Whether Difficult or Incapacitated, Ladies? We’re Not Fit to be Elected or Public Officials
Jul 20th, 2011 | 30 responses
What is it with women like Sheila Bair, former head of the FDIC, who is just soooo difficult, and Elizabeth Warren, creator and designer of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, who is just soooo controversial and now U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D, FL-20) who is just soooo not acting like a lady?
I mean, really. Who do we think we are when we use our voice – a voice that was selected and in many cases, elected, from among many others to be heard and to give voice to people and issues that matter? To actually be heard, only to then fall below the expectations of acting like a lady! of always being non-controversial! of being…EASY (as opposed to difficult)! Come on – aren’t elected women supposed to be easy?!
Gawd.
Sigh – As so many tweets that are hashtagged with #actlikealady demonstrate (thank you to EMILY’s List), it is positively absurd to suggest that because a woman stands her ground on an issue, she is therefore in violation of a gender-based stereotyped expectation, placed on her by men who are similarly situated but who are expected to act similarly. Anyone remember U.S. Rep. Joe “You lie!” Wilson (R, TX) being told that he’s not acting like a lady? No – because the standard isn’t whether, once you are an elected official or a public servant, you must behave according to a gender stereotype at all times – or any time. The standard for an elected or public official’s behavior is that you behave like the public servant you are: advocating for, you know – the public. Are there behavioral expectations? You bet. Should they be based on gender – in such a way as to suggest that women are otherwise hysterical or out of order because they are not conforming to that gender stereotype?
Do not even answer that question unless you are going to give an unequivocal, unambiguous, “Hell no.”
Over and over again I have said, since early on after I was elected, that an undercurrent expectation of civility is used to suggest that we (electeds and public figures) should not voice disagreements or even strong sentiments in open Council meetings. In the case of Bair, Warren and DSW, this expectation is extended to suggest that they damage all members of their gender for failing to conform to others’ gendered expectations (of what a lady acts like, of not being controversial, of not being difficult).
I firmly disagree with that expectation. Rather, I believe that at all times, we are to remain respectful of colleagues. But that should never be wielded as a way to intimidate anyone out of voicing an opinion (simply because someone has an expectation that voicing a differing opinion is somehow uncivil). That possession and voicing of a differing opinion, in and of itself, is not uncivil – or unladylike. But trying to intimidate an elected or public official into thinking that doing so is uncivil or unladylike? Now that, to me, is what is uncivil – and extraordinarily undemocratic.
If you want to learn how to be an elected or public official who must manage low-throw highly personal lobs, watch these two clips – the first is Wasserman Schultz today with Andrea Mitchell and the second is Elizabeth Warren from Monday:
Hattip on the DWS situation to Brian Hester of Plunderbund.
Many thanks to U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand who has started this petition where you can indicate that you stand with DWS and the imperative that we stand firm when it comes to protecting what we believe in. She has been positively unflinching in her adamant support for her beliefs in as strong language and action as anyone but no more so than when it comes to showing her support for other elected women and women interested in public service work.
And by the way – when then U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter – a Democrat in 2010 – disparaged Republican presidential candidate but then just U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann for not acting like a lady, don’t you know that conservatives lambasted Specter? Read more here. Now with the Tea Party’s Allen West – not so much.
Finally – if you really are not convinced that we should all just move along and there’s nothing to this gendered stereotyping thing intended to put women in their place, all you need to do is look at the flipside.
What is that flipside? The attacks being lobbed at Michele Bachmann regarding her health and headaches. The unnamed sources pressing a narrative intended to make people buy into yet another gender stereotype of weak, incapacitated menopausal-aged women who certainly cannot manage their “condition” in order to get through a day let alone a presidency are having a blast I’m sure watching the media go all over this one. And it’s just as wrong as the three examples which started this post.
This gender-based crap has got to stop. The most telling, instructive thing about it? It tells you who really are the weak ones.
30 Responses to “Whether Difficult or Incapacitated, Ladies? We’re Not Fit to be Elected or Public Officials”
I love this story for its illustrative powers. There’s a ton one can unpack from reading the email sent from West to Schultz. She got up on the floor of Congress and laid out a bunch of facts, pointing out West also represents a lot of Medicare recipients, and that they will be hurt by this legislation. He goes apesh*t, saying she’s not a lady, and that she won’t say it “to his face”, because he decided that listening to what his collegues had to say was somehow not part of his job, and just left. In any case, um, I think he protests a bit too much.
There’s a ton more there, but to anyone who thinks chivalry is dead — it’s not. The idea that there are “ladies” who deserve respect, and then a whole slew of other, difficult “non-ladies”, the lady-status of whom is determined by men hewing to a particular set of outdated criteria of lady-ness, is still very much alive. And I, personally, ain’t one bit happy about it.
Yes ladies, the struggle continues, and it will no doubt continue until there is at least a balance, or a majority of women in the house of the “powers that be”. What do you think of the one million or more women that was denied court rights for their class act suit concerning the discrimination of women employees at Wal-Mart?
She’s just to good. The Republican’s are afraid of her so the won’t confirm her.
I do remember him being fervently condemned for his behavior by many.
While I think there are attack on women that are sexiest, and some attacks use any “weapon” they can get, plenty are just normal politics and the “I’m a victim” cry can get old and more importantly counterproductive real quick. Personally I think that happened to Clinton. They used that to much too often and people stopped listening.
I’ll agree with EEllis that maybe “you lie” wasn’t the best example. In that case, the president had the floor, and accusing someone of lying when they are not is rude and dishonest. In this case, Shultz had the floor, and laid out the facts in a straightforward manner. The former was a rude and dishonest interruption of time allotted to someone else, while the latter was a congressperson doing her job. Nothing remotely unladylike about it, unless your definition of ladylike includes sitting down (legs crossed at the ankle, of course), and shutting up while not worrying her pretty little head about men and their complicated politics.
Jill –
1. This is almost totally if not totally about GOP reluctance to see Bachmann nominated because she is unelectable. (As I’ve written elsewhere, that goes for her being made the VP choice to ensure social and religious conservative voter turnout; Rick Perry can fill this role as VP, easily, after spending an early “campaign for President” getting nation-wide exposure.
2. I hope you liked my humor at sexism in Taylor’s earlier thread.
(haven’t checked for vitriol yet)
Debbie Wassermann-Schultz (sp?) is a combination of Alan Grayson (repellent) and Antony Weiner (similarly repellent).
(Then there is the bogus claim by Dem members of Congress that opposition to Obama is racism. Imagine if a black president were female, too! Theoretically — libs ‘n’ Dems won’t do it — she might be treated like, say, Condoleezza Rice.)
Roro wrote:
That’s provocative (at least, in Saudi Arabia, I believe).
I agree re: You lie might not have been the best – what can I say? I’ll try harder next time.
Re: it’s to bring down Bachmann – agreed. Just as it’s used to bring down all these women. And what I think IS great and different is how transparent this tactic is becoming and really is a matter of “I know you are but what am I” – it’s just too transparently about gender and NOT based on objective thresholds someone has for how to judge an elected or public official (candidate). The model right now of how it’s done re: throwing good punches? The Kathy Hochul race in the NY…26 or 28 – it’s late – I forget her opponent but it was another woman. And it NEVER deteriorated into any gender-based junk (who is a better mother, and so on). Totally on issues. Now – other dirty tactics might abound, but not the sexist or gender based ones.
I’m not sure what the big issue is with the Wasserman situation is. west was upset and said so. And? Yes he said she wasn’t a “Lady”. So? We all know there are connotations to that label and it includes behaving in certain ways and being treated in certain ways. While you may wish West used a more concise and deliberate phrasing it seems clear to me that he is saying you will not be getting special treatment because you are a woman. Who here thinks that she should? While West could of made his point clearer and unfortunately gave fodder to those who chose to misconstrue the comments it seems to me to be a basic “Gloves are off” statement.
i wonder what west would have said if he had been accused of being an “uppity negro” for attacking a lady?
It wasn’t all to long ago that black congressmen had to behave according to certain social strictures allied by the majority too. Too bad this guy doesn’t have a sense of historical irony.
Great post, Jill.
Taking the longer view, the fact that we’re having this discussion — one of many similar discussions in the blogosphere — is a small sign of progress.
“I’m not sure what the big issue is with the Wasserman situation is. west was upset and said so. And? Yes he said she wasn’t a “Lady”. So?”
Well, there’s only one post on it, so it’s really not all that big an issue, EEllis. It is, however, able to illustrate in a pretty clear way, particular when combined with other recent events, how we’ve still got a long way to go before women in politics (or in pretty much any leadership role) are treated with respect for being good at their jobs, instead of being held to a fairly impossible negotiation between being the sweet pretty things we’re expected to be and being strong and fearless leaders. The post is how as women we can’t really win either way — we’re either shrinking violets and respected as “ladies” but not as leaders/independent people, or we’re strong and effective but considered bitchy, screeching harpies. Many of us are considered both at the same time. Many of us, no matter how strong and effective, will always be considered shrinking violets because of our gender. Other groups of women, no matter how subservient and “well-behaved” and steeped in the fine graces of lady-ness will be considered nags or bitchy for having the audacity to have a job or run a household at all.
That is the point of the post, at least as I read it, and the story of the two congresspeople involved in this one instance is merely an illustration of this point.
“That’s provocative (at least, in Saudi Arabia, I believe).”
Any good ex-beauty queen or former debutant worth her salt knows otherwise, at least here in the US. A lady crosses her legs at the ankles, or, in casual situations, it is permitted for the legs merely to be held tightly togehter, off to one side, as long as there is a subtle lift in the heels so that the whole foot does not rest on the ground. Only a trollop would cross her legs at the knee, and only the poorly bred would dare allow the legs to part when in a sitting position.
(OIn case it’s not obvious, I don’t care how anyone sits, but those are the rules of ladylike behavior.)
The deal is that Wassermann attacked West’s policies. She’s the opposition party. That is what she is supposed to do. West attacked her person, and part of the attack was accusing her of not being a ‘proper’ woman. That is totally inappropriate. To use a sports metaphor (in hopes that it will help conservative guys actually get this), she landed a pretty wicked uppercut. He got mad and kicked her in the groin and then punched her in the kidney. I hope the voters ban this guy from the game.
While I don’t support West’s articulation in this matter, it is not the best example of gender slander against women simply because West is an equal opportunity operator. From the very beginning of his campaign, he continually referred to his Democrat male opponent as “mama’ s boy”. His Army vernacular is well documented. Being sexist in isolation would be far more notable than having sexism as one of a half dozen non-politically correct habits.
What ZZZZ said re: this observation from EEllis:
“While you may wish West used a more concise and deliberate phrasing it seems clear to me that he is saying you will not be getting special treatment because you are a woman.”
To amplify if I might: West was very clear that this is about his decision to discount what DWS said because he finds that her behavior does not merit his respect because he finds that her behavior falls below his expectations of how women should behave.
So – we look at how she behaved. What did she do? She challenged him to explain how he could represent so many seniors when what claims to support doing is pulling the financial rug out from under them and add to their financial burden.
Then he tells her, for saying that, that she is a vile, despicable person whose unladylike behavior means that he does not have to give her respect.
Say what?
What exactly was vile, despicable and unladylike about what she did?
Oh – yeah – she voiced an opinion he doesn’t like. An opinion he doesn’t want to respond to. So instead, he takes a gender-based stereotyped expectation and says that since she doesn’t meet that standard, he can’t respect her OR what she said.
At it’s simplest, he’s evading the point and then deflecting the situation onto her character and gender (i.e., he can’t even respect what she said because she’s not ladylike).
But we still haven’t heard from him: what is it about what she said that makes it not ladylike?
And the answer is…she voiced an opinion.
And it just so happened to be one about him.
That he also doesn’t like.
And to which he has YET to answer.
Not sure if that helps, but that’s how I see it anyway.
“he continually referred to his Democrat male opponent as “mama’ s boy”. ”
You might want to find a comment that’s not also sexist against women if your point is that he’s not only sexist against women. He might be equal opportunity as to the direct person he’s insulting, but it seems that he likes to use misogyny to insult both men and women.
“Being sexist in isolation would be far more notable than having sexism as one of a half dozen non-politically correct habits.”
So being a jerk in one way is worse than being a jerk in multiple ways? Huh?
Let’s take a vote…..who thinks a male being called a mama’s boy is sexist to females?
Are you friggin kidding me, casual, or are you merely incapable of deconstructing the meaning of “mama’s boy”? I mean a man who is so silly and immature as to be still taking orders from a *woman*? Oh, no, that’s totally not sexist at all. I’m sure the term “whipped”, meaning a man who has so little ability to think for himself that he, too, listens to a woman (gasp!), also isn’t sexist? I mean, for god’s sake, this isn’t rocket science, casual. There are any number of terms for men that imply that listening to women — even ones that the man loves — is a sign of weakness. There are any number of terms that also make fun of men for having feminine qualities, which is also implied in the “mama’s boy” term.
God, this is like explaining to a young child where babies come from. So casual, when a man and woman love each other very much…
Better yet, let’s take a poll on what sexist term people would assign to you after reading your posts!
Pray tell, casual, I’d love to know what you have in mind. Let’s let this be multiple choice, and I’ll give you the honor of drawing up the selections. Take your best shot, you condescending piece of garbage.
(Irony, I suppose, in such a jerk comment after a strongly worded but entirely obvious and fact-based comment from a woman, in the comment section of a post about a similar situation…hmmmm.)
See here you go again violationg the rules but you’re special right? At least it isn’t directed at me this time but honestly ……..
I think he was saying her un-Ladylike behavior meant he wasn’t going to treat her like a “Lady”. There are social requirements for being considered such. Now that designation in itself is quite honestly sexist because it requires certain “feminine” characteristics be exhibited for one to qualify oneself as such. It’s a bit funny because even as a progressive person on that particular front you have to juggle two versions of social rules. Those rules, developed in an earlier time, do not lend themselves to allowing a woman to get down and dirty with the boys and still complete that social compact. Wasserman throws mud with the best of them. I don’t condemn her for that but by doing so she places herself on the same field and no longer gets to set above the fray as a “Lady”.
And by the way when no one would ever get a smaller check it is misleading at the best to claim, especially about a Florida politician (could there be a worse claim?), that they are for cutting benefits to the elderly.
So report me, EEllis.
Some people are their own worst enemies.
In what way? Please share your thoughts with the class.
Roro — I was joking about things here (except maybe in some religious fundamentalist scenario here).
You aren’t forced to cover your hair or cut it really short, either.
E. Ellis wrote:
Not special, just acceptably “moderate” according to the PC even-handedness here. Unbiased, straight, and level.
http://www.jonco48.com/blog/ship_20list.jpg
[grin]