Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Jun
27
Grand Central Political published this column by Jennifer Nedeau of New Media Strategies and Human Folly, “Could A Little “Sex” Help Female Political Candidates?” Here’s a tease:
Since Barack Obama took the Democratic Presidential Nomination, I have come to wonder: if Hillary had harnessed some of the powerful imagery of SATC, could she have done better among women like me who think she just wasn’t female enough to earn the title of “First Female President?”
…
In the SATC movie, Miranda remarks to Carrie as she looks for a Halloween costume – “These are the only two choices for women – witch or sexy kitten?” Currently, the ability for a female leader to rise above these stereotypes is difficult, if not impossible. If we are ever going to get past these stereotypes, we need a female leader who is brave enough to prove that being powerful and female isn’t a detrimental condition corrected by a short hair cut, a figure less suit and emotionless campaigning. I think Hillary in particular would have had more success if she had tried to embrace her gender instead of treating it like a handicap. Perhaps then, the females turned off by her decision to fit in all too nicely with the male political paradigm, might have decided she was someone worthy of their vote.
Before you start rolling your eyes, or wondering WTF is Jill saying she thinks, remember the following:
The next female who wants to be commander-in-chief could try to embrace her gender as a plus, rather than a minus. Simple things such as an upside down stiletto could easily take the place of the “V” in “Vote for Me” as a start. Instead of stuffy suits, add some fashion to the political stage and allow a popular female designer to dress the candidate for a day. Work with Mommy Bloggers, admirable female celebrities, female sports stars, and sorority girls to create the solid base of female support to carry the campaign. Most importantly, meet women in their element. Organize the female electorate such as Mobilize.org did with a voter registration drive at the Sex and the City Movie Premieres. Or host a Cocktail Caucus at CHANEL similar to what Polichicks Online has done.
I chose to be a Barack Obama supporter in part because I did not agree with Hillary’s misogynistic branding of her campaign. When Obama took the nomination it became clear that in targeting the 20 to 40 year-old demographic he found success – they wanted to have a beer with him and listen to his policy – something Hillary could not seem to achieve. However, when another female wagers for the White House – instead of seeking a candidate to drink a beer with, why not a one who might sip a Cosmopolitan? Bridging the gender gap in politics is not impossible; it just takes a little creativity.
See the sense? I do. And this isn’t an easy topic or a stupid or silly one either. I know there are women who will always bristle at the suggestion Nedeau makes because they’ll see it as selling out or not pursuing gender neutrality.
However, if our gender – whether man or women – offers us the potential to have advantages, as political candidates, and re-brand otherwise negative images connected to our gender which we reject, why not manipulate these images and definitions ourselves? That’s taking control, and I can’t argue against it (and have in fact argued for it before).
It’s never too late to try out strategies like the ones Nedeau suggested. Maybe the next step is to start a website that encourages women who are running for office or will be running for office to figure out their level of comfort with these suggestions and see how she fits them in, and whether they work, or fail.
If I run for something, I promise to be a guinea pig for this tactic. You?
As an example of turning images on their heads, here’s the White House Project’s baby doll fit t-shirt (which I wear constantly):
Works for me.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:23 pm June 27th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Campaigning, Culture, Elections, Gender, Hillary Clinton, Marketing, Media, Politics, Sexism, Voting, WH2008, Women
Comments
10 Responses to “Sexing up political candidates akin to Sex and The City”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
The WH Project should seriously look into selling those shirts as a fundraiser – I’d buy!
Thanks, Cheri! I think they may sell them on their website here. Aren’t they awesome – they are so comfortable too – I don’t wear t-shirts that much but I love this one.
[...] to Jill Miller Zimon for giving her two cents on my column this week and cross-posting on Blogher, Writes Life She Talks, the Political Voices of Women, and The Moderate Voice. She is giving some great perspective to my [...]
I’m sorry Jill, but this one made me cringe. I read it last night, almost responded then but waited.
I don’t support the idea that a woman should evaluated on her ability to dress or how she looks rather than her ideas and how she thinks. At 48 years old, if I were to run for office I would hope that voters would be more concerned about what I would accomplish than how darling I looked in my designer suit…
It adds to the American Idol mentality where the next big contest if we are going to follow this type of theme would be “Extreme Makeover” with female candidates getting breast implants, liposuction or other plastic surgery to demonstrate that what matters is how the package is wrapped rather than what it contains…
It’s directly counterproductive as to how I have raised my four daughters, and I could not help thinking of when Rush Limbaugh stated one of the reasons Clinton should not be elected would be that we would not want to see a woman age in the WhiteHouse. Evidently saggy unattractive old men are acceptable…
52% of those old enough to vote are women, yet look at how few are elected. The inescapable reality is men are not to blame for this, we are. We don’t support our own and it appears we are many times much more critical of other women than some of the men we point fingers at…Creating such a superficial scenario that women should meet as opposed to their male counterparts with grown women being called “girls” is part of the problem. If we don’t take ourselves seriously, who are we to condemn men who don’t…
For the record, when Hillary Clinton said “I’m your girl” it made me cringe as well as do some serious reflection on the whole use of the word “girl.” We are all intelligent enough to realize that a male candidate would most likely never stand in front of a crowd and say “I’m your boy”.
Lisa Renee, I’m always glad when you comment – because I know you only do it with respect and thought.
Here are my thoughts on your thoughts:
“I don’t support the idea that a woman should evaluated on her ability to dress or how she looks rather than her ideas and how she thinks.”
I agree with you, but this is because I don’t find the embracing of qualities connected to our gender as being the same thing as what you say you don’t support. I see it as additive to the assets we possess, not a substitute, for our ideas and how we think.
I don’t read the suggestion as one that has to go as far as you take it in this graph: “It adds to the American Idol mentality where the next big contest if we are going to follow this type of theme would be “Extreme Makeover” with female candidates getting breast implants, liposuction or other plastic surgery to demonstrate that what matters is how the package is wrapped rather than what it contains…”
I really feel that there’s an in between. Over at The Moderate Voice, where I also posted this entry, a commenter mentioned Nancy Pelosi as an example of someone who embraces some of these suggestions in a way that doesn’t overwhelm her ideas or the media’s coverage of her. Here’s a link to that comment. I think that’s a very accurate description of the positive way the suggestions in this column by Nedeau can be interpreted.
In your last paragraph, you write, “The inescapable reality is men are not to blame for this, we are. We don’t support our own and it appears we are many times much more critical of other women than some of the men we point fingers at…Creating such a superficial scenario that women should meet as opposed to their male counterparts with grown women being called “girls” is part of the problem. If we don’t take ourselves seriously, who are we to condemn men who don’t…”
I don’t think in terms of blame – men and women make up our political system at every level – voters, candidates, legislators. We all have a role to play in improving the diversity in representation.
I also have had great experiences in supporting our own – and I know you and I have tried to do that over the time we’ve known each other, although we do have different approaches and opinions at times. The White House Project was an amazing experience of how women support one another.
I don’t read this column by Nedeau as coming close to reinforcing images that would force people to not take us seriously – not at all. But I also scoffed at my mother when she told me I needed to change my hair color or else no one would take me seriously. That was five years ago – I’m doing fine, with the same hair color.
The author of the column and I went back and forth on a number of points raised by me similar to the ones you raise. I do get the concern about undermining ourselves. But I also believe that we do not need to eschew unique opportunities afforded us because we’re women. And that’s why I say that each of us can choose how that works into our presentation of ourselves – whether subtle or not.
One last example – if you have time, read this article about Yulia Tymoshenko and her braid and run for president of Ukraine. I view this as a perfect example of how she used something extremely feminine to brand herself – and it worked.
So – I think there are opportunities to integrate such things into political presentation without negative image reinforcement.
I don’t think I ever heard the I’m your girl line! Ack. but yeah – I would cringe too. I did cringe every time she referred to “my husband did this” and “my husband did that” – and I actually haven’t heard her use that language at all since she suspended her campaign, and it’s so much better sounding, to me.
Jill, just noted this next to your comment, but wanted to stop in here as well to say thanks so much for stopping by. I was so excited to read more of your posts and be introduced to your site by Jen (she is quite the connector; of ideas… people… fashion, you name it). I think there are some important and unanswered questions remaining, but Jen and I hope to flesh them out while we are en route to Austin and then San Fran (BlogHer or Bust!!) and when we touch down and talk with more women about this issue (at the political events in Austin – right and left – and at BlogHer, of course
)
Thanks again so much for the support, contributions and hope to meet in San Fran!
Leslie – thanks for the great feedback. I’m going to melt like a popsicle all over you young women who work so hard. I’m in awe. I did some stuff but mostly, I remember being very caught up in not knowing what I was doing when I was in my 20s! Even when I was in graduate school.
Safe travels and I’ll see you at BlogHer.
[...] I’ve written before about how exactly do women use whatever positive attributes, as women, we have on the campaign trail, especially given that there are three or four generations of women around to vote and they definitely don’t all view female politicians and campaigning as a woman in the same way. But now the New York Times has really conflated the coverage of women politicians and still somehow managed to ignore what does matter in a political competition in, “Blazing Campaign Trails in a Certain 3-Inch Heel.” [...]