Gloria Steinem wrote an interesting article for the NYTimes a few days ago. Her article “Women Are Never Front-Runners” offers some insight into the gender politics being played out in the ongoing Presidential election.

I, clearly, will vote for either Clinton or Obama when it comes time for the presidential election. And, I’m excited to have two really great candidates to choose from inside the Democratic party, but like Steinem I’m puzzled as to why many question Clinton’s authority as a leader, a woman, and potentially the next American President. Steinem admits: “To clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two terms of President Obama.” So why this strong divide between these two candidates? My hope is that they will run together as President and Vice President, but since they have both been at each other’s throats on the campaign trail it sadly seems unlikely.

If you have time, do take a moment to read Steinem’s article. I found it valuable. If nothing else, it confirms my thoughts about how gender is affecting Clinton’s political success. Issues of authorship and authority seem to be alive an well in this campaign. The media keeps saying that Clinton lacks “likeability,” that she seems non-human, robotic even, and she’s constantly being judged by her husband’s previous actions in the white house. Proof, once again, that women in our society are not defined as individuals in their own right. They are always interpreted in relation to the lives with which they are joined, the lives they create, and those they influence. I don’t mind this method of defining the self (actually I’m favor of breaking down individualism and its stronghold on the American political identity) as much as I do the fact that men often are not held to the same standard.

The truth is: I know little about either Clinton or Obama. I only know about what little I read, hear, and watch on tv. And, let’s be honest — who can trust these mediums? All of the candidates are trained to present a certain image of themselves, to sell certain ideologies. Politicians are becoming more and more like bathroom products — toiletries that are practical, smell nice, and sooth one’s worried mind. Regardless, I would just like for us all to be aware of the gender expectations and ideologies that influence our thinking. This election is important. Change is desperately needed. But, in addition to choosing the best candidate to bring it about, the real question is — can we bring about the change needed for ourselves? Can we redefine authority so that it includes women? So that it includes women’s right to choose to procreate or not? Can American society decide which gender they’d like Clinton to perform for them? (i.e. Clinton’s so-called female crying episode, the feminine suits she wears, her slicked back hairstyle which is suggestive of some interpretation of a male aesthetic, or her assertive “male” demeanor interpreted as “unlikeable” or “bitchy” — all of these indicate the ways that Clinton’s performing gender and attempting to strike a balance between portraying an accepted masculinist interpretation of authority while not denying her feminine characteristics.) Nothing is more clear than the fact that we need to redefine what authority means.

Many of the points Steinem brings up are problems that I’ve been witnessing while watching and reading the news, which makes it abundantly clear that for any progress to be made — we need to collectively reconsider the expectations we have for both women and men. I, of course, address this issue in nearly ever class that I teach. The problem is — how to instigate a radical change in our society’s understanding and treatment of gender on a much wider scale than my classrooms of 22 students. If you find the answer let me know. Every time I step outside of my academic bubble to go spend some time with family I am accused of being too “opinionated” (because my mother would never use the word bitchy) and for speaking out too much or at all. What I’m really confronted with, however, is the fact that I don’t fit my family’s model of what a woman should be. My thoughts and convictions are always interpreted as “critical;” my devotion to my work and my desire for solitude then are interpreted as cold or distant. These accusations against myself are manifesting themselves in different but similar enough ways for Hillary Clinton. The question for me right now is not who will you vote for, but rather — what expectations are influencing your vote? Are the tactics that sway your political opinions similar to those that persuaded you to buy that bar of melon scented organic face soap? If we really want change, we must realize that it starts with ourselves.