"Those who invade the linguistic domain of men must overcome their own
sense of the inadequacies of a woman's speech. Unsurprisingly, then,
political women are more "assertive, more venturesome, more imaginative
and unconventìonal, and more liberal in their attitudes” than women in
the population at large. The pressures of deviating from expected social
roles exact a price. Female politicians tend toward "a serious and
manner and . . . a fretful uncertainty about themselves and their
situation." "
-Jamieson (5)
It's awesome to see topics from three of my classes pulled together in
Jamieson's article: eloquence and Margaret Fuller/women's issues. The thing that I can't quite get past is, if Fuller was writing in the
19th century (and I wonder what the date of this article is?) and we've evolved and matured and become more enlightened
through the years, why do we still need articles and books expounding on this subject?
Apparently, because not too much has really changed.
The whole last part of Jamieson's article put me in mind of Hillary Clinton - that line about "women paying in shriveled uteruses for political standing" made me think about all of the comments I've heard about Hillary over the years, and and especially when she ran for president. There is only one guy I know who has anything good to say about her - even supports her political endeavors. But almost everyone else tone revolves around "she's a shriveled up witch" essentially, and "it's not that we don't want a female president, we just don't want her" which I doubt would change if another woman stepped up to the plate.
Hillary went from being the First Lady/mother to a high ranking politician in her own right - but that has not come without a price - and that price seems to be obvious from what I hear said about her.
It's interestingly terrible that female politicians have to give up so much of their femininity in order to run for office. The pant suits, the short hair that most women sport in those roles are all what we would traditionally consider "manly" changes to appearance - but why should women have to make those changes? Why should they have to sacrifice that part of themselves?
It's in circumstances like these that it seems like gender issues are even more apparent, and far from ever being over.
First, Autumn, I would like to point something out about the clothing attire. I am a huge proponent of allowing everyone to be themselves; however, men are actually more subjugated when it comes to clothing. Suits are really a uniform in disguise. Men have much tighter constraints when it comes to dress attire. Generally, this is considered the uniform of business operations. The fact is if women went out of their way to dress different it would gain as much attention as if a man dressed promiscuos. Do the women in politics want to be looked at as a piece of meat? Or would they rather wear the same uniform just as the military? They are there to perform a job just like everyone else.
ReplyDeleteIn Hilary's case, I Believe that most people hate her because her shady political moves. Conspiracies such as the Benghazi scandal and Fast and Furious have left a lot of people questioning her morals.
I do agree with you that things have not necessarily changed all that much, but I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning. I agree with Levi that the dress is more because that is what is viewed as professional, not that women must be "manly." In reality, women almost have more of an ability to express themselves while still coming off as professional than men do, and I have seen many political women wearing skirts and heels as well as pantsuits. However, I think that there is still a bit of a stereotype when it comes to any woman in a powerful position concerning the "hysterics" of women and how emotional they can get. It is assumed that in a sticky situation, the woman would not be able to stay calm and make rational decisions like a man might. You can see this in satires about women in powerful positions. They may speak in a screechy voice to portray these reactions. It's the "typical woman."
ReplyDeleteI don't think that it is so much that the woman have to give away their femininity for office. I think that they have to overcome the stereotypes given to them, surely, but I don't think their femininity is challenged. In fact (and, I suppose this might not be the best example considering) Sarah Palin used her femininity when she was running for office. It was well known that she was a mother and took her job as a mother and wife seriously. Her bumper stickers read, "Read my lipstick." She embraced her womanhood for her political campaign. I use this example to show that it is not femininity that women are losing, but they are losing some respect as women because of the stereotypes that have not been fully conquered.