Do you remember what it was that brought Hilary back into the race when she first started to falter? It was because she performed as a "woman." She showed her emotions, on whatever show she was on, she let the weariness of the road show, she let her voice break and she showed emotion. These are traits that we most often identify as feminine. So by performing as people expect her gender to be, she was able to lift herself back into the limelight. Do you remember, four years ago, when Howard Dean lost his front-runner position? It happened for a variety of reasons, but the one that is most commonly pointed to is when he broke with his gender role and performed with emotion, letting out that uncharacteristic and "unmanly" yelp at a rally. It is an interesting contrast. Hillary gains momentum (that she has since lost) because she showed herself to be more feminine than she had previously portrayed, and Dean lost momentum because he showed himself as less masculine than people expected him to be.
The relegation of emotions to the feminine, and stoicism to the masculine has a long and strong history that dates back as far as our histories go but it really came to the forefront with the division of spheres into public and private during the Enlightenment era. Anything that was seen as illogical was relegated to the feminine and therefore, private sphere. Emotions were something women not only felt, but allowed to show. Religion was not rational, not scientific, so it too was pushed into the realm of the private (and later became an odd form of empowerment for many Western women - the Social Gospel, the Suffragette movement, etc). Men were supposed to put forth a rational, logical position, that of government, and head of business (not to mention the household), while women were not expected to behave in a logical and rational manner.
Why is it, that these social norms still exist? Some would argue and say that things have changed, that they are better now... yet in that very statement is a qualifier... things are better now. This does not say that things are fixed, that there is equality of position, understanding, gender, expectations, etc; it only says that things are ultimately different than what they were. (I am speaking specifically from a Western perspective here, there are many places where, indeed, things are not better now). So why is it, that people are more comfortable relating to a woman who performs her gender in accordance with these Enlightenment philosophies? Why is it that people malign a man who performs outside of his "acceptable" gender role?
Hillary's strongest support, after her allowing her emotions to show, came from female voters. Before that, it was said that women could not relate to Hillary, they felt alienated because she was not typically feminine. Now, to be a woman, that high in political life, means playing the male game. It means taking away sexuality and emotions and becoming, in essence... manly. In becoming this disengendered female, other females stop being able to relate, and a woman like Hillary becomes seen as unfeeling, mechanical, and unfeminine. So, once a break in that veneer comes through, women suddenly see Hillary as human, and men see her as typical, and have an easier time voting for her.
On the flip side, Howard Dean let out what was seen as a "girlish" yelp, and was ostracized by both male and female voters because he acted outside of acceptable patterns for what masculine is supposed to be. Suddenly, a masculine male slips form being the stoic person, whose only emotion allowed is anger, to being a man who is too feminine, and therefore not a good representative in terms of power.
That is the ultimate key here. Power. Men are supposed to be powerful, after all, we have carefully constructed our societies around this concept. Women are supposed to be weak, and men powerful. This comes from more than physiology, it comes from knowledge, and Foucault was right, knowledge is, in and of itself, power. Who has the knowledge, often holds the power, and who has the power often holds the knowledge. This discourse of power has been carefully woven around conceptual normative ideals, ones in which the male is in the privileged position. That is, he holds the position of power only as long as he is performing within the acceptable constraints of what is deemed to be appropriately masculine. When he steps outside of that performance, he is no longer deemed worthy.
Don't believe me? Why then is the word fag considered an insult? Or pansy? or any other derogatory phrase you can think of for people who act outside of conventional ways? How about women who strive for power? Ruthless, or heartless, or bitches, or mechanical, or unfeeling; why are these the words that get used? Why did Hillary suddenly surge back in those early primaries
while Dean lost out so spectacularly in their own respective campaigns? I know there are other factors, but these are certainly worth considering.
The relegation of emotions to the feminine, and stoicism to the masculine has a long and strong history that dates back as far as our histories go but it really came to the forefront with the division of spheres into public and private during the Enlightenment era. Anything that was seen as illogical was relegated to the feminine and therefore, private sphere. Emotions were something women not only felt, but allowed to show. Religion was not rational, not scientific, so it too was pushed into the realm of the private (and later became an odd form of empowerment for many Western women - the Social Gospel, the Suffragette movement, etc). Men were supposed to put forth a rational, logical position, that of government, and head of business (not to mention the household), while women were not expected to behave in a logical and rational manner.
Why is it, that these social norms still exist? Some would argue and say that things have changed, that they are better now... yet in that very statement is a qualifier... things are better now. This does not say that things are fixed, that there is equality of position, understanding, gender, expectations, etc; it only says that things are ultimately different than what they were. (I am speaking specifically from a Western perspective here, there are many places where, indeed, things are not better now). So why is it, that people are more comfortable relating to a woman who performs her gender in accordance with these Enlightenment philosophies? Why is it that people malign a man who performs outside of his "acceptable" gender role?
Hillary's strongest support, after her allowing her emotions to show, came from female voters. Before that, it was said that women could not relate to Hillary, they felt alienated because she was not typically feminine. Now, to be a woman, that high in political life, means playing the male game. It means taking away sexuality and emotions and becoming, in essence... manly. In becoming this disengendered female, other females stop being able to relate, and a woman like Hillary becomes seen as unfeeling, mechanical, and unfeminine. So, once a break in that veneer comes through, women suddenly see Hillary as human, and men see her as typical, and have an easier time voting for her.
On the flip side, Howard Dean let out what was seen as a "girlish" yelp, and was ostracized by both male and female voters because he acted outside of acceptable patterns for what masculine is supposed to be. Suddenly, a masculine male slips form being the stoic person, whose only emotion allowed is anger, to being a man who is too feminine, and therefore not a good representative in terms of power.
That is the ultimate key here. Power. Men are supposed to be powerful, after all, we have carefully constructed our societies around this concept. Women are supposed to be weak, and men powerful. This comes from more than physiology, it comes from knowledge, and Foucault was right, knowledge is, in and of itself, power. Who has the knowledge, often holds the power, and who has the power often holds the knowledge. This discourse of power has been carefully woven around conceptual normative ideals, ones in which the male is in the privileged position. That is, he holds the position of power only as long as he is performing within the acceptable constraints of what is deemed to be appropriately masculine. When he steps outside of that performance, he is no longer deemed worthy.
Don't believe me? Why then is the word fag considered an insult? Or pansy? or any other derogatory phrase you can think of for people who act outside of conventional ways? How about women who strive for power? Ruthless, or heartless, or bitches, or mechanical, or unfeeling; why are these the words that get used? Why did Hillary suddenly surge back in those early primaries
while Dean lost out so spectacularly in their own respective campaigns? I know there are other factors, but these are certainly worth considering.