The scrutiny of the candidates’ spouses is a traditional sideshow in the summer of a US election, but this time it has added spice, because the discussion of what kind of woman the country would prefer to stand beside the guy taking the oath of office occurs after a campaign that rejected the most plausible female candidate for presidency there has ever been.
Four election cycles since she traded cookie recipes with Barbara Bush in an attempt to deflect fears about her feminism, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is forced to watch Michelle Obama going through the same process simply to gain a non-elected job that becomes available only through an accident of marriage.
The Democratic candidate’s wife appeared on The View, a US talkshow with an all-female panel, in what looked like an attempt by her husband’s media strategists to soften her image and correct an impression of black, leftwing militancy that has been spread on the web and picked up in other media.
We have come to accept that presidential candidates will have to address “character issues,” but to watch their partners being spun — and, in this case, specifically home-spun — induces fresh levels of depression with the political process.
Commendably, though, Michelle Obama went sufficiently off-message to suggest that she believes Clinton to have suffered from sexism. Well, she should know: The same prejudice led to the need for her to make this appearance.
The sexual politics will become even more noxious if Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opts for a woman running mate. Sharing the ticket with Clinton seems unlikely, but Kansas Governor Katherine Sebelius is a possibility. If the job were offered, though, the governor might want to think hard about whether politics is ready for a gender shift, even in this secondary position. Has there been any progress in the quarter-century since Geraldine Ferraro made history as the first female vice presidential nominee, but failed partly because of suspicion over her marital finances?
Clinton didn’t lose the Democratic nomination because she was a woman: It was her misfortune that her run coincided with the offer of an even more progressive and historic candidate. But it’s clear from the campaign that, even now, non-male contenders have to face pressures that are never suffered by men: an antiquated, muttering sub-debate over how they dress, speak, feel and whether they provoke castration complexes in the male population.
US broadcaster Katie Couric, the first full-time female anchor of a nightly news bulletin, this week posted an angry video blog suggesting Clinton lost partly because of “the continued and accepted role of sexism in America — particularly in the media.”
Clearly, there was a testy empathy in Couric’s words, as she may attribute her low ratings at CBS to the possibility that a section of the population not only doesn’t want a woman in charge of the country but won’t even tolerate a woman reading out the facts about what the men who run the nation are doing.
Even so, only a redneck who’s had too many beers could seriously argue with Couric’s central point. There was chortling reporting of placards at Clinton rallies reading “Iron My Shirt,” and novelty Clinton nutcrackers on sale at airports. Yet public expression of similar prejudice toward Barack Obama — signs, perhaps, reading “Shine My Shoes” or keyrings with simulation shackles — would, quite properly, lead to front-page outrage and criminal investigation.
Racism is no longer publicly acceptable, although Barack Obama’s polling performance in November may show if it remains privately an issue in the US. But sexism is permitted to thrive both overground and underground. The sad spectacle of a Democratic candidate’s wife having to “reposition” herself on TV in case she threatens his electoral chances, shows us that US politics still has a problem that is not being addressed.
The fundamental unfairness is that visible political wives are accused of stridency and interference, while invisible ones are criticized for failure to stand by their men.
In Britain, comparison between the administrations of former prime minister John Major and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, has become standard — house price crisis, record poll lows, turning to jelly on the telly — but there is another similarity. Their wives Norma Major and Sarah Brown are private people.
Norma Major, though, despite what we later learned to be tension in their marriage, was eventually forced to hover at John’s elbow for photo-ops and give interviews supporting him. And, intriguingly, the Downing Street press machine enthusiastically spread the news recently that a banquet for US President George W. Bush had been largely organized by Sarah Brown, who was credited with selecting the menu.
So Sarah Brown is good with food and Michelle Obama is not a “femi-nazi.”
The fact that such reassurances are still thought necessary is far from reassuring.
In 40 years of watching politics, I have never seen anything quite like Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen’s (沈伯洋) breed of politician. He has a presence that commands attention, and a combination of qualities that appear to be the result of powerful political currents. What is it that makes Shen different? Throughout the past decades of local elections, I have not seen anyone seriously discuss a long-term vision for urban planning, let alone with the kind of clarity and insight that Shen possesses that compels people to keep listening. He is an exceptional storyteller, with an ability to present a vision
Taiwanese writer Chu Yu-hsun (朱宥勳) this month spoke out about the difficulties of judging literary competitions when nearly 40 percent of the novel submissions he reviews appear to be generated by artificial intelligence (AI). He said he would refuse to serve as a judge for any literary award that does not explicitly prohibit the use of AI in creative writing. The use of AI in creative and academic work has become increasingly common. My son, who attends National Chengchi University, says he is exasperated after working to complete assignments on his own, only to receive lower grades than classmates who used
China prefers to win without firing a shot in its bid to strangle Taiwan’s strategic autonomy. Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) would have approved. Its central tool at sea is the “cabbage strategy”: the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) layers fishing boats, maritime militia, coast guard cutters and warships around Taiwan’s contested waters in overlapping rings. Each layer normalizes daily coercion, narrows Taiwan’s freedom of movement and chips away at its maritime sovereignty — all while staying below the threshold of armed conflict. This is “gray zone” warfare at its most cost-effective — one of Beijing’s most promising
Freedom of expression is a precious gift from the times, civilization and history, Hong Kong writer Hon Lai-chu (韓麗珠) said on Wednesday last week when she received the Golden Tripod Award, the highest honor in Taiwan’s publishing industry, for her novel Flesh Mountain (祼山). “As a Hong Konger these days, I deeply feel that the freedom to write and publish should not be taken for granted,” she said. She said that for a reason. Hon, who rarely speaks publicly or accept interviews in Hong Kong because it could result in serious consequences, resigned from her long-running columnist post at the Chinese-language Hong
RSS