Why do people hate Hillary Clinton? It could be because of her position on public policy or her personal decisions. Or perhaps it's because she is a woman who defies traditional gender roles.
Clinton's position on public policy is no more liberal than the views held by every other democratic candidate. In fact, she is one of the more moderate of the democratic candidates. She is also a qualified candidate, as she has had more education and experience than most of her competition. A graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law School, she has been actively involved in politics and law since the 1960s. So what explains the passionate hatred for Clinton held by so many Americans, even by those who support a more liberal and less-qualified candidate such as Barack Obama? The fact of the matter is that Clinton is a woman, and Americans' current ideals for womanhood and political leadership are not compatible.
Unfortunately, many of the traits necessary for effective leadership are currently considered masculine qualities. As many critics of feminism assert, the traditional role of a woman is that of a subservient support system for her male counterpart.
Due to this traditional notion, mildness, gentleness and submissiveness are considered feminine and optimal in women. Men have always traditionally filled leadership roles, and as a result, traits like assertiveness, authoritativeness, outspokenness and drive are valued in their gender.
Clinton is an example of the struggle taking place as women work to redefine femininity and the feminine role in society. She faces issues and criticism daily that male candidates almost never have to address, such as dress and make-up. She has to deal with the societal contradiction between femininity and leadership and somehow come across as possessing both.
When you consider American women in leadership roles, it is difficult to think of one who has not been called either a masculine witch or, on the flipside, too feminine to be trusted with leadership roles.
Such is a struggle faced by all women who want positions of leadership. I have frequently grappled with this frustration in my own life. Last summer, I was a presiding officer at a mock-Congress-style conference. There were six presiding officers, and two of us were girls. We both had difficulties with the role because we wanted to be effective leaders who maintained order, but we did not want to be considered "femi-nazis."
We both found that the male presiding officers had an easier time establishing their authority while still being well-liked. As a member of the mock trial team here at UT, I have been told that female attorneys who wear skirt suits generally score higher than those in pantsuits.
Furthermore, women attorneys, unlike male attorneys, cannot get angry in court without alienating the jury.
So will women ever be able to enter the highest echelons of leadership in our country without having to sacrifice their femininity? Only if the definition of "feminine" changes.
Only when assertiveness, strength and drive are considered acceptable feminine traits will women escape the trap built into American culture's definitions of leadership and femininity. To accomplish that goal, women are going to have to put themselves out there and run the risks of name-calling and hyper-criticism of seemingly irrelevant things, such as dress.
As women prove that leadership qualities and feminine qualities do not contradict each other, female leadership will be more readily accepted in this country. I encourage Americans to give Clinton a fair chance and to make sure they are evaluating her fairly, based on her views and personal qualities and without prejudice.
Sheridan is a Plan II and political communications sophomore.
Be the first to comment on this article!