"Hillary was so busy trying to prove she could be one of the boys — getting on the Armed Services Committee, voting to let W. go to war in Iraq, strong-arming supporters and donors, and trying to out-macho Obama — that she only belatedly realized that many Democratic and independent voters, especially women, were eager to move from hard-power locker-room tactics to a soft-power sewing circle approach."
I am aware that this strays a little from the article that was posted earlier, but I felt it was nonetheless worth sharing. Without bringing my own political beliefs into this, I just wanted to comment on the irony of the above statement. Hillary is the first woman to run for president, and yet her lack of sensitivity and femininity is what has hurt her campaign the most. Though Barack Obama is male, it seems as though he has captured that softer, more female approach and found a way to use it in his fight for candidacy. This got me thinking. In a typical workplace/office setting, sensitivity expressed by a
woman and the exposure of "feminine behavior" in high level positions is viewed poorly (in most cases). These women are perceived as being "weak" and many times incapable of moving farther up the professional ladder. I find irony in the fact that as a nation, the public is more forgiving receptive of a
man who exhibits the same qualities,
and while he's campaigning for the most powerful position our country has to offer! What are your thoughts? Where do we find a balance, and when is it more advantageous?
Click here for the rest of the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24dowd.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=quien%20es%20less%20macho&st=nyt
