One might think that when it came to governing, the public might actually like the idea of someone who portrays himself as rational, deliberate, attentive to opposing points of view — a conciliator rather than a head-banger. But Americans have always thought of themselves as tough and uncompromising — able to beat their problems or enemies into submission. Older white men, a key part of the Republican Party base, seem particularly to want their politicians to be heroic and full of bluster — just like Schwarzenegger.

Not coincidentally, this is also the very thing that Americans, again especially men, have always loved about their movie heroes. Our most popular films are predicated on a bold individual who, usually without much outside assistance or much internal reflection, vanquishes everything before him. Our heroes get the job done, whatever it takes.

And again, not incidentally, they also get the woman, who swoons in the cloud of his testosterone. We all know that female subjugation is one component of the American male power fantasy.

It is no wonder, then, that our movies and politics would become conflated, especially in California, home of the motion picture industry. Schwarzenegger’s appeal in the gubernatorial race was that he came on like a hero, the un-Gray Davis, California’s then-governor, who seemed aptly named. Davis appeared wimpy. Arnold seemed … like Arnold. He was everything that a movie hero and a governor ought to be: a real man’s man.

But that sense of untrammeled masculine power is also embedded, in politics as in the movies, with a certain attitude toward women. Our film heroes aren’t gauzy romantics. They are sexual swashbucklers who often have little use for women — or, more accurately, have one use for women.

Though he had tempered his public misogyny since his bodybuilding days, Schwarzenegger wasn’t elected in spite of his disregard for women. Insofar as it informed his machismo and demonstrated his masculine power, he was elected because of it.

This goes back to what I wrote last year about politicians who insult their opponents by saying they should “man up.” The phrase implies that manliness and machismo are requirements to hold elective office. It’s not a big leap between that attitude and the lack of female elected officials in this country compared to the rest of the world.

Gabler analysis of how voters feel about politicians gives insight into how some voters feel about women and their role in politics. Macho heroes in films, he writes, don’t have any use for women except one. The implication is that one reason is sex. The female character can’t do anything else for the macho hero – not help him, not work with him, not take the lead as the hero. If sex is the only thing the macho hero needs from women, and voters look at their political candidates and movie heroes in similar ways, is sex the only thing those macho-loving voters expect from women?

This is more than just what voters want from their candidates. It’s about the public’s expectations for women.

Gabler takes an odd turn at the end. He surprisingly – and wrongly – excuses Schwarzenegger’s actions:

But you can’t really blame Schwarzenegger for hitting on women, even his own housekeeper. He was simply acting out the male fantasy that men had already imposed on him.

Schwarzenegger is a grown man with free will. He made bad choices and needs to own them. Don’t blame society. Giving Schwarzenegger and other politicians a pass is what allows sexism in politics and everywhere else to continue.

Read Gabler’s entire piece here.

UPDATE:

I just found the following bite from a January article in the New York Times Magazine. I set it aside for a post I was trying to write earlier this year that never came together (which just proves it’s a good idea to save those unfinished ideas and occasionally go back to them!).

In the Times piece, Rebecca Traister, who authored “Big Girls Don’t Cry: The Election That Changed Everything for American Women” about the 2008 presidential election, wrote:

The mythos of our founding revolves entirely around fathers, save for the seamstress Betsy Ross and the querulous spouse Abigail Adams.

What we do have, to serve as the foundational fantasy of female strength and individualism we’ve agreed upon as embodying American power, are cowgirls: Annie Oakley, Calamity Jane, the outlaws, frontier women and pioneers who pushed West, shot sharp, talked tough and sometimes drew blood. Frontier womanhood has emerged as one of the only historically American models of aspirational femininity available to girls — passive princesses and graceful ballerinas not being native to this land — and one of the only blueprints for commanding female comportment in which they are regularly encouraged to invest or to mimic.

Compared to male leaders, Traister wrote in the piece, “We have made considerably less imaginative space for ways in which women can persuade us of their ability to lead.”

So, women must have that macho swagger for elective office, too. But if they made the same sexual transgressions as some male politicians have, I don’t think the public would be as forgiving of them and as forgetful of the sexual wrongdoing.

See Also:
Man Up And Cry

Photo Credit: NOVAOnline/Flickr

Let’s connect on Twitter and Facebook.

He and his camp haven’t responded to the drip-drip, drip-drip of tapes containing angry, racist and misogynistic rants directed at his ex-girlfriend and mother of one of his children, Oksana Grigorieva. (To be clear, there’s no confirmation that the man on these recordings is Gibson. Nor has it been determined if they were edited.)

But people are already proclaiming that his career is over. If it is him on these tapes and the investigation into violence against Grigorieva goes anywhere, it’s easy to see why people would say that. Put the recordings alongside the anti-Semitic comments he made during his 2006 drunk driving arrest, and it doesn’t take a PR expert to doubt the likelihood of a Lethal Weapon 5 or anything else from Gibson.

Nothing is impossible, though. A public figure, particularly a Hollywood celebrity, can do a lot of negative things, but people will still admire and work with them. So, I think Gibson can have a career after all this. In fact, I’m pretty sure he will. It’s just a question of how he’ll go about it.

Apologies mean a lot, especially to the public. If Gibson wants not only to work, but have the adoration of fans and have people see that work, he’s going to have to have a mea culpa moment: Say he’s sorry and get help for the anger. If he suffers from bi-polar disorder, get help for that too.

Then, he must turn his life around. He’ll probably have to reach out people in the black, Hispanic and Jewish communities. I could see him appearing on Oprah to talk about the racist language and the verbal and alleged physical abuse toward Grigorieva. He could even do a film about one or all of these issues. These recordings will probably always haunt him and his career, but time and action can heal many wounds.

Another option is to do nothing. Gibson can independently produce and distribute his films outside the major studio system in Hollywood. Don’t think people would work with him? Look at Roman Polanski. He gave a 13-year-old girl champagne mixed with part of a quaalude and then forced himself on her. Polanski pled guilty to having unlawful sex with the girl, but fled the U.S. in 1978 before he could be sentenced. So, what does the Hollywood community do? They continue to work with him. Hollywood also honored him with one of it’s highest honors: He won an Academy Award for best director in 2003 for The Pianist.

Gibson hasn’t done anything like Polanski, but it shows what Hollywood and the public will let slide. So, Gibson has a choice. He could lay low for a while, wait for the next few celebrity scandals to come around and then slowly reappear in the spotlight with carefully chosen work and parts. As long as his anger issues don’t get in the way of his work (outbursts on movie sets, etc.), he could just wait it out. His other option is to apologize, get help, make amends and then re-emerge as a re-invented person. The second option would obviously be better for him personally. Exorcising whatever demons he has would give him a better quality of life. But, it is his life and career.

Mel, the choice is yours.

See also:
Forgive And Forget