The Hillary Complex

If we can have a psychological term for the man who won't commit or the kid who cries over spilled milk, then surely we can diagnose a disorder for Americans' attitude toward powerful women: the Hillary Complex. The senator isn't just a person anymore; she's an idea and sometimes a metaphor. In the 2004 election, for example, pundits dubbed Teresa Heinz Kerry "hyper-Hillary" to suggest that she was controlling and uncontrollable (unlike the ever-obedient and docile Bush women). Hillary Clinton is an ice queen, a power-hungry leech, a perfidious Lady Macbeth figure. But who is she really?

As Susan Estrich writes in Sex and Power, "the idea of Hillary Clinton is the idea of a woman who puts career first; who will do anything, put up with anything, sell her soul if necessary to keep her hands on the levers of power." People are put off by Hillary because she doesn't fit into the traditional mold of femininity. She's not particularly warm, she doesn't care too much for hair or fashion, and she never hesitates to declare her opinion. She was the breadwinner when Bill was campaigning for Arkansas Governor, and she chose political policies over flower arrangements when he was president.

Ambition isn't a traditionally feminine trait. In medieval Europe, uppity women were subject to ducking stools (an apparatus which dunked them into the river) or iron muzzles. As scholar Susan Brownmiller writes in Femininity, "a sacrificial willingness to set personal ambition aside-is virtuous proof of the nurturant feminine nature, which, if absent, strikes at the guilty heart of femaleness itself." Hillary is worse off than other motivated women because she doesn't have any redeeming "feminine" characteristics. When Madeleine Albright became the first female Secretary of State, the media delighted in the sob story of her college sweetheart's leaving her for another woman. And sure, Condi's tough, but her name (stemming from "con dulcezza," a musical annotation meaning "with sweetness") and her duty of dishing out Bush's agenda softens any of her hard edges.

But if Hillary had cried publicly over her husband's affair or allowed herself to be pitied, would she be perceived as any less pitiless? Here's where the contradiction comes into play: when women are warm, they are condemned as weak, but when they rage, they are ruthless . The media criticized Katie Couric for not being ballsy enough when she opted to stay at home with her kids instead of sacrificing her life to report in Iraq. Yet had she chosen career over family, she most likely would have been dealt the bad-mommy/merciless-opportunist card.

What is a powerful woman to do? While you would assume that the best bet for Hillary would be to combine preferred stereotypical gender traits, research has shown that masculinity produces more positive outcomes than androgyny in society. According to Ann Morrison's study on successful corporate executives, women workers excelled only when they "contradict[ed] the stereotypes that their male executives and coworkers had about women-they had to be seen as different, 'better than women' as a group. But they couldn't go too far to forfeit all traces of femininity, because that would make them too alien to their superiors and colleagues." To garner support for her presidential campaign, Hillary has to balance a lot of balls (pun intended). She has to seem bold but not castrating, assertive but not domineering, empathetic but not emotional. With all these contradictions, it's no wonder Hillary seems so cold and controlled!

Playing politics in a man's world is tricky because even if a gal is on top of her game, the rules can change without warning. In an ironic new twist on the "weak woman" label, opponents assert that Hillary's weakness is her lack of womanliness. When Hillary was running for Senate, John Spencer joked to the New York Daily News, "You ever see a picture of her back then, whew ... I don't know why Bill married her." At the other extreme, some media outlets have attempted to transform Hillary into a Lifetime movie subject. Though it is too early in the game to take a tally on Hillary articles, a 1999 study of Elizabeth Dole's presidential campaign found journalists were half as likely to mention her policy positions as those of her opponents with the majority of articles focusing on personal stories. And when journalists do mention Hillary's views, they only further typecast her. As political scientist Kathleen Dolan has pointed out, women candidates are often portrayed as more liberal than men and also more liberal than they actually are. Though Hillary voted in favor of Iraq (given faulty intelligence) and has been inconsistent on gay marriage (no excuse here...), conservatives and even Urban Outfitters (which sells "flaming liberal" Hillary dolls) label the senator a radical.

Teddy Roosevelt wasn't mincing words when he said, "speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far." With gender-biased coverage of her campaign, it isn't likely Hillary will make it to the oval office, especially given that the 2004 election was largely decided by "security moms" who trusted the macho Bush to handle the mess he made in Iraq (not surprisingly, Kerry often was labeled "girly"). Voters can't get a clear picture of Hillary when they mainly hear about her failed handling of traditionally "womanly issues" like health care or her hair. Go ahead and hate on Hillary, but knock her for her political opinions, not her appearance.