If you ever happen to wander into my room (don't regard this comment as an open invitation), you'll notice something slightly unconventional on my desk amid notebooks, scissors and highlighters - a Barbie. No, this isn't some defense mechanism in which I regress to my childhood in order to find happiness. I purchased the Barbie online before Christmas.
Complete with not only a purse and high heels but also a campaign sign, button and detailed platform, this Barbie is headed straight for the White House. Barbie is decked out for the occasion - even her scarf has a patriotic pattern (probably to coordinate with her red pantsuit). Barbie for President 2004, eerily reminiscent of Hillary Clinton, knows what she wants: "I am running for President of the United States because I love this country. I also care about education, the environment, and the arts. I want to inspire and lead. Together we can change the world!" declares Barbie on the back of the box, picket in hand.
I ordered the Barbie from a Web site linked to The White House Project, an organization that works to encourage women to take active political roles and run for public office. Since my money went to this organization and only partly to Mattel, I feel pretty good about my purchase. But I'm not so sure about Barbie's platform.
Even though Barbie's purse is obviously meant to be a briefcase and she's not wearing a skirt, I think she might be playing up traditionally female issues in an effort to make obvious her femininity while ignoring hard issues like defense and foreign policy - bad Barbie.
Not that I don't think "the environment and the arts," are important. I just wonder: If Condoleezza Rice preached the same rhetoric, would she exercise the same political prowess she does today? Barbie might have a thing or two to learn.
On the other hand, Margaret Thatcher is a prime example of a woman who emphasized masculinity to gain and retain the respect of her peers. As prime minister of the United Kingdom, she joined the impressive ranks of the handful of women who have risen to lead their country.
Yet, did she really pave the way for more women to be in politics? If women must trade in "feminine issues" for political power, then recent breakthroughs for women might mean little for social change. Maybe Barbie has the right idea.
There's a contradiction here. If women focus on feminine issues, they might get reactions like the one I threw back at Barbie: That's a weak platform. But if women focus on traditional "male issues," like national security, they become successful but don't put what people view as "feminine issues," largely domestic, on the table. So, do high-ranking women in government really represent diversified politics? Barbie faces a pretty tricky situation.
It seems that more and more women hold high-ranking political positions. Certainly, significant gains have been made in past decades. One has only to consider the myriad of international female figures. Maybe women are busting through the glass ceiling.
But according to a book published by the Women's Environment and Development Organisation (WEDO) in March 2005, women are actually worse off than they were 10 years ago in terms of WEDO's evaluation of the success of commitments made by the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995.
If masculine attributes are a necessity to gain political respect and a woman feels compelled to ignore traditional "feminine" issues in order to retain it, politics hasn't really changed that much since the "old boys' club" days. Barbie herself is hoping to break the mold. The question is, will both Ken and Skipper show their support at the polls?
Melinda C. Hall is a freshman in SPA and The Eagle's former assistant Campus Editor.
