Joe Biden’s running mate will be highly scrutinized. What’s fair game?
Presidential politics has historically involved only white men. Geraldine Ferraro broke the sex barrier in 1984 and Barack Obama the color barrier in 2008. Kamala Harris is the first woman of color on a major party ticket. Already, there is not-so-subtle race-baiting surrounding her parentage. The gendered lens through which she’ll inevitably be viewed is more complicated. In “The role we ALL play in keeping sexism out of presidential politics,” Lauren Leader sets the bar too high. Her starting point, though, is one we should all be able to agree with: [B]ias against women, especially black women, is insidious and everywhere. It is an affront to human dignity and to all women. And so, in this historic moment (no matter what side of the political aisle you are on) it’s time that every American take stock of these ugly ideas we hold against women, especially women of color, and upend them. She cautions that we should guard against various tropes.1. She is too ambitious – the term meant as a slur not a statement. The idea that women should not be ambitious is tired and broken and must be permanently put to bed. Biden, by picking Harris helped shut this notion down, but it most certainly will reemerge. Here, she’s right. I’ve been paying rather close attention to American politics for more than four decades. I literally can’t recall an instance where “too ambitious” was applied to a male politician, let alone a Vice Presidential nominee. Indeed, it has historically been pretty much a given that the VP slot is a stepping stone to the top job.2. She is not likeable – gender and racial bias twists all of us into discounting women, no matter how qualified or accomplished if we don’t think they are nice and likeable. This judgement is heaped on visible women leaders in both business and politics. It has followed Sen. Harris with insidious whispers. We expect women to be impossibly warm, kind, motherly, but also hard working, capable and deferential to men. It’s a minefield of impossible standards no woman can meet. I’m not persuaded on this one. I’ve read a lot of dissections of this concept, with regard to both Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, and get the argument that it’s applied differently to women than men. Because we hold men and women to different social standards, “likability” is inevitably gendered. Still, variants on the theme have been applied to male politicians for as long as I can remember. Jokes about Ted Cruz’ unlikability abound. And there has long been the “Would you like to have a beer with them?” test.3. We disapprove of her life choices – Sen. Harris does not have biological children (she has two step children) which will certainly be held against her by some, but even when women candidates do have children, we ask incessantly how she balances career, family and marriage.
