Here is the paradox of cultural history. We can shout feminism and champion women’s rights to the rooftops, but we cannot escape the building tower of historical identity and feminine symbolism attached to women through the centuries.

In addressing the Iran issue, as well as the challenges of war and the “fears, terrors and evils” that propelled Bush to victory in 2004, Hillary has campaigned with a rigid and undemonstrative demeanor. The masterful formula for proving that she is presidential has been a stern conduct, a demonstration of raw intelligence, and a touch of emotionlessness. Until recently, that last ingredient was tampered with briefly, which may have contributed significantly to her first place finish in New Hampshire.

While the recent emotional revelation hasn’t compromised Hillary’s status as a viable candidate, the image of a strong woman in politics is still a difficult one for many to digest. Critics argue that Hillary has had to de-feminize her politics in order to get to where she is today. The end product has been an ajima-like image, which is tantamount to what in Korea is jokingly known as the “third gender.” Biologically, the ajima is female, but with time she has somehow lost all of her “feminine fragilities” and acquired an impenetrable exterior with a type of strength that must have been derived from an inherently masculine core. Or so they think.

As Jesse pointed out, when analyzing figures like Helen or Eve, it often seems easy, even natural given the magnitude of the texts, to attribute the feminine with weakness or emotional indulgence. But Hillary is neither the unrivaled beauty whose love brought about an epic war nor the mother of mankind who had a sudden craving for some tasty, forbidden fruit. Likewise, she is neither a princess in a pink dress, a damsel in distress, nor a secondary character supporting a cast of men. She is a twenty-first century politician trying to find the best way to fight in a field that is still framed in terms of masculinity.

So what if she had to de-feminize? So what if the dick she wields is actually that of her husband’s? One concern is that if Hillary wins, people may question the legitimacy of her victory. The recent parallels that have been drawn between Hillary and Argentine politicians like Eva Perón and Christina Fernandez de Kirchner further emphasize this inherent need to define exactly how much power powerful women derive from men.

But isn’t there something to be said about a woman who can use the masculine to her advantage? A woman who can tap into her own masculine and feminine reserves to reframe not only the place of women in the world but also the nature of politics?

Despite the enormity of Bush’s mistakes, he will probably not leave a single, lasting scar on the idea of “maleness.” I agree that the stakes are different for Hillary. She wants to lead a nation that did not provide national, universal suffrage until 1920. She wants to lead a nation that has yet to elect a female to its highest public office, whereas other countries around the world have already begun to do so. She wants to lead a nation where the vestiges of sexism are alive and well in the work place and at home. The pressure is considerable, tangible, and historic.

But whether she succeeds or fails, closes doors or opens them, Hillary is showing the world that women do not have to be bound to the icons that weigh so heavily on our collective conscious, or unconscious for that matter. Whether or not we wish to question the authenticity of her struggle is a matter for the masses to decide. But that in itself says something remarkable about her candidacy and the current state of U.S. politics.

If Hillary fucks up, will it be attributed to her gender and her abuse of a weapon she should not be wielding in the first place? If so, it saddens me, for it shows that our country is not mature enough to look past gender and focus on the decisions she makes and the actions she takes on the ground. But the bigger question is: Is Hillary mature enough to know that she shouldn’t have to fake having a dick to take the reigns?

I say no, for a very simple reason. She’s in favor of invading Iran, which is a terrible, disastrous idea.

Or maybe I just misinterpreted the whole thing.