I was a guest lecturer yesterday at an introductory class on Women's Studies on Women and Politics at the University of Vermont. After telling the students about my journey into politics and hoping to encourage them to think about running for office themselves one day, I asked how many of them had thought that they would get involved in politics. This was a seminar of about 18 students, all women, except for two men. One woman raised her hand and said, "I think I'd like to work behind the scenes. I wouldn't want to be the candidate. I tend to be sarcastic and I'm afraid people would think I was catty."
Hmmm? First, the professor and I both jumped on the word "catty." Why would she use this term that evokes such a strong gender stereotype? I pointed that out, but I also encouraged her. "It's great to work behind the scenes, and if you get involved in a campaign, you'll learn a lot and you might want to run yourself some day."
She did not buy into that. Then, the professor pointed out the writing on the t-shirt one of the men in the class was wearing. I hadn't bothered to try to decipher it from across the table.
It said, in bright yellow scraggly letters on a black background, "SARCASTIC, that's my strong point."
Wow!
There it was. The point I had been trying to make, that there are still gender differences in how women and men approach political leadership was right in front of my eyes. (This was the same male student who asked the first question.)
She was afraid of being considered sarcastic and he flaunted it as an interesting or funny attention-getter. What works for a man, still does not work for a woman--both in terms of how they see themselves and how we see them.
I also noticed that women in the class were less inclined to speak up.
Another woman explained that it was so difficult for her to form her own opinions because there was so much information, and so many divided opinions. Her father thought one thing, her friends another, and she was caught in-between. I assured her that she was still in a formative stage, and college was a good time to explore and experiment with different beliefs. She still had time to form her opinions. I noted that perhaps people were more polarized today in their opinions than they were in my college days because the Internet and the traditional media go to extremes. There are not many moderates or consensus builders around, as we see by the behavior of the U.S. Congress.
Now, back to her discomfort with having to express opinions if she were to become political: I suspect very few men would confess to not having opinions, or better yet, would not be worried about their lack of strong opinions.
Many women do not want to venture out into the "opinion world" until they are certain of themselves, the facts, and that they are right. They are afraid of being shot down. The result is often silence.
To be political means to speak out, to risk being called "catty", or worse. I don't hear men worrying about whether they may be right or not. They enjoy the fight, whether it is with words or fists. Women still tend to shy away from controversy, to be uncomfortable with competition. Perhaps that is why only 17 percent of the members of Congress are female, and men are still largely running the country.
This was originally posted at Chelsea Green.
Madeleine M. Kunin is the former Governor of Vermont and was the state's first woman governor. She served as Ambassador to Switzerland for President Clinton, and was on the three-person panel that chose Al Gore to be Clinton's VP. She is the author of Pearls, Politics, and Power: How Women Can Win and Lead from Chelsea Green Publishing.
Didn't I hear Obama practice the very kind of careful approach to speaking out last week that she identifies as ineffective when he waited two days to address the AIG bonuses??
"Because I like to know what I'm talking about."
The prudence and measured responses that women often give in these public forums are a good thing. I'm grateful when a level head is in the room.
A human, man or woman, should never strive to be someone who conjectures with impunity, or has no care about being right or wrong, or worst of all--designs their thoughts and comments to hurt others..
That THIS is the reason only 17% of our congress are women is misleading.
I do wonder what type of responses you would of received if you were giving the same lecture to a group of older women, or married women, etc. Most older women probably would've had a more concrete beliefs stemming from past experiences and more education.
As far as women running for offices, I believe it depends on the woman. It takes a strong leader to run for a political office whether it be a man or a woman.
Yeah, we just pick a position at random and plow ahead without respect to the facts or consequences. What a ridiculous (not to mention, sexist) remark. If you don't hear Obama, for example, saying that he's open to other ideas and doesn't have all the answers, then you're not listening.
Love you Madeleine Kunin! Promise I'll get involved in politics, right after I get my masters and launch a successful career in urban planning. No, seriously. Maybe.
You have a good point.
In short, I want to know what SHE/HE thinks. A LEADER lets everyone know what their position is NOW, then asks for input to fine-tune them.
They almost never go with the complete original plan, allowing those who are in conference with them help custom-make the eventual path.
Successful leaders have an idea to begin with, based on what THEY think.
When a culture becomes ugly, it's ugly to both genders.
It's understandable for anybody to want to avoid the spotlight if the spotlight includes scrutiny and criticism. Many men avoid it too.
But, once you agree to stand in that spotlight and to offer yourself up for the approval or disapproval of voters and the media, you have to do it knowing that others will attempt to define you. The only way to win is to insist on defining yourself and by standing behind your self-definition in spite of opposition.
Hillary Clinton didn't back down even though she knew she would get vilified and unfairly portrayed by many. She didn't mind having critics describe her in ways no man would be described. Scratched that... she probably minded, but she didn't let it stop her.
And the only reason she is not President today (because she did come awfully close) is that she ran into a candidate who was even better at not letting others define him.
Sarah Palin, in spite of being totally unqualified for the job, also insisted on defining who she is, and it impressed enough people where she is now a front-runner for the '12 nomination.
That's another thing women are perhaps less inclined to do. Appeal to their based even if it means being vilified by the 49% of people who weren't going to vote for you anyway.
"First Woman Governor of Vermont; Marsh Scholar, University of Vermont"
Now then, I have NO problem with you being the first woman governor of Vermont, in fact I think that it's a great sign. But you shouldn't have to point out that you were anything other than the Governor of Vermont! No doubt that you DO still have to, but when we finally DO become gender-blind in America we finally won't have to say things like that!