Will Things Be Different When Michelle Obama Runs For President?

Let's hope so. She's impressive. And perhaps by then we'll be ready for a woman president. No one should vote for her, or for Hillary, solely because of gender. But it would be refreshing to hear people admit that there are male-female differences, that we've historically linked leadership with the former, and that people who haven't examined the subtle effects of such leanings on their thinking may indeed act in sexist ways -- even if inadvertently. That way, when Michelle runs for president, we won't be squabbling about this issue. We'll understand that much of how we think about gender we learned explicitly and implicitly from books, on the playground, and by looking around and seeing very few women in leadership positions in major companies and in senior positions in politics.

I remember in high school reading an article mentioning that the books being read by children were written almost entirely by men. I went to the back of the room where all of our reading books were stored and looked for a female author. There weren't any. That was the beginning of my awakening -- one that went on for many years. Not least my senior year when my teacher, Mrs. Smith, told us that Ophelia was a simpering, sensitive, weak and therefore despicable girl and that she would tell us after lunch which student would play her role in our class play. Bets were taken over lunch. It was between the sensitive me and another girl with equally despicable inclinations to write positive essays when we were supposed to be getting truly depressed reading Sartre, Rhyme of The Ancient Mariner, James Joyce, The Crucible and Death of a Salesman.

My friends were on the edge of their seats when we returned from lunch. But I knew who'd win - or lose, depending on how you looked at it. Mrs. Smith stood before us. "It was difficult, very difficult to choose Ophelia," she said. "But after much thinking about who suits the role best, I have chosen Kathleen." The class roared. Money was passed, and there I sat, not surprised and not as hurt as I might have been had this been the first time Mrs. Smith thought me and any "sensitive" girl a Lucie Manette, a "simpering golden thread." Instead, I wondered why sensitivity was such a crime - why anger, angst, depression, darkness and a nut like Hamlet was somehow better. And why Mrs. Smith thought the guy she chose to play him was going to Harvard and I was going nowhere.

I bet we've all had experiences we can point to that tweaked or reshaped our thinking on gender for better or worse. But for women, even today, such experiences occur against a backdrop of negative messages about capability as leaders. Now, before any of you jump down my throat on this, I've studied leadership for a long time. Despite a host of articles in recent years about increasing value placed on supportive "female" traits, the number of women in top leadership roles is not consistent with this common wisdom.

Young women, still in what I call "the cute and little phase" not threatening anyone else's career with their presence can enjoy, for a while, the sense that they will make it to the top based solely on their competencies. They can believe that such competencies will be noticed and rewarded no matter their gender. I remember that phase. It was peaceful. But any woman, including your daughter, if you have one, is unwise to think this phase goes on forever in anything other than predominantly female career choices. And even there, it depends on who is in charge.

So label these observations "sour grapes" if you like. Fortunately, I'm no longer (if I ever was) as sensitive as Ophelia or "a golden thread." You don't become full professor in a leading business school, with none at that level at the time, by being overly sensitive rather than exceptionally observant, no matter your competence or the support of your colleagues. It's tough out there for men, and tough in different ways for women.

That's why all this squabbling over Hillary's eyes welling up -- even though many male leaders have done so and Barack clearly uses emotion to move us -- is becoming a diversion in the election. We have much bigger fish to fry.

We should admit that being a woman is different from being a man and that expectations differ with regard to how we comport ourselves in private and public life. Our problem as a culture: we don't have this sorted out yet. So many of us get quite irked.

But there is a big difference between purposeful insult and accidental offense. We all offend each other now and then. So the response to offense should not be as strong as the response to insult. Chris Matthews is insulting. Jon Stewart even thinks he's insane. Rush Limbaugh is insulting. But most of us are just trying to figure things out, and that includes women.

When Michelle Obama runs for president, let's hope we're farther along, especially in admitting that we do have some gender biases, and in so doing, take the first step in recognizing and managing their impact on the most important decisions in our lives.

more

Comments

[OSUMercutio]

It's more acceptable for men to cry? Give me a break! If a man cries, and I mean actually cries - not just getting a little choked up, he's a gay, sissy, wimp, loser, pussy, etc, etc, etc. And if a guy cries during Brokeback Mountain, well you get the idea.

[redtorm]

Thank you for stating something that the old-school feminists have refused to admit. Men and women are different. That doesn't mean that women can't lead. They have a different approach to problem solving and social interactions. Women should embrace their own style of leadership instead of dressing up in pant-suits to be one of the boys.

[ishmael]

Is it horribly sexist of me to wonder why the wives of famus politicians somehow have become the sole or even the most logical choice to break barriers for women in politics?
I am 55 years old and I cringe remembering in junior high how we laughed at girls who talked of growing up to become lawyers or doctors or even President. I remember it vividly because memory is a language and now, as a middle school teacher, I find myself talking with students about this every year. I want them to know what things were like. They sort of smile and shake their heads in disbelief. There are a couple of things at work here. One is that girls are now outpacing boys in nearly everything in school. The other is that for young people America really is a meritocracy now, at least in their heads, irregardless of race or sex.
The really astonishing thing for me about Iowa wasn't just that young white people broke so enthusiastically for Obama, but also I have the feeling that they weren't even patting themselves on the back for it. They simply picked the candidate they thought was best. If Ms. Clinton ignites a similar kind of enthusiasm even just among young women, I'll feel better about her candidacy.

[mommadona]

YES!

I've said before, I would vote for Elizabeth Dole inna heartbeat, and if Ms. Obama deigned to run in the future, she's have my vote.

[basil9]

I enjoyed and agreed with most of Ms. Reardon's article, except for the Mrs. Obama running for president part.

She already is (running), and manipulating and controlling, waiting for the chance to put in place a hidden agenda that excludes white women from the equation.

She and her husband are committed to the African-American cause, the racial cause, above all others.

Don't believe me? Check out the 10-Point 'vision' of their congregation, The Trinity United Church of Christ.

Ironically, other mission statements which go into even greater detail about plans to implement an afro-centrist perspective no longer appear on the site.

basil9

[BlueBoomer]

I have been saying for weeks now that Michelle Obama is every bit as ambitious as Hillary and has been figuring out how she can out-Hillary Hillary.

AND, if Barak is the nominee/prez, she will undoubtedly be a major factor in virtually EVERY decision, including cabinet appointments, etc.

I'm not a fan of Hillary either... the BEST and only virtually unflawed candidates are already out (BIDEN and Dodd).

I am trying very hard to find a reason to get excited about any of the remaining Democrats.
What would be VERY telling about all of them would be to know who they would want in their cabinets (+ National Security Advisor and Chief of Staff)... Granted not all who are asked will accept, but knowing they would have if they could assemble their "dream team" would be probably the MOST telling...

We should insist on it, since we are electing not only a leader, but also his/her support team (which can, of course change with resignations, etc, BUT again, who they would WANT to have is most important).

Those of you out there in the up-coming primary states, where you might actually have a chance to get close to what's going on -- for all of us, try to see what you can do to get the candidates to answer questions about their support teams.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

Just when I thought feminism was dead, New Hampshire happened, and-- while I didn't like the results-- it did make me reconsider how important gender is.

Here were all these males in the media such as Chris Matthews piling on Hillary, gleefully celebrating her (apparent) downfall. Obama said "You're likable enough" when he should've said "I think you're likable" (he was trying to be gracious). Edwards should've skipped one opportunity to bash the status-quo insider.

And the women of N.H. responded. They voted for Hillary by a large margin. Whether it was one of those things that just happen and nobody could plan it that way, or it was another brilliant Clintonian strategy, this woman and therefore Woman lived to see another day, politics-wise.

The question is: would men have done the same? If "The View" and Oprah and Maureen Dowd (though hardly equivalents to the more 'serious' male-dominated news media) had been picking on their guy, would men have ralled around him?

Yes.

But can you imagine Valerie Plame running for President? She's strong, incredibly smart, she looks young, attractive (and blond). Her speaking tone isn't brittle.

And I often wish Barbara Boxer (who voted against the war) could run for President.

It's hard to pin down the sexism involved with Hillary-- she reminds so many people (men and women) of that supervisor who's a control freak, who's cold (at least while at work) and whose voice is like nails across a chalkboard.

You can't tell me every woman who runs for President would get this reaction from men-- and women.

At the same time, all those characteristics (control freak, cold, brittle, scheming, conniving) are stereotypes of Career Woman. She can't help that she doesn't have a melifluous voice, that she has to think and work twice as hard to compete with the "boys." Women relate to this, even if Hillary isn't their favorite, and they know it's unfair to punish her.

All that being said-- do we really need another nominee who voted for the war before being against it?

[Vixen0932]

I wish she was running then it would be Obama '08 foreal from me

[cuthbertallgood]

I thought all Obama people were in harmony with me that dynastic hand offs of power are never in the best interest of the nation?
Bush/Clint­on/Bush/Cl­inton is not good, neither would Bush/Obama/Obama/ you know? Or maybe Jeb in between to get Bush/Obama­/Bush/Obam­a?
Sorry. I like her better than Barack actually, but in my view she will be disqualified just as Hillary is now, for being related to the former President.
Or maybe I'm wrong about the Hillary thing, and it is alright to pick from two or three families in a Democratic Republic of over 300 Million people?

[Idytme]

They did a study where they gave college students two identical papers, but one with a female author's name and the other with a male's. They had the students rate the papers, both the women and the men rated the "male" author higher on all ratings (to my memory it was information, content, knowledge, expertise), and the men rated the male higher and the female lower than the women did.
The unconscious bias that is conveyed in our society is incredible. It is what we are unaware of that is the most damaging.
Maybe things have changed a little, this study was done twenty years ago, but my own personal anecdotal evidence would say that it has not. But I would bet that most all the women who rate the "female" author lower would say that they are liberated, non biased and working on an even playing field.
And it is very eye opening when you think you have some male friends who are very open minded and for equality, when they get a female boss.

[Zenobius]

The argument over whether or not Hillary's tears are genuine or not is more media fluff. After all, who knows and who cares?

The idea that a candidate who has invested the last year in running for president, was thought to be an inevitable winner, and was then and is now frantically trying to salvage her position might feel like crying is not surprising. No one is claiming that the problem with Hillary is lack of self control:-).

I'm an Edwards supporter, but I might switch to Hillary rather than Obama if Edwards leaves. Obama is closer to Edwards on issues, but, silly as it sounds, I don't trust Obama's charisma. He strikes me as a very bright guy with so much charisma that he thinks he can sell anybody anything. After all, it has worked so far. I think he really thinks he can talk the Republicans into wanting what we want - so he thinks he can bring us together. What will he do when he discovers that the Republicans really want the Bush tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and and oligarchical concentration of power at the top? My guess is that he'll join the oligarchy.

Of course, Hillary already is a member of the oligarchy, with a moderate reformist streak. I don't expect Hillary to be helpful except on feminist issues. But at least Hillary knows that if she pushes for change, she will be in a fight. We're unlikely to get more than moderate reform from Hillary but we're also unlikely to get less.

[karoleigh]

Its true. This nation is, sadly, not used to seeing a woman battle it out with the guys on such a public platform to be our leader. It seems that we cannot get enough of this novel spectacle. What is she gonna wear? Ooh, that neckline is a bit low. What is she gonna say? Man, I wish she would show more emotion. What is she gonna do? Whoa she cried- was that staged? Is she using her womanhood to guilt me into voting for her?

On the one hand all of this distracts from what is important- that we have what is, in my opinion, a wonderful slate of Democratic candidates that we should be carefully choosing from based upon experience, record, and ability.

On the other, focusing so much on the pros and cons of, and impetus behind a small moment of non-tears (really, just a glimmer of emotion) makes me lose my own place. I find myself getting behind Clinton because I'm reminded of how hard it is as a female to constantly struggle with a balance between communicating emotions naturally versus wanting and needing to be taken seriously by your peers. I can't even figure out anymore who is actually the best candidate.

I really wish we could all move past the focus on Clinton's sex and get back to choosing the best of this exciting group of candidates.

[JimReed]

"When Michelle Obama runs for president, let's hope we're farther along,"

Michelle Obama has a greater chance of raising a black female president than she has of becoming one.

[lgillooly]

Chris Matthews has been a big disappoint­ment.His disdain for the Clintons is so obvious and his statements are vile and unfair.The sad thing is he will not admit it to himself.

[nihilon x]

I'm a lot more concerned with her politics than I am with her skin color and/or gender -- expectations might "differ" amongst various supporters (and detractors) but ultimately it's integrity and results that count.