceiling debate), we now have Congressional leaders that do not want to fix the very economy they keep complaining about. This is certainly a “oolta” world - where up is down, inside is out, a leg is an arm, a torso is a toe...all very bizarre.
Amidst all this Congressional rancor we have a "Marlborough Man" emerging as the front runner for the GOP Presidential primaries from the Lone Star state of Texas: Governor. Rick Perry. He has all the charm, swagger and suave of George W Bush Junior, and his very same ambition, determination and shrewdness. He is rising in popularity. A well known Texas liberal Molly Ivins once jokingly said, "Please listen to me when I say 'Don't elect a Texas man!'." I guess nobody heard her! It is also possible that a large number of Americans today don't want to hear her.
Why?
American feminists who have been fighting to get more women into political office for decades are wondering if Ms Michele Bachmann and Ms. Sarah Palin are the best out there, or the best that “big guys with big bucks” are willing to endorse. What is driving their popularity? Is it the media attention, is it the pretty face, is it the attractive clothing that is pleasing to the eyes...or is it true grit and content covered up “as sweetness, charm and female approachability” that might have some political clout and success?
America's anti-intllectualism and its discomfort with intellectuals, especially intellectual women, plays out dramatically in politics. If Ms. Hillary Clinton was often criticized in the press for her “lack of good looks or style”, and the antics of her husband was given more importance than her "brain power or policy expertise", Sarah Palin is being given ample attention for her good looks and her stylish clothing, while she flaunts her family like a trophy to be endorsed “by the family-value social conservatives ”.
If one steps outside America's cities and coastal States, and I would encourage American media personnel do just that , one wonders if there is a sudden mushrooming of a few political desperadoes who might be worried that they. or their gender, race or both, are becoming a dwindling minority? Having said that, one has to admire women like Bachmann and Palin for taking on the establishment men in their own parties, communities and wealthy corporate environments.
This may explain why these women's “grassroots Republicanism", that helps protect and promote true economic and social mobility and success through individuality, independence, innovation and risk taking, versus inherited and accumulated power through male gender, cronyism, nepotism, and good-ole boys' networks and associations, might be popular! Even some immigrants seem to understand and appreciate this because they came to America, as one Vietnamese salon worker explained, to get away from the elitism and sexism of their old country and culture. Why would they want to deal with the same “crap” (as some people crudely put it), on top of the ethnocentricism and xenophobia, in the US of A? (Democrats better have a good response for this belief!)
We don't have many women in the United States, including Asian or Asian American women, exploring psychological and social sexism, beyond "violence and extreme abuse", that can shape or control women's thinking, inner conflicts, decisions and behaviors. American media is still focused on extreme violence and not the subtle kinds that affect majority of women. This may explain why sexism is still alive and kicking in much of America. One can see this dramatically in corporate America (in the way women have to constantly sell a specific demeanor and their bodies), and in "political America", where marital status, motherhood and "a male version of acceptable respectable womanhood" still dominate.
This may explain why these women's “grassroots Republicanism", that helps protect and promote true economic and social mobility and success through individuality, independence, innovation and risk taking, versus inherited and accumulated power through male gender, cronyism, nepotism, and good-ole boys' networks and associations, might be popular! Even some immigrants seem to understand and appreciate this because they came to America, as one Vietnamese salon worker explained, to get away from the elitism and sexism of their old country and culture. Why would they want to deal with the same “crap” (as some people crudely put it), on top of the ethnocentricism and xenophobia, in the US of A? (Democrats better have a good response for this belief!)
We don't have many women in the United States, including Asian or Asian American women, exploring psychological and social sexism, beyond "violence and extreme abuse", that can shape or control women's thinking, inner conflicts, decisions and behaviors. American media is still focused on extreme violence and not the subtle kinds that affect majority of women. This may explain why sexism is still alive and kicking in much of America. One can see this dramatically in corporate America (in the way women have to constantly sell a specific demeanor and their bodies), and in "political America", where marital status, motherhood and "a male version of acceptable respectable womanhood" still dominate.
The Republican debate, scheduled for Wednesday September 7, 2011, will indirectly be about gender and class within the Republican party, and its establishment, as much as it is directly about economic and social issues. This unspoken gender and class warfare within the Republican party is a slice of the larger America that has denied these gaps for too long. We can see how Anglo women are evaluated, judged and treated by their Anglo men (within their insular social and cultural clubs – political or non-political), not just when they sit on the sidelines listening, assisting, applauding and supporting their men!
As feminists, social activists and political reformers often say (around the world), "You really see patriarchy, racism or classism in action from the status quo, when those who were marginalized, disenfranchized, discriminated and oppressed demand equality, fairness, peer relationship and deserved power. That is when ugly thoughts, feelings and faces come out! And some will be brutal!"
It will be important for women around the world, and women of color in America, to watch how women in their own communities, cultures and political environments fair relative to “American women in politics”.
The questions I have been asked by women interested in "gender, power and politics" are:
Could Benazir Bhutto, the late Prime Minister of Pakistan who was attractive and was unfortunately assassinated, run for high office and rise to power if she was not born wealthy, politically connected and later married? (Rumor has it that she married just to win respectability and acceptance in a highly traditional and gender divided Pakistan).
Would Golda Meir, one of Israel's early Prime Ministers, have been considered, let alone accepted, to high office among her male peers and countrymen without showing herself to be “firm, tough and hard as a nail"...just like traditional men? (She was a leader who dramatically increased the military budget of Israel, and constantly displayed its prowess).
Could Hillary Clinton consider running for a political office in the United States, even as a liberal Democrat, without the wife-of-a-President status or the connections that come with it, and a Mrs. degree - in spite of her amazing intelligence, policy expertise and a law degree?
What would have happened if Ms Clinton had chosen to divorce her husband, raise her daughter as a single mother, remarried a non-political man, or a less politically powerful man? Could she have gotten where she did...without all the personal and marital compromises and sacrifices that men pursuing power rarely even have to think about?
If Indira Gandhi rode on her “dutiful daughter” and later “grieving widow” image for sympathy and support, Michele Bachmann is running on a “good Christian woman and wife” image for trust and support.
If Hillary Clinton ran on “tough on political issues while traditional on personal marriage” platform, Sarah Palin is running on “pretty and feminine on the outside but tough and masculine on the inside” platform (with some of her supporters even asking her male opponents to “man up”).
If German Chancellor Angela Merkel can be sweet and girly in her frumpish man-suit, her Socialist colleague, all the way down and under, Dilma Rousseff - the first woman President of Brazil, is a single mother, twice divorced, who has kept her personal life personal...and so has the mature Brazilian press.
Both these women have been fortunate enough to be surrounded by men and a public that did not care to impose “matrimony, marriage, motherhood and traditional female roles”, in the narrowest of sense, on women candidates so they can be “accepted, trusted and deemed feminine or masculine enough” for public office.
What is different about their party, their media and their country?
Other than the fact that these women belong to a Socialist party and adhere to its philosophy in their own unique way, they are living in a country that has psychologically and socially matured in its understanding of gender and male-female relationship. They know toughness has nothing to do with appearance or clothes, and femininity is more than clothes and lipstick. They also know that like men women are diverse and unique in their personality, individuality, complexity, thinking, philosophy and politics. And so does much of the society they come from and represent. And many of their personal experiences and struggles have helped these political women get stronger, smarter, shrewder and more successful. Their female self, experiences and struggles have either assisted them...or has not hindered them. Unfortunately much of the world is far from that kind of reality - including the US of A.
Merkel and Rousseff are lucky to be surrounded by men and a media that judge a male and a female leader by the same yardstick - even on personal matters, while paying attention to some of their unique challenges as women, particularly as women leaders in a male world.
Angela Merkel is twice married, and her second husband is a Chemistry professor (far away from politics) who rarely appears in public with her. She has no kids of her own but is close to her step sons, and has chosen to keep her last name from her first marriage in her political career. Can you think of an unmarried woman, divorced woman, childless woman or a twice married woman (who is not just a wife, or a mistress, to a male politician) running for high office in China, India, Pakistan, the United States or Saudi Arabia? I don't think so!
Dilma Rousseff married a young revolutionary and was part of a radical political group that led to their frequent arrests and detentions. She later divorced him and lived with her common-law husband, much older than her, for nearly thirty years. She had one child with him, divorced him after a long partnership and has had many dating partners and lovers since then. Could you see a woman like her running for office and winning successfully in India, England, Pakistan, United States or Saudi Arabia? I don't think so!
It is not just about being communist or capitalist, democratic or theocratic and conservative or liberal that determines whether a society is able to accept “diverse women with varying abilities, capabilities, experiences and expertise”, and support women candidates beyond a narrow "is or is-not". There is a cultural, social and structural element to the economic and political theories a system follows that also contributes to certain "isms"...or its disappearance.
We need women candidates who are not just ultra-women or masculine-women, passive women or excessively aggressive women, traditional women or pretending to be traditional women. We need women candidates who do not have to spend a life time defying traditional roles to succeed in politics, or give up politics all together because it is so hard just to manage life as a single or a divorced woman...let alone succeed in politics as one! It is a combination of many social, cultural and psychological factors, with a matching economic and political system, that ultimately helps reduce or eliminate patriarchal influences and bias in our society and in our politics.
Hillary Clinton proved that working on a marriage in spite of its trials and tribulations is a “choice” she made in spite of her cheating husband. On the other hand, Dilma Rousseff divorced her second common-law husband of thirty years (thirty years!) for cheating on her once. That too was her choice. Two women with two different personalities and approaches to marriage, infidelity and faithfulness. But in a mature society both these women could run for office and would be equally supported. Their success would not depend on their marital status or marital decisions.
Angela Merkel decided to divorce her first faculty husband for “irreconcilable differences, and growing apart in their interests and priorities” before passionately running for high office. Sarah Palin's husband made things easy for her by becoming more of a full time house husband and a house father (to their five children). Both of these women should be appreciated and admired for the personal adjustments they made for their political ambition and career. Some women would have given up their ambition to save their marriage, some would have felt uncomfortable with a young attractive house husband who carries their purse.
Angela had no children, Hillary and Dilma had only one, Indira and Benazir had two and three each, while Sarah and Michele have five and over-five respectively. But why is it still easier, not easy but easier, for unmarried or twice married, or childless women to run for office elsewhere...but not in the United States?
Being single, never married, divorced or widowed, should not stop one from running for office, or being accepted into office. Dilma showed that in spite of a common-law husband she could run for office, divorce, run again and actually become a President of a country. Merkel kept both her husbands private and separate from her political life and chose not to have a biological child. These women are lucky to have had wonderfully supportive families, friends, peers, fans, followers and a mature sophisticated public that supported their political ambition and careers, irrespective of their personal relationship choices or sacrifices. They also had a political philosophy that believed in people and women as more than productive robotons and reproudctive angels.
On the other hand Hillary Clinton needed her husband on her campaigns, both to establish her marital respectability and her power-through-male-connection, to convince the American public that she was "feminine enough and a proper family woman enough" to be considered for the highest office. That is unfortunate!
Though Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are showing that women can run from the grassroots, no matter how controversial, without a rich or a well connected husband, their constituents still want “a husbanded woman” to find them acceptable, respectable and electable.
Constituents, citizens, residents, voters and a media that can pick on a woman candidate's policies and personality, without picking on her personal looks or personal life – be she in a salwar, a veil, pant-suit, dress, mini-skirt or a bikini, and not focus on her marital status or relationship status – be she a heterosexual single woman, divorcee, widow with or without lovers, a mother with biological or adopted children....is a mature society with a sensible media.
Many countries and cultures are far from such social and gender maturity. While Asia is emerging, it is still lagging behind on this matter. And imitating the United States these days only makes it worse!
