"Macho Dems" bad news for Democratic women?

Posted by Sarah Posner at 6:55 PM on January 7, 2007.

Was 2006 a bad year for Democratic women? Despite the Democrats elevating the first female Speaker of the House and offering the first viable female presidential candidate in history, in today's Times, Ryan Lizza wonders if the answer is yes.

Lizza's premise, somehow, is that the resurgence of so-called "Macho Dems" -- folks handpicked by that foul-mouthed tough guy Rahm Emanuel and that notoriously brutal boss Chuck Schumer -- is inherently incompatible with the elevation of Democratic women. What does he mean? Is there no room for tough women in a room full of tough men?

Lizza's conclusion isn't clear: is it that female candidates won't be able to match the macho now expected of Democrats, because of a bunch of veterans and cops now in their ranks? Is it that Democrats risk alienating female voters by being too tough? Or is it that the Democrats have now set impossible standards for themselves, standards that none of the Party's prospective presidential candidates can match? All of these options were offered up without much evidence to support any of them.

Why we're even having such a discussion is made evident by the perceived need of the American public to have their expectations of masculinity and femininity met in their leaders. Why can't the Democrats be portrayed as tough all around, and not just as having tough men in their ranks? Democratic women -- even the one just one heartbeat and one malfunctioning pacemaker away from the presidency -- are still locked out of the Fight Club. Why else would Nancy Pelosi -- as she revelled in the greatest moment of her professional life -- take such care to be photographed with her grandchildren? Because we must never forget that she used her ovaries for their intended purpose. That's what defines her. Not her career. So she can't get too tough, of course. If she confronts Bush on the war, she will always remind us that she's doing it for her grandchildren.

I'm not blaming Pelosi. That's the political environment in which she finds herself, one in which anyone who reads a major newspaper knows she likes Armani suits, because, of course, it matters what she wears, not what she thinks.

So I had a creepy feeling reading Lizza's piece, in part because I hate that silly macho pissing contest, where the Democrats feel they have to work so hard not to look French or worry about their hair (unless they're a woman, in which case they should worry very much about it) and drink Bud instead of latte. But also because I know that if success in Democratic politics depends on a macho test, female politicians will always face the eternal tug between flaunting their toughness while constantly tempering it with a prominent display of estrogen.

But before they go too far down that path, Democrats should avoid overplaying the macho hand. After all, the jig is up on the Republicans' phony testosterone show. From the transparently repressed White House confidant Ted Haggard to the irrepressibly horny Mark Foley, the Republicans have been exposed as the craven coddlers of their nelly bretheren, something that would never be tolerated -- much less even imagined -- by any genuine tough guy, who would've kicked both their asses before any meth could be purchased or IM sent. And even the GOP's capos have been fully emasculated: DeLay's blogging, for heaven's sake, Abramoff's in the pokey, Hastert's a mere shell of his former self (oh, well, maybe shell is a poor word choice for the hulking former wrestling coach), and Frist has had his testicles, and his presidential prospects, handed to him on a silver platter purchased with the proceeds from insider trading. (Is there a diagnosis for that, doctor?)

Tagged as: testosterone, democratic party, pelosi

Sarah Posner is an investigative journalist whose work has appeared on Alternet, The American Prospect, The Gadflyer, and in other publications.