OXFORD, England - Every president has had his First Lady. The question now is whether Hillary will have Bill as her First Man. This issue is as new as today's headlines and as ancient as the competition between the sexes itself.
Ever since Eve, men have been concerned about women equaling or surpassing them. According to some, that's why there are contradictory biblical accounts of Eve's creation in Genesis. At first, the Bible suggests that Eve and Adam are equals - simultaneously created by God. Later, it indicates that Eve is created from Adam's rib and is subordinate to him. This 'tempts' some to conclude that the second Genesis story is an afterthought meant to impose the inferiority of women as the 'second sex.' More than that, it suggests that men define women by subordinating and criticizing them. Hence, Eve who gives humanity the gift of knowledge is condemned instead as the cause of all sin.
In some respects Hillary is like a modern Eve, since male criticism of her falls into two categories. Either she is a reconstituted version of her husband Bill's failed policies, or she represents the original sin of Democratic Party politics - a failing some say can only be redeemed by the progressive policies of men such as Barack Obama or John Edwards. So, like Eve, Hillary is either fashioned from Adam's rib (a mere political appendage to Bill) or the source of original sin (the singular representation of everything evil in the Democratic Party).
Why does the prospect of a female president seem to be a source of consternation for some men, even if they happen to be presidential candidates who otherwise claim to embrace feminism like Obama and Edwards? The answer, it seems, is that it is one thing for them to support women's rights in the abstract, but quite another when Hillary exercises those rights to lead them in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
At first, Edwards and Obama were restrained in their attacks against Hillary. But now they realize they can't catch Hillary unless they slow her down first. Seeing this, they have begun slinging mud at Hillary with the gusto of schoolyard bullies at recess. In fact, as the Democrats race to Iowa, Obama and Edwards are using rhetoric of contrast to distinguish themselves from Hillary. In an attempt to portray Hillary as politically calculating, Obama trumpets his willingness to openly tell the people the truth. And Edwards attacks Hillary's credibility by contrasting her inconsistency on political issues with his steadfast liberal commitment. These attacks have taken a toll on Hilary's campaign. And as Hillary's lead in the polls seems to be diminishing as a result, one imagines that the attacks of Obama and Edwards against Hillary will become ever more robust in the future.
Though no one, not even the most ardent Hillary supporter, should demand that Hillary be exempt from the rough and tumble of politics because she is a woman, we must remember that as a woman she faces a political Catch 22 in responding to these criticisms.
To understand why, consider what Lisa Belkin regards as the conundrum all women face, whether they are working 9-to-5 jobs or running for president ("Feminist Critique," New York Times, Nov. 1). If Hillary, or any working woman, is too passive in responding to criticism, she will fall prey to what Belkin calls the feminine "gender stereotype" of being weak. However, if Hillary is too combative in her response, she, like all women, "will be seen as too tough and too unfeminine," according to the research Belkin cites in her article.
The result is that Hillary faces a significant political disadvantage. She must walk a political tightrope between submissiveness and aggression, while Obama and Edwards are given freer latitude to express what Belkin calls traditionally "male" attributes such as aggression and ambition when they attack her. Though Hillary is a remarkably adept politician, her sometimes less than stellar performance in responding to these criticisms suggests just how difficult it is for her, as for any working woman, to walk this tightrope.
Given this gender imbalance, I cannot help but think of another "Adam's Rib" - the classic movie in which Hepburn and Tracy play a "perfect married couple," until they meet as opposing lawyers in court. In their courtroom battle of the sexes, Hepburn requests leniency for her client saying, "For years, women have been ridiculed, pampered, chucked under the chin. I ask you, on behalf of us all, be fair to the fair sex." As she does, Tracy's character, aptly named Adam, smirks and mutters under his breath, "We'll be here a year."
With the presidential election almost a year away, some men are no doubt muttering similar thoughts to themselves about Hillary's campaign. However, most women have a different perspective. Though we recognize that "playing nice" is not the mantra for politics, we want Hillary and all the members of our fairer sex to be treated fairly. I may not support Hillary, but I do think everyone should demand a Democratic primary process untainted by unfair gender politics.
Lindsey Meyers '09 thinks gender equality is more important than party politics.
