Damned If Feminine, Damned If Feminist

BY Susan J. Douglas

Women are held up simultaneously to feminist and feminine standards, and must fulfill both, but with a bias (still) toward the feminine.

What role has sexism played in the race for the Democratic nomination? Hillary Clinton answered that seething question herself in late May, telling the Washington Post that the press turned a blind eye to the “incredible vitriol that has been engendered … by people who are nothing but misogynists.” Her most avid supporters are clearly aggrieved by what they see as anti-woman sentiment in the media.

Then there’s the pointless debate about what’s more permissible, racism or sexism? How do we imagine, say, Michelle Obama might answer that? She stands at the intersection of both streams of prejudice.

These false oppositions – about whether the treatment of Clinton has been sexist, or if sexism is more acceptable than racism – miss the point.

So much is in flux in this campaign: who’s voting for whom (e.g., white women in Indiana for Clinton – and Obama), the heightened prominence of women and blacks as candidates and voting blocs, and evolving standards for assessing candidates in a country with a press still trapped in superficial “gotcha!” journalism.

The news media – part of a larger industry that gives us no-nonsense women surgeons, police lieutenants and law partners in TV dramas on the one hand, and “The Bachelor” on the other – oscillates wildly between its commitment to equality and its continued, though unconscious institutional sexism and racism.

Women are held up simultaneously to feminist and feminine standards, and must fulfill both, but with a bias (still) toward the feminine. The ideal seems to be the Steel Magnolia.

Sen. Clinton has been treated like most male candidates, questioned about her policies, attacked for gaffes and inflammatory remarks. Yet the press has also persisted – despite the countless times feminists have denounced this routine – in emphasizing her physical appearance to an extent rarely done with male candidates.

The feminine-feminist schizophrenic playbook has also been closely followed for two women who couldn’t be more different: Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama.

In February, both commanded the national spotlight. On Feb. 21, as reported in the New York Daily News, a “slender” Cindy McCain, “the striking blond” and “perky stay-at-home mom” “stood by her man” to defend her husband against charges printed in the New York Times that he had had an improper relationship with “an attractive female lobbyist.” Or, as the Washington Post stated, she stood by “her husband’s side, all jewel-toned clothing and icy blue eyes.”

Yet in an April USA Today feature, we learned that this “elegant blonde in jewel-toned suits and a quadruple strand of pearls … travels to poor countries on medical missions” and “chairs a huge beer distribution company.” Say what?

The same woman that CNN’s Carol Costello and various bloggers have ridiculed as a “Stepford wife,” has also been, since 2000, chairman of Hensley & Co., her father’s $300 million Anheuser-Busch distribution company, and serves on the boards of three charitable organizations dedicated to children. Stay-at-home mom?

USA Today also reported that when her husband’s campaign nearly crashed, “She had a pretty strong hand in righting the campaign.” So, Cindy McCain has been dismissed as a blonde bimbo clotheshorse, and as the money and power behind her husband’s success.

That same week, Michelle Obama appeared on the cover of Newsweek in a simple, sleeveless, pale blue satin sheath, a string of pearls, and a simple bouffant hair-do, immediately prompting analogies to Jacqueline Kennedy. The headline read “He Calls Her His ‘Rock.’ ” Inside we learned she’s “steely.” In her account of her interview with Michelle, CNN’s Soledad O’Brien emphasized her “perfect make-up” and “fabulous patent-leather boots.”

Yet Mrs. Obama faces continuing denunciations for saying, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.” Right-wing pundits consistently cast her as negative, unpatriotic and as hating America. So, Mrs. Obama is a stylish Benedict Arnold.

The question isn’t whether the media have been sexist. Of course they have. The issue for women – be they candidates or spouses – is how our culture’s ongoing and conflicted attitudes toward femininity (too much is too retro and weak) versus feminism (too assertive and strident) leaves most public women no place to stand.

When race is thrown into the mix, however veiled, as it will be with Mrs. Obama, we can only imagine what contortions she’ll be put through.

Susan J. Douglas is a professor of communications at the University of Michigan and an In These Times columnist. Her latest book is Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism's Work is Done (2010).

More information about Susan J. Douglas

  • Reader Comments

    To the extent that some feminists want to make women man hating humorless people (the all sex is rape crowd, for instance), one cannot really feel much sympathy. Of course, these are the fringes, but some of their philosophy sadly bleeds into the mainstream (just as some fringe elements of radical Christianity bleed into that mainstream).

    I think women should delight in their femininity, just as men should delight in their masculinity. Both are wonderful things, and when the come together just right - well then, that is one of the many things that make life worth living. And just as men can be masculine when staying at home raising children, women can be feminine running a country or a business. One need not throw out pieces of oneself in order to do what they desire.

    But lets just admit - if a woman shows cleavage, men are going to notice and look (as are women, for that matter). Men are visual creatures and many love the way that attractive women look. To pretend otherwise is just silly (even for presidential candidates).

    Posted by wolf on Jun 10, 2008 at 8:11 AM

    Why is it I have trouble finding sympathy for Hillary or Michelle (or Susan)?

    Perhaps it is because on their worst day they are so much better off than 99% of the world’s people

    Posted by whattheheck on Jun 10, 2008 at 10:49 AM

    whattheheck said:
    > Why is it I have trouble finding sympathy for Hillary or Michelle (or Susan)?
    >
    > Perhaps it is because on their worst day they are so much better off than 99% of the world

    Posted by closeparen on Jun 10, 2008 at 11:17 PM

    closeparen,

    Hillary, like Bill, is quick to claim being treated unfairly.  Remember the Great Rightwing Conspiracy? Poor Bill. Poor Hilllary.

    (When it comes to truth and fairness, I guess it depends on what is, IS.)

    If you want to play with the big kids

    Posted by whattheheck on Jun 11, 2008 at 8:33 AM

    I have no sympathy for the estrogen or melanin arguments that have dominated the Dimocratic campaign to date.  Who cares?  But I cannot help but note that the Soros interests have hijacked the political process in order to promote their candidate Obama.

    How else could a nobody from nowhere suddenly become an international phenomenon with millions of dollars of political backing?

    Hillary may not have been the ideal candidate because of her baggage, but how does Obama, with no baggage, or resume, or history, suddenly spring from nowhere?

    I don’t suppose even-handedness is a realistic possibility, much less a realistic ideal, in poitics, but this is ridiculous.

    Posted by scorp on Jun 11, 2008 at 7:05 PM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 9 posts.