So it’s election time. Nothing like overstating the obvious. Here in Oregon we are about to have our Democratic primary and for the first time in my life, my vote counts. Yesterday I took my daughter down to the Obama campaign office and picked up a sign for our yard and one for the car. Milla has been so interested in this election. She has been asking extremely astute questions with a lot of depth. Whereas in the Kerry/Bush election she chose Kerry simply because he was the candidate I was voting for, in this election she has asked me questions about all of the candidates, listened to them on the radio, watched them on YouTube, and drawn her own conclusions. I’m sure the fact I’m voting for Obama plays a role, but she’s thought through why I’m voting for him rather than simply taking my vote because I’m her mom.
One interesting facet of this discussion has been around gender. When Milla initially heard there was a woman running for president, she wanted to vote for her simply because she is female. I encouraged Milla to look past simple genital gender and really look at the issues. We discussed what is masculine and what is feminine, not on a behavior level, but on a cultural construct level. We discussed how responses to a situation could be masculine or feminine. For example, I asked her to suppose tension exists between two parties. One response is to act tough and threaten. Another response is to try and have a discussion. I explained that the tough threatening response is extreme masculine, while the discussion response is extreme feminine. I then pointed out that in most cases there is a blending of the two, but in our culture, the masculine response has been the valued and chosen response in most situations.
In thinking about this and discussing it, I concluded that Clinton for me represents more of the masculine and Obama represents more of the feminine. In society at large, it feels like we are all longing for more balance in that regard. I am not talking about masculinity versus femininity. This is not it at all. I’m describing society’s response to a given situation and its attitudes about acceptable behavior. Masculine qualities value reason, logic, and individuality. Feminine qualities value nurturing, emotion, and consensus. Both of these qualities have positive and negative attributes. But for too long it seems our culture has placed high emphasis on the positive descriptions of masculine responses and a more negative spin on the feminine responses. Ever hear a person call someone a “girl” for not being brave (or taking a foolish risk)? It is so common and accepted in sports we don’t give it a second thought. Even women say someone has “balls” if they are strong and a “vagina” if they are weak. Strength is framed in terms of gender. There is also the simple difference of going into conflict with all guns blazing, attacking first and asking questions later, versus seeing the other side as having value even though it may be different from our own. The first description is considered the position of strength while the second is considered the position of weakness. This is shortsighted thinking, but this is the perception in our culture and indeed, even the world.
The world is out of balance. We need more of the feminine. Even though gender based on genitals is a big part of the political discussion (along with race), on a deeper level it is this desire for more balance between the masculine and the feminine that is driving the choices people are making in this election. People may not be able to articulate it in that manner, but this emphasis on wanting someone different, wanting a different response, wanting a change, feels so much like a desire for more masculine/feminine balance.
I explained this to Milla, then I told her about the Democratic candidates’ positions. After this, she decided she preferred Obama. It seems an interesting way to frame the choices considering gender is so much a part of the discussion. I have not heard any discussions along these lines. I know women voting for Clinton simply because her genitals are female and I honestly think making a choice this simply is a mistake. It oversimplifies the argument. It is like voting for McCain because of his hair color or Obama because he has a lovely smile. Yes, I would love to have a woman for president, and if we still have a planet by the time we get to the next few elections, I believe we will. But I want that woman to be part of the new paradigm rather than the old. I want her to embrace the feminine response, not in terms of acting girly, but in terms of understanding that there is more to the answer to a problem than banging it with a hammer or blowing it up. In the meantime, if the feminine response comes in a human with a penis, so be it.
