When looking at the four articles, as a whole, it is apparent that there are “gendered female” tactics that are more apparent than others.
Beginning with the “Kidnapping a Candidate” article, Ingrid’s more aggressive, radical approach of being active and involved with the community (i.e handing out condoms, Viagra pills, and masks) can be seen as a very gendered approach. The fact that Ingrid passed out condoms, which would prevent women of having unplanned children or protecting women from STD’s is a mere reflection of this. In my opinion, Ingrid’s overall aggressive tactic can be played by both female and male candidates; therefore, I do not see her strategy of being as “gendered female” as other strategies.
Moving on to the second article, “The Year of the Women,” I find the build yourself up the ladder is a tactic that both genders use to gain experience, credibility, and support. More importantly, Boxer and Fienstein illustrate the idea that women must be careful throughout this process and focus on one issue and “make it your own.” Therefore, this more gradual tactic can be geared towards both genders but regardless of females or males, each gender must want to do something and that agenda may vary.
The third article, “Prepping Women for the White House,” vocalized the tactic of provide the youth the education to provoke future female political engagement. This approach maybe considered “gendered female” because it is initiated through CosmoGirl. Whether it be a great idea or not to provide youth role models, CosmoGirl will only beautify this idea of being President, along side with hook-ups, fashion, and the latest Hot Hunk of the Month.
Lastly, the article “How to Start a Women’s Party” is clearly “gendered-female” because the sole purpose of this Australian political party is to exclude men and focuses to exclusively voice women.
Regardless of the level of effectiveness these tactics have provided women in the political arena, each one has pro and a con. I want to center on the “Prepping Women for the White House” article because I believe it can be the most controversial. It is obvious that educating women, and supplying them with new ideas and knowledge will only produce more females seeking political power. Providing the youth with role models and example of women in office will increase women’s political engagement in the future.
Given this tactic, I find it ironic that this distribution of knowledge and goal of having a female President by 2024 is being performed through CosmoGirl. Perhaps it is just because I see the CosmoGirl Magazine as a source of where to find what shoes are in fashion this winter, what color is “hot,” or what male celebrity is being praised for his six pack, that this is a bad route. At the same time, if these young women are becoming inspired while flipping through this Hollywood glamour magazine then the purpose is being fulfilled.
To bring both arguments together, I find it hard that a young woman will become the President after becoming inspired through this month’s CosmoGirl, but at the same time, the fact that these young females would even consider the position is a step in progression.