Tuesday, January 8, 2008

The Hypocrisy of Double Standards

I'm sure someone else more articulate and versed in the ways of politics in America has already written about this somewhere today, but the headline in the Washington Post finally pushed me over the edge.

So Hillary Clinton got a little emotional yesterday in New Hampshire. So what?

Does this make her any less qualified to be the leader of our nation?

And yet, when men in political power display tears, it's okay. Somehow it makes them sensitive leaders who are compassionate and real.

But when a woman cries, well, then she's just being emotional and overwrought. It makes her "flawed."

Oh, please!

When are we going to get out of the dark ages and stop with the sexist bullshit? Honestly, some days the lack of enlightened, civilized behavior in this country just makes me sick.

P.S. In fairness to the Post, it was a decently written article. But still... Why did it even have to be written? Would anyone note if John McCain or Fred Thompson got verklempt. Doubtful.


Jess said...

I agree that all this analysis about how her gender affects her candidacy is lunacy. I thought that WP article was balanced, though. I thought it was discussing the exact issue that you're mentioning here of how everything she does is scrutinized and how her gender prevents her from being able to cry without people thinking exactly that she's flawed and over-emotional.

I agree that in a perfect world, the gender of the candidate wouldn't even be mentioned. But since it is an issue, I think it makes perfect sense that the Post would write about it. Since it is an issue, and one that people want to read about, unfortunate as that may be.

Anonymous said...

In the trilogy of books I'm reading, "His Dark Materials," everyone has a soul with an opposite gender. So a woman would have a male soul (in the form of animal, of course).

I like this. I wish that in the real world we all aren't expected to stick to the far end of the "gender characteristics" scale and instead are expected to show any emotion we want without it being pushed back into our faces like we just did a doodie on the rug.

- Phoebe

NG said...

Jon Stewart had a great take on this last night:


You have to watch to the end of the almost 9 minute clip, but it was spot on. What's cut off of the end the clip is video of all these prominent male politicians openly weeping (including Bush 41) and how they were praised as "sensitive" for it.

NG said...

Once again I mess up a url in a comments section - it's too long for the viewable page this time.

Try this link.

J.M. Tewkesbury said...

Jess: I agree, the WaPo article was surprising fair and balanced. Still... No one excoriates Guiliani for crying. (Oh, well, okay, John Stewart does, and rightfully so.)

Phoebe: Interesting. That's similar to the Buddhist teaching of yin and yang. If only we could see our emotions as being in harmony with who we are.

NG: Excellent! That was brilliant. I love John Stewart. And I especially loved how he called out Guiliani on his egregious appropriation of 9/11 in every other sentence. I think his showing in IA and NH is clear proof that Americans are ready to move on from that fateful day.

Cele said...

I really need to watch Jonathan Stewart more, the man is spot on and NG is right, he pegged it at the end.

And I could ad my two bits about the unnews story this should be but men just don't get it. But then I'd be accused of being sexist.

Oh, wait, I am sexist.

hm-uk said...

It's interesting that the credible (not tabloid) British Press didn't say anything negative about Hillary showing emotion. I think that the world, at this point, is glad to see an American who seemingly cares about issues rather than their ratings in the polls or their cronies in the various lobbying organizations.

My word verification was: mofpogo

J.M. Tewkesbury said...

Cele: Damn right you're a sexist! Seriously, though, we're not suppose to scoff at Rudi or George or Mitt or any of the men when they show a little emotion, but Hillary gets all verklempt and it's breaking news on CNN. Stupid. Personally, Hillary's "breakdown" actually scored her a few points with me.

HM: At this point, I'm surprised the world isn't turning its back on us en masse and leaving us to our own stupid devices.

And yes, POGO is a MOF! (And I L'edOL!)

ME said...

I heard the hype about Hillary's emotional moment and only later saw the video of it. That wasn't crying! Given the media coverage, you'd think she had a huge bawling meltdown. Couldn't imagine why people were making any kind of news out of it, let alone turning it into a big effing deal.

A friend forwarded a Bill Moyers interview with Kathleen Hall Jameson discussing the political candidates, and specifically the graphic sexualized language and images Hillary haters use. We're nowhere near out of the dark ages as long as people refer to Hillary as a bitch and behave like crass, misogynistic, vindictive 7th graders toward a woman seeking political office.

Here's the link to the interview:


J.M. Tewkesbury said...

ME: Bee pointed out yesterday that Mitt Romney has actually cried three or four times in the last couple of months and not once has it made the kind of waves and news Hillary's emotional "breakdown" made.

I hate the media in America.