As the husband of Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard executive now running for president, Fiorina plays an important role for the campaign. Political spouses typically find themselves referred to as a candidate’s “secret weapon,” trusted with “humanizing” their otherwise remote/robotic/pompous partners. Is it sexist to reduce women to little more than props for their politically ambitious husbands? Is it silly to call someone who has a public role on a campaign a “secret”? Can the new crop of political husbands escape the burdens of playing campaign humanizer? Yes, yes and no.
May 21, 2015
"Fiorina, 65, is a sturdily built man, with graying hair combed back on a block-like head and a somewhat taciturn manner."
How to talk about the political spouse who's a man.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
I see they left out the part where he and Carly enjoy torturing, killing then eating kittens.
"Humanizing" is usually code for make a male candidate more appealing to women -- bridging the stereotypical divide of men looking for rational competence and women looking for someone who understands their feelings.
If you think about the Palins, they seem to have flipped this. Perhaps Todd Palin's overt masculinity (hunting and arctic-Nascar) was a way to reassure male voters that Sarah Palin's strength didn't make her emasculating?
Or consider the Clintons. Hillary does seem cold and uncaring, and one of Bill's great strengths was getting women to see him as someone who understands their feelings -- which was why he didn't need Hillary in that role.
With Hillary as the candidate, they could actually manage the traditional spousal roles, if only Hillary could convince men she was coldly competent, rather than just cold.
The linked article makes me think they're going a different way with Frank Fiorina. She's a powerful CEO, and that's her selling point. So they can't do campaign events where she sells herself as an ordinary everywoman, or why would we vote for her. She's the powerful executive and he's the "regular guy" who reassures us that she understands the average joe too. It lets her present herself as elite without being elitist.
Her campaign, if they really want to get anywhere, needs to address the "fired from her job as CEO" part of her resume. There were extenuating circumstances and they need to be explained. I still have doubts that she is going anywhere. Anyone who could not beat Barbara Boxer...
Well, it was California.
Try to get away with saying that a female spouse has a "block-like head," I dare you.
But it's OK because he's a guy. And the spouse of a Republican.
Double-standards? You betcha.
This would be all well above my head, but I have read that some people in the business still say that H-P survived because of what Fiorina did to set them up for hard times to come when she was CEO.
The H-P dust-up came after the founders died, and the heirs decided to take a hand in the running of the firm. I think it was about egos and personalities more than management competence.
I think a lot of what we are jumping on Michelle O. for these days are gaffes that the White House staff sets her up for.
I have a suspicion that Michelle has promised to be a good soldier and stick around to after January 2017, but her heart is not in it. She is just reading off what they give her to say and do.
If Clinton and Fiorina go head-to-head, will there be a FMOTUS debate?
Michael K said...
Her campaign, if they really want to get anywhere, needs to address the "fired from her job as CEO" part of her resume. There were extenuating circumstances and they need to be explained.
I've already heard her address this matter of factly in several interviews. She speaks well, I don't know if she would be a good president or not.
I just gave Carly a donation. I'm hoping she will show the rest how to fight back, if nothing else.
Bill Clinton is a notorious humanizer.
"Her campaign, if they really want to get anywhere, needs to address the "fired from her job as CEO" part of her resume. There were extenuating circumstances and they need to be explained. I still have doubts that she is going anywhere. Anyone who could not beat Barbara Boxer..."
I agree she has to address that--her business background has a double edged sword. She was fired, and she indeed laid off a lot of people (a necessary but politically ugly thing to have to do). And while her campaign against Boxer was quixotic, she goes from that to running for president? There's a divide between "might have a shot at the nomination" and "in it for the attention and whatever that might bring" and she falls in the latter camp.
I think I realized this morning that she is my candidate.
The photo doesn't match the description. And saying someone is 65 doesn't describe much. W is one month older than Bill Clinton and Bill looks a lot older. They are both 68.
>>"in it for the attention and whatever that might bring" and she falls in the latter camp.
We're talking about Carly, not Hillary.
Post a Comment