« Clinton Obama Unity In Unity: Are Wounds Too Profound To Heal?
The “Gun Nut” Gap »



Sexing up political candidates akin to Sex and The City

June 27th, 2008
By JILL MILLER ZIMON


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 what Jill is 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.



This entry was posted on Friday, June 27th, 2008 at 2:28 pm and is filed under Feminism, Language, Women, Spin, Young Voters, Sexism, Barack Obama, Gender, Sexuality, Society, Hillary Clinton, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 13 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    That's not the photograph we're hoping to see.
    • ^
    • v
    I see some potential for a candidate to embrace their femininity more that HRC, but it would have to be a woman that actually enjoys the more aesthetic pleasures in the first place. Stillettos and a designer outfit would not have worked for her, as she probably finds such things pretty unimportant.

    And can you imagine the reaction of the blue collar guys who make up part of her base? She may have gotten the sorority girl vote, but I don't think primping up with an $400 Gucci bag would have played too well to the union workers.

    Eh...like any woman is going to be able to please everyone anyway -- too masculine, too feminine, ah I saw her cleavage, what about the pantsuits, big thighs, cackling laughter -- all women, even those running for office, need to figure out where lies their personal line between being everything to everyone and just being themselves.
    • ^
    • v
    DLS - I am so not going to ask you about that. But thank you - I think.
    • ^
    • v
    This is absolutely true: "Eh...like any woman is going to be able to please everyone anyway -- too masculine, too feminine, ah I saw her cleavage, what about the pantsuits, big thighs, cackling laughter -- all women, even those running for office, need to figure out where lies their personal line between being everything to everyone and just being themselves."

    I would seriously need people to tell me just what ARE my advantages as a woman at my age! lol Because with only a couple of obvious elements, I would be clueless AND uncomfortable.

    No question that just as microtargeting involves understand all kinds of clues and messaging, adding "gender" to the list of things to think about when you're putting yourself together as the package known as The Candidate will require understanding what the audience thinks.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't know.
    When thinking about someone answering the red phone, I don't think we want to stop to consider the gender of the one picking up the receiver.

    Americans have a great deal of trouble accepting candidates as people, as it is.
    Crying by either a male of a femalte, for example, is always 'unacceptable'. While we decry stereotypes, we also insist on them.
    The American publlic evolves at a snail's pace, and . I'm not sure how far out of the stone age we are, in some respects.

    It would have to be a very special woman, walking on egg shells in combat boots and a sexy T, to break that glass ceiling..
    • ^
    • v
    Runasim - I think the move to move away from that decry/insist thing (which I agree exists to some extent but maybe less than you might think it does), started a long time ago and the Dem primary and now the general campaigns show it.

    I agree - gender is irrelevant to the red phone response, but this post deals mostly with campaigning. Would you agree that campaigning and governing are two different activities, or at least only overlap in some areas?

    And yes - it would have to be someone very special - but then, I believe our president always should be someone special. :)
    • ^
    • v
    What many failed to see, still do, especially Hillary's supporters, is how much the media tried to make a shallow sex symbol of Obama. Remember the stealth pic of him in the ocean with his daughters?
    But, I do in a way agree that Hillary should have celebrated being a woman instead of bemoaning it.
    The most powerful woman in America is Nancy Pelosi. A 68 year old grandmother who wears designer suits and always looks like a million bucks. She is not ever taken less serious or seen as shallow. But, it is nice to see a powerful woman not afraid to embrace her femininity. And she looks great and is inspiring to women.
    To deny your gender and then cry sexism or bemoan your sex is only making things worse.
    When you accept your gender and celebrate it and not ashamed of it, you become less of a target.
    I am not saying to dress as a sex kitten. I am saying accept and love who you are.
    • ^
    • v
    VWCat - Precisely. And I appreciate you pointing out the sexing up of Obama by the media. There's no question - the media plays an enormous role, but we do have some control over how people interpret what they see and hear in the media. And I think the readers/consumers influence in saying that the media isn't getting it right or isn't doing us any favors is increasing, in large part due to the Internet - we can express ourselves and it's out there for the media to read, if they choose. Their failure to know what we think as we express those thoughts in blogs etc. will only end up making them sound even more out of step and more as though they're trying to push imagery that we don't buy.

    Thanks.
    • ^
    • v
    Jill - thanks again for sharing this with your readers, much appreciated.

    Roro80 - I completely see your POV - politicking to the materialistic isn't going to do well with union workers, you are completely right. But part of the protective wrapping of the Presidency is the dream that goes along with it - it's not trying to embrace a stiletto or a designer suit to say, 'I'm above you, I have loads of cash and you don't" - its about celebrating the various ways that women can be defined as successful. Sure, a gucci purse might send the wrong message - but what about a spread in Vanity Fair that has a Q&A with a female political candidate and a female fashion designer and a female sports star? How about they all interview each other as powerful women all faces many different challenges and politics, but then perhaps many of the same. I come at this idea from a marketing perspective as well - so by embracing powerful imagery that already resonates with so many people, I feel that it can only help a candidate in my mind...:)

    Runasim - totally understand your point - yes, politics and elections should one day be decided without leaning on gender, race, disability, etc. But, unfortunately, I really don't think that is the case, yet. Someday, I hope it is truly a level playing field, equal access for all, but with only 16 women senators - well, we just aren't there yet.

    VWCat - i think you really summed up the piece - so thanks! LOL and also, part of the reason I decided to use SATC as an inspiration is because it does send those messages to women: love thy self. I mean sometimes it's even excessive in the series; but I think that when it comes down to it people watched the show and went to see the movie not to evangelize over some hollywood character, but to feel good about themselves and that's all I want from a female politician.

    I'm loving this discussion with you all - thanks for reading. And Jill - I'm sure we can find many advantages to show off for you ;)
    • ^
    • v
    You're welcome, Jill.
    • ^
    • v
    Human Folly - I'll hold you to that if I run for something, so be prepared. :) Thanks for writing a very lucid argument for this position. It's nuanced and that is a hard thing to sell sometimes but I think you succeed.
    • ^
    • v
    JMZ,
    Perhaps I would be more hopeful if I hadn't just witnessed the Dem. primaries.
    The headline was so positive (a woman and a black man as candidates), but the reaction was, in so many ways, apalling! I feel bruised by the whole experience, and in so many different ways, that I probably need to recover (after the elections) before I can get a better perspective.

    Right now, it's hard to get an accurate reading as to which voices predominate in the babble of voices of the people.

    I will say this: the next woman (or the next minority person) won't need to be a first, and will benefit from that. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Hillary and Barack for that.
    • ^
    • v
    Runasim - TOTALLY agree with your last graph. And I've written before that I think in failing to get the nomination, Clinton's legacy will far surpass her husbands, both in influence and longevity. I see her only becoming stronger and I hope that she does not take on the role of VP. She can get a lot more accomplished in other roles.

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Clinton Obama Unity In Unity: Are Wounds Too Profound To Heal?
The “Gun Nut” Gap »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.