[ QUOTE ]
Tribune Column
I think the meat of the column is in this passage:
[ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing though. I find that I can't name a single female national political figure I do like--not respect, not agree with, but "like." Oh, I can name you many men who, their politics aside, strike me as likable: McCain, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, even cranky old Bob Dole.
But women? Not so much. Nancy Pelosi, Janet Reno, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright. I cannot see myself -- we are speaking metaphorically here -- cuddling up to any of them. They all seem formidable, off-putting, cold.
Which suggests the problem here is not so much them as me. And, if I may be so bold, we. As in, we seem unable to synthesize the idea that a woman can be smart, businesslike, demanding, capable, in charge and also warm.
[/ QUOTE ]
The jist of it is that many of the negative impressions we have of Clinton and other powerful women are not the result of their actual traits, but rather lingering sexism. We have a hard time imagining women in charge and thus when confronted with one resort to crass descriptions. So the next time you choose to judge Clinton or another powerful women harshly, please examine whether that judgment is justified.
[/ QUOTE ]
people who make it that far in politics are almost always unlikeable people to those who aren't sheep and prefer not being pandered to. some men can make it through as a breeze so sometimes get to skip or gloss over this process.
women who make it that far often do extra pandering to make up for their unlikely political success. I would say this accounts for why female political figures are almost always unlikeable.