Women in power, from Joan of Arc to Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton, have always had a tough job bearing the judgements of their followers and detractors.
They are stepping into a traditionally male-dominated world in which they are expected to be both as strong and decisive as men, but also not, because they are women.
“They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t,” says best-selling author Frances Kendall, who wrote The seXY Factor. The book offers a biological, psychological, and evolutionary explanation for gender differences. She is now writing a book called The Angel Witch Dilemma, exploring the additional difficulties women in politics face because of our tendency to project Jungian archetypes onto them.
“Women are expected to be the mother, the carer, the protector. When they step into the highest echelons of power and have dominion over life and death, people have a subconscious counter-reaction. Without changing anything in herself, the angel becomes a witch.”
Kendall explores this phenomenon through the example of Bill and Hillary Clinton, both major leaders of the US at times.
“When Bill Clinton adopted centrist or opposing-party positions to win elections and govern effectively, it was described as political realism, flexibility, and strategic intelligence. But when Hillary Clinton used similar strategies, she was condemned as calculating, unprincipled, and inauthentic. The same behaviour made Bill a skilled operator, but Hillary morally suspect. The behaviour did not change. The lens did.”
In recent memory, we can recall how the female Clinton, resplendent in her pant suits, was once regarded as an equal match to the presidential aspirations of Donald Trump. Perceptions of a highly skilled and intelligent woman were duly transformed into one of the devil incarnate, directly orchestrating the horrors of the world, including taking personal charge of the death of Jeffrey Epstein.
It all snowballed that fateful day when she explained her decision to continue her career as a lawyer while her husband decided to run for president: “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies,” she told the press. The angel became a witch. Men and women descended with a vitriol that is only matched in some quarters by that for Trump himself. “She wanted to be treated like a man in politics, but wasn’t allowed,” says Kendall. “She became the mother who did not want to be a mother – the ultimate betrayal in our projections onto her, especially in more conservative circles. It is an irrational reaction. Often, the harshest critics are people who have problematic relationships with their own mother.”
The modern woman seeking power or influence thus plays a delicate game. They need to meticulously moderate themselves. In The seXY Factor, Kendall gives some guidelines on how women seeking influence should dress and speak. They are advised to stay away from the ‘dolly bird’ look. Short skirts and overt sexuality are out. She tells women to wear jackets with padded shoulders and boxy shapes that suggest masculinity. Power-women should avoid overly emotional facial expressions and replace phrases like “I think we should…” with “The best course of action is….” Hillary Clinton fits this style guide perfectly.
An acquaintance tells the story of how he once almost introduced himself to Hillary, but felt too intimidated. He says that even if one could breach the circle of security people around her, one would be met with a force even more impenetrable – her hair. He describes a visible shield of lacquer holding together a construction that acted like a force field, which might protect one from brain damage should one be involved in a motorcycle accident, or at least a debate with Donald Trump.
Times have changed slightly since Kendall wrote the book, though. The modern power-woman has ditched the helmet hair of Clinton and Thatcher and burned her shoulder pads. Furthermore, we now favour tailored silhouettes, combined with authentic self-expression when it comes to wardrobe. Powerful figures like Taylor Swift possess extraordinary wealth and impact in the entertainment industry.
She wears tiny, sexy, skimpy outfits – but combines this with a squeaky-clean image. Swift treads a finely stage-managed line between being the Madonna and the whore. What with the premeditated hair, computed apparel, and carefully crafted vocabulary, the modern power woman’s armour might be harder to get into than Joan of Arc’s.
We are perhaps then blessed with a phenomenon like Helen Zille, who ziplines over gender stereotypes, snorkels around ageism and cocks a snoot at the rule that women in politics must always be serious. Yet, a closer look at her presentation suggests she is very much aware of the rules; her hair is always impeccable, and her lipstick perfect. The jeans, hard hats, security vests and safety shoes send an equally loud signal that she is ready to engage in any situation and any terrain – like a man.
Considering Zille’s target market, I appreciate Zille’s mayoral campaign as inspiring, entertaining, and clever marketing. I can also imagine that, if Indira Gandhi stepped into overalls and bungee-jumped over the Ganges for a campaign stunt, it might have been problematic.
Kendall says Zille has added walking a tightrope to her adventurous political antics, as some people might find it confusing. To many, this is not what an older female should be doing, and it could make her seem less capable of performing a difficult job. Zille also has to navigate racial projections, where many see the act of rowing across a sinkhole as insulting to poor, black people who daily bear the consequences of collapsing infrastructure in real terms.
“Politics is a complicated and high-pressure environment,” says Kendall, and gives this advice to people on how to view women in power: “Remember this one thing: Women in power are not your mother. They are not your grandmother. Stop projecting your expectation of the female archetype onto them.”
She says that individuals in power, male or female, are unusual in many characteristics. Few of us can comprehend the pressure to not only deal with ideological principles, but also to juggle that with procedure and the nasty business of politics, which includes compulsory back-stabbing and shifting alliances while curating a highly scrutinised public image.
We should look at Zille as one of these individuals blessed with the additional scarce qualities of competence and experience. Zille has previously been awarded the World Mayor of the Year title, and served as the premier of the Western Cape. She has now moved back to Gauteng for her most ruthless campaign yet – to be the mayor of Johannesburg.
She says: “My whole life has prepared me for this job.” Zille says she did not enter politics in search of power. “I am not an ambitious person. But there is a role I can play in fixing things.”
She confirms that being in politics is a whole-time job; “These jobs are hellish. There is no time for family now. You have to learn to be unbelievably resilient.” In a recent interview, she was asked how history might judge her repeated return to power. She replied, “It depends on who writes that history. I judge myself on whether my role was constructive or not. I try to do the right thing.”
What do we make, then, of Helen Zille? Angel, witch or gogo? None of the above.
As for the rest of us, let’s not bring our mommy issues to the polling booth.
[Image: DA election launch in Kliptown, Soweto, in March 2011 https://www.flickr.com/photos/democraticalliance/5626947978]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend