乐播传媒

You can learn a lot by looking at election seasons through the lens of gender.

The way Hillary Clinton juggled the images of commander-in-chief and mother-and-grandmother in 2016. The tenuous ease with which today鈥檚 candidates present themselves as mothers. The 聽show of masculinity embodied by now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and the styles of masculine authority displayed by the senators who questioned him.

This fall, Associate Professor of Politics Leslie Hill and her students are tackling issues of gender and sexuality in politics, ranging from the historical 鈥� how did women participate in politics at the country鈥檚 founding? 鈥� to the current, and from the national to the hyperlocal.

Here, Hill talks about how sex, sexuality, and gender 聽shape U.S. political history, the gendered politics she sees in the upcoming midterm elections, and how her class is working to elicit voters鈥� views of women鈥檚 concerns in Lewiston and Auburn.

What鈥檚 the central question of your course on gender and sexuality in U.S. politics?

The question is how gender shapes politics and vice versa. It鈥檚 important to think about the ways in which our ideas, our understandings of masculinity, femininity and sexuality, shape even what we think of as politics.

The Founders thought that politics happens outside the home; that it happens only in the public space, and that space is appropriately inhabited by men, and in contrast, the home is a private space inhabited by women. The initial phase of thinking was, because women are dependent on men, they鈥檙e included in the political community as subordinates to men.

The Founders believed that women were subject to their own passions and did not have the rational characteristics required for citizenship 鈥� and that they consented to patriarchy! This is belied by Abigail Adams鈥� letter to her husband John as he was sitting in the Constitutional Convention. She urged him to 鈥渞emember the ladies鈥�; he wrote back that to acknowledge women as citizens would 鈥渟ubject us to the Despotism of the Petticoat.鈥�

How did women, and transgender and gender-nonbinary people, participate in politics?

In domestic spaces where founders鈥� wives managed dinner parties for political elites. Around kitchen tables, where women wrote letters to local officials. With petitions to abolish slavery, lobby for suffrage and Progressive Era reforms. In Native communities, where women elders advised male Councils on entering treaties with the federal government. In black churches and social organizations, where working- and middle-class black women ran citizenship schools, preparing for the day when African Americans would be enfranchised.

At warfronts where some passed as male soldiers and where others fed, clothed, and tended troops as 鈥渃amp followers鈥�; and, in factories where 鈥淩osies鈥� riveted. Critically, in social movements, attempting to influence decisions of men holding office in formal political institutions. LGBTQ people are barely visible in these histories, but research on their more recent activism has been gaining visibility to give us a truer picture of politics.

鈥淚 want to bring to light an understanding of politics focused not just on formal institutions.鈥�

One way of participating in politics is by entering our formal processes of decision-making on the terms of formal institutions. The vote was gained political struggle first, by working-class white men, later women, and eventually for people of color. They were not changing the institutions at all but entering political spaces from which they had been marginalized, where they had been objects of decisions rather than decision-makers.

I want to bring to light an understanding of politics focused not just on formal institutions. That鈥檚 part of the challenge with understanding women鈥檚 participation in politics. women were organizing around kitchen tables, in churches, and social clubs; LGBT folks strategized in private spaces where they met, learned, and provided care. If one were to study African American women鈥檚 political activism, you would go to the church. It鈥檚 a matter of asking, what spaces do people inhabit, where do they present themselves, their voices, their opinions, their interpretations of power?

What moments in U.S. political history are most useful in your class?

I鈥檒l teach the 2016 election and the uses of masculinity in that campaign. In the United States, the president is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The 鈥渞ole鈥� of masculinized men is to protect families, so the defense of the political community is understood as a masculinized role. That has a great deal to do with our understanding of the presidency as masculinized.

Michael Dukakis, for example, suffered on that account in 1988. He was perceived as effeminate, not masculine enough. George W. Bush once appeared on an aircraft carrier in full uniform, when that didn鈥檛 represent his military service at all. Donald Trump used language to denigrate the masculinity of his primary opponents and delegitimize Clinton鈥檚 qualifications for the presidency.

Hillary Clinton found a way to present herself as a mother and grandmother but also as someone capable of being the commander of military forces. That actually seems to contrast with the way female candidates are presenting themselves in the 2018 elections. It鈥檚 less risky now, it seems, to talk about being a mother and easier to talk about one鈥檚 fighter pilot experience. I鈥檓 wondering how motherhood self-presentations are appearing and whether or not there are differences between conservative female candidates and liberal and progressive female candidates.

What are some other ways you鈥檙e seeing gendered politics in this election season?

In Brett Kavanaugh鈥檚 hearings, and Trump鈥檚 response. Trump suggested that men are somehow more vulnerable to false accusations of sexual assault, with the presumption that a lot of accusations are indeed false. He鈥檚 trying to challenge the widespread incidence of sexual assault and sexual violence.

There are people in important positions of leadership who are pushing back against the movement, with the mindset of, 鈥淭hey鈥檙e saying well, gee, now men are horrible 鈥� we can鈥檛 have that.鈥� I see that as gender politics.

A lot of people have compared Kavanaugh鈥檚 confirmation hearings to those of Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill. How do they compare for you?

You have at least one party on the Senate Judiciary committee represented entirely by white men; my students observed they were mostly older. In some ways they were embodying conventional masculine authority.

That was not unlike what went on in 鈥�91. Senator Joe Biden, in questioning Anita Hill, at one point asked her to describe the very specific things that Clarence Thomas had done. I thought that was egregious. This time, forcing a kind of visibility of a woman鈥檚 sexuality didn鈥檛 seem to be out there in quite that same way. Maybe that was tempered by the presence of those two female Democratic senators in the hearing.

The intersection of race and gender in U.S. politics was on full display during those 1991 hearings 鈥� you yourself put your name on a famous ad in The New York Times that decried how Anita Hill was subjected to racist and sexist treatment. How are the race and gender politics different now?

There鈥檚 a fascinating documentary called Public Hearing, Private Pain, about perceptions within the African American community of what was going on in the hearings 鈥� what the racial and gender politics were. Thurgood Marshall had stepped down, and President George H.W. Bush wanted a court that appeared to include a black voice. Clarence Thomas embodied that appearance, but his politics were very much in line with those of the president who appointed him.

One of the images of 1991 was white feminists on Good Morning America saying, 鈥淢en just don鈥檛 get it.鈥� The reaction by some black women on both sides of the Thomas-Hill hearing was, 鈥淗ow dare they speak without ever mentioning the racial politics of what鈥檚 going on?鈥�

With the presence of a black nominee and of a black accuser, racial politics was a subtext for the hearing itself until Clarence Thomas said, 鈥淭his is a high-tech lynching.鈥� The word 鈥渓ynching鈥� is just, trigger-trigger-trigger.

Liberals鈥� perception that talking about race was itself racist gave Thomas cover to intimidate opposition. 鈥淲e can鈥檛 scrutinize him because it will appear racist,鈥� so it disempowered Democrats. It put up a wall; 鈥淵ou can鈥檛 touch me now.鈥� That way in which liberal discourse would not touch race made it a different kind of context.

With Kavanaugh, I still think race is a subtext, but we鈥檙e talking about the normalized sexuality of an elite, white male. If what various accusers have been saying about him bears any truth, there鈥檚 a way in which he鈥檚 using his class and race privilege as a kind of cover for his sexual predations. That raises the question, how does whiteness shape a presumption of innocence or guilt here?

One wonders if the identity of white female sexuality is so differently constructed from black female sexuality, presumed 鈥渉yper鈥�. It seemed to come across with Anita Hill in 1991 鈥� 鈥淲ell, aren鈥檛 you just disappointed that he didn鈥檛 want to date you?鈥� It still makes me angry, as if she鈥檚 sexually available all the time. That鈥檚 not the way Ford was approached at all.

More locally, your class is doing a project connected to voter engagement in Lewiston and Auburn. What was the project about, and what did you learn?

The Harward Center connected us to three groups. One is early childhood education students at Central Maine Community College. Two is Tree Street Youth, and these are young people, high school age. The third is the Center for Wisdom鈥檚 Women; they鈥檙e older women whose lives are multidimensional, sometimes burdened, not based in school.

My students tried to engage people in thinking about what politics is, asking, 鈥渨hat鈥檚 your understanding of politics and where have you learned about it?鈥� 鈥淗ow does it appear in your own life?鈥� 鈥淲hat are the issues that matter to you?鈥� 鈥淲hat are some things that might make a difference?鈥� Their job was to listen, listen, listen.

Their findings were that sources of news varied. People cared about healthcare coverage and expense, child abuse, the fact that in Maine family leave is voluntary for businesses and unpaid. They鈥檙e also concerned about female representation in government.

There鈥檚 a lot of concern about Trump鈥檚 rhetoric. They fear violence, they fear being deported, and they鈥檙e concerned about what it means to build a wall. Some expressed a view that their votes don鈥檛 matter, they don鈥檛 vote because they鈥檙e disillusioned with the political scene, or because they feel they don鈥檛 know enough about the issues to vote.

What are your next steps?

With help from the Maine Women鈥檚 Policy Center, helping students understand what鈥檚 going on in the state with regard to some of those issues 鈥� whether or not there鈥檚 legislation out there, whether or not there are candidates out there that will support these issues.

The students can then go back to the community and say, 鈥淭hese are the people you should get in touch with; this is an issue that comes up. Make sure you vote because this is on the agenda.鈥�

What varies across these organizations is whether or not people feel like their vote matters. We need to figure out a way to talk to people about that, because it鈥檚 just so important. The people elected in 2018 to Congress and, importantly, at the state level are going to be shaping policy agendas, the 2020 census, and a host of state-level initiatives with national significance.

That, and the fact that state legislatures have been taking up issues that Congress has not been acting on. There is a whole range of policy issues that have gone through state legislatures that are affecting people鈥檚 access to the system.

Voter ID laws, immigration policy, reproductive healthcare. We have these discussions about Democrats and Republicans at a national level, yet people develop their ideas about what politics is and how it matters to them based on what happens in their own lives, what happens locally.