Misogyny Watch

Kerry Howley:

Kerry Howley » Blog Archive » Cry Like a Man, Hillary!: Hillary Clinton bursts into tears, stunned at her own Herculean ability to keep campaigning. Edwards comes out cockswinging:

I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business.

Successful male politicians, of course, never cry. Here’s George W displaying a stunning lack of resolve. Here’s his dad falling apart over Jeb. Here’s the other Clinton conveniently welling up as he spots a camera. Romney cries; brags about crying here.

A Hit & Run commenter, faced with the above examples, concludes: “if any male candidate got all weepy he’d be dropped from consideration out of sheer self-respectability. Hilary can get away with it because ‘well, its not the same’. ”

Nope, not the same! Add to this useful list of the worst jobs in the world: consultant to any candidate with breasts. Show emotion and you’re weak; show strength and you’re a collection of servos. Respond to attacks with emotion and you’re “angry.” Respond with equanimity and you’re cold and distant. Shy from war and you’re too feminine to lead; embrace it and you’re the establishment’s whore. And the worst thing you can do? Acknowledge, in any way, shape, or form, the existence of sexism in these United States.

Comments

[jerry]

Misogyny? Cock-swinging?

How does it show a hatred of women to have demand (however ridiculous the demand is) that a Presidential candidate not cry when the going gets rough? (Ed Muskie would like a do-over.)

Me, I don't mind her choking up, or tearing up, but I don't think that people that call her on it are "misogynistic."

You may wish to examine Oliver Willis today who seems to feel that Hillary Clinton was insensitive if not racist for her remarks about MLK.

Or you may wish to examine the crowd at Salon's Broadsheet who are taking Rebecca Traister apart for her similar take. It turns out there are a lot of feminists at Broadsheet who cannot understand what it was that Edwards says that was wrong much less misogynistic. A lot of them are angry with Hillary not for her crying, but for her tearing up at her own misfortune as opposed to her tearing up for the misfortunes she has participated in.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/01/07/john_edwards/index.html

[CMike]

This happens exclusively to female politicians. In 2000 there was a lot of talk that Ally Gore was a self-absorbed, incessantly chattering, liar. In 2004 a lot of people; questioned the legitimacy of the medals Joan Kerry had won when she was a WAVE over in Vietnam, expressed annoyance over her snobbishness as she fancied herself to be a French sophisticate, and took offense over the fact she had married a man for his money.

If the Democrats want to campaign on the issues they ought to nominate a male candidate for once.

[Matt]

Hillary wept entirely for her lost entitlement. A cry of self-pity.

[bakho]

The press hates Hillary. The other Dem candidates should hope that Hillary stays in the race for a long time. Once the press have dispatched Hillary and she is no longer the lightning rod for their flack, they will target Obama and Edwards.

Past history is sometimes a predictor of future performance.

[anne]

There has been a determined sexist prejudice that has shamefully focused attacks on Hillary Clinton. That John edwards would attack Clinton for being a woman is beyond disgraceful, and stuns me and shows me that he is a sexist who I regret ever having had a kind word for. Character will show, and I realize finally that Edwards has no character.

The American media is distinctly sexist, and I have been bothered by this in regard to Clinton for months even though I have been critical of her for not being more of a candidate for peace.

Shame on Edwards, and shame on Matt and Jerry (whose comment was hideous).

Shame on vicious prejudiced Jerry. Shame.

[anne]

Alluding that Hillary Clinton could ever be racist is a disgusting lie. Stop being a hate-mongering liar!

[Neal]

Choking-up or crying in public on the behalf of the sorrows of others is OK. Choking-up or crying about the frustration of your goals is not OK--it's a sign of weakness and defeat.

[gingerbaker]

sounds like whining to me....The clinton machine is pulling out all the stops, crying "victim," "mysogyny," and god knows 'cuz hillary is gettin' beat by an African-African male! How graceful. Go Obama!

[Total]

"How does it show a hatred of women to have demand (however ridiculous the demand is) that a Presidential candidate not cry when the going gets rough? (Ed Muskie would like a do-over.)"

Did you actually, you know, read the post? Because it's all pretty much explained in there. We'll wait.

[BobbyV]

To suggest that HRC is unfit for the highest office because she showed signs of emotion is just bullshit. With the power to send Americans into harms way and quite possibly to their deaths, I want a Commander-in-Chief that understands the human costs of armed conflict. I'm sure General Eisenhower, on the eve of D-Day and in the solitude of his study, struggled with the knowledge that tens of thousands of young men on both sides of the battle would not survive the day. Only madmen or fools are immune to the sacrifice of others.

[John Drake]

No one should be crying in public, especially some holding or aspiring to national office; it’s undignified. But saying “Hillary bursts into tears” is not an accurate description. She got a little watery eyed and actually sounded somewhat sincere for a change.

[tom s.]

what Total said.

[Cynthia]

The press's hate for Hillary oughta be reason enough for voters to love her!

[Cynthia]

gingerbaker: I think it's pretty sick of you to be turning this election into a race war!

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?ref=opinion

January 8, 2008

Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?

If you answered no to either question, you're not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

That's why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).

If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama's public style — or Bill Clinton's either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects "only" the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more "masculine" for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren't too many of them); and because there is still no "right" way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

I'm not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That's why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that....

[pgl]

When John Edwards suggested that this meant HRC was weak, I had to ask - what's he been smoking. Now Edwards is backpeddling on his comment. At first, I was hoping Edwards could win the nomination. Well, I guess he won't and based on the way he has campaigned, it's a good thing that he will not. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton has taken a shot at the press for going soft on Obama. And you know - Bill has a point.

[Lord]

Hillary showed some passion. Great! Now she should explain her vision for the future and why people should vote for her. She has been too occupied with policy and experience. Dreams are what people live for.

[Colin Danby]

No question she was treated badly by the press. I wonder how much of her dramatic bounce-back tonight was reaction to this, especially if the exit-poll gender differences are accurate.

[arle2]

It's been 7 going on 80 years of agonizing mendacity. Don't you think the most appropriate response from any presidential candidate who was asked how they "managed"...to get their hair done in the morning, would be to cry -- or sob, as it were? Really. Edwards wants to brush over the fact that not to long ago they were going after his hairdos.

[jeff hoffman]

Having read a bunch of comments about this episode, I finally got around to watching a clip of it. What a joke. It is on a par with the press's skewering of Howard Dean after his so-called rant. The emotional expression that I saw CANNOT accurately be described as crying or sobbing. Give me a break. And yes, Anne, that may well be the true John Edwards but everyone (any comment to gain an advantage is reflexive in a trial lawyer) has their lapses.

[jeff hoffman]

Undoubtedly some clown on Fox with his body language expert will be pontificating today about how that little show of emotion really worked.

[jeff hoffman]

How's this from Yahoo!? "Breaking down Clinton, McCain wins."

[c.l. ball]

HC did not 'cry' -- her voice cracked a bit but it was "news" because she is usually either stony or angry. It was a bizarre answer to the question:"How do you do it? How do you keep up ... and who does your hair?"

And I'm not sure what she means by: "I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don't want to see us fall backwards." Huh? Is she taking diction lessons from W. or did she mean 'I have [been given] so many opportunities from this country'?'

Then she bewails how hard it is to campaign. Please. Clinton, Edwards, Romney, and McCain may have grueling schedules, but I think their volunteers suffer a lot more than they do.

Then going on to clearly dig at Obama -- "Some of us are ready and some of us are not. Some of know what we will do on day one, and some of us really haven't thought that through enough." -- gave it more of a calculating edge. I'd like to hear more about what she would do on day one, myself.