I was browsing Huffington Post this morning (in the same way that I would flip through a magazine while standing in the checkout line) and I came across this week-old article:
Pulitzer Prize-Winning Columnists Call Obama A 'Female' With A 'Humanoid' Problem
The article highlights two particularly strange commentaries from high profile female journalists in regards the leadership style of President Obama. One is from Maureen Dowd- yet another attempt to psychoanalyze Barack Obama in such a way as to paint him as damaged goods. Her comments, however, is to an op-ed by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Kathleen Parker, who has decided to revisit the half-serious, half-ironic, half-embarrassing-but-iconic words of Toni Morrison when she commented on Bill Clinton’s bone fides as the "first black president" back in the early 1990’s. Except this time, Parker paints Obama with another imaginary label: first woman president.
As far as I know, this has nothing to do with whatever is hidden under the president’s suit. No, this is a criticism of his clearly feminine tendencies, and the drawbacks of (allegedly) acting like a female instead of being an acceptable male stereotype.
"No, I'm not calling Obama a girlie president. But . . . he may be suffering a rhetorical-testosterone deficit when it comes to dealing with crises, with which he has been richly endowed."
So it’s not strategy and political cooperation, but buckets of testosterone that are necessary in order to extinguish the economic meltdown, the costly wars, and the health care crisis. Got it.
"his approach is feminine in a normative sense. That is, we perceive and appraise him according to cultural expectations, and he's not exactly causing anxiety in Alpha-maledom."
He’s just not scary enough for real dudes in "Real America".
"I say this in the nicest possible way. I don't think that doing things a woman's way is evidence of deficiency but, rather, suggests an evolutionary achievement."
I’d like to believe you, Kathleen Parker, but then you go on to say,
"Nevertheless, we still do have certain cultural expectations, especially related to leadership. When we ask questions about a politician's beliefs, family or hobbies, we're looking for familiarity, what we can cite as "normal" and therefore reassuring."
So, do you want him to be "evolved," or do you want him to be "normal?" Parker goes on to cite his deferential style as womanish and claims that his "many tropes of femaleness" have impeded his effectiveness. I’ve heard a lot of analysis of what may be "impeding" Obama, but acting like a woman is a new one.
And then there is Maureen Dowd’s $0.02. Dowd agrees that Obama’s style is problematic; she actually calls it a "problem." But apparently, his isn’t an issue of being too effeminate, but rather too...non-human?
"Fellow Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Maureen Dowd agreed that Obama has traditional female traits of "consensus and compromise and listening to everyone." But she said his problem isn’t male or female, it’s "humanoid." "He doesn’t connect when he could and he waits...His mother was an anthropologist and he has that anthropologist side of just waiting and looking, which isn’t really a male or female trait, it’s a problem," Dowd told me on "GMA."
Link here
So, Obama simply wasn’t raised right. His upbringing was too academic, too exotic, and as we find out, too poor (!) for him to now be relatable to real people:
"This type of analysis irritates Obama -- something Dowd said she takes pride in. She said unlike previous presidents who had "rich daddies" and a lot of confidence, Obama didn’t grow up like that. "He‘s had to develop a lot of shields. He’s come up, you know basically as Michelle says he was raised by wolves," Dowd said. "So you know he has a lot of shields so he’s thin-skinned. And when you’re thin-skinned you want to control your image and he doesn’t often like the image the media has."
Conclusion: poor people raise undisciplined, hyper-sensitive kids who grow up to have giant chips on their shoulder. It’s never the media’s fault. Oh, and that lack of money isn’t exactly manly either. . . . . . < deep sigh > . . . . .
I have several issues with these lines of thinking:
1. Sexism and self-deprecation: The basis for Parker’s commentary is that Obama displays un-macho ways of interacting with people, and that this is not acceptable to the general public. Obama apparently has too many "female" tendencies. Therefore (according to other people, not Parker, she claims) he cannot be an effective leader; rather he is acting like the definition of a woman, aka a weakling. Bottom line: women are weak and confusing; manly-men are strong and reassuring. Okay.
Do men and women have naturally different characteristics? Of course. This is a fact that has been studied by scientists, doctors and psychologists. But we’re not talking about a body-building contest here. This is about intelligence and decisiveness, two traits needed in order to be a chief executive. Why do people, women especially, continue to push the idea that women should not be given positions of intellectual leadership and control- unless they think and act like men? As a woman, I take personal offense to other women telling me that I am not capable of effective and critical thinking. While I’d NEVER want to be the president, I know that there are many girls and women around the world who do, and who have the smarts, skills and courage to do so. There is a growing meme (aside: I can’t stand that word, but whatever) in Republican, conservative, or otherwise anti-Obama outlets that this president is ineffectual. Weak. Impotent. An apologist. Immature. Unintelligent. Effeminate. Childish. In other words, he is not a man, and does not have to be respected or treated as such. The types of commentaries only serve to give credibility to those "arguments." Unfortunately, this line of thinking is not restricted to one political or social ideology. How many times have you heard a self-proclaimed member of his base reference Obama’s need to "man up" or "grow some balls" whenever they feel that he’s taking too long or talking too soft? If being a man, in every socially acceptable sense of the word, is required to be truly effective, then what does that say about the respect we have for our actual female leaders, past and present?
2. Simple-minded thinking: Since when are traits like consensus seeking, compassion, patience and respect bad things? Why is careful consideration a "problem?" As much as some people claim to be tired of "cowboy" leaders who shoot first (and then deny it later,) there is a continued outcry in the media for a leader who will be quick to demonize all opponents and make every ally awkward and uncomfortable in the process. As we’ve come to witness, a man (or woman) that leads only by his temper and his "gut" will ultimately make brash decisions without thinking of the possible collateral damage he causes.
3. Classism: I take real issue with Dowd’s comments about wealth and leadership. Her comments were even more asinine than most of the "female" analysis. The idea that money is the root of confidence and decisiveness is not based in reality. Ironically, the recent ranking of the best presidents also sides with Dowd’s way of thinking. Apparently, Obama’s modest, non-elite, non-corporate, apolitical roots are a bad thing. What she is suggesting is that only the most well off, unconcerned among us have the mental stability necessary to become president. In other word’s Obama’s election may prove to be a mistake. Lesson learned: common folk need not apply.
4. The continued emasculation of Black men: I am NOT saying that the commentary of either of these women is racist; if they were Black women, I’d have the same concerns. But here’s the thing: they couldn’t pin the "Angry Black Man" label on this man, as hard as they tried, so now the pundits are trying desperately to swing public opinion to the other end of the spectrum. Throughout modern history, there has been a systematic effort to condemn, suppress and deny to sexuality and masculinity of Black men. By calling Obama out of his name, and trying to argue that he is not really a man in the social sense, they are, whether they know it or not, emasculating him in print and speech, while also pushing false ideas about the limitations of the definition of "manhood." Again, by constantly critiquing Obama’s perceived manhood and personal integrity, these women are only encouraging louder, more ignorant rhetoric from the race-baiters. . . . Barack Obama is a unique person and a unique president. He’s not a fictional character or a movie icon, as amusing as that may be to think about:
There will no doubt be further frustration and intrigue about his personality and governing style. But we need to move away from the baseless accusations, pop-psychological assumptions and attempts to mold him into something he is not, only to criticize him for not being who you imagine him to be. Most importantly, we need to move away from gender and other social stereotypes and embrace the diversity and potential of more complex gender roles. Let's also continue to encourage people of both sexes to be critical thinkers and free thinkers.