Guest Post: "The 'Bitch' and the 'Ditz'” by Sarah Dennis and Nicole Giessuebel

As we find ourselves in another presidential race that, until this week, had one woman in each party seeking the nomination, WMST 101 students comment on the 2008 article by Amanda Fortini: The “Bitch” and the “Ditz” How the Year of the Woman reinforced the two most pernicious sexist stereotypes and actually set women back.

*******************

I have noticed the bitch and the ditz stereotypes for a long time. In movies, books, and of course in real life. And it’s always one or the other. There are certain personality traits that make up each category. If a woman is smart, she’s a bitch. If a woman is particular about who she dates, she’s a bitch. If a woman voices her discontent with anything, she’s a bitch. And on the other side; if a woman is too nice, she’s a ditz. If a woman likes to date and/or hookup with a lot of guys, she’s a ditz. If a woman is the kind to keep quiet even when she’s unhappy, she’s a ditz. It really amazes me to see how strong and lasting those two stereotypes are. And of course it would flow over into politics. I wonder if the real problem isn’t actually that men think women are too incompetent to govern, but that they are intimidated that women will be much better at it than they are, and the fragile foundation of their patriarchal lives will crumble. Nothing else could possible make sense to me. Women represent half of our population. Women are doctors, police officers, soldiers, architects, scientists, and everything in between. Why then are women still seen as inferior? Why is there still such a colossal problem that men find with women being politicians? Anything that has ever been considered a man’s domain; a sport, a profession, a hobby, is now being done by women. By lots of women. And they’re doing it at the same rate and skill level as any man. It baffles me that we have come so far as human beings and yet cannot seem to move past this particular issue of gender inequality.

So maybe Hilary and Sarah wouldn't have made great presidents. That doesn't mean that every single woman wouldn't.

- Sarah Dennis

*******************

This article looks at the double bind women in power find themselves. They are either the bitch or the ditz. The article focuses mainly on the 2008 presidential campaign, where these two archetypes were thrust upon Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Clinton was beaten down by reporters and other politicians, claiming that she was hostile, and it made them fear their manhood. One man even said when she talked he instinctively crossed his legs. Why is a woman in power so threatening to their masculinity? If Clinton was a man, saying and doing these same things, she would have been admired. When women step out of their “traditional” role of homemaker and dare to try to break the glass ceiling, they are seen as out of their minds. They are mean and tough, things a woman is not allowed to be.

On the other hand, when women are seen as mothers, caregivers, or wives, like Palin, it is silly that they would want to be in a position of power. Palin has children, so people said she should be back home taking care of them not trying to take care of a country. Of course male candidates with children are not seen as having that same responsibility. It is never questioned why a man is working when he could be back home taking care of the kids.

Sarah Palin did many things that I feel set women back in politics. After it was clear she was unprepared, and most likely unqualified for the position of vice president, she tried to flirt her way into votes. This demeaning of herself made it even easier for others to call her a ditz. It also made it easier for people to call future political candidates such things. There is a line from the article that I really enjoyed, it said that no women in politics was better than a woman that was going to take women leaps back.


- Nicole Giessuebel