How Monica Goodling played the gender card and won.

[donsu]

http://www.slate.com/id/2165447/

The Goodling Girl
How Monica Goodling played the gender card and won.



-snip-

When she was White House liaison in Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department, Monica Goodling, 33, had the power to hire and fire seasoned government lawyers who had taken the bar when she was still carrying around a plastic Hello Kitty purse. Goodling, in fact, described herself as a "type-A woman" who blocked the promotion of another type-A woman basically because the office couldn't tolerate infighting between two strong women. ("I'm not just partisan! I'm sexist, too!") That move sounds pretty grown-up and steely. Yet in her testimony this week before the House judiciary committee, Goodling turned herself back into a little girl, and it's worth pointing out that the tactic worked brilliantly.

Look past Goodling's long, silky blond hair, which may or may not have been a distraction. She's entitled to have pretty hair. Look past her trembling hand as she swore her oath and the tremulous voice as she described her "family" at Justice. What really shot Goodling into the stratosphere of baby-doll girls were her own whispered words: "At heart," she testified, "I am a fairly quiet girl, who tries to do the right thing and tries to treat people kindly along the way." The idea, of course, was to scrub away her past image as ruthless, power-mad, and zealously Christian. But—as professor Sandy Levinson noted almost immediately over at Balkinization—it was in calling herself a "girl" that the 33-year-old did herself a great favor. It was a signal to the committee that she was no Kyle Sampson. Or Anita Hill.

-snip-

Maybe Goodling studied Hall's experience for pointers. Saying that you've crossed the line, as this week's Girl Secretary did, sounds much nicer than claiming to be above it. None of her former colleagues are facing time because of anything she has said. And Hall was named a Playboy "Sex Star" in 1987, a trap into which Goodling, with her ardent faith, presumably won't fall. But what's distressing, as a matter of gender politics, is that when Hall said, "I did not know many of the details relevant to the Iran and Contra activities," her claim was plausible precisely because she really was a secretary and thus not in on North's meetings. When Goodling says she doesn't know what Sampson and Karl Rove were up to because she was busy finding sports tickets for her co-workers, she's playing down power she indisputably had, power her sisters and aunts have fought for. That the line still works for her is testament that we haven't come as long a way as we'd hoped, baby.

What will happen to Goodling? She'll lay low for a while. She'll leave Washington, maybe. And then she'll re-emerge in another position of power; power that she will cast as reflected glow from greater men. Because to help yourself by playing helpless is the stuff of real smarts and savvy. Goodling's day in the spotlight wasn't exactly a good day for feminism. But in the end, maybe she's bamboozled us, too, because if we ever have to testify before Congress, hand us the pigtails and lollipop.
------------------------------

[Edgeoforever]

1. There's so much wrong with this article I can't begin to figure it out.

But then again, there's so much wrong to the subject matter - it lends itself to all kinds of wrong interpretations...

[peacetalksforall]

6. I kind of like the way these two female columnists placed the

spotlight in precisely the right place a number of times. There is suppostiion, yes - but it's plausible suppostion. It makes you want to ask if Goodling came up with her approach on her own - or - whether she is a natural at it - or her male? lawyers advised her to do it - or if even Rove himself dropped in to give advise. Or was it Victoria as in Toensing?

The article mentions Sanchez, Waters, Lee - now there are three females who all showed perfect maturity and determination and no one could have reason to accuse them of going into girly roles to get their points/questions across.

The girly role that Goodling played was probably not as obvious while watching her, but became more obvious after reading the article - so I see some value. It may take some females to guide males and females into hearing what they thought they heard.

[Frustratedlady]

7. She had plenty of time to rehearse.

They should have called her bluff and called her in asap after she balked at testifying.

Glad you mentioned Victoria...I had forgotten about her. There is the aroma of Rove, Toensing and Miers in her testimony. Miers may have left the WH, but I'll bet she's still "available" if her love is in trouble.

[SharonAnn]

2. Yes, it was sickening. A hypocrite, like all the GOP seem to be these days.

[w4rma]

3. Won? What? I missed how and what she won. It looked like her agenda lost to me. (nt)

[donsu]

4. she Did change her persona

nt

[Frustratedlady]

5. I'm missing something here in the comments about this article...

I thought it was right on. She was acting like an innocent little girl who got caught doing what she knew she should not have been doing. No doubt, she was caught up in the glory of being included in the decision-making, but suddenly didn't want to admit to it. I doubt Miers would admit her involvement, either, until pushed against the wall.

It doesn't really matter, as nothing much ever comes out of these hearings anyway. So, she resigned from her job. Some Republican is waiting with open arms to welcome her into his/her operation. She threw them a curve when she pleaded the 5th. They should have called her in anyway and let her plead the 5th on every question.

These people don't stay in their positions (or get promoted, as I believe she was) by being nice. Manipulative, maybe? Nice, no.

JMVHO