A recent slogan used on a button at a Republican convention described Hillary Clinton as a “KFC Special: 2 fat thighs, 2 small breasts…left wing.” These buttons were being sold in the VIP reception area of the conference, but were removed one hour later for obvious reasons.
As former secretary of state, it is anticipated that Clinton will seek the Democratic presidential nomination in the upcoming 2016 election.
But regardless of Clinton’s future plans or where she sits politically, the size of her thighs has absolutely nothing to do with it. If she had bigger breasts or dressed a different way, she would still act the way she does and make the same decisions. Her politics have nothing to do with her appearance. But meanwhile, no one is comparing John Kerry to fries and gravy.
The larger problem here is the contrasting ways in which men and women are viewed in politics and, by extension, any position of power.
In terms of appearance, a female has to be extremely conscious of how she presents herself. Women’s fashion often says a lot more than men’s — most people can recognize a Louis Vuitton handbag, but much fewer can spot the difference between a $5,000 or $250 suit. And it goes farther than dress; women’s bodies are frequently commented on as if their shape somehow affects their political performance.
This sexism is very evident in politics in the United States. I can think of several criticisms that have been made at Barack Obama or George Bush, all regarding their policies or decisions.
While there has never been a female president in the U.S., several women have run or held positions in office. But when I think of them, the first thing that comes to mind are criticisms regarding their appearance.
Charlotte Whitton, the first female mayor of Ottawa, a major centre and the capital of Canada, was quoted in the 1950s as saying, “Whatever women do, they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good.”
Ain’t that the truth. It often seems that women in authoritative positions have more to prove. Just like anyone else, women must show their abilities as individuals in the public eye. But they also have to prove that they are capable of holding the same major positions as men.
The bias is that women are just not as good as men when it comes to politics. I think this is a fairly reasonable statement, objectively speaking. Historically, male politicians have far more achievements than female ones do. But this is because males occupy far more political positions than females, and it has been that way for thousands of years.
One explanation for women’s political absence is that women simply do not run for political positions as frequently as men. To start, it is traditionally a massive familial sacrifice for a woman to be in politics when she’s a mother, as the job requires an enormous time commitment. Having children is often not a priority in this case because so much effort and time is focused on her political career.
It’s not impossible to achieve both a family and a major position, but it is vastly more difficult for a woman to do so than a man.
In addition, due to the smaller number of females in political positions, there are few quality role models for young females who wants to break into the political sphere. And any woman who is in that sphere is often not treated or looked at in a way that would cause another female to aspire to a similar position.
2011 statistics on the Canadian Parliament reported that women constituted 22 per cent in the House of Commons, 26 per cent of membership in the Cabinet and 35 per cent in the Senate. That’s not even half. And female Prime Ministers? We’ve had one — Kim Campbell, who served for just barely over four months back in 1993. That’s 146 years that Canada has been a country, and for only four months have we had a female in the Prime Minister position’s seat.
It’s not just women in politics either; negative sentiments women receive in politics can often be extended to any woman in the public eye.
When it comes to men and women holding positions of power, a sexist double standard exists. We talk about men and women in very different ways. Yes, both sexes receive criticism for what they do both in and out of office, but men receive judgment for their abilities, positions and enactment.
Women receive criticism for their abilities and judgements as well, but usually only after their appearance has been commented on. They are bombarded with criticisms for the way they look, even if that has nothing to do with their occupation or position.
Is it fair to say women in politics are scrutinized, attacked and ripped apart? I think so.