I imagine we've all heard the news: two weeks ago, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain announced as his running mate Gov. Sarah Palin, a staunch conservative (which is not surprising) and a woman (which is.) After Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton's strong run for the Presidential nomination and her continued presence in the election year hoopla, gender has become one of the hottest topics of the impending election.The general population, as reflected in the blogosphere and elsewhere, has pounced on this topic in an uncharacteristic way. One of the big questions is: will the case for a gender-equal society be strengthened or damaged by this highly complex situation? What conclusions are we to draw from the Hillary/Palin phenomenon?
I'm not an avid political fan, but I've watched the public reaction to both of these women very closely. The differences are pronounced, and many of them are expressed along gender lines. Some people are vigorously turned off by Hillary's aggressive, near-ruthless nature, and some people are vigorously turned off by Palin's conformist adherence to "soccer mom" stereotypes. All of these reactions are based not on the candidates' political fitness, but on our own gender-specific biases and perceptions. What gives?
Some of these perceptions and biases may be based in our own experiences of people in general and women in particular, but many more of them are based solely on cultural conditioning-- in other words, some of our responses aren't our responses at all, but instead responses that were inherited from the past. We've been taught to believe that certain things must be just this way, but the our experiences sometimes seem to offer a different opinion.
How do we know which are which, and why should we care?
I doubt there’s one simple answer to either question, but I have a few thoughts on the matter. When we choose or reject major political candidates based on some measure of their acceptability on a (supposedly) legally and philosophically outdated scale of “proper feminine behavior,” there’s obviously something wrong.
Is it the laws that are wrong? They clearly state that women are entitled to professional equality with men, and yet women who exhibit the traits necessary to make it as top political candidates face instant societal retribution, and are rejected with labels like “unfeminine,” "un-American," and much worse. Regardless of political stances, this election has been a nightmare of gender role stereotyping, in more ways than one. Hillary Clinton is not the only one affected; exactly how far from her current role as the pretty, proper, conservative female could Sarah Palin step without facing the same sort of censure that Hillary received?
Is it the laws that are wrong? They clearly state that women are entitled to professional equality with men, and yet women who exhibit the traits necessary to make it as top political candidates face instant societal retribution, and are rejected with labels like “unfeminine,” "un-American," and much worse. Regardless of political stances, this election has been a nightmare of gender role stereotyping, in more ways than one. Hillary Clinton is not the only one affected; exactly how far from her current role as the pretty, proper, conservative female could Sarah Palin step without facing the same sort of censure that Hillary received?
Is it our culture that is wrong? We encourage our daughters to “be all that they can be,” while simultaneously conditioning them to reject such traits as assertiveness, cunning, and overt competitiveness. We still unconsciously support many of the stereotypes we claim to reject. We may not realize what we're doing, but when we encourage a girl to participate in debate club, and then frown on her when she exhibits an "unfeminine" urge to win at all costs, we send a horrible set of mixed messages. The evidence of these mixed messages has rarely been more publically obvious than it is now.
Is it me who is wrong, as an individual? Sometimes I wish we could get rid of gender altogether, or add three or four more categories, or…something, anything at all to shake up the rigid notions of what should be. There’s a not-so-hidden interplay of gender politics that places intolerable limits on individual achievement and growth; under a rigid either/or polarization of any kind, no one is free to produce their very best results. It's like being asked the question, "What would make the best pie? Grapes or fish?" and not being allowed to say, "Well, apples might be good. Or peaches. Or banana cream." If the only choices you have are grapes and fish, well, then grape or fish pie it is.
Is it me who is wrong, as an individual? Sometimes I wish we could get rid of gender altogether, or add three or four more categories, or…something, anything at all to shake up the rigid notions of what should be. There’s a not-so-hidden interplay of gender politics that places intolerable limits on individual achievement and growth; under a rigid either/or polarization of any kind, no one is free to produce their very best results. It's like being asked the question, "What would make the best pie? Grapes or fish?" and not being allowed to say, "Well, apples might be good. Or peaches. Or banana cream." If the only choices you have are grapes and fish, well, then grape or fish pie it is.
Is there anything we can do about cultural gender stereotyping? Indeed, is there anything we should do? And just who is supposed to answer these questions? Us?
I wish I knew....
(This post is purely the opinion of writer Laura F. Walton, and doesn't necessarily reflect anyone's thoughts but her own.)
No comments:
Post a Comment