Hillary Rodham Clinton-strong enough for a man, but a woman

Comments

[this is good]
Congratulations on making [TIG] ~ it is :)

OK, that is weird as heck! I saw [TIG] with a number of political items, this included and now it has vanished!!!

This is really brilliant. Absolutely. My dad joked that Bill was voted in by women with daddy issues... Now we've got the mommy issues to deal with. It is deeply unfortunate that any woman with enough cleverness and desire to lead to RUN would be portrayed as a brass balled bitch.

Clinton may be many things that I distaste, but the last two weeks of watching her stand tall under media scrutiny have turned me into quite an admirer of her strength and conviction.
"If a woman stands a decent shot at being President, who will get their dinner? Who will iron their shirts? Who will allow them to stay in eternal infancy if Mommy goes to work?"

That's an interesting point. I hate that it still seems to be apt. I'm tired of gender biased decision-making. Note the differences and move on, please, general public. There are important issues to work out.
@emily sears: Agreed, although I'm not sure if it's for the same reasons, although I imagine you will humor me and explain.

I have no problem admitting she is poised and full of strength, while at the same time disagreeing with her politics-- particularly when she has tried to cast herself as a centrist/moderate when she most clearly is not.

@burningprairie: Well, to all the scared little boys masquerading as real men, Mean Ol' Mommy's come to town and guess what? She wears the Daddy pants. Tough on that, baby.

It is very tiresome to see feminist arguments that are so blatantly reactionary. I don't think it's right to say, "Ok, men, we're sick and tired, so now we are going to start dishing out what you gave us."

It greatly undermines the ideal of gender equality and seems to say 'we would like to make you suffer just as much as you all made us suffer'. Claiming this is aimed only at certain men is an apologist cop-out, IMHO, and it still widens the divide between the sexes. How does this help domestic violence and abuse overall, for one example? How does it reverse the prejudices that allow mothers to rape (emotionally, physically, or both) their sons, female teachers to molest their male students, and women to batter their men? How does it contribute to the education of the public that these things are wrong, no matter the gender?

(For the record, when it was revealed-- by Hillary, I believe-- that ol' Bill had a mother and grandmother that administered ham-fisted discipline and perhaps fostered emotionally abusive environment, the press had a field day shooting holes in her argument that such had fostered his wayward behaviors.)
[this is good]
Excellent, excellent post! I couldn't agree more...she's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. The media should focus on the real topics at hand...I find myself wondering why is this even a story?
Before the votes were counted, all the pundits were saying how her "show of emotion" was surely going to cost her. When she won, all of a suddent they changed their tune, saying that it endeared her to voters and strengthened her campaign.
[this is good]
Great post. I'm not necessarily a Hillary supporter either, but I couldn't believe it when I heard today that some Hilary hecklers were shouting 'Iron my shirts!" at her. Sad.

I listen to MSNBC at work all day, and yesterday it was ALL about how Hillary was finished ... she shouldn't have cried, this is too much for her, she's going to shake up her staff, she's going to concede the next couple of primaries. I felt like the talking heads were basically saying, "Nice try, little girl. Now go home and let the boys play." I'm no Hillary fan, but by the end of the day, I was really hoping she'd surprise everyone and win. So, just as a woman, I was quite pleased to turn on the TV this morning and hear the news of her victory. I agree that the microscope she's under is set at a much higher power than the men's.

I agree that women are strong, can be strong, show strength and deserve more credit for their unsung strength.

But apart from gender, consider Clinton as a candidate. As a leader, should she expect a massive show of voter support for showing a soft side? As a leader, what would be the result of her showing her soft side in negotiations with Putin or Chavez or Ahmedinejad? As a leader, does she show more or less strength than other candidates? As a leader, does her soft side show through in policies, in political accomplishments?

Is it possible to view Clinton as a leader, head to head with other leaders? Desirable? Rational?

If people asked themselves that question, would the current President have been elected twice?
I also heard the mainstream media condemn Hillary for crying on camera and was angered by that. But today on NPR they were ascribing her victory to female voters who were glad to see her express her feelings. They interviewed the woman in New Hampshire who asked her the question that provoked Clinton's emotional response, and she said, "I think sometimes people forget she's a woman...."

This statement bothered me as well. I don't think being a woman also means getting teary-eyed in public: I'd rather be like my grandmother, who raised 7 kids on her own and never cried, never complained about it. A number of people in this culture associate stoicism with masculinity, but in many Asian countries like Japan, women are expected to be stoic and strong.

If Hillary does win the Democratic nomination, I will vote for her. But I would prefer to see tough-as-nails Hillary than I-have-feelings-too Hillary.
I have no qualms with Hilary being a woman or crying. My problem with her is her political stances. She seems to be right wing on all of the things that I go left on and left wing on all of the things that I go right on. It is really no surprise as I am a libertarian =). I am really hoping Obama can get another surge. I would rather see him in the White House than any front runner from either party.
[this is good]
There always seems to be a double standard in this country. It's depressing. She choked up because she feels strongly about something and it's all over the news like she bawled her head off. Romney has cried....but who knows about that??

But... but, she got all emotional...

[ / sarcasm ]

I really don't think this should be about gender. But I don't see how people can make such an issue out of it. The same goes with Obama and race (also if people will vote for him based on that). This reminds me of the 2004 election when I ran into people saying they were voting for Bush because they believed he was a Texan (I'm a student in Texas btw).

What ever happened to voting on the individual based on their ideas and the ideas of the party they represent? I would have no problem voting for a woman (of quality) in November, just not Hillary.

Of course little events should not be blown out of proportion, especially in elections. So it calls upon voters to see the events in context, and with history. Relative to candidate Clinton's emotionalism, are there patterns?

How would Hillary supporters characterize her support for the Bush invasion of Iraq? How would her supporters characterize her echoing the White House about weapons of mass destruction? She was a passionate voice in the Senate, expressing not only a viewpoint but her emotions.

How did that turn out?

There are different versions of the "double standard". One version is when a candidate is considered good if they do and good if they don't.

[this is good]
Awesome post. At the very least, Hillary running for president is getting people talking about such inequalities. That is essential for everyone.

i don't know if you're right but you write a compelling argument!

[this is good]
[this is good]
[this is good]
brilliant! you head the hammer on the nail! bravo!
why yes, as a matter of fact, I am.
I suppose that I should look at the bright side-that you recognize that women have been made to suffer lo these many years by dint of not having a Y chromosome, but I suspect you are being disingenous. What is your fear? That once a woman is president, the rest of us are going to rise up and oppress you and your kind? Because that IS what you and your kind have been doing to us. And exactly what are you talking about from your perch of privilege?

How does this help domestic violence and abuse overall, for one example? How does it reverse the prejudices that allow mothers to rape (emotionally, physically, or both) their sons, female teachers to molest their male students, and women to batter their men?

Now if that is not projecting I don't know what is. That sounds suspiciously like MRA nonsense. Like the rare instances of female-on-male battering somehow justify hatred and all-too-common domestic abuse of women.

And any gender prejudices out there serve to keep women in "their place" and do not allow them any extra leeway in illegal matters. In fact it seems that there is greater public outrage over the female teachers who violate male students than male teachers who violate their female students. It almost seems accepted that men are going to be attracted to the nubile young girls in their care and Oops! He couldn't help himself! We women should just know better! There have been several such cases in my city in the past couple of years and none, not one single one, received more than a couple of days of coverage. But Mary Kay Letourno(?) had a movie made about her! And that pretty, young, blonde teacher is infamous for claiming she shouldn't go to jail because she's too pretty to endure prison.

I actually have no confidence that you'll reply, but if you do, no MRA nonsense please.


What is your fear? That once a woman is president, the rest of us are going to rise up and oppress you and your kind? Because that IS what you and your kind have been doing to us. And exactly what are you talking about from your perch of privilege?

You misunderstand. Remember when Elizabeth Dole was running for the presidency? I was actually kind of sad when she didn't get the nomination, because I was intending to vote for her. I'm not worried about a woman being elected president-- I just don't want Hillary. My political views aren't very congruent with hers and I think the political pendulum would swing too much the other way. I'm called a "swing voter", although I prefer the term Independent.

What I said was I don't deny her experience, her poise, her strength as a candidate, but she is not the candidate for me.

You are reading into my statements simply what is not there. I am calling you on your passive-aggressive comments. Whether or not I am the "some men" you are speaking of or not isn't really the point-- I'm saying it's on the offensive and is not likely going to further gender equality... unless that's not what you want.

Perch of privilege? Ha! You don't know me. How is being a mentally ill, bisexual ('ex-gay' if you will) man a perch of privilege? Just because I happen to be white and male doesn't mean I haven't been marginalized in other areas by people that include the supposedly oppressed minorities.

That sounds suspiciously like MRA nonsense

I actually had to look "MRA" up because I'm not with the men's rights activist agenda or whatever it is. I couldn't claim camp with them because I've never honestly had cause nor overwhelming inclination to. Those who know me have always known I'm all about "my way fair", which is pretty independent of any particular category of concern.

Like the rare instances of female-on-male battering somehow justify hatred and all-too-common domestic abuse of women

That's a very odd response, because I never said that. Usually, when I bring this up with others (including women), they say that all abuse is bad, and then we discuss how we agree on that.

My wife and quite a number of women I dated before I got married suffered some sort of abuse-- often sexual-- but of any sort, really. I could see how it affected them, and I could see how it affected their loved ones, including myself and their close friends. I can safely say that it seems abuse affects not just the victim, but those around them.

That being said, I don't think it's right for the abused to turn around and encourage abuse themselves, even merely in word. So, again... no, I don't think some of the criticism being leveled at Hillary is just, fair, or reasonable. Ideally, it shouldn't really matter if she's a woman-- other countries have had women leaders... although the reasons (supposedly) why that has been so has been for reasons other than progressivism. But even if progressivism is bringing her nomination to pass, violent words will not help that cause.
Oh, I know about that. Romney cried more than once, not the least of which was the time he pulled over to the side of the road and cried when his church finally allowed Black people. I have no idea how to react to that, so I choose not to; I just choose not to forget it.

Back on the Hilary thing; I don't hate the woman, or even dislike her very much. I just don't feel like she's the candidate for me. She is currently the only woman I could see in the White House (except maybe Oprah, but only because the woman has sense, dammit), and she has the qualifications certainly... but something about her just rubs me the wrong way.

As for her display of emotion - well damn, people, we all have emotions. Like no one has ever gotten choked up before, or gotten a little misty on camera. She's human, and I think it's about time she acted like it - so if she showed a little feeling, good for her.

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

Burning Prairie

About Me

Burning Prairie
United States
You never know if the fire is going to warm your hearth or burn down your house.

My Groups

Neighborhood

Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.

Archives