Women as Leaders: The Tale of the Traveling Pantsuit
Contributed by Alana Elsner
This is a tale of two women, exactly three decades and one pond removed. One is the United Kingdom’s first female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher; the other, America’s first serious female presidential contender, Hillary Clinton. Both bobbed their hair and prepared for battle. Gender was a much-examined factor in both races, and the public was forced to consider the role of women in executive power. But identity politics did not tell the whole story, and both candidates were evaluated on the strength of their policy positions.
Looking back at both women’s campaigns reveals subtle nuances about the portrayal of femininity in leadership. Believing that men and women rule in the same way is a little like convincing yourself that a pantsuit compliments your figure. Just as women do not fit perfectly into men’s clothes, they cannot easily be placed into a same executive leadership style.
I remember years ago viewing a rather strange BBC interview of then- prime minister hopeful Margaret Thatcher. While she may be known as the “Iron Lady” today, the BBC story presented a different side. In the interview, Old Maggie goes to visit industrial workers, delivering a line about a better future for the working class. Decked out in high heels and a form-fitting skirt reminiscent of Jackie O., Mrs. Thatcher braved the rainy day to speak with a construction worker.
After hearing his concerns and giving the token sympathetic glance, she departed with the interviewers in tow. As the reporter walked with Mrs. Thatcher and quizzed her on her policies, she narrowly escaped stepping into a puddle. Still, a speck of mud flew onto her shoe. The BBC interviewer promptly pulled out his handkerchief, bent down, and wiped away the speck of dirt. Without any protest, Mrs. Thatcher obliged, thanked him kindly and they walked on.
Did this chivalrous action not demean both Mrs. Thatcher ‘s role as a leader and her message to the working class? Later, it was explained that this interview subconsciously highlighted Mrs. Thatcher’s gender. The idea was that she was a proper lady whose shoes should never be dotted with dirt, yet she would still rule with an iron fist in the domestic and international spheres. She was strong and she was a woman. Even her nickname, the Iron Lady, revealed the nuances of a powerful femininity. As one of the most dynamic leaders of the twentieth century, Margaret Thatcher personified both the unbendable perseverance of a leader and the more stereotypical female attributes of nurturing and responsibility.
Since then, times have changed. Attitudes have evolved. Across the seas, Angela Merkel became Germany’s first chancellor, and in the United States, Nancy Pelosi became the highest-ranking woman in politics as Speaker of the House. Yet Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign once again highlights the topic of femininity in leadership.
Clinton’s campaign has been an amorphous mix of asexuality and rallying for women’s rights. On her official website, one of Mrs. Clinton’s issue statements is entitled “A Champion for Women,” yet she continues to struggle with the portrayal of her gender on the campaign trail. While Margaret Thatcher’s position was ‘I am a woman and I am strong,’ Hillary Clinton’s stance wavers between ‘I am strong because I am a woman’ and ‘I am strong despite being a woman.’ This wavering role of gender in leadership undoubtedly has led to much debate over her actions.
Yet while these women may approach gender in different ways and stand at opposite ends of the political spectrum, they are both highly visible examples of women as leaders. For Margaret Thatcher, her sense of obligation to her people lay in the conservative campaign of making each British citizen responsible in and of themselves. For Hillary Clinton, her pledge of public healthcare shows her concern for the people.
If Britain is Mrs. Thatcher’s adolescent child, taught with tough love, then America is Mrs. Clinton’s toddler, coddled at a stage of uncertainty and adjustment. Some may argue for or against these women’s motives, but the end result is a maternal instinct that indicates not weakness but rather a responsibility to their constituents.
In order to prevail, Mrs. Clinton must stand strong in her identity as a female leader but avoid engaging in gender politics. For femininity should not be shunned but rather should uplift and reveal the uniqueness of women in power. While Hillary Clinton feels the need to explain her gender, Margaret Thatcher simply showed it. This is in no way to suggest women cannot or should not act aggressively; nor is it an endorsement of politics- but rather to suggest there is a certain je ne se qua in feminine leadership. For women will never fit into that boxy pantsuit, and therefore must lead by their own accord.
