The campaigns for the 2008 presidential election have already begun, and along with them, the slander. There is nothing unusual about the way the candidates are being treated, nor is there any reason to expect that something out of the ordinary will occur, except for Hillary Clinton's presence. She is actually not the first female presidential candidate in the United States of America; she is the 52nd (this depends on how one counts the candidates and does not include those who were written in, and only counts once women who ran multiple times), but is certainly the first with any sort of chance. How exciting that two of them ran before they could even vote for themselves! Despite her good fortune, she is also on the receiving end of a strange mix of American emotions, feelings which can often be very cruel.

I am concerned about Hillary Clinton's running, but I am also prepared. I don't fear that she'll be soft on Iraq (or Iran or North Korea, God forbid!), or that she might fall victim to her female 'sensibilities' once a month (or is she such an old hag that she's past that productive phase of her life?), or even that she might be a little less reasonable than ol' Bill, lacking the requisite reasoning instrument. No, I am nervous that the violent attitude with which she seems to constantly be treated might be extended to women everywhere. There exists in society a certain taboo against men's expressing their every hateful sentiment about women. As various public figures begin to bash Hillary with that certain strand of humor reserved for strong women, the constraints will vanish and the same 'privilege' will be extended to all men.

All women in positions of power, particularly political power, are held to expectations in some ways different from the ordinary double standards to which all other women are subjected everyday. That is, these women must at the same time be female and unfemale. At any moment, these women (congresswomen, managers of fast-food restaurants, female landlords, professors, the list continues) can and will be criticized in their work for being too easily swayed, simple, or weak, AND in their person for being intense, unattractive and rather unlike the delicate bloom that is our picture of womanhood.

So, no matter what these women do, they will never be able to achieve the correct balance of femininity and masculinity because no such balance exists, nor could it exist. Any measure of assertiveness or any degree of pacifism is too much. This is why the Dayton City Paper thinks it is funny to warn Hillary not to let her 'testicles show through her skirts.' If an analogous joke were made about a male candidate perhaps being a 'pussy,' the laugh again would be at the expense of women. In the first case, Hilary is being reprimanded for being unacceptably masculine; in the second case, the male is inferior because he is behaving too much like women.

This is not the only such joke; rather, it is only one of many 'Hillary' funnies. The fact that sexist remarks of this violent nature'and they are violent'are prevalent enough to have been categorized as such is indicative of a greater problem. Clearly, and this is no surprise, we live in a culture where women are so undervalued that they are fair game (as in 'prey') for these 'playful,' masculine hunts. They do seem ever so harmless, don't they? Oh, but they aren't.

For some reason or another, whereas these kinds of verbal assaults are not usually tolerated, everyone seems to have made an exception and the instruments of the media have announced open season on Hillary. The social taboo that ordinarily restricts people from voicing these destructive opinions has been lifted. As she receives more and more public attention, the jokes will proliferate; both men and women will be caught laughing at Hillary Clinton's seeming inability to find the perfect haircut, the one that cunningly says both, 'Do me,' and, 'Bomb Iran.' We will be confounded at why Bill ever wants to be near her again when he has proven that he can get someone much younger (insert here, joke about Monica Lewinsky's not being feminine enough). What's more, these jokes about Hillary will open the door for other jokes about other women. There's little distance between a joke about 'Hillary' and one about 'Jan' or 'Mary' or 'Angela' or 'Sheila.' And the anger many men feel toward powerful women, after being indirectly expressed against Senator Clinton through 'humor,' will be directly expressed in anger and violence towards the women within their immediate control or sphere of influence.

Of course, there is nothing she can do about it. If she calls attention to this issue, she will be (again) criticized for being chicken (a hen, perhaps?) or expecting special treatment. 'No one's exempt; we're digging up dirt about you just as much as we are the other, male candidates. If you want to run with the big dogs you've got to handle their bark,' they will say. The best thing she can do (for herself, not for the nation or gender awareness as a whole) is to ignore it. No one is going to openly acknowledge the qualitative difference between the 'normal' or 'fair' chiding and the harassment she faces.

This does not mean that we have to ignore and accept it, too. I am proud of Hillary Clinton for running for president as I would be proud of any woman who put herself on the line in the hopes of maybe changing the world for the better or at least changing the American psyche. I believe that we desperately need a president who is not a white male (a poor president we will never again have and the prospects are not looking good for anyone who is gay or an atheist), and, at the same time, I know that it is going to be an arduous journey and that we may all have to suffer the slings and arrows.