I agree that the NYT is ignoring the possibility of a double bind here: society might be forcing women to appear softer and more maternal rather than more powerful and "masculine," replacing one sex-based ideal with another. But I think the idea is that, however problematic the new development is, it is at least an improvement over the old, because women (particularly mothers) in politics can choose to present an image that was not politically feasible before. I think NYT is saying women can still have the old options (bad) but can now also opt for something new, which means the total number of options is greater. Whether all of them are shitty options is a valid, unanswered question.

I agree with The Good Reverend, but I also think that this might be a good thing for the country. I don't care if it's a stereotype, I'd rather have my grandma (who is not exactly weak, but does bake a lot of cookies) as president than anyone in the Senate or House right now.

Whether or not the "acceptance" of women's "nurturing" side would represent an improvement (I won't even go there), i think the whole premise:

"...they no longer have to prove their strength day in and day out..."

is flawed.

I don't actually SEE a great deal more acceptance of women in politics by the populace as a whole. The misogyny we've seen on message boards in response to Hillary's candidacy are but one example. I think what we are seeing, if anything, is more women willing to endure the battle, more support from certain of their peers who are already "insiders" and empowered, and more acceptance by the public of certain women in office as the "exceptions" to the "rule"...and only after they've sufficiently proven themselves. It's a starting point, but still. Saying that suddenly women don't have to be on the defensive minimizes the enormity of the problem and sends the message that our culture doesn't need to do any more work or self-examination on this issue. Very damaging!

Maybe it's more like this: we know that the ability to soften or to care in a different way than men might, is something that seems to be more observable in women and is more often possessed by women - because of the mothering role many women eventually take on, it becomes somewhat necessary when you are parenting.

Maybe we need to say that it's okay to keep that quality in our bag of tricks and let it out, use it, when needed - because men seem to be far less likely to use that quality if they have it, and they often don't have it.

Like the first commenter said, it's like having a greater set of options. As a mother of three who only in the last few years has started to really consolidate her abilities and feel stronger politically, I have to say that a lot of my strenght comes FROM my mothering - not in an icky, gooey way - but because of the challenges. In NO way does that imply or is it meant to imply that women or men who don't have kids can't compare in that category - that's ridiculous. But, whereas, in the past, mothers might have been seen overwhelmingly as soft, now - that just won't be the case, or certainly won't be the defining picture.

I don't know - what do others thing about that?

Maybe it's more like this: we know that the ability to soften or to care in a different way than men might, is something that seems to be more observable in women and is more often possessed by women - because of the mothering role many women eventually take on, it becomes somewhat necessary when you are parenting.

Maybe we need to say that it's okay to keep that quality in our bag of tricks and let it out, use it, when needed - because men seem to be far less likely to use that quality if they have it, and they often don't have it.

Like the first commenter said, it's like having a greater set of options. As a mother of three who only in the last few years has started to really consolidate her abilities and feel stronger politically, I have to say that a lot of my strenght comes FROM my mothering - not in an icky, gooey way - but because of the challenges. In NO way does that imply or is it meant to imply that women or men who don't have kids can't compare in that category - that's ridiculous. But, whereas, in the past, mothers might have been seen overwhelmingly as soft, now - that just won't be the case, or certainly won't be the defining picture.

I don't know - what do others thing about that?

Jill,

I agree, and would add that Pelosi and Clinton, who are the focus of the article, are carefully adding motherhood to their total political qualifications, without taking that step back. If they couldn't do that to some degree without fear of being jeered out of office, that would be far worse.

In a year that candidates will be selling themselves as taking a long view, being aggressive on the political and economic defecit the country finds itself in, they can claim to be dedicated to doing just that, all the more because they understand the stakes to our children - and also because (though this is a little more farfetched) they can quell the bickering and posturing over small issues.

Everyone knows that moms have to make it happen, in good weather or bad. That can reassure voters that the candidate is hardheaded and not some ideologue. In other words, it's a cautious political angle, hedged in eighteen different ways - not some regression to the 50's.

The question is not whether a female is unique from male candidates - of course she is, she's a female - the question is how to make that into a positive trait politically rather than some subcutaneous liability. That message is going to take a little tweaking, and carefully at that, given the stakes. Candidates for lower office may play it a little further to either extreme, but they have that latitude. Pelosi, Clinton, and other national politicians don't.

I have to disagree here. Isn't it just embracing a double standard to say that women showing off their families or talking about being mothers is a negitive or a positive politically? Men do show off their wives and families when running for office, espeically the office of presidency, so why should women not do the same. AND lots of women can relate to motherhood (sure its far from being the only way) espeically those who watch shows like Oprah and the View, where these women are accused of being most "motherly"...

This piece is masking a sexist stereotype as some sort of liberation for mothers in politics

I think Biwah is mostly right here. It's not a question of whether the development is positive or negative, but of the fact that female politicians' best electoral strategies have changed.

Such a thing happens to many political minorities. For example, American Catholic politicians used to have to make strongly secularist statements, such as JFK's promise to protect the separation of church and state, in order to appear patriotic. But now they have to showcase their religious devotion in order to appear properly Christian. This tends to correlate with decreases in levels of inequality; I'd go out on a limb and say that a similar thing has happened to Italian-Americans in general, and even to Jews. It has something to do with acceptance of cultural values, I think; I'm about 18 hours overdue with a post on 3 Quarks Daily explaining why Steven Pinker doesn't know what he's talking about, especially when it comes to gender, so I'll leave it at that.

Redhead, Alon: To elaborate, it's about the electorate! The politician is not in a position to remake society from the campaign trail. In fact, nowhere is she less in a position to do so.

If a candidate fails to account for her gender, and the perception of the voters due to that gender, she will lose, and deservedly so.

You have to use what you have. Every candidate has attributes on a wide range of personal and political qualities, and must spin those into an overall positive concept/narrative. They do not have the luxury of throwing stones at social constructs.

Alon, I will be sure to check out your post on Pinker!

Here's my Pinker post.

I should mention that your point about politicians is exactly the one I should've made. Politicians are there to get elected and do good, not empower themselves. They already have all the power they need.

All good points, but I wasn’t suggesting “throwing rocks at social constructs,� just simply not catering to social constructs for votes. But then again, I’m no politician : )

Regardless, the bigger problem I have is not these women's particular strategies, but the fact that the mainstream media's coverage of female politicians is usually focused on motherhood, catfights, or fashion choices.

Vanessa, agreed - and one of the reasons why it's so important for there to be more women getting bylines on the front pages of all sections and in the oped pages. Not sure if you're following Politico, but notice that the one frontpaged woman is doing...the gossip column. Lovely. So - even in new iterations of media that use new and convergence-oriented tools, women are still given the front page only when doing gossip. Ugh.

Ellen Goodman has been awarded a Shorenstein fellowship to study the gender gap in news media and the Internet. I suggest we keep an eye on that.

Vanessa,

I still maintain that all politicians face the choice of catering to social constructs or otherwise losing. They have to lock in on cultural shorthand, visual metaphors, rhetorical cues, 15 seconds at a time. It's no time to pick and choose how you will present yourself on any terms other than what will resonate with the voters - good, bad or otherwise.

But I agree on your point re media coverage. MY quasi-free-market argument regarding electoral politics don't really apply to the media. Who dictates what they write about and how, I think is driven by their own laziness more than public demand. Hence, shopworn gender cliches and a whole lot of other substance-free tripe somehow wind up getting recycled every week.

Regardless, the bigger problem I have is not these women's particular strategies, but the fact that the mainstream media's coverage of female politicians is usually focused on motherhood, catfights, or fashion choices.

There you are completely right, of course. Either Echidne or one of her commenters quoted Ann Quindlen on it a while ago: complaining about an editor who wouldn't give her a job because that paper already had another female columnist, she said, "It's as if they had a quota of women, and it was one."