Women, politics, and stereotypes

Will Katherine Harris be remembered for her partisanship or her eye makeup? Due to the sexual double standard that pervades American politics, the latter will unfortunately be what is engrained in our minds for years to come.

Jim DiTullio's Valentine's Day Yale Daily News article, "Two Political Women Who Still Don't Have a Clue," reflects the demeaning way female politicians are viewed and and portrayed in our society. "Dingbat" is the all-encompassing word repeatedly used to describe both Harris and Sandra Day O'Connor. While Harris, whose makeup was cited as a major flaw, "bastardiz[ed]" our laws, O'Connor "let herself be prostituted" while "wear[ing] a fancy black robe."

COURTESY KATHERINEHARRISSUCKS.COM Katherine Harris: a loathed woman

Unfortunately, DiTullio is not alone in resorting to this sexist degradation. At the height of the presidential election controversy, Harris was likened to Cruella DeVille by media nationwide. An article in the Washington Post pointed to lipstick "of the creamy sort that smears all over a coffee cup and leaves smudges on towels" as her most glaring fault. A Time article about the Florida controversy featured a large photograph revealing Harris' cleavage juxtaposed with pictures of her male counterparts in suits.

The focus on the physical appearance of women in politics is hardly a new phenomenon.Witness the Saturday Night Live skits featuring Janet Reno. Reno is no runway model, but is she so much less attractive than the men in the political limelight? Ken Starr was criticized for his decisions and statements, but his waist size was never the target of biting mockery. Recent headlines suggest that the media's sexism has altered little. Currently, Senator Hillary Clinton's (D-NY), LAW '73, hair (scolded last year for being styled 300 times, currently criticized for flatness) is equally as likely to make the nightly news as the latest proposal of our new president.

Why does our society dwell on the superficial trivialities of these women rather than the same qualities it focuses on in male politicians—their actions and accomplishments that have affected our nation in a powerful way? I believe that the origin of this double-standard that pervades the political arena is more complicated than the simple objectification of women. It stems from a deeply rooted fear of powerful women in a traditionally male-dominated arena.

Political hatred is casually thrown around in political banter, from discussions of George W. Bush's, DC '68, idiocy to comments on Bill Clinton's, LAW '73, sexual misdemeanors. But it is irrational hatred that is indicative of a fear of women. Take, for example, Hillary Clinton, who has evoked some of the strongest reactions I have ever witnessed from men and women alike. New Yorkers all over the conservative upstate region launched a fierce counter-campaign against arguably the most powerful woman in America. All summer long, I spotted dozens of moms with anti-Hillary stickers plastered across the back of their Volvo station wagons. The threat of a First Lady who did more than cookie-baking in the White House was doubtless more effective in provoking people than was her opponent (what's his name again?). Harris clearly had the same effect on the American public. There are currently multiple websites devoted to slandering her, including one selling "Katherine Harris Sucks" t-shirts. I brought the issue to the Yale table the other night, asking a group of guy friends about the infamous secretary of state. Two immediately responded, "She's a bitch," with little evidence to corroborate this accusation other than her role in the 2000 election. I still fail to see how making a controversial decision makes one a bitch. Last time I checked, no one was calling Starr a bastard.

Ironically, this kind of harsh sexist treatment of female political figures undermines more than just the actions and accomplishments of the women themselves—it also undermines criticism of them. Do you really want me to believe that Harris sucks because her blue eye shadow nearly reaches her hairline? Criticism of her partisanship rather than her personal appearance would be far fairer and far more effective. These women have earned their title as politicians under the same standards as male politicians, if not tougher ones. Their gender in and of itself should have no exceptional effect on America's acceptance and judgment of them. It's time to let the lame fears go, leave sex in the bedroom, and let political actions speak for themselves.

Back to Opinion...