Misconceptions
...st refrain from simply identifying themselves as a woman and take on the roles as an individual in power and work to satisfy the needs of their constituents as a whole. One might ask themselves: How can women emerge as an individual and embrace their power with more aggressiveness on Capitol Hill? Well, Dr. Malcolm Whitehead, a gynecologist, has the answer that many women have already sought. He prescribed the male hormone, testosterone, to women who wanted to “‘beef up’ their image in the macho world of politics,” (“Hormone”). Dr Whitehead claims, “I have prescribed testosterone implants for female politicians. . .who want to compete better with their male colleagues in committee meetings and parliamentary debates,” ( quoted in “Hormone”). This hormone is, although, produced in females, just in much smaller amounts. As we all know, testosterone is what fuels a man’s sex drive and ultimately his confidence. Anyhow, as women, and men, age the levels of this hormone decrease, leaving the person less confident and aggressive. Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt disapproves the injections and says, “MP’s are far more likely to succeed if they use rational arguments rather than hormone-fuelled rhetoric,” (“Hormone”). But what about the women in office that are taking birth control that contains estrogen, no one would object to their rhetoric as “hormone-fuelled”. There are more influential concerns to worry about than any representative’s injections of natural hormones. Women may feel a little intimidated against the many men in Washington, and the important issue here is that they do not have to change their sex to compete on an even playing field, they may just feel the need to sometimes grow some “balls” (figuratively, that is). Women need to be more careful of how they perceive their presence in Washington. They need not claim themselves as “women politicians” for they will then have to focus more on women’s issues than the big picture. This is similar to a man who is Jewish that identifies himself as simply a “Jewish politician”. With this approach women are shunning all the other groups they may or may not belong to, like a citizen of St. Louis or a first generation college student. Although, Cho Hyun-ok, a representative of the feminist group, the Korean Women’s Political Solidarity, explains, “Women politicians who say ‘I am not a woman, I am a politician, worry me. Female politicians seem cleaner compared to male politicians because they have shorter experience, not because they are more moral than men. If they want to be ‘politicians’, not female politicians, that only means they want to enter a world of politics already formed by men. With those views, women won’t contribute to better politics. They will merely become ‘politicians’,” (quoted in “Greater Say”). Being women politicians may seem glorious, but they must remember that they represent more than just the female population. Yet, by the way they identify themselves, if they do not change the world of politics for the good of women; they may loose their female constituents. This causes a greater challenge for women and tears them in many directions, thus inhibiting their ability to make rational decisions. Whether it is a woman’s appearance, their motherly nature, their voices, or many characteristics combined, women have the essence of being peaceful beings. Women may seem peaceful, but have still supported many wars. This is a prime example of women being torn when it comes to politics. A model feminist and president of the National American Women Suffrage Association (NAWSA), Carrie Chapman Catt, “promised President Woodrow Wilson that women would support the American war effort in exchange for the [right to] vote,” (Jones 1). “It seemed that with people like Catt at the helm, the world would be a better place once women won the vote, and the scourge of war might be removed forever,” (Jones 1). Yet, supporting a man’s war is the price women have to pay for moving up in politics. It is as if women flip flop their morals and views to be accepted and respected in Washington. For instance, “first lady Eleanor Roosevelt strenuously advocated peace in the early 1930’s, then supported her husband when he led the United States into World War II” (Jones 1). This leads up to the violent streak in women that is slowly making its way into the public’s eye. In the past, the use of violence has not been an option for women because they lacked the power and authority. “Women, therefore, are not necessarily choosing not to act violently but do not have the choice to act violently—a very important distinction,” (Caprioli 245). Now that there are e...