A woman in a power position is a difficult position to manage. We are quite backwards in the US…or maybe we are just in the middle. There are countries far more progressive when it comes to women in politics and business and, of course, there are ones that are more conservative. But when Pakistan, an Islamic State, can have a Benazir Bhutto as Prime Minister, I think it is time to question why in the brief but dramatic history of the United States we do not want to elect someone who isn’t white and male. One of the most controversial, and well loved, Presidents was John F. Kennedy. He was controversial because not only was he young…but he was Catholic…shhhh. I don’t think we should even ask the question, Isn’t it time to elect a more progressive President?, because it is obviously the time. Justifying our lack of ethnic and gender diversity in the white house by saying, hey at least we aren’t China. Oh wait, China has had a female ruler even though the Confucists believe that having a female ruler is about as unnatural as having a “hen crow like a rooster at daybreak.” Empress Wu Hou of the T’ang Dynasty was China’s first and only female ruler.

Women rulers are not a modern concept. But it doesn’t make the US modern by being in a minority grouping of nations without a female leader.

I am not arguing for Hillary or Obama. In fact, I am a Canadian legally living in the US since I was 4 (seriously, I have a green card!), so I can’t vote. What I am interested in is this potential move towards opening up the idea to yet again become a progressive country! Wait, did I say yet again? Was there a time when we were ever truly progressive? Was there a time when the conservative action did not overshadow the progressive, or when someone did not beat us to it. Slavery, nope the Brits eliminated that way before us. Civil Rights, yeah, France has us beat. Gay Marriage, oh yeah the Brits again (and anything still associated with the Brits) have legalized that. We did go to the moon first…but we were racing Russia.

I do believe that we are a progressive country in many ways, both historically and currently. I also believe that our isolation from the world view and our America-centric knowledge of the world and society has lead us to believe that we are far more progressive than we really are. So I think this election is less of a return of progressive politics as it is a beginning to a progressive period in American history.

But what I really want to discuss is Hillary Clinton’s crying fit in New Hampshire. Ok, my description is a bit sensationalist. I am prone to hyperbole, but there were tears, or at least tearing up. Right now, there is a lot of back and forth discussion on whether this show of emotion was genuine or a political move. One blog said the polls predicted it. There is discussion to whether it was good for her campaign or bad? Some are criticizing her emotional break down as a ploy and others have softened to her. I would like to look at the reason behind the tears, and I don’t mean the stress of the campaign.

Women in powerful positions are asked to be an exercise in contradiction. They are resented and admired for being there. They are sluts or lesbians, emotional or cold, domineering or week, needy or distant, abrasive or ineffective. Women are never men, is what it comes down too. It seems that in order for us to be accepted as “equals” we have to be made sure that we know we are not.

Hillary has been criticized for not being feminine. She has been called a lesbian. She has been criticized for being overbearing, domineering, cold, abrasive and generally a she-devil. It is as though a desexualized Lillith has crash landed into the democratic garden of Eden. But move over Adam it might be time for Eve to start handing out the ribs because the role of head Gardener is up for grabs and though she brought out the tears now, I don’t believe Hillary is in the least bit intimidated by her fellow residents of Democratic Eden.

Hillary’s crying episode did for her what a male politician cannot do for himself, ok, well not a Republican. Sitting in a room full of women, speaking to how hard it is to be a woman in a position of power, Hillary broke down. The surrounding women nodded in appreciation and silent recognition. The country saw her as human and as a political machine. It does not really matter if the tears were of crocodile origin or not. It has been repeatedly commented upon how crying has helped humanize her.

The reason crying would not humanize a man is because he doesn’t need humanizing to begin with. Being strong, unemotional, authoritative, decisive are all positive qualities in a man. If he is not sexual, then he is a father figure. If he is sexualized, even better because he becomes more real to us on a instinctual level. Who doesn’t want a president who the men want to be and the women want to marry…or at least sleep with? Oh wait, maybe the whole country? The value of a president is not in directly proportionate to his GQ rating. But if a woman is sexy then she is using her womanly wiles to seduce people and therefore is manipulative and conniving. If she is matronly, then she is nurturing and emotional. Maybe we would want her to bandage our skinned knee, but she can’t make any real decisions, she isn’t capable! If she is strong, she is a bitch. If she is understanding, she is weak.

Basically, if it makes a man a better candidate, it acts against a woman.

Does John Edwards need to cry? No, he is our sexy southern sweetie pie. Who doesn’t feel connected to that charming-thank you mom and dad for braces- smile? What woman doesn’t want to run her fingers through his hair? And what man doesn’t want to shoot some pool and throw back a Bud? What man or woman other than a republican I mean. With all that in his pants do we remember what he stands for?

Does Barack Obama need to cry? Wait, he also has good looks. He has video admirers sending him love notes on YouTube. He has the power and passion of an entire 1960’s civil rights movement. He is witty and intelligent and every person (well, maybe the republicans) want to have him over for cocktails to discuss currant affairs and golf.

Hillary Clinton, well does it really matter? She is a woman. As Gloria Steinem just wrote “Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.” Why is this? As one of my favorite Smith alumnae, Miss Steinem, says, “why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.”

There is nothing beneficial in debating who has it worse, that is a circular argument and achieves nothing. The abolitionist movement and the suffrage movement both progressed when both parties worked together…this is also true of second wave feminism an civil rights. What is concerning, as Steinem points out, is that Obama is seen as unifying because of his race and she is divisive because of her gender.

Maybe Hillary cried because she really is stressed out. Maybe she cried because she needed to humanize herself, because he is a woman in a boys club. Maybe it was a political ploy. Regardless, she cried because it was necessary for her campaign to show that she is balanced as a woman, compassionate and capable. Why is this still our reality?

• Bookmark me
  
  • Subscribe
  • Blinklist
  • Bloglines
  • Blogmarks
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Furl
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

This seems to be the prevalent message behind PETA’s latest ad campaign. Whether the ad is for not wearing fur, not eating meat or animal abuse, the message coming across is sex. We all know the saying “Sex Sells.” In this case what is it selling? Is the message being lost within the tactic?

An amazing love story, worthy of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet (though a little bit happier, no less romantic), has come out of China recently. It is a story of a younger man and an older woman (not Harold and Maude) who ran off to live and love each other in peace for over half century.

Over 50 years ago, Liu, was a 19 years-old boy who fell in love with a 29 year-old widowed mother named Xu. At the time, it was unacceptable and immoral for a young man to love an older woman.

In order to avoid market gossip and the scrutinizing comment from friends and family, the couple decided to elope and lived in a cave in Jiangjin County in Southern ChongQing area.

In the beginning, they had nothing, no electricity or even food. They had to eat grass and roots they found in the mountain. Life was harsh, at first, and Xu believed that she had tied Liu down, so she would repeatedly ask him “Are you regretful?” and Liu would always reply “As long as we are industrious, life will improve.”

Liu’s industry started the second year of living in the mountain, he began, and continue for over 50 years, to hand carve steps so that his wife could get down the mountain easily.

A half century later in 2001, a group of adventures were exploring the forest, surprisingly they found the elderly couple living in the cave, which was their home, and the over 6,000 stairs of hand carved ladder.

“My parents loved each other so much, they have lived in seclusion for over 50 years and never been apart a single day.” Liu MingSheng, one of their seven children said, “He hand carved more than 6,000 steps over the years for my mother’s convenience, although she doesn’t go down the mountain that much. It’s a ladder of love.”

After their story was released, the Chinese government decided to run electricity to the cave. At the awards ceremony their son accepted on their behalf, they were not present due to their age, and he brought with him one of the kerosene lamps his father had made from an ink bottle.

“My parents have lived in seclusion for more than 50 years because of their love for each other. They had no electricity and my father made kerosene lamps to lighten our lives,” he said.

The couple had lived in peace for over 50 years until last week. Liu, now 72 years-old, returned from his daily farm work and collapsed. Xu sat and prayed with her husband as he passed away in her arms.

So in love with Xu, was Liu, that no one was able to release the grip he had on his wife’s hand, even after he had passed away.

“You promised me you’ll take care of me, you’ll always be with me until the day I died, now you left before me, how am I going to live without you?” … …

Xu spent days softly repeating this sentence and touching her husband’s black coffin with tears rolling down her cheeks.

In 2006, their story had became one of the top 10 love stories from China, collected by the Chinese Women Weekly. The local government has decided to preserve the “love ladder” and the place they lived as a museum, so this love story can live forever.

This article was comprised of information and writing provided by www.weirdasiannews.com Images are courtesy of www.weirdasiannews.com

• Bookmark me
  
  • Subscribe
  • Blinklist
  • Bloglines
  • Blogmarks
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Furl
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati