Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Every Child Deserves a Mother ... | Letter from New Hampshire »

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Edwards Loses a Feminist Supporter

posted by on January 8 at 8:24 AM

Remember yesterday, when John Edwards took a pretty hard swipe at Hillary Clinton for tearing up on the campaign trail? Now one of Edwards’s earliest supporters, Amanda Marcotte of the blog Pandagon, who once was such an Edwards fan that she was part of his campaign, is furious:

What the hell? Completely unacceptable amounts of sexism. It’s bad enough that the media plays the game with Clinton where if she shows any emotion, she’s too feminine or too scary, but if she’s more stoic, she’s a scary ballbuster, but to have her own party members (if political rivals) play that cheap sexist card is too much. I’ve been reconsidering moving my Edwards support to Obama, and unless someone can show me evidence that Obama is just as likely to take cheap, sexist shots like this, I think that’s what I’ll be doing in light of this. We need someone at the top of the ticket who can know when to hold ‘em. And Obama does on this issue—when baited with the opportunity to be sexist to Clinton, he declined. Edwards appears to have taken it back, so it’s hard to say that it wasn’t just base opportunism on his part. Still, it should be immediately evident to any candidate that playing the “Hillarygirlieweak” game with the media is a bad idea…

I can’t bring myself to vote for the hawk in the campaign during the primaries, but dammit, this makes me sort of wish she’d win so that I can vote for her in the general election in good conscience. You don’t get much closer to saying outright, “We simply will not allow a woman to win if we can help it,” than that quote there.

RSS icon Comments

1

I bet he's super bummed to lose such a stupid bitch.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 8, 2008 8:34 AM
2

For all the Edwards-philes out there, this is exactly the kind of thing that made me hate the man with all kinds of sincerity since 2003. His recent interest in 'change' and populism are, alas, but window-dressing.

Posted by switzerblog | January 8, 2008 8:45 AM
3

the woman is exhausted & frazzled. let her get teary once. don't dean-scream this.

fucking asshole bush gets verklempt all the time, and so does his asshole dad. the MSM cheers it as if its proof that they're human.

which they're not.

Posted by max solomon | January 8, 2008 8:46 AM
4
You don’t get much closer to saying outright, “We simply will not allow a woman to win if we can help it,” than that quote there.

Come on, this is a total softball. The obvious retort is that Edwards' comments only constitute an attack on women if one uses an essentialist and prejudicial definition of "womanhood" that includes crying in front of fucking TV cameras. Crying under stress would make anyone look like a fucking wimp, and there's nothing about being a woman that makes a person cry.

So yeah. What Mr. Poe said.

Posted by Judah | January 8, 2008 8:50 AM
5

You don’t get much closer to saying outright, “We simply will not allow a woman to win if we can help it,” than that quote there.
Ah yes, it's that time of year when arguments descend into mind-reading and pure flights of fancy. Saying that POTUS needs strength and resolve is totally a code phrase for, "Vaginas not wanted."

Posted by torrentprime | January 8, 2008 9:02 AM
6

Edwards sucking up to Obama at the debates annoyed me too. I like a lot of the positions he's put forward, but he's given off an insincere flunky vibe lately, and that is not going to help him in the polls. I really hope he doesn't end up running as Obama's VP.

Posted by Beguine | January 8, 2008 9:03 AM
7

well, crying does not show weakness, but clinton should have known (of did know) that people might think that if her eyes welled up.

in the same way, criticizing clinton does not mean he is sexist, but edwards should have known that criticizing her might be viewed as sexist.

oh the games we play!

Posted by infrequent | January 8, 2008 9:04 AM
8

What crying??? I saw the video and she was misting up (maybe) and her voice cracked (for sure). But Edwards has did that MANY times in Iowa. He was all super emo-feely about all his "lower class" workers he wants on healthcare.

WTF...what doesn't the media cover that as CRYING. Fuckers.

Posted by Original Monique | January 8, 2008 9:05 AM
9

So Marcotte is saying she votes for the candidate based on their positions on issues unless some "character issue" like this pushes her buttons? Hmm. Well, at least now she has a ready justification for backing the front-runner. Everyone likes a winner.

Posted by flamingbanjo | January 8, 2008 9:07 AM
10

@8Should read *has done*. Goddamnit watching the Iowa races made me a hick.

damnit.

Posted by Original Monique | January 8, 2008 9:10 AM
11

This whole pre-election thing is a soap-opera nothing to write home about.

But the blogging soldier who died last week, and featured on am radio this morning, is the 'good' reality tv.

Can't wait to see you upgrade to the supermarket line Eli.

Posted by GrMkLSk | January 8, 2008 9:14 AM
12

@8 ah, yes, but is a game. (but note, i said "welled up" to be clear!) clinton might have done it on purpose (to seem more "human", to appeal to others who can relate to it, or because other candidates could hurt their own campaigns by responding to it -- who knows), or unintentionally. but if she did it on purpose she should have taken edwards's cue and tried to have done it when talking with some poor-disadvantaged-sob-story case.

i find it grating to hear people say that one's eyes welling up is a sign that that person really cares about the country.

Posted by infrequent | January 8, 2008 9:15 AM
13

can we please stop calling what Clinton did yesterday "crying" so that people who didn't watch the video aren't grossly misinformed?

Posted by josh | January 8, 2008 9:18 AM
14

Edwards needs to go on a Super Cuts tour of the US.

And she didn't cry and the press has set anyone just to knock down like a bowling pin.

Posted by whatever | January 8, 2008 9:21 AM
15

Edwards's nonstop digs at Clinon say that either (1) he expects to win some Clinton support if Clinton drops out, or (2) he wants to be Obama's running mate. If (1) was the idea, then he sure did fuck up when he said this. (2) is more likely IMHO.

Anyways, what @2 said - Edwards has always smacked of opportunism to me, and not even in a particularly savvy way.

Posted by tsm | January 8, 2008 9:22 AM
16

edwards' political instincts are not as good as obama's. that's been made abundantly clear. i still like his record (initial iraq vote notwithstanding) and his policy stands more than obama's. what would be so awful about him becoming obama's running mate?

Posted by ellarosa | January 8, 2008 9:30 AM
17

I understand where Amanda is coming from and I cut her some slack. But Edwards will move us toward single-payer health insurance more quickly and more surely than Hil or Obama will, and that is my primary consideration.

If we can fix that, we can open a big crack in the facade of corporate absolutism in this country. Edwards is the only top-tier candidate speaking in those terms at all.

It's all a crapshoot, and I will support the nominee.


Posted by ivan | January 8, 2008 9:31 AM
18

Ms. Marcotte is too involved. If a triviality like this -- a meaningless moment, a meaningless response, all in the overheated sauna of an over-covered primary -- is going to make her change her candidate, she's being ridiculous. She needs to step out into the fresh air for a moment.

Campaigns and presidencies are full of high-pressure instant-response moments like this, that seem like big deals because a million cameras are taping it, but they are not.

Posted by fnarf | January 8, 2008 9:37 AM
19

Edwards has always been my last choice. I favor Obama but I wouldn't be sad one bit if Clinton got the nom.

I think Edwards would be a very disappointing president.

Posted by monkey | January 8, 2008 9:38 AM
20

So being female = crying? Who's being sexist exactly?

Posted by K | January 8, 2008 9:39 AM
21

Oprah has often talked about how a woman in business (and presumably in politics) simply cannot cry in the business setting. You can cry beforehand and afterward, in private, the way men do. It's just how business and politics are played, fair or not. I think it was a mistake for Clinton to cry in public.

Certainly Edwards is a shape-shifter and it's sexist to criticize Clinton for crying, but Clinton didn't have the luxury of crying.

Posted by S. M. | January 8, 2008 9:39 AM
22

How is exploiting an opponent's weakness sexist? This is what candidates do. If any of the other candidates had cried, we'd be seeing the video ad infinitum especially because it's early in the campaign and there are too many characters in this stupid reality show to keep track of. Somebody's gotta go. Hey, maybe Ron Paul will be next.

Posted by Jason Josephes | January 8, 2008 9:44 AM
23

I agree that Edwards remark was intemperate. However, both he and his wife have both been campaigning tirelessly to promote his underdog candidacy against the Clinton machine and Obamania. I agree with him that Hillary needs to be just as tough to persevere.

Posted by seadevi | January 8, 2008 9:45 AM
24

Why does Goria Steinem say Hillary has "no masculinity to prove"? If Hillary isn't trying to prove how macho she can be, why did she vote for the war? And all the war-mongering that followed? I thought the whole reason she did all that bonehead stuff was because she thought she had to so nobody would call her weak.

Obviously it isn't fair, but for Steinem to say that female politicians don't have a tough-guy problem as bad or worse than men makes no sense. Bush's lack of (real) military service is one of the things that made him so violent, and Hillary has basically the same perceived lack that she needs to compensate for.

Posted by elenchos | January 8, 2008 9:45 AM
25

@18 - exactly right, too involved. I think you could say the same thing about Eli, who apparently cannot move on from this barely newsworthy incident. Enough already! Isn't anything else happening on the campaign trail?

Posted by Hernandez | January 8, 2008 9:46 AM
26

THERE WAS NO CRYING. I don't even think a single TEAR rolled down her cheek.

This isn't about crying, it is about "expressing emotion". Remember when the press used to gang up on Clinton for being emotionless? Those were the days.

Posted by josh | January 8, 2008 9:47 AM
27

I'm ready for a president who can show a little emotion at times, geez. At least she's human! Unlike the rest of those alien robots we have to choose from. I like the idea that Hilary is genuinely upset and concerned over potentially not winning - I think she really things she can make a difference and the idea of not getting the opportunity is truly upsetting for her. There are pros and cons to each candidate but Hilary's show of emotion makes me want to vote her in even more than before.
But WTF is up with candidates in the SAME PARTY lashing out at one another? Now is the time for teamwork, assholes! Want Bush out? Want to NOT replace him with a carbon copy? Stop fighting amongst yourselves and pull together as a team. Every single one of them will look that much better if they simply support each other a little bit.

Posted by violet black | January 8, 2008 9:54 AM
28

feminism: when women can be just like men except when they can be just like women.

Posted by frede | January 8, 2008 10:04 AM
29

nice, frede. the problem you are making here is when you say "be just like men" and "be just like women". to say to a man, "be a man" can be stupid enough, to say that to a woman just further illustrates it.

Posted by infrequent | January 8, 2008 10:11 AM
30

She's only upset because she's being challenged. She thinks she should be coronated, not run against.

Posted by fnarf | January 8, 2008 10:13 AM
31

#17 for single payer health insurance to come you have to know how to lube congress up

edwards just dont got the political instincts for it

Posted by linus | January 8, 2008 10:22 AM
32

The misogyny on the Slog comments lately is driving me nuts.

Posted by jamier | January 8, 2008 10:27 AM
33

Again this is part of a long dialog between Edwards and Clinton. Clinton has asserted time and again that she is the only one ready and tough enough to handle the Presidency. As Colbert would put it that she has the "Ballz" for it. Edwards' point was that when the going gets tough the tough get going. For the record, Obama has been relying on Edwards to fight Hillary. It is Edwards that stopped her on her illegal driver license flip flop.

Posted by Zander | January 8, 2008 10:32 AM
34

Edwards' response this morning to the criticism towards him: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z91mi0-rCWk

He claims he has never teared up once on the campaign trail. Not after talking to relatives of people killed in Iraq? Not after talking to all those children dying because they have no health care?

I'd like to hear from Edwards supporters how they can support a sociopath for president.

Posted by jamier | January 8, 2008 10:32 AM
35

@Fnarf...Your anger toward Hillary is weird. Just saying. She has wanted to run, she ran a great campaign in New York. She is a politician. All her education and career choices led up to this, just like any man. I have never seen her think she should be coronated. But if I had her age/experience/credentials and some young kid who looked better on camera and could make a speech (but not debate, as we have seen) was ahead of me, I'd be annoyed.

But instead she has tried to strike back to say: Don't vote for flash! Vote for substance! (albeit not very well)

So I don't get your point of view on this one, sorry. =(

Posted by Original Monique | January 8, 2008 10:36 AM
36

@34: I totally agree. The dude is flat out lying. I have seen him well up, wait to speak....trying to be "sympathetic". If I wasn't at work I'd be diggin up youtube videos about this.

Posted by Original Monique | January 8, 2008 10:38 AM
37
So being female = crying? Who's being sexist exactly?

You know what's sexist? Looking at how men are expected to behave and then applying those same standards to women. I'll echo what other commenters have said and repeat what I've said before: I don't see a problem with Hillary misting up. Perhaps the real issue is why men aren't allowed to and why men apply a damned if you do/damned if you don't standard to women. When Hillary doesn't show enough femininity, she's a frigid ball breaker. When she shows "too much," she's weak.

Who's being sexist exactly?

Posted by keshmeshi | January 8, 2008 10:48 AM
38

She chose to play the campaign game - and a big part of the game is not "misting up" on the campaign trail. You think the Rethugs are gonna cut her any slack down the road over this? Grow up, already.

And I'm with FNARF - watching the video (which I agree has been somewhat overblown) my overwhelming impression was that she has an incredible sense of entitlement with regard to the Presidency - and that anyone who dares question her coronation within the party is somehow "taking us backwards."

Posted by Mr. X | January 8, 2008 10:59 AM
39
Looking at how men are expected to behave and then applying those same standards to women.

Wow, that's the stupidest thing I've seen in print today. And I read that whole story about Ken Hutcherson.

You suck.

Posted by Judah | January 8, 2008 11:23 AM
40

OM, I don't have any anger towards Clinton. I don't care about her either way. I'd be happy to pencil in the oval next to her name. But if you can't see her sense of entitlement -- the presidency is HERS, she's earned it already, these interlopers are in her way -- then I don't know why not. It's painfully obvious.

Experience? Credentials? No she doesn't, not any more than any of the others.

I also think that that entitlement points to something else about her. The worst thing about the Bush Administration isn't Iraq, or Katrina, or any of that. It's the expansion of unchecked executive power. It's the new rules which state that the President isn't bound by legislation passed by the congress. Add a signing statement that says "well, I don't think so" and you can do whatever you want. I think that's wrong, and I think Clinton can't wait to get her hands on it.

That's her entitlement; she's ALREADY RUN for president, and she's ALREADY WON, and now it's time to claim the prize that belongs to her. And it's HER prize, not ours.

But no, I'm not angry. I just like the other guy a little better. What I object to is the heat of the argument, that the stupid words either candidate says MEAN something, when they so obviously don't. Debate? Come on, nobody gives a shit what happens in the debates. None of the three candidates has done other than say what they think people want to hear. You think any of them is going to refer back to what they said in Iowa or New Hampshire after they're elected? I'm sorry, that's just naive. No president in the history of the country has ever done that. The challenges they will face will be new, and more difficult than the programmatic stuff they're spewing now.

Posted by fnarf | January 8, 2008 11:28 AM
41

29: if barack or edwards cried they'd be out of the race the next day.

Posted by frede | January 8, 2008 11:42 AM
42

Fnarf-who is your choice for candidacy and do you have a blog?

Posted by yearning | January 8, 2008 11:47 AM
43

@41... that's ridiculous. If Barack or Edwards did what Clinton did (NOT crying) it wouldn't even merit one mention in the media.

I'm with jamier @32. I'm not pro- or anti-Hillary, but all the sexist bullshit on Slog whenever her name is brought up makes me want to defend her.

Posted by Julie | January 8, 2008 11:56 AM
44

I'm for Obama, mildly, for all the usual reasons. I think he's electable, because he has a positive message, a future-oriented message. That's the one essential that every candidate has to have. It's why Kerry lost; if you're running only on bad things, against Bush, against whatever, you can never, ever, ever win. You have to ignore the bad and push the positive future. Obama does that better than Edwards or Clinton, as far as I can see.

I agree that Edwards is outstanding on the issues, and I agree that Clinton is smart and tough enough to bang heads together when they need it. I like them both, I really do. But I want to WIN.

I'm also attracted to the argument that we need to get away from Clinton and Bush -- one or the other has been Pres or Vice-Pres since NINETEEN EIGHTY -- it's older than Duran Duran, and it's time for something new. Bush vs. Clinton is also a surrogate for the most boring debate ever, the boomer culture war, still arguing about the sixties. To me that's like arguing about the Civil War in 1908, and that's not very Teddy Roosevelt.

And this is my blog!

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 11:58 AM
45

@37: You've gotta be kidding me. You're saying that it is sexist to say that the sexes should have equal standards of behaviour?

Um, no. Precisely the opposite.

Saying it's OK for a woman to cry but not a man in the same situation -- that's sexist.

Posted by K | January 8, 2008 12:00 PM
46

@ 35...

I really don'understand this idea that Obama can't debate. Maybe this was true during the first debates, I don't know, I only saw a few. But, here's a clip from their New Hampshire energy plans:

Richardson and Obama:
http://www.wmur.com/video/14987050/index.html

Note: Because of spam protection, I'll need to make another post for Clinton's answer.

I think Obama gives the best answer there. He shows the most poise and the least anger, and he's the only one who admits to the problems that preparing for global warming will bring with it. I don't think Clinton's answer is bad, but it smacks of the same cheap shot she takes at Obama's reluctance to say his universal health care plan won't cover everybody, which, of course, none of their plans could do, especially after going through Congress. Can someone clue me into why people say he lacks substance and he makes vague motions toward change? I see that in his stump speech, I suppose, but stump speeches aren't for nitty-gritty policy discussion; they're for inspiration. To me, he does the same thing they do in their speeches: his speeches just happen to get more coverage, so the media seems to put a lot of their perception on them, when they're a pretty small part of his campaign.

Posted by some kid | January 8, 2008 12:07 PM
47
Posted by some kid | January 8, 2008 12:08 PM
48

I saw Gore get teary more than once talking about his son's near-death. I doubt very much anyone ever thought the worse of him for it. I've seen BILL Clinton get teary on several occasions. Because it feels genuine, not staged, I don't think anyone holds it against him, or would claim that it makes him "too emotional" to serve.

On the other hand, I'm trying to picture Golda Meir or "Iron Balls" Maggie Thatcher misting up, and the mind boggles. Women are held to a different - higher - standard. It bites, but until we manage to root out institutional misogyny, the only women who are going to hold high office in this country are going to have to hold their emotions on a tight rein. EVERYTHING a woman does is held up for criticism - what she wears, how she laughs, the position of her knees when she sits, whether or not she makes cookies - whereas the men seem to be able to be halfwit loony-tunes hillbillies whose family trees do not fork and still win the Republican caucuses in Iowa.

Posted by Geni | January 8, 2008 12:11 PM
49

Oh, and just wait until the question of a female candidate's sexual history comes up, a la, The Contender. No one could give a rat's ass if a male candidate has had three wives, cavorted with hookers, and had college orgies, but let a female candidate be other than the Holy Virgin Mother, and all hell will break loose.

Posted by Geni | January 8, 2008 12:12 PM
50

@46 - I think Obama is a better orator in his stump speeches -- he just doesn't seem as eloquent during the debates. His points on policy may be good, but he stutters (there was a great example of this during the debate Sunday, but I can't remember what they were discussing), he's not as good at the whole "need to speak over people so I can interupt and get a chance to speak" thing, and he doesn't really think on his feet as well (that last question about what do you regret saying in the debates -- he just repeated what HRC said).

I'm not saying I'm going to choose or not choose him based on this -- I know what the debates are about, and ability to interupt people isn't exactly high on my list of presidential criteria. But, I have been more impressed/inspired by him during his stump speeches.

Posted by Julie | January 8, 2008 12:13 PM
51

Why the double standard? Either she should be held to the same standard as male candidates or she shouldn't.

If you look at the context of the question that set her off, it was about her hair. What the fuck. Not about American teens coming home without limbs or kids in Detroit dying for lack of medical care. About her hair. C'mon. Where is the actual lack of compassion by Edwards here? It seems like a cold Clintonian calculation to attract sympathy and distract from her right-wing policies.

Posted by JC | January 8, 2008 12:19 PM
52

@39,

And you don't?

Posted by keshmeshi | January 8, 2008 12:27 PM
53
@37: You've gotta be kidding me. You're saying that it is sexist to say that the sexes should have equal standards of behaviour?

Um, no. Precisely the opposite.

Saying it's OK for a woman to cry but not a man in the same situation -- that's sexist.

No. I'm saying that it's sexist to hold both sexes up to a male standard of behavior.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 8, 2008 12:28 PM
54
No. I'm saying that it's sexist to hold both sexes up to a male standard of behavior.

And you're arbitrarily defining "not crying in public" as a male standard of behavior. That's the part where you're full of shit.

Posted by Judah | January 8, 2008 12:30 PM
55

the argument isn't that clinton shouldn't cry because men don't cry, it's because LEADERS don't cry.

men can cry all they want, but if you're depending on a LEADER to have the strength and temerity to see the nation through during tough times, someone who can't take a PRIMARY without misting up doesn't exactly instill confidence in being ready to "lead" from day 1.

when the chips are down I don't want a president who feels sorry for themselves. i don't want a president who sits there like a frightened child reading "the happy goat" while terrorists attack. i don't want a president who has to run the political calculus before acting.

it has nothing to do with gender. it has to do with leadership. i'm not casting a ballot in the gender wars, i'm voting for the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world.

i think those who claim this is sexist incorrectly assume that the qualities we look for in good leaders are exclusively male. which is pretty sad.

Posted by some dude | January 8, 2008 12:32 PM
56

Judah,

You've written any number of asinine comments on Slog over the past several months, but I'll just address this one:

Come on, this is a total softball. The obvious retort is that Edwards' comments only constitute an attack on women if one uses an essentialist and prejudicial definition of "womanhood" that includes crying in front of fucking TV cameras. Crying under stress would make anyone look like a fucking wimp, and there's nothing about being a woman that makes a person cry.

What about the essentialist and prejudicial definition of manhood that never allows a man to ever appear weak? You love to whine and whine about how unfair the world is to men. Then you turn around and apply a truly unfair standard to men (and women).

Posted by keshmeshi | January 8, 2008 12:34 PM
57
That's the part where you're full of shit.

As you love to say: Prove it.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 8, 2008 12:36 PM
58

keshmeshi, you have to be able to stop seeing the world in a male/female binary to see where you're full of shit.

Posted by some dude | January 8, 2008 12:39 PM
59

It is not *tears* per se but *perceived weakness* that the media are pouncing on. When Edward Muskie cried in 1972, he went from Dem frontrunner to has-been within a week.

It’s one thing to cry or mist up when telling a heart-wrenching story. It’s another entirely to cry or mist up from *the pressure getting to you*, because you look weak.

Posted by BB | January 8, 2008 12:43 PM
60

All feminists are sexists.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 8, 2008 12:44 PM
61

Shouldn't "part of his campaign" be "fired by his campaign"?

Posted by Jacob | January 8, 2008 12:45 PM
62

@6 - are you kidding me? Right now Edwards is Obama's best hope of a successful presidency. You absolutely need a policy wonk in this job. That is not Obama. He may be the best orator but best politician? Best person for the job?
Far from it! He's #4 on a list of 4 in this regard. He's just charismatic and well-spoken. So he can inspire us while Edwards does the heavy lifting.
It's a beautiful ticket if it happens.

Posted by Pay attention | January 8, 2008 12:48 PM
63

I never got the feeling that Clinton was emotional because she might win, but because she truly thinks that she has the best chance of being the president out of all of them and she thinks she'd be the best president out of all of them. I am not a Hilary fan, but that moment seemed nothing but sincere. If a candidate sees the specter of another eight years of Bush-like horror and doesn't flinch, there might be something wrong with them.

Whether or not you like Edwards, making a comment like this about someone who's done far more than him in her political life is bitchy and snide. She's gone through the "tough business." Fuck him.

Posted by some kid | January 8, 2008 1:03 PM
64

Edwards isn't doing the heavy lifting even in his own campaign. That's not what candidates, or presidents, do. You want policy wonks? Any of these three candidates are going to have thousands of them. You're not voting for a person, you're voting for a team.

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 1:04 PM
65

*because she might not win

Posted by some kid | January 8, 2008 1:04 PM
66

@58,

You're absolutely right. It's so silly of me to object when men set the rules and punish women when we fail to live up to them, and when we do live up to them. Excuse me, I have to go find my place again (down on my knees, sucking some cock).

Posted by keshmeshi | January 8, 2008 1:18 PM
67

The only reason Edwards is even in the running is as a fallback in case we realize Clinton or Obama are un-electable before it's too late. People are so desperate to get the Republicans out that they'll vote for the last resort - or even McCain.

Posted by don't like edwards | January 8, 2008 1:32 PM
68

you just proved my point.

you're only capable of looking at things through the male/female lens.

I said that the critique of clinton was contrasting her against the ideal of a leader--an ideal that is not intrinsically "male". to say that it is is sexist.

but this doesn't work in your binary black/white vision of gender roles, whereby anyone who disagrees with your analysis obviously must disagree with you because of your gender. it couldn't be that you're just full of shit. no, that couldn't _possibly_ be it.

Posted by some dude | January 8, 2008 2:00 PM
69

keshmeshi, read this article. it speaks more eloquently than I about what i'm getting it.

here's an excerpt:

So I've wondered how, at this time of global economic insecurity, women could even maintain their gains, much less continue to advance. And I've realized that they can't - not as long as they focus on women's issues alone or on women versus men. The problems in our fast-changing world require a new paradigm of social policy, transcending all "identity politics" - women, blacks, gays, the disabled. Pursuing the separate interests of women isn't adequate and is even diversionary. Instead, there has to be some new vision of community. We need to reframe the concept of success. We need to campaign - men and women, whites and blacks - for a shorter workweek, a higher minimum wage, an end to the war against social-welfare programs. "Women's issues" are symptoms of problems that affect everyone.

The women's movement is not going to fade away, but should become part of a mosaic, bridging the polarization. We must confront the backlash realistically; we must not allow ourselves to become part of the politics of hate. The basis of women's empowerment is economic - that's what is in danger now. And it can't be saved by countering the hatred of women with a hatred of men.

...

word.

Posted by some dude | January 8, 2008 2:11 PM
70

keshmeshi - you are totally right, but so is judah. men set up these rules. to accept that these "rules" are built on sexist principles is to accept that men are different from women (take crying, for instance). you have to agree that it is more likely for a woman to get teary-eyed in public if you are going to decry the standard as sexist.

i think woman probably are more likely to get teary-eyed -- because culturally we (in the USA) raise men and women with these sexist standards. so we raised men to fit the qualifications of a leader -- to not cry -- but we did not raise women the same way.

now we are stuck. it's sexist no matter what happens. if a guy says, crying is not okay for a leader, it is a sexist framework for what qualifies as a leader. if a guy says, it is okay for a woman to cry but not for a man to, it sexist because different standards are being applied to men and women. this is because the sexism has already been done, and won't be undone for at the very least one more generation.

the only haven is to say, it should be okay for a man to cry in public as a leader. but we do not know this yet. we do not know if, when raised in a less sexist society, women leaders will cry less, and men will cry more. it's probably somewhere in the middle.

that said, it probably would have been much less an issue if she cried about health care from children, then getting teary-eyed over her likability or hair.

(but i'm just a novice!)

Posted by infrequent | January 8, 2008 2:12 PM
71

judah - you are right, but so is keshmeshi. ic you cannot see the difficult position a woman is put in then you are not being honest. do you actually believe that we didn't teach little boys the same qualities we then want to see in our leaders? (sure, there are exceptions.) i don't like the idea that a man cannot cry in public... what does that have to do with leadership? that wall is slowing coming down (thanks to just about every male athlete's retirement speech over the past few years).

we set up a male stereotype, and then teach boys to live up to it. we then use this same criteria to evaluate a person on their leadership potential.

Posted by infrequent | January 8, 2008 2:20 PM
72

@57

Yeah, that's ironic, you using that phrase here. Because whenever I say that to you, you bail on the debate.

But @58 is exactly right: you're using social prejudices to attribute certain behaviors to the different sexes. So the belief that a person shouldn't cry during a confrontation is, to your perception, inherently male and inherently directed at/by men. But if that's the baseline you're operating off of, we can't even have the discussion.

I mean, to go back to @56, there are plenty of social spaces in the world where men and women alike are allowed to cry. But those social spaces are not particularly powerful. And that's really what's at issue here.

There is a segment of American society -- a kind of club -- that controls things. That club has certain rules. In this day and age, pretty much anyone can get into the club, but they have to follow the rules. Women and minorities see that the largest group in the club are white men, so they consider the rules of the power club white and male, and complain that they have to "act like white men" to get into the club. What women and minorities are generally too egocentric or too committed to their own agenda to acknowledge is that the rules of the club are just as alienating to millions of white men as they are to women and minorities generally. The rules of the club are neither inherently white nor inherently male; they're not inherently anything. They're simply the conventions of behavior among the powerful.

Having a power club is inherently unjust. But that injustice is distinct from sexism and racism, as such.

But nevermind. Carry on with your cocksucker baiting. Because that doesn't come off like an enormous cop-out.

Posted by Judah | January 8, 2008 2:28 PM
73

add on to 71 : plus, why is the press making such a big deal out of this?

Posted by infrequent | January 8, 2008 2:28 PM
74

Some Dude @ 55 says:

the argument isn't that clinton shouldn't cry because men don't cry, it's because LEADERS don't cry.

men can cry all they want, but if you're depending on a LEADER to have the strength and temerity to see the nation through during tough times, bla bla bla

The president of the United States is not my leader, get it? The president of the United States is my employee, and yours.

Of course, if you are content to be a follower, that's your business.

Posted by ivan | January 8, 2008 2:47 PM
75

@74 - if a candidate misted up in an interview when I asked them how the interview was going, i wouldn't hire them. :p

Posted by some dude | January 8, 2008 3:10 PM
76

"candidate" meaning if i was interviewing someone for a job that reported directly to me.

Posted by some dude | January 8, 2008 3:12 PM
77

@53: Well, no, not really sexist. Whether it's good or not, it's not sexism.

Calling an expectation of nonemtionalness "sexist" because it's a "male" trait implies that emotionalness = female and nonemotionalness = male. That's a sexist (etc.) premise.

But besides all this, few are making any distinction over *reasons* for crying. Crying because young people are being sent to risk their lives in an illegal and unnecessary war? That's one thing. Crying because you're losing the primary for an election you thought you had in the bag? That's another thing entirely.

Posted by K | January 8, 2008 5:05 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).