Monday, September 22, 2008
Stereotypical Women in Politics
I was hoping the talk on Molly Brown would focus more on women in politics as a whole during that time, rather than just Molly Brown's participation but I still found it very interesting. What struck me most after absorbing the presentation and articles is how stereotypically feminine women's roles in politics were. Based on the time period, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised but I still was to some extent. For instance, the women involved in politics would host and attend teas. That was one way to discuss the issues and get their point of view out there. However, it doesn't seem like a very aggressive tactic. Hosting a tea is a very feminine past time, it focuses on domesticity and passivity which were the traits women at this time were expected to have. The women presenting even pointed out that at this time the women's role in politics were as a host and in charge of hospitality.On a different note I did find it interesting that Molly Brown was quoted saying something along the lines that her campaign would be a straight man's campaign. This sheds light on the fact that she knew women were seen as not capable of holding an office and that the qualifications for that were to be more masculine in their campaigning. I assume she would have felt a pull between needing to maintain her femininity to a certain degree as to not make people uncomfortable when she didn't assume her role as a woman in the 1900's but also to not fit into the feminine stereotypes of being overly emotional and irrational which would highlight an inability to hold an office. Women operating in politics today still face that same struggle. There is a fine line they must tread on the border of masculinity and femininity and if they sway to far to either side it is a hay day for the media and every critical person watching. They must venture away from the female stereotypes while maintaining a feminine image and demeanor. After realizing this I think what I was most surprised to learn is that things aren't that different between 1900 and 2000 as far as women's roles in politics go.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree that it's still a very prominent discussion and factor today. Hillary Clinton was accused of being too masculine, yet when she shed a tear, it was seen as a marker of feminine weakness. The femininity of Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is being emphasized, but clearly her comment about lipstick on a pitbull was an attempt to show herself as both feminine and tough (a traditionally masculine quality) at the same time, much like Molly Brown and her contemporaries tried to maintain a display of femininity yet proclaim that they could be involved in the same brutal politics as a man.
As a side note...I really hate to compare Molly Brown and Sarah Palin, because I have the utmost respect for the first and the utmost lack of respect for the latter. But, in terms of the gendered-political climate they lived and operated in, both faced markedly similar issues.
Post a Comment