Signing up for driver’s ed was relatively easy. I went with a couple of friends to a nearby high school where classes were being offered, showed my school ID, and gave my contact information. In a few short months, I will (hopefully) be a licensed driver.

Since I’ve grown up in New York City, the idea that driving will signify a major change in my life is pretty foreign to me. Furthermore, the concept that driving once empowered ambitious, independence-seeking women to free themselves from the rigid constructs imposed on them by a gender-biased society is one I often don’t consider at all.

Who can blame me, right? From Elle Woods in her pink convertible to any suburban mother in a granola bar commercial, we’re continually shown images of women driving. So we sometimes forget that driving has long been an outlet for independence both in our country and abroad.

In 1909, Alice Ramsey became the first woman to drive across the entire country. That was eleven years before American women had the right to vote. In a time when certain attitudes were changing, but laws weren’t, driving was an opportunity for women to exercise their independence. Those of you who watch Downton Abbey need look no further than the driving-obsessed sister, Edith Crawley. In 1918 England, Edith is so excited to learn to drive that she takes a job driving a tractor on a local farmer, despite the fact that she is of noble birth and certainly does not need the money. The appeal of the independence of driving is just too thrilling for Edith to pass up. (A side-note, but very important one: for those of you who do not watch Downton Abbey, please start watching immediately…I am mildly obsessed). For some women, the struggle for the right to drive has not yet been overcome. The most commonly talked about example is probably Saudi Arabia, where women legally still do not have the right to drive cars.

This is especially interesting considering that women got the right to vote (in name, at least) several months ago in Saudi Arabia. In Afghanistan, while the number of driving permits for women has increased dramatically since the fall of the Taliban, many women are still discouraged from driving. Similar travel restrictions were in place in Jordan until 2003, and in the Congo, driving, especially as a profession, is generally left to men.

Although women in our country gained the right to drive a very long time ago, and exercise this right frequently, there are still some stereotypes that surround women drivers. In fact, when I googled “women driving” in an attempt to further research this blog, the first thing that came up was not Alice Ramsey’s trip across the country, but many nasty websites ranting about what bad drivers women are. Specifically, I came across this lovely article from Askmen.com, which suggests you cite these reasons why women can’t drive the next time you and your girlfriend get into an argument. Great advice, Askmen.com!

The stereotype that women can’t drive extends further than men’s magazines, however. And although I mentioned earlier that our country has some female NASCAR racers, after interviewing Julia Landauer, nineteen-year-old NASCAR racer, I learned that the field of female NASCAR racers is quite small and as a result, tends to stick together.

What does the ability to drive truly mean? I understand that it often means access to a new social life for teenagers, but truly, what does the right to drive signify? I think driving means independence, freedom, and responsibility. It means that your society trusts you to be careful of the lives of others and to be cautious with your own freedom. To be completely honest, my mother actually never learned to drive—and through her, I’ve certainly witnessed what a limit this can put on a person’s freedom. So, I guess as I start my driver’s ed classes, I’ll have a whole new appreciation for exactly what it means to be behind a wheel.

While it may not be as clear-cut, I think the fact that many women in this country feel that it’s a big struggle to have both a family and a job becomes a more relevant feminist issue every day. In fact, I find myself thinking about this issue more as I grow up, prepare to leave home, and adjust my goals accordingly.

Recently I read an article in The New York Times called “New Goal for Women? Rising Above Having it All,” by Katrin Bennhold. The article discusses the pressure women put on themselves to have it all—a happy family, a good career, a great body—and argues that setting these impossible-to-reach goals is what’s ultimately holding women back from gaining positions as global power brokers. Bennhold asserts that men are able to achieve high-power positions in part because they are realistic about their goal-setting: they focus on their careers and nothing else.

But what about the gender-biased nature of our society? Bennhold argues that, while flawed systems such as childcare make it more difficult for women to progress in their chosen careers, we can’t hold those systems entirely accountable. Bennhold cites Sweden, where social programs such as the childcare system are greatly advanced and gender-neutral, yet women still aren’t rising to highly powerful positions.

Reading Bennhold’s article got me thinking more about goal-setting, goal achievement, and their possible linkage to women’s progress. Is it really true that women set more ambitious, and harder to achieve goals than men do? Do we stretch ourselves too thin? Ought we just admit that we can’t have it all?

I don’t know, but I can tell you that unrealistic goal-setting starts early.Ever since elementary school, I’ve heard girls my age call themselves perfectionists, while I’ve never heard a single boy utter those words about himself. As a general rule (and I stress the word general—there are definitely exceptions to this), the girls I know set higher academic standards for themselves than most of the guys I know—something reflected in the growing academic standing of girls all over the country. Apparently some colleges are even being forced to practice a form of “gender affirmative action” for boys, because they have so many overqualified female applicants.

As a general rule, the girls I know also set higher physical standards for themselves. They lament their lack of exercise, make weight-and appearance-related New Year’s Resolutions (something Bennhold mentions as an example of overreaching goal-setting). Perhaps girls are simply more self-evaluative. We certainly are more critical of ourselves. Girls I know criticize their own appearances, regret social decisions, and beat themselves up about their grades more than boys. So, maybe girls do set unrealistic expectations for themselves. Can you blame them, though? Our society seems to be in a sort of cultural limbo when it comes to portrayals of women. We are bombarded with sexual images of women in provocative positions with unattainable bodies, who seem to indicate that our role in society is to look good, yet we are also told to be strong and smart and reach for the highest career paths we can.

To top it all off, the media loves to tell us that men can’t be caretakers, whether it be through bumbling husband characters in commercials, or sitcom portrayals of working dads who spend their free time watching football on the couch with their buddies, rather than with their kids. This combination of images leaves us with a paradoxical, imagined woman as our role model.

Do I want to be thin, pretty, smart, powerful, and motherly? Of course. Is it time that I come to terms with the fact that it may be impossible to achieve all of that? Maybe. Then again, every bone in my body tells me that doing so would mean giving up in some way. When I interviewed Barnard President Debora Spar in 2010, she told me that she believes the increased choices for women today come at a price.  “All of this choice can create a fair amount of anguish,” she said. “Life for women is better now, but it’s often more complicated. Women in the ‘50s knew what they could or couldn’t do. We’re in a danger zone right now…Girls need to realize you can have it all, but it won’t always work out perfectly.”

So, maybe all us perfectionists need to consider that for a while.

Okay, I’ll be honest…this isn’t the first time I’ve noticed this. But this time I’m going to do more than, well, just complain. I can hear the sighs of relief as you all thank God this isn’t another weekly kvetch.

Instead, I’ve decided to make a list of keep-worthy resolutions that focus on a bit more than the exterior. In writing them out, I’m hoping I’ll be inspired to take on a few.

1. Instead of boycotting brownies, why not try boycotting questionable companies. My favorite “ooh their clothes are pretty but their policies are creepy” company is probably American Apparel. Their founder and CEO has been a part of so many scandals I’ve stopped counting. Most recently, I believe it came out that he had a sex slave? So perhaps, this is the year to finally start shopping elsewhere for that classic mesh leotard.

2. Instead of counting calories, start counting votes. Whether or not you’re 18 or older, now’s the time to start catching up on the issues and the candidates. With the Republican race for a Presidential candidate and the New Hampshire primary looming on the horizon, why not learn a little bit more about the candidates. For example, did you know Newt Gingrich wants to putreflective mirrors in space facing the earth, in the hope that we can reduce our electricity bills that way? Or that Ron Paul doesn’t believe in paper money?

3. Instead of spending endless hours watching DIY videos on how to get your hair to look like Lady Gaga’s, support lady pop stars by reading theFbomb’s weekly Support Women Artists Sunday posts. This is a great weekly post that brings attention to emerging and well-known female musicians.

4. Instead of watching Mean Girls for the tenth time to plan a new pink outfit, take a stand against bullying. Whether it’s standing up for a peer in school, or joining an online community to fight against the epidemic, as I learned a month ago, you CAN make a difference with one small action. But, if you do opt to watch Mean Girls again, you should get a full double dose of Tina Fey and read her book Bossypants afterward. Woman knows funny.

5. Trade in one of your lady mags for the Daily Beast’s Women in the WorldSection. This is BY FAR one of the most comprehensive sites for news on what’s going on with women all over the globe.

6. Instead of just wishing you had the Williams sisters’ abs, try out a new sport. If your school doesn’t have teams, join a league in your neighborhood or take a sports-themed class, like racquetball at your local gym. Who cares if you aren’t ready to go pro—as I learned in eleventh grade, playing a sport you’re not great at can actually be really fun. Everybody loves an underdog.

7. Instead of just stocking up on the latest beauty products Vogue tells you to buy, support companies that promote a more all-encompassing image of beauty. While I definitely have some issues with Dove and Bare Minerals’ claims that they depict beauty in every shape and size, I like that they attempt to put forth a fresh image.

8. If you’re lucky enough to plan your next vacation in a sunny place where you can veg out, apply or suggest that a teenage girl you know apply to one of these programs. While I definitely know the merit of a nice long nap in the sun, you’ll have a whole slew of summer breaks in the future to tan on your patio. Programs like the Girls Leadership Institute and Running Start are open only to teens, and having attended both of them, I can tell you they’ve had a big impact on my life. Maybe an even bigger impact than that awesome tan I got last summer…believe it or not.

9. Instead of resolving to gab less with new guys you meet (this is an actual Cosmo resolution suggestion), watch other people gab by watching some youtube Ted talks. Ted is a great organization that promotes short, entertaining speeches of “ideas worth sharing.” Although most Ted speakers are adults, I did a Tedx talk last year, and there are a lot of teen-focused Ted events.

10. Instead of choosing a diet that you think will benefit your butt in that new leather skirt you got for Christmas, choose a diet that will benefit your community. I recently watched the documentary film Food Inc. for a Politics of Food elective course I’m taking at my high school, and was astounded to find out that most of the food I eat, in addition to going through some pretty gross processes before it reaches me, is hurting plants, people, and animals in our environment. If you’re interested in this subject, I’d also recommend Michael Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which I am in the process of reading. I guarantee some not-so-pleasant, but very important surprises.

Hopefully, this list of slightly harder hitting resolution suggestions will inspire you, as researching it inspired me! And while it’s going to be hard to give up my American Apparel tube socks and McDonald’s fries, I’m going to try my best to keep some of these resolutions. Happy 2012!

I was expecting a few things from the film. First, I was expecting a kick-butt performance from Ms. Streep. Second, I was expecting to learn more about Margaret Thatcher’s political and personal story, since I don’t know that much about her. Third, I was expecting to be thoroughly entertained.

Unfortunately, only one of my three expectations was really fulfilled. Meryl Streep’s performance was above and beyond what I had hoped for. She did an incredible job conveying subtle aspects of Margaret Thatcher’s character, and portraying her throughout at different ages. I also just have to give props to Meryl Streep for taking on this role and helping to bring to light the story of a political trailblazer.

Sadly, I feel the film didn’t give Meryl Streep much of a chance to delve into certain aspects of Thatcher’s character. The film touched on events that occurred during Thatcher’s time as Prime Minister, but glossed over many.

I wanted to see more explanation of how Thatcher came to believe in her conservative politics, whether she ever questioned them, and how she became interested in politics in the first place.The film alludes to Thatcher’s early ambitions with a scene where she dreamily watches her politically active father deliver a speech, but skips over Thatcher’s time at Oxford, showing us her run for Parliament before we know why or when she became interested in politics.

Instead the film focuses mainly on Thatcher’s life as an old woman, after her husband has died, as she is beginning to lose her mind. In most of the movie, Thatcher is coping with the loss of her husband. She hallucinates that he is with her when he is, in fact, dead, and for most of the film refuses to throw out his belongings.

At the end of the film, she finally lets her hallucinations go, as she imagines her husband walking out the door. However, this is done with much crying and saying that she is scared to be alone. I thought the film’s choice to include these hallucinations was especially interesting, as it highlighted Thatcher’s dependency on her male counterpart, rather than focusing on her independent strength.

One positive aspect of this portrayal is that it debunks the idea that Margaret Thatcher was, well, an Iron Lady. Showing Thatcher as vulnerable and reliant on her husband humanizes her to some extent. However, it frustrates me that it is necessary to portray a female leader as dependent on her husband to humanize her or make her seem likeable.

I found myself wishing that the film had focused on a stronger, more independent Thatcher, rather than trying to make her hard exterior soft on the edges.

Maybe it’s because I can be a bit of an iron lady myself sometimes, but I think Thatcher would have been even more likeable and relatable, had more of her firmness and independence been portrayed. I was expecting a lot from this film, and frankly, I left somewhat disappointed. While I commend Streep and the others who worked on this film for highlighting the life of such an interesting woman, I hope that someday filmmakers will not feel the need to soften such a powerful character simply because of her gender.

This weekend I found myself thinking a lot about this topic, as I attended a debate conference in Boston where I witnessed many female participants confuse “Western Business Attire” with “Western Clubbing Attire.” Although the conference had a strict dress code outlined in the information packet given to participants at the beginning of the weekend, no one seemed to pay much attention to it, and thus a parade of ultra-high-heeled, short-skirted teenage girls descended on the tournament.

As one of the few more modestly dressed participants, I found myself looking critically at these girls and feeling as though they must not be serious participants. I also found myself feeling a little Amish in comparison, but that’s beside the point.

After standing with the rest of my debate team for a while and watching as girl after girl teetered by in 8-inch heels, I came to a realization. Who was I to laugh at or judge these girls for what they were wearing? Sure, they could use a lesson in not wearing sequined pumps before 8 pm or white mini-dresses after Labor Day, but that didn’t mean they weren’t serious debaters. In fact, many of them ended up being serious competition.

While I was in Boston, Silvio Berlusconi, Italian prime minister and weirdo-philanderer extraordinaire, stepped down from office in light of recent economic struggles within Italy, but not before leaving a legacy of Bunga Bunga parties, and more importantly, “pumpkins turned parliamentarians,” to quote Berlusconi, himself. I’m talking, of course, about the mistresses Berlusconi appointed to positions within the Italian parliament during his terms as Prime Minister. These women, in addition to being examples of Berlusconi’s general ridiculousness, stick out like sore thumbs in the parliament because they tend to be, and dress, well, hot.

As long as men continue to dominate politics within this country and abroad, women will forever be forced to censor their attire. With powerful men exploiting attractive women every day, women in politics cannot afford to flaunt their figures, for fear of seeming to exploit them, themselves or appear to be a Berlusconi-esque Parliamentarian. Society sends the contradictory messages that young women should both dress sexy as a way of gaining attention and drop that sexy if they want to be taken seriously.

And so, hundreds of teenage girls debate in mini-skirts, yet women in politics are severely under-represented. Where do these tight clothed debaters go? My guess is that they are, however shallow it may be, in part dissuaded from certain fields by the “dowdy” role models they see within those careers. Don’t me wrong, I’m not telling Hillary to put on a tube-top, I’m just hoping the next, young batch of female politicians won’t be afraid to show a little skin.

In response to allegations of sexual harassment, GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain stated in a recent stump speech, “We look forward to focusing our attention on the real issues impacting this country” to which he reportedly received thunderous applause. Bravo, Mr. Cain—you’ve successfully confirmed for some Americans that sexual harassment is not a real issue.

In other creepy sexual harassment news, the recent death of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi has brought forth some stories about his “interest” in (hint: obsession with) former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, specifically a meeting in which he showed her a video montage of photos of her set to music he’d had personally composed about her.

“What was going through my head was ‘How long do I have to sit here and how quickly can I get out of here?’” Rice recently said in an interview with George Stephanopoulos about her meeting with Gaddafi in 2008. Apparently, Gaddafi told Rice he’d had Libya’s best composer write the song for her, which he titled “Black Flower in the White House.” He also reportedly made a scrapbook. According to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll, approximately one in six Americans and a quarter of women report experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace at some point in their lives.

According to a recent Washington Post/ABC poll, 7 in 10 Republicans believe that the allegations against Mr. Cain do not matter when choosing a Presidential candidate. Apparently these people don’t see a link between using one’s position of power as a way to further one’s desires and being a fair leader of the free world.

What can we take away from this week’s current affairs developments? Whether you’re an employee at the National Restaurant Association or the Secretary of State for the U.S. government, you may experience sexual harassment in your job. What else do these stories indicate? Chances are it may not be recognized as sexual harassment.

Despite the fact that three anonymous women pressed charges against Cain, the media continues to talk about the scandal as something Cain can “recover from” politically, and there still seems to be some doubt among voters as to whether or not the allegations matter.

Although Condoleezza Rice herself has described Gaddafi’s actions toward her as “eerie,” the story has mostly been presented to the public as a weird, and slightly hilarious incident. The Colbert Report went so far as to imagine what Gaddafi and Rice’s wedding might be like.

I’ll admit it: both instances are ludicrous in their own way and easy to make fun of. Gaddafi was a ridiculously theatrical person, and his interest in Condoleezza Rice certainly seems out of left field and bizarre. Herman Cain seems to be the butt of many jokes these days, between his singing and bizarre campaign ads, so I can see how it was easy for the American public and media to lump this scandal in with the others. But, amidst our laughter, surprise, and general indifference, I hope we can find some time to recognize that sexual harassment is a crime, and there isn’t much funny about being on the receiving end.

Facebook allows everyone to create a fake, contrived profile, where each person is mostly able to manage the information they share and the persona they create. Although this control has its benefits, it also allows and encourages teenage girls to shed all their real girl qualities in favor of the perfect girl they can create online.

Before I continue, I should say that I have a Facebook account and am (like the rest of us) mildly addicted. Facebook is exciting and helpful in many ways, but also very dangerous. Many of us are aware of the immediate and physical dangers of posting personal information online (especially to a site that has recently had so many privacy scandals), but we tend to overlook the more lasting, psychological damage.

As digital cameras become the norm, and photo editing programs become more and more popular, girls now have the opportunity to both publicize and alter their appearances. We can remove blemishes, enhance colors, and control the lighting and sharpness of our own faces. Now, every girl can be one step closer to the model they see in Seventeen or CosmoGirl. “OMG Yay!” we all thought at first.

Overly edited pictures of girls have become prevalent on Facebook, thus raising the bar for the supposed “beauty standard” these pictures are supposed to reflect. The actual act of picture taking has also become incredibly contrived, since every shot has become a glamour shot. Girls have perfected their poses and editing techniques to such an extent, that browsing through a single girl’s photos reveals essentially the same picture taken three-hundred times. In addition to perfecting oneself, this trend sometimes leads girls to sabotage their friends (read: frenemies) by leaving their faces unedited and even deleting or cropping them out of group photos.

In short, Facebook has become another stylized advertisement featuring objectified images of fake women. The worst part is that we made it this way! There’s no glossy magazine editor or fashion designer to blame for this one, because we did it ourselves. With the rise in idealized photos, the entire focus of Facebook has shifted. Girls now browse through hundreds of profiles doing what is commonly known as “Facebook stalking.”  This activity makes it almost impossible not to compare oneself to other girls. Is it any surprise that a recent study showed that Facebook is most utilized by those who have been determined to be insecure and narcissistic? We’ve created a cycle of insecurity and self-perfection that fosters an unrealistic standard of beauty and another source of resentment and jealousy between teenage girls.

As a teenage girl, it’s incredibly hard to avoid the Facebook craze and almost equally hard to participate without succumbing to the trend of perfected photographs. I think we all need to take a step back (me included) and reflect. Maybe we need to girlcott our own practices on the site. After all, Facebook says its mission is to give people the power to share, but what exactly are we sharing if not ourselves?

Originally posted on RachelSimmons.com in September 2010

When I see an ad that claims to feature real women, yet the woman are still remarkably flawless, it doesn’t do a whole lot for me. At least when I see a model in an advertisement I can tell myself that the way she looks is fake, enhanced by photo shop, and probably required harmful eating practices. When I see an ad that claims to be “real” or represent “average women,” yet not a single woman weighs over 140 pounds (the average weight of an American woman) I can’t help but feel as if I’m imperfect, and the rest of the world is flawless.

The fact is that “real beauty” campaigns may show beauty, but they don’t show truth. The campaigns often try to make a big deal about showing us imperfections, but the “imperfections” are rarely hard to look at as they’re usually tiny crow’s feet wrinkles, A cup breasts, or even freckles! I’m still waiting for the ad campaign that shows young women with pimples, old women with real wrinkles, or a woman with stretch marks on her breasts. Flaunting minor imperfections hardly helps the average reader, watcher, or listener feel better about herself.

The media lies to us when they show us photoshopped pictures, but at least we know they’re fake. What troubles me is when magazines and companies try to convince girls and women that what they’re seeing is real—like the many magazines that have featured celebrities “sans-makeup.”

Finally, many of these campaigns focus on excluding one element of the editing and production process. Sometimes it’s no makeup, other times it’s no photoshop, but it’s never everything at once, making sure that we never have to see a woman in—God forbid—her natural form.

I understand that a picture of a woman with acne doesn’t sell lip-gloss, but I’d rather companies were honest with their viewers about what we’re seeing, rather than trying to force an image of reality on us, that many of us may confuse for the truth.

Bare Minerals’ recent ad campaign reads, “We set out to find the world’s most beautiful women. And we found them…without ever seeing their faces.” Bare Minerals’ models are interesting women. They’re doing great things and their stories are inspiring, but Bare Minerals is not being entirely truthful by saying they never saw their faces. The casting call was for actresses (who were probably chosen by their agents), not anyone, and after the actresses had been“whittled” down to a whopping 78, they did meet with casting agents to choose the final five. Bare Minerals claims to have cast average women based solely on their accomplishments. I applaud Bare Minerals for choosing these inspiring women, but these women were chosen for their bodies, faces, hair, and accomplishments, and we can’t forget that.

I’ve always said that any step in the right direction, no matter how small, is important. But, I feel that by portraying their campaigns as more authentic than they actually are, companies like Dove and Bare Minerals are actually doing a great disservice. Real beauty campaigns are really beautiful, but they’re also really misleading.

I went to Turkey for two weeks this summer and, amidst the crowded giant market, throngs of Middle Eastern tourists, and daily calls to prayer, would like to think that I came to embrace my status as a “foreigner.”

What, you may be asking, am I talking about? I’m talking about being in Turkey as an American, certainly, but I’m also talking about being in Turkey as someone with very blonde hair. I’m talking about being in Turkey as someone who is used to wearing shorts when it enters over 90 degree hellish heat, being in Turkey as a woman and a Westerner. I’m talking about being in Turkey as my many-sided, complex self (if I do say so myself), and being more aware than ever of the one-dimensional me I was projecting.

I’ve always been fascinated with the Middle East as a whole, but ever since I first read about the fall of the second capital of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and finally the extensive reign of the Ottoman Empire, I have been—to put it mildly—obsessed with seeing Istanbul for myself one day. You can imagine my excitement when I found out that the international debate tournament I had been planning on attending in July was being held in (drumroll please)…Istanbul!

It was better than Christmas morning in my house when that news came in—yes, I’m a history geek. Before my trip, I took Turkish, a class in Islam at a university near my house, and tried to immerse myself in the culture.

I’d always imagined my arrival something like this: I enter the city of Istanbul (maybe by camel) in a somewhat safari-like outfit, with a pad and pen tucked into my shirt pocket. I am greeted by Sufi priests and descendents of Ataturk, who promptly proceed to have an argument in front of me, clearly demonstrating Turkey’s longstanding conflict between the religious and the secular. Eventually, I am swept up in the arms of someone dressed like Aladdin and taken to the fort Mehmet the Conqueror first created during the Ottoman siege of Byzantium, where I am served tubs of hummus and endless kebabs.

Although my sweaty trek from the airport to where I was staying was not quite as glamorous, I can honestly say that all my cultural and historical cravings were satisfied in Istanbul this summer—from the Haghia Sofia, which I think I’ve been dreaming about since 6^th grade, to the Buyuk Bazaar. Plus, the hummuswas great.

Much of my wonderment and intrigue about the Islamic world has been centered around my own difficulty grappling with viewing certain actions the media broadcasts at us from that region as culturally relative, and therefore permissible or as downright strange, different, and wrong. Is veiling women inherently wrong, or just a part of the culture? What about stoning women to death for adultery? Female circumcision?

In the weeks before my trip, many of my thoughts turned to myself. As usual, I was over-thinking the situation. How would I be perceived in Turkey? Would I attempt to blend in? Would my standout appearance cause me trouble? Would I stand up for myself if catcalled? I heard everything from, “Oh, you’ll be fine, no one will notice you; it’s full of tourists,” to “I had regular marriage proposals everyday and men wouldn’t leave me alone, because I looked like a Western-European woman.”

I can understand both experiences, as both were true for me. As I’ve learned in my previous travels outside of the U.S., if you bring your own perceptions about gender roles, good and bad, to another country, you’re bound to be surprised. Sometimes, I was ignored, because there are many tourists. Most of the time, I was noticed and stared at. Sometimes, I was catcalled. Most of the time it was jovial and meant to be flattering.

In Istanbul, I came to accept my role as a foreigner, but also embrace the element of surprise I was able to create, having some knowledge of the language and the culture. I was a rare breed. When a man in the Buyuk Bazaar inquired if my “eyeballs are real,” I fielded the question like a pro. When haggling over a price, I was told by the seller, “I need money to live!” I replied, “Me too!” which left us both in fits of laughter. I was a surprise to them, but our differences made me feel at home. Being called “beautiful” as if it was my name took me off guard, but was not a battle worth fighting for—nor does it exist for most people in Turkey as a battle, at all.

I also learned to accept that as a foreigner I can both understand the problems of a different region in a unique way, and never understand them at all. I have fun being different, being cautious and respectful, learning lessons the hard way sometimes, and realizing that my many dimensions are recognized by different people at different times wherever I go. By the way, I don’t think I can wait to go back to Turkey!

What makes a politician cool? There’s no denying that President Obama nailed the cool factor on the campaign trail in 2008, with his rolled up sleeves, casual demeanor, sleek website, and ability to “connect” with those critical college voters. Saturday Night Live was one of the few shows to poke fun at Obama, but even they couldn’t move past his cool factor with their skit “Obama Plays it Cool in 2008.” Kids of my generation seemed to agree that Hillary stood no chance against the Obama cool.

This is definitely in part because of Obama’s youth and his sleek website, but I would argue that his cool factor was not just a simple case of new versus old, flashy versus plain—what I like to call the Mac versus PC mold—but also a case of man versus woman.

Obama’s cool was distinctly male; neither Hillary, nor any other female politician, had a chance of emulating it. Had a woman tossed her suit jacket over her shoulder, flashed a cool grin, and impressed us with her bank shot, I don’t think it would have flown.

I say his cool factor was distinctly male, because I believe that if a female politician had acted the same way, the country wouldn’t have bought the act. Obama was nonchalant, serious enough, yet seemed—to be honest—not to care that deeply. And that worked for him. Had a woman acted this way, I think she would have just been perceived as cold, uncaring, and possibly uninformed.

Now it seems that Obama’s cool factor has eroded, and, even more interesting, that Hillary may have swooped in and grabbed some of it. Hillary’s approval ratings have been higher than Obama’s for several months now, and it seems many American Democrats are actually lamenting their choice, and wishing Clinton had been the Democratic nominee.

Interestingly, the backlash against Obama seems to be gender-fueled as well. According to a Daily Beast article a few weeks ago, older women tend to be much harsher in their criticism of Obama—and they’re not just harsh, they’re…well, for lack of a better word, emasculating him. One 67-year-old woman from New York is quoted in the article as saying, “Obama has no spine and no balls.”

Hillary on the other hand, is coming across as tough. Yet, somehow she is escaping the “she’s so tough she must be a cold-hearted, butch bitch” comments. Maybe the country just needs leadership so badly, they’re willing to overlook the fact that the person providing it happens to be a woman.  In that same Daily Beast article, an 83-year-old Obama supporter is quoted as shaking her head and saying, “I’m so disappointed in him. It’s true: Hillary is tougher.”

So, has Hillary finally done it? Has she mastered her cool factor? Or is she just a popular alternative to an indecisive President in a time of turmoil? One thing’s for certain, Hillary’s presence as a serious Presidential candidate has broadened the horizons for female politicians, and widened the array of public personalities women in politics can show.

Still, I don’t think I’ll really be happy until I hear kids my age justifying their support of Hillary, by saying “she’s so cool!”—a phrase often uttered about Obama. Even when expressing praise for Hillary’s actions as Secretary of State, many people I know seem to squeamishly tiptoe around personally complimenting Hillary.

But, I can say that what Hillary’s doing for the country—negotiating with President Assad in Syria, and taking a definite leadership role in matters of diplomacy—is infinitely needed and incredibly cool. And at least, people seem to be recognizing this. For me—for now—that’s enough.