The politics of sexism

A politician needs not fear a dupatta sliding off his head during a public speech

With Bernie Sanders gaining momentum in Democratic primaries, the foremost concern aired by Hilary Clinton supporters is the possibility, nay, inevitability of Hilary losing votes because of sexism. Pakistani electorate should do well to pay attention to these discussions.

Bernie supporters are incensed by claims of Hilary supporters that sexism not only provides Bernie’s platform an edge but is almost single-handedly responsible for its overwhelming success. Gloria Steinem offensively implied that young women are on the Sanders team simply to impress boys, while Madeline Albright stated that there’s “a special place in hell” for women who do not support Hilary.

While Hilary Clinton and her feminist supporters may be accused of capitalising on feminism for their own political gains (there is certainly no dearth of feminists on Bernie’s side), the very existence of patriarchy should come under no doubt. Male privilege is real. That includes my own, which is why I tend to be cautious in my analyses of such situations as a male observer.

Bernie’s platform is strong enough, in my opinion, to float with or without male privilege. The economy is a ‘women’s issue’, as much as it is men’s, which is precisely why a majority of women between the ages of 18-35 are “feeling the Bern”.

However, Hilary’s gender is an important part of why she feels less “relatable” to the public than Sanders. Yes, her backing by Wall Street and corporate America irritates a fair chunk of the liberal electorate, but the fact that she’s a woman means that she has to walk on egg shells. A confident, vocal woman is a “shrill nagger” while a quiet woman is “passive and weak”. There’s a narrow space between these two stations that every female politician seeks to fit inside, as a misstep in either direction could be devastating to one’s career.

Hilary is not unfamiliar with this problem, and has become an expert at sidestepping most of the land mines in the path of a woman politician. When a reporter cheekily inquired Hilary about her hairstyle, she sternly responded by asking whether the reporter would ask a male politician the same question.

Make no mistake that this is not an American problem, but a global one.

Shireen Mazari is often accused of being loud, consistently angry, and annoyingly shrill. Is she objectively more so than Imran Khan? No. There isn’t enough space here to discuss in detail the endless barrage of comments aimed at her appearance, which most male politicians would never have to endure.

Consider the most common kinds of insults hurled at Bilawal Bhutto. Most of these have almost nothing to do with his political acumen, or lack of it, but merely his ‘allegedly’ feminine voice and demeanor. This demeanor is the honeypot of political comedians across the country. These include Anwar Maqsood who in his now famous play ‘Dharna’ not only caricatured Bilawal’s supposedly effeminate style of speech, but even made distasteful use of a transphobic slur to drive his point across.

Just about any ‘feminine’ characteristic, in politics and everyday social interaction, is perceived as a sign of weakness. Margaret Thatcher employed a voice coach to help reduce the pitch of her voice from a high ‘feminine’ one to a gruff masculine tone. Ed Miliband is suspected to have surgically had his adenoids removed to make his voice more ‘manly’.

A politician’s wife, for all intents and purposes, is as much a politician as her husband, if not more. It is perhaps the most underrated and thankless kind of politicking. The general public has little awareness of the amount of brainpower invested in determining the colour of the dupatta Mrs Politician is going to wear to a fundraiser, or the posture of her body as she sits down beaming next to her husband. Any semblance of a ‘normal’ family life must be forfeited, and every interaction with one’s children in public must be carefully stage-managed.

Despite what I may have written about Reham Khan for her contemptuous remarks about women and their need to “stop complaining” about their misfortunes in a patriarchal society, I acknowledge the brilliance of the part she has played for the sake of her former husband’s career. This is not an easy part to play, and demands more sacrifice and self-betrayal than a private citizen could ever be expected to comprehend. This lack of comprehension is clear from the sexist attacks she endured following her divorce, mainly from the stalwarts of her husband’s own party.

When you’re a man, you’re a “politician”. When you’re a woman, you’re a “female politician”. The adjective to one’s career title adds an extra layer of politics to contend with. A politician needs not fear a dupatta sliding off his head during a public speech, or fret about the shade of his lipstick being either too intimidating or too casual, or worry about keeping his voice unnaturally low-pitched, or fend off accusations of being ‘too ambitious’, or be concerned about being groped in a political rally, by members of one’s own party no less.

All he has to worry about is putting on a tie and being a ‘politician’ sans gender adjective. Must be nice.