Victoria Houghtalen is a first-year
intended political science major and Media Fellow
from Noblesville, Indiana.
The discussion of the 2016 election has already begun, as candidates on both the Republican and Democratic ticket have officially announced their run for a presidential seat.
One of those candidates in particular was not-so surprising. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been molding her image for a 2016 run after her defeat to President Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary. But as she becomes a forerunner for next year’s ticket, it is imperative that the American electorate, and especially DePauw students, look at how the discussion around Clinton impacts our perception of her.
It is no secret that Clinton would be the first female president. The fact that she is a woman has become a central component to her campaign as her message has focused around raising the next generation in America. Her emphasis on “New Adventures, Next Chapters” from her website is hinting at her being a “champion” for children and mothers, among other groups. The Clinton campaign has strategically decided to embrace Clinton’s sex in order to combat the sexist discourse around her that was so prevalent in 2008.
But just because Clinton is focusing on her sex for her campaign doesn’t mean that we, as an American electorate, can pick on her sex just the same. Regardless of how you feel about Clinton, there is dialogue that is inappropriate to say about her as certain discourse trivializes her and other women out of political leadership roles.
For example, DePauw, please feel free to criticize her platform on closing the wage gap. Use all of your economic class experience on campus to combat her argument. However, you may not comment on her pantsuits in the process. By pointing out her attire, critics are placing her into a physical sphere, undermining her experience to only focus on her femininity.
Please, feel free to criticize her plan to make colleges nationwide more affordable. If you think that that is not a valuable plan, share it with the world. However, you may not bring up her husband’s affair in the process. By doing so, Clinton is tied to her husband’s actions, furthering the stereotype that a woman’s decisions are directly correlated to and dependent on the image of her partner.
Continue to throw punches at how she handled Benghazi. But in the process, be careful to call her Secretary Clinton instead of Mrs. Clinton. All positions of power deserve the proper title, but all too often women of power only get the title associated with their marital status.
Other sexist discourses around Clinton include: the word bitch, the critic of her daughter’s actions as Clinton’s own responsibility, saying she sounds like an old wife or blaming menstrual cycles as a reason she might “blow up Russia.” Yes, because men have never done anything irrational in American foreign policy.
By making jokes about Clinton’s femininity in public spaces, the discourse undermines her experiences as a successful Wellesley and Yale grad, First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. Narrowing in on her personal actions or actions associated with her gender limits the potential of other individuals to feel as if they can reach the same capacity as Clinton. Sexist discourse eliminates the feeling that women can aspire to positions of power; it puts women of all fields back into their place.
If you wouldn’t say it about a male politician, do not say it about Clinton.
I understand that it may sound like I am being picky, but the accumulation of sexist discourse in media and even interpersonal relationships causes a snowball effect that enables persons to focus on the superficial for decades to come.
I am advising that DePauw should be conscious as we branch into our 2016 discussions. We need to realize that although Greencastle is far away from Washington DC, our dialogue around women of power on a national level impacts the comfort of females in leadership roles here. Inclusion does not disappear past Anderson Street.
