Last week, I received a Facebook event invite promising a party that would “make (U.S. Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton’s balls tingle.” Does Clinton actually have testicles? No. But is having testicles a qualification for governmental leadership? Apparently.

Clinton is one tough woman. She was strong enough to endure widespread criticism for attempting to improve health care in 1993, strategic enough to come closer to a presidential bid than any other woman in history and smart enough to ignore the ludicrous attacks against her femininity.
Does being tough imply she is any less of a woman?

References to the perceived masculinity of women with authority are commonplace today, despite the “men’s club” of politics supposedly ending 27 years ago. Clinton, for instance, is the constant subject of criticism about her looks, age, gender and body parts.

One such attack against her presidential campaign read, “Did you hear about the new Hillary lunch special at Kentucky Fried Chicken? It is two large thighs, no breasts and a left wing.”

According to that pundit, having breasts is not a quality present in successful politicians. Coincidentally, all women have breasts. The aforementioned Facebook assailant implicitly might agree any natural feminine asset makes a woman unfit for politics.

Popular culture perpetuates the gender gap in politics by stigmatizing female candidates who deviate from their ancient, subordinate sexual stereotypes.

However, when they adhere to the socialized gender norm, their party applauds them. Although I didn’t vote for Palin three years ago, I found it troublesome she brought her newborn baby on stage in order to win approval — showing Americans that she could be both a mother and the vice president.

I’ve never seen a male politician holding his baby on stage. Why?

Less than 1 percent of married stay-at-home parents are men, yet nearly a quarter of all married-couple households have a stay-at-home mom. You need more than 1 percent to win an election, and people vote based on what they can relate to. “Mr. Mom” is a paradox that implies only women can take care of children and it is deviant when men do it.

Palin endured widespread criticism from women across the country for not taking the opportunity to change the paradigm, and overall, many of the few women who are elected to national office perform to engendered standards.

But unlike Clinton, no one bore signs reading “Iron my shirt!” at Palin’s speaking events. She was accepted for emulating the ideal American woman: passive, motherly and flirtatious. Conversely, Clinton was criticized for being authoritative, ambitious and bold — qualities viewed as masculine.

These issues aren’t only a problem for women — men shouldn’t have to conform to gender stereotypes to be elected. If a man took a hiatus from his career to spend10 years as a stay-at-home parent, he should be taken seriously if his qualifications for office suffice.

Holding leaders accountable to tired gender norms perpetuates a binary of socially masculine men and feminine women and enforces a gridlock of expectations for both men and women.

Can women be authoritative? Can men be nurturing? Are testicles a requirement for leadership and possession of breasts forbidden? Our generation challenges the standards of the past and 2012 poses an opportunity for voters to change the norm and break the sexist cycle of politics.

Monika Johnson is a State News guest columnist and an international relations senior. Reach her at john2727@msu.edu.