Hillary Rodham Clinton-strong enough for a man, but a woman
Look, I am NOT a Hillary Clinton supporter, it has always been my intention to only vote for her should she get the Dem. nomination. But I have to add my voice to this fray about her supposed emotionalism and say "What?!" That poor woman is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Maintain a stoic exterior and get accused of being a cold bitch. Show the slightest hint of emotion and all hell breaks loose. She shows anger, which in a man is totally acceptable, and she's unstable. She shows the barest hint of frustration or exhaustion or whatever (her voice cracked but she didn't cry) and she's just a big ol' weepy girl who isn't tough enough to be president. Tough? Tough?!!!!! That lady is many things and tough tops the list.
But that is no surprise to me, after all she IS a woman. And not to be sexist, but women have to be tougher than men. We put up with more crap in our everyday lives, we have to be all things to all people, and physical pain comes with the territory. Oh, and a goodly portion of men think we have no business having thoughts, opinions, and rights of our own.
Every woman in my family has endured hardships and/or pain that would put any man down. Not to make light of any physical pain my male family members have endured, but my mother walked and worked for years with knees destroyed by arthritis before she finally had them replaced. I asked her how she tolerated it and all she said was that she had a high pain tolerance. My grandmother was widowed young and raised two children all by herself with very little help. They were poor but she would've considered outside help (but not family help) charity that should be used the truly helpless. She resented her lot in life and grew bitter, but she endured and fulfilled her obligations to the best of her abilities. My cousin is going through a divorce after a long, seemingly stable marriage because her husband cheated on her. She refuses to be ashamed and is busy with the task of getting on with her life, including working after many year of being a SAHM. My husband teases me about my low pain threshold, but the pain in my hips doesn't stop me from walking my oldest to school or cleaning the house or helping to clear the fallen limbs from our recent ice storm. I hurt all the time and I soldier through it and I try my damnedest not to complain. I love the men in my family, don't get me wrong, but it has always been the women that have kept the family strong.
Hillary Clinton is a strong woman, maybe that reminds some men (but of course not all) of how weak they are in comparison. Maybe all the Religious Wrong's insistence on the subservience of women traces back to their intimate knowledge of their own weakness. If you can't control yourself, at least you can control your women. Yeah, right. No woman can be controlled without her express permission. They are only letting the men think they are in control. Hillary reminds them of that. Not only is she the power behind the throne, she's sitting in it and not even bothering to pretend she's subservient. 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?
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.
Comments
OK, that is weird as heck! I saw [TIG] with a number of political items, this included and now it has vanished!!!
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
i don't know if you're right but you write a compelling argument!
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.
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.