Upon hearing that a bomb-laden man held hostages Friday at a campaign office for Sen. Hillary Clinton, my first thought was to wonder whether it was related to Clinton being the sole woman candidate. Whether that is good, bad or inconsequential, I don't know.
It turns out the man was disgruntled with a perceived non-access to insurance and mental health treatment. I await the stereotypical headlines.
Sen. Clinton's gender has recently made its debut as campaign fodder, courtesy of Clinton's camp and a tactless McCain supporter. Clinton's camp followed up a less than stellar showing at the MSNBC Democratic debate with a puzzling video titled, The Politics of Pile On,"" which seemingly implied her gender was making her a target.
Clinton was later criticized for comments made during a speech at her alma mater Wellesley College in which she said her education at the all-women's college prepared her to compete in the all-boys club of presidential politics. However, when asked about these comments in a subsequent debate, Clinton contended she was just trying to play the winning card, not the gender card.
That's debatable, but it is not the point. If Clinton strives for the ""woman vote,"" it is pandering and using the gender card. If a male candidate does the same, as reported about Sen. Barack Obama in a recent New York Times story, it is considered savvy. Why does a woman candidate's perceived use of the gender card insight such ire?
I'd suggest that after the immense progress that women have made to be considered and treated as equals, using gender as a way to differentiate oneself as a campaign tactic seems like a step backward. However, it is the double standard that is troubling.
Another incident referencing Clinton's role as the lone woman candidate was at a McCain campaign stop two weeks ago during which a tactless woman supporter asked him, ""How do we beat the bitch?""
After some nervous laughter and offering, ""May I give the translation?""
McCain went on to declare it an ""excellent question"" and proceeded to answer, adding he respected Clinton and pointing out that he is the only Republican candidate who can beat her in the general election.
No rebuke. No admonishment. Nada.
Respect? The slur against his female opponent went unquestioned. Some may call this fluff, or a non-issue. I'd argue that if Edwards' $400 haircut is deemed a worthy topic of ridicule by his conservative counterparts, certainly a candidate's tolerance of a slur against women deserves at least equal attention.
Words have immense power, and a political context amplifies that power. I don't expect that the Senator should have scolded and embarrassed his supporter - however deserved - but the classy and proper thing to do would have been to say something to suggest he didn't find that kind of talk acceptable.
There were some media rumblings about the incident, but overall it was a blip on the campaign coverage radar. I must ask why it is OK for this question to go unchallenged by McCain? Certainly if the questioner had made a racial slur against Obama, it would have elicited more than nervous laughter and subsequent calm answering of said question. Clinton's camp had no comment.
Admittedly, a racial slur could be argued as a more hateful and reprehensible offense, but that doesn't make the sexist remark any more acceptable.
Though I contend Clinton should not use gender as a campaign tactic and stick to the issues, discrepancies like this should not go ignored and uncondemned.
Speaking out against injustice is not playing the gender card, as I am sure they feared such accusations by responding.
It is not my intention to formulate an endorsement of Clinton. Personal opinions about Clinton aside (mine a mixture of positive and negative), it simply irks me that women are seemingly forced to choose between being ""the bitch"" or playing the victim when it comes to referencing their gender.
Aware of gender stereotypes, Clinton has sought to highlight her assertiveness and credibility as a potential president which strikes some voters as calculating. If she makes a reference to possible sexism, it is called calculating.
If Clinton isn't being criticized for playing the gender card and the victim, she is being criticized for being ""too cold."" Men are rewarded for being perceived as strong and assertive, while women are labeled ""the bitch.""
I am not a torch-wielding feminist by any means, but this is disconcerting.
The bottom line is we may not want gender to be an issue, but that doesn't mean it isn't. A double standard exists, whether we like it or not.
Michelle Turcotte is a senior majoring in journalism. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
