‘Grandma’ Hillary tries again
Surprising no one, former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton announced her run for the 2016 presidency on Sunday. She’ll have a few things to overcome during this second kick at the White House: the perception that a vote for Clinton is a vote for a third Obama term; a GOP hell-bent on convincing Americans of her incompetence; her marriage to Bill Clinton. And she is, of course, a woman. But it’s not about becoming the first female president, they’ll say. Hillary Clinton will be judged on her track record and politics.
But in a country where more than 80 per cent of elected leaders are male, how can her gender not be a factor? How can an intrinsically patriarchal society all of a sudden snap out of sexism when it comes to the presidency?
They’re calling her “polarizing.” What is polarizing about a socially liberal, fiscally centred candidate?
Her gender is what’s polarizing, even if it’s disguised as contempt for her spouse or politics.
The campaign will be long, it will be gruelling, and it will probably get ugly. There will be the unapologetically sexist “Iron My Shirt” sign-bearers and the more covertly biased critiques, using female-specific adjectives like “shrill” and “nagging.” And jabs like “overconfident” and “aggressive” that we would never criticize a male counterpart for.
In a Forbes article from announcement day, John Zogby opined: “Reeling from charges in 2007-2008 she was wooden, remote, and too ‘inevitable’ to the point of arrogant, the new Hillary promises to be more personal, a new and proud grandmother.” Give us a break. Male politicians have been criticized for their lack of warmth, but can you imagine if they ran on their grandfatherly image?
Hillary Clinton is unlikely to focus much on sexism, lest she be criticized by those “if you can’t take the heat”-type pundits. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.
In Alberta, women represent 25 per cent of elected MLAs, and a measly 20 per cent of Jim Prentice’s cabinet. This election won’t change much.
Alison Redford and Danielle Smith both enjoyed widespread popularity once. Today, they have been demonized and vilified to caricatures. Smith’s floorcrossing was a bad career move, but oh, how we have delighted in her downfall.
Long-serving Edmonton Liberal MLA Laurie Blakeman expressed concerns about the provincial boys’ club last week on talk radio: “Everything is about men … the time we work, the size of the furniture, the drinks that are available. You’re really a woman that is immersed in a man’s world.”
Beyond that, men are given an assumption of capability, an exemption from scrutiny in their personal lives, a freedom to be attractive or not without comment.
When elected, female leaders hold their own on national and world stages. In 2013, six of Canada’s provincial and territorial leaders were women. Germany’s Angela Merkel, chancellor of Europe’s most populous and economically prosperous nation, is a force to be reckoned with.
As it turns out, politics is a lot like law and medicine. Once in the club, female politicians are just like their male colleagues — flaws and all. But unlike those fields — women are now overrepresented in law and med schools — the percentage gains women have made in politics have stalled completely.
We need to actively encourage women to run for office. Both sexes can start by examining our ingrained bias against, and intense scrutiny of females in public life. After all, there will never be a shortage of male candidates vying for our vote. At least, not in our lifetime.