A Tale of Two Stereotypes

THIS YEAR, the gaffes are frequently turned into the most memorable part of campaign speeches, often to the detriment of serious political dialogue. Who could forget Clinton's "I didn't inhale" or Bush's tribute to that famous country-western band, the "Nitty Ditty Nitty Gritty Great Bird"? Dan Quayle's little boo-boos already fill a book (Quayle Hunting). Perot was officially undone as soon as he called the NAACP "you people."

But all this is mainly material for political cartoonists and Jay Leno. Despite the media's tendency to jump on casual statements and treat them as the key to the speaker's character flaws, few blunderers have been so shamed by their own brief lapses of self-revelation that they changed their whole image.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the exception. Twice, she has expressed her resentment of stereotypical expectations of female subordination. And each time, her motivations have been ignored and she has been miscast as the one who promotes insensitive stereotypes. Her response to this has been to tone down her independent-woman persona and become more like June Cleaver than Murphy Brown.

In order to counter the negative publicity generated by her "I don't want to stay home and bake cookies" comment, she initiated a bake-off with Barbara Bush and had Clinton campaign officials handing out "Hillary's Cookies" at the Democratic Convention. She further altered her image from career woman to domestic helpmate by changing her clothing style from business suits to more "feminine" pastel dresses. Earlier in her career, she used her maiden name instead of taking her husband's, but became "Mrs. Clinton" when her assertion of independence was viewed negatively by his constituents. Mrs. Clinton has spent a long time trying not to let the media turn her anger at women's restricted roles into a political liability.

When her husband's fidelity was questioned, she stood by him, but distinguished herself from the traditional good little wife whose motto might be "my husband right or wrong," by saying she wasn't going to be a "Tammy Wynette 'Stand By Your Man'" type of wife. The message: I'm here because I trust him, not because I'm a doormat.

Mrs. Clinton could have been more tactful. Still, the media should have focused on the issues she was trying to raise--the meaning of fidelity, women's roles, and sexual morality in the 1990's as opposed to the 1950's--instead of on how insulted Ms. Wynette felt. Mrs. Clinton was only doing what all politicians do in an age of sound bites: use a cultural icon (like the typical country- western- song cheated 'n' mistreated patient wife) to make a point quickly and concisely.

The same thing happened recently when Clinton said she wouldn't just "stay home and bake cookies" if her husband became president. This time she didn't risk offending anyone by mentioning names. June Cleaver's name never came up. But this strategy backfired too. Now every average cookie-baking homemaker in America has the right to feel insulted by Hillary's antipathy to family values and contempt for women without careers.

If anyone took the trouble to try and understand her remarks and her rage, they'd realize Clinton's target wasn't cookie-baking moms but the people who wouldn't accept a First Lady unless she fit that image. Hillary Clinton sees no reason to apologize for her role as a political partner and adviser to her husband. It's a shame she has to defend herself at all.

APPARENTLY, THOUGH, the old maxim still holds: a strong man is a leader, a strong woman is a bitch. Remember how relieved people were when "domineering" Nancy Reagan left the White House and soft, grandmotherly Barbara Bush moved in? We should have been grateful that though we were deluded enough to elect a president who thought trees caused pollution, we still had someone in the White House who had a brain and wasn't afraid to use it.

The very qualities that we can accept in a female politician are the ones we condemn in politicians' wives. In political rhetoric, there's always a good guy (good gal?) and a bad one, an image of what the candidate wants to be and an image of what she rejects. But when Hillary Clinton speaks out to define herself in public, she has to hush up for fear of offending someone with her angry slogans. Is this concern for the cookie-bakers of America, or is it our fear of a woman who doesn't "know her place"?

Mrs. Clinton didn't create the cultural atmosphere that plays off the two female stereotypes, homemaker and hard yuppie, against each other. She shouldn't be blamed for reinforcing this dichotomy when she was actually rebelling against its effects on her.

The spectacle of Hillary Clinton switching from business suits to pastels and handling out cookies isn't cute. It's degrading. And it's a depressing reminder that we're not as progressive as we think we are, that we'd rather cut the brain power of the Clinton team by half than have a strong-willed and politically active First Lady. As Dan Quayle once said, what a waste it is to lose one's mind.