I am woman, hear me whimper...?
kelly | 11 January 2008 - 7:31pm
I've never been a woman who claims PMS. As a teenager, I thought girls who sighed heavily and then said with a grumpy pout, "I have PMS" were melodramatic. As a woman, I consider it pathetic to play the PMS card. The symptoms may be legitimate, but there is no need to throw them about as an excuse for everything from missing work to being a bitch to everyone who walks by. (Not that there's anything wrong with being a bitch - but embrace it, for pete's sake. Don't make excuses.) I just think this makes us all look bad. It furthers a stereotype I'm not comfortable with, one with which I'm associated just because of my gender. In school I remember being enraged when some boy would mutter "PMSing" about a female student or teacher who happened to be in a bad mood. But I wasn't annoyed at his immaturity as much as I was frustrated with the women who've made that an acceptable assumption.
I feel the same way about crying. There is nothing wrong with crying, for men or women. But because crying is considered stereotypically female, and negatively so, we absolutely cannot use it intentionally for our own gain. And I feel the need to guard more carefully against it in public situations, even when it is sincere. There's a scene in Sex and the City that perfectly illustrates my view on this. Samantha loses a potential client because he does not want to hire a woman. Her reaction - to cry, out of anger and at the injustice of it - is perfectly acceptable. But she waits until she has the privacy of the elevator before she allows herself to break down. Because she knows that to cry in front of this man is to further the very stereotype that caused her to lose the job.
I've cried in public once. I was in high school, and the moment caught me completely by surprise. Something had happened during lunch that was emotionally intense. I knew I wasn't responsible for the issues of the other person involved, and so it hadn't upset me all that much. But it was intense, and when I walked into biology class right after lunch and saw my closest girlfriends, I just burst into tears, in front of everyone. My friends escorted me to the bathroom. (I know, right? Talk about a female stereotype.) When I returned to class, completely composed, the male teacher was clearly uncomfortable with how to handle me. We were taking a test that day, and he came to my desk and gently whispered, "Do...do you need a pencil, or anything?" I glanced pointedly at the pencil I was holding in my hand and replied, "No. I'm fine." At the time I found it amusing, and maybe even a little bit sweet, that he seemed so concerned about me, that he acted as if I might break at the slightest provocation. But in fact, the most important thing I learned from him that year was in that moment. I learned that a woman who cries in public is immediately seen as weak, and this perpetuates the incorrect stereotype that females are fragile.
We are anything but fragile.
Right now I'm trying to understand, and articulate, my negative reaction to teary-eyed Hillary. If her emotion was premeditated, then I think I have every right to be angry. Tears are not tools we should use for getting out of traffic tickets or winning a primary election.
But even if her tears were sincere, they still bother me. Or maybe what bothers me is the reaction to them - that, in fact, there was a reaction at all. This article in the New York Times explains my perspective pretty well. It seems that Hillary's crying was the turning point in the decision of some New Hampshire female voters; in exit polls, the distinguishing characteristic these women mentioned wasn't her intelligence or her policies but her tearfulness. Her fragility. It seems to me that, as women, to exploit and encourage the stereotype of our fragility is to betray the strength we possess.
It should go without saying that a woman can be just as effective as a man in the role of President. But it should also go without saying that a woman can become President without playing the victim or using pity to propel herself.
(I'd love to hear your thoughts on this one.)
all comments photoblog
Hello, is this thing on?
I suppose seeing and hearing this for the first time on your blog only enforces that I've been living in a cave. My first reaction was , "How sweet, you can tell she really cares." I wanted to defend her because she's been able to see and hear much more than the average person in her position. She much have a catalog of Stories of heartbreak and sorrow, stories of courage. Before my child was born, I rarely cried. Now I cry at the drop of the hat. I'm not sure if it's hormonal or my protective mothering instinct, but it's definitely out of control.
Then I came back to reality. This is a presidential campaign. There is no place for tears in seeking out the next president that we need to unite and lead us. We need someone strong in their convictions and someone who is seen as strong in whatever chaos is thrown his or her way. I still don't perceive her as weak, but that was not the thing to do in front of a camera in this stage of the game.
My perception of this clip is that it was blown way out of proportion. It seems to me that her voice wavers a bit with emotion, that she may have fought off tears, but she didn't break down. It was a personal question from an audience member/supporter at the end of an interview as opposed to during a debate or interview with a news outlet or something. She looks exhausted, as are all of the candidates, I'm sure. I'm not sure if women are more likely to end up in tears in that kind of situation because of hormonal differences or different socialization. I think the other candidates have shown their exhaustion in different ways.
That being said, I agree, bursting into tears is an absolutely unacceptable for women for all of the reasons you mentioned. If it was premeditated (and wow do I ever hope it wasn't), then a) she is quite the actress, and b) it was an abhorrent thing to do.
Like you, I am repulsed by women who excuse inappropriate or ill-timed behavior by claiming PMS. Or those, like one of my SILs, who earns special treatment from husband, co-workers, even clients, by dissolving into tears.
I have long thought that by perpetuating that stereotype, we give ammunition, justification, even, to those who would say that women are too unstable to, for example, be president.
A sort of double standard is operative here in that men have always, will always, be inclined to behave in ways consistent with their particular hormonal makeup. Check the testosterone levels of those convicted of violent crimes. Human beings, unless they discipline themselves (or medicate themselves) to be otherwise, are guided by their chemistry. Part of being mature and civilized is learning to manage that. It's not a male/female thing. It's a human thing.
Now, that said, on to Hillary's tears. First, I don't like her. I never have. However, to criticize her for crying is to once again apply a double standard to a woman. Most (there are exceptions) male politicians who have shown emotional sensitivity are regarded very highly. They are thought to be well-balanced, showing compassion, warmth. Thought to be more "human." I don't know whether Hillary's tears were a calculated political move, but I don't think they were. When I watched the exchange, I thought the tears were a genuine response from one person, when another person expressed concern for her well-being. Basically it was a, "You doing OK?" And HC was weary, as I imagine all the candidates are, and had probably been paying very little attention to her own well-being, and the woman's question caught her by surprise, and touched her. That's what I, someone who actually dislikes HC, saw.
She didn't break down in sobs. She became teary-eyed. And it was at a moment of being moved by another person's kindness. It wasn't during a moment of performing a presidential or even senatorial task, or making a major decision. I think she's shown, over the years, that she is capable of controlling her emotions in public.
And I also think that to attribute her win in NH to her tears, is to diminish her accomplishments, and also to insult the people who voted for her. If the tears played any part in winning her more votes, it was from those people who liked her from an issues point of view, but who saw her as too icy, too calculating (in a bad way), but were persuaded of her humanity by the teary image. And let's face it, if anybody really thought her tears won the primary for her, the men would be bawling all over the place for the next primary.
The reality is, crying is a normal, healthy part of a normal, healthy human being's emotional life -- male or female. The fact that it makes news is a testament to how fucked up we are, and how contorted we have become -- body, mind and spirit -- to others' expectations.
Phew! Thank you for opening the discussion, kalki. :)
I want to add that voting for her because of this incident is as bad as voting for her (or not voting for her) simply because she's a woman. We should all take our privilege to vote in a democratic election much more seriously than that.
I find it telling that - at least in antiquated language - crying is described as "becoming unmanned".
If I am feeling sick, or (as I am these past few weeks) drowning in unrelieved and unresolvable stress, or feeling achey or sore or tired ... there is every chance I might be a little more likely to have temper escalations or over-reactions. I don't doubt that PMS exists (living with three women, I often referred to it as Perpetual Menstrual Syndrome). But I see it as a normal, natural range of physical symptoms (symptoms I will never, ever have to experience, and thank you, Mr. God) that could spark a normal, natural, understandable, but (and herein lies the rub) controllable emotional reaction.
In other words, I don't doubt many women suffer from PMS, that the catalogue of physical symptoms exists. I just think SOME women are less able - or less determined - to control how they react to things when visited by those symptoms. Incidentally, lest this be seen as aimed at women, I think many MEN are apt to over-react when not feeling well (I sure do), and if men bled from the testicles once a month, I promise you the murder rate would skyrocket.
As for the crying, I was distressed when I heard the commentators and (often female) voters with their litany of "it made her seem (seem!) "human". And I honestly wonder how a similar outburst would be viewed if it were a man turning on the waterworks.
Howard Dean's legitimate presidential aspirations evaporated when he showed very "human" exuberance over a much-needed primary win; were Barack Obama or Mike Huckabee to show depth of compassion to the point of tears, emotionless cookie-cutter candidates like Mitt Romney would chew them to pieces the next day. They would be derided as "too weak" for such a job as President.
How sad. I wonder - what would happen if the President you elected were "weak" and "human"? If you elected someone who DID show compassion for the homeless, the sick, poor children, citizens of your incredibly wealthy country with no access to health care, would that be so very bad? If you elected someone who actually acted on Christian principles, as opposed to simply aligning himself with charlatans who espouse but would never deign to practice those principles - wouldn't that make the world a better place?
Whenever I begin to think American voters are mature enough to elect the best candidate, regardless of gender, creed, or race, an incident like this comes along and forces me to resign myself to enduring four more years of rule by rich white men.
It almost makes me want to ... umm ... seem human.
I agree with Susie. Even though I don't like Hillary, I thought they were genuine. I wouldn't have voted for her because of it or not because of it, but I didn't think she did it as a political ploy. But if she did? It worked I guess.
Sometimes, I have to say, I am so glad to be a Canadian. Lately we've been voting for the person with the best hair.
Thanks, Kelly, for finally saying clearly stating what my problem was with Hillary's crying stunt. I knew what it was. I had trouble trying to express it to other people. You nailed it! Good for you! And thanks for being one woman strong enough to say it!
Wow,
Hillary really gets everybody's guard up.
I live in NY. Hillary has worked very hard for her constituents.
Do I think her show of emotion was a "stunt?"
Not really. It was not even a crying incident, it was a normal emotional moment caught on tape.
This is a person who is campaigning like crazy, and may be handed her head soon. She feels strongly that she is the better candidate.
She may have been exhausted and the question may have just caught her off guard.The question is not whether she is a man or a woman but whether she is a human being.
Personally, I find it more insulting to close your eyes to all Hillary has accomplished and jump on the "I Hate Hillary Because She Cried In Public and Will Make A Bad President" or "She cried On Purpose " bandwagon.
It pisses me off. Hillary is a politician. No better or worse than any others that are running. To criticize her for showing emotion is absurd.
Sorry but I feel that Hillary can't blink in public without someone faulting her for it. It pisses me off.
I think people should be more outraged that we have a candidtae running for president that has very little experience and very little concrete plans for our future yet he is being hailed as a great candidate based solely, in my opinion, on very little other than his race.
I know this will anger many but that's how I feel.
I love you people and your smart, thoughtful responses. Thanks for chatting about this with me.
My initial reaction was similarly mixed, ucm. I think she was sincere, and so it's difficult to fault her for it. But it still upsets me because now the female presidential candidate is known for crying. The stereotype just got perpetuated nationally...
I agree, Ern, that it has been blown way out of proportion. I heard about it before I'd seen it, and when I finally saw it, I said, "That's it?" But the thing is, Huckabee and Obama and all the rest are just as tired, and I don't think any of them (not even Edwards, who has every reason to cry given his wife's health situation) would have responded that way. And while I can understand why she did, for the reasons you mention, I just wish she hadn't. So people couldn't say she "cried her way to the White House". Which is an exaggeration, but so are stereotypes. Even the smallest things can contribute to them.
Susie, if she had gotten choked up while talking about Darfur, I would feel entirely different about it. I want a president who cries over Darfur. But she was crying over her own situation (perhaps even, according to the most cynical, because she was losing). Which is understandable, but perhaps not terribly admirable given that she is, after all, representing our gender (whether we want her to or not). I do hope you are right about the voters deserving more credit than that. Rob said a similar thing, that the people who voted for her may well have been for her all along, but needed to see beyond her iciness before feeling comfortable supporting her. And finally, I also REALLY agree that this moment revealed much more about us as a society than it did Hillary.
That's what upsets me the most about this, Ern. Given what we've gone through the past 8 years, it is imperative that people vote intelligently. And clinging to a single characteristic about a candidate is naive and narrow-minded.
You make a good point, Nils. I think we expect our leaders to be superhuman. It's a ridiculous expectation, of course. And yet we are surprised when they let us down. (And so we lash out, impeaching a president because he had an extramarital affair.) And I think the tears made Hillary seem more "human" because up until now she has seemed anything but - she is always straight-faced serious and seen as "icy." The irony of that is that in acting that way she was surely trying to prove that her gender is irrelevant, that she is just as serious and tough as her male competition. Which she is. And maybe that's why this bothers me, too. I just don't want this incident to send the message that all women, no matter how talented and tough we seem, are actually blubbering babies underneath. (I should add that I don't think Hillary acted like a blubbering baby. But when it comes to stereotypes, little things like this become much larger than they ever actually were.)
Oh, Canada! I have been wanting to cross the border since 2002, MayB. If this election doesn't go well, you just might find me living as your neighbour. (See how I spelled neighbour? I would totally fit right in!) :)
Yeah, Jen, it has been hard for me to put my finger on. But, as a woman, it unsettled me. I think I often expect too much from my fellow females and am entirely too critical of them, but the truth is we all represent each other, and as fucked up as it may be, the actions of one very public woman have an impact on how people view me.
Hi, Har. I have wondered how this would be different if it had been a woman other than Hillary. I agree she is scrutinized, and often for the wrong reasons. I think I wouldn't feel differently, because it's the idea of a woman getting teary in public that bothers me, no matter who she is. But you are correct in saying that people love to find reasons to hate Hillary. And I wonder, honestly, how much that has to do with her gender. I hope not much, but in many ways our society is still very misogynistic. And I wholeheartedly agree that to vote for a candidate because the person is black (or hispanic or mormon or female) is idiotic and as narrow-minded as not voting for that person for the same reason.
Well we would love to have you up here. I will kick my neighbours out immediately so you have somewhere to live. And I'm impressed with your spelling. Those are the grammar rules up here. Put a "u" between every "or" and invert very "er" ending. Quite simple really.
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment! Has Rob seen the Charlie Brown Christmas Special redubbed by the cast of Scrubs? VERY funny stuff! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Of_mna-Rs
I do not care for Hillary but I do think the tears ,the moment, whatever, was genuine.
I heard onthe radio that there was a candidate running in the 70's in NH primary who shed a tear and it ruined him.
Yes this is a HIM vs Her situation, but I think that the Clintons are too savvy politicaly speaking to take a risk like that.
I also hear that Hillary is a real bitch. not PMSing but just embraces it.
As a woman that has PMS, I detest when people use it as an excuse for bad behavior of any kind. We all have moments of stress or illness that may cause us to act out of character, men and women alike. We can't help it any more than men can, but it's still not an excuse.
I agree with you on the crying thing too, which is probably why after growing up with 2 brothers, I rarely ever cry and never in public. I hate being perceived as the weak female because I am NOT weak.
As for Hilary and her "tears", I'm a bit on the fence. On one hand, it was nice to see what appeared to be genuine emotion from a candidate who seems to care about our country. On the other hand, since I don't personally know Hilary, I can't possibly know if the moment was genuine or a lame attempt at garnering votes. Regardless, I would never vote for someone (male or female) because they did or didn't cry.
The news coverage on Hillary bothers me a lot more than the incident. I still do not know who I will vote for. Aside from Edwards, the talk is always "Hillary is a woman and Obama is black." I dread the coverage if/when one of them wins because rather than giving either of them credit for their accomplishments, their accomplishments get diminished by these characteristics. I can not fathom that the emotion Clinton showed was premeditated, because if it was planted and that was ever discovered, it would be the opposite of good.
It is amazing to me that before that one personal interaction, I can imagine the average person thinking of her as a bi*&^, now she is a "weak" woman. An extension of that is a sociology/psychology study I read about in which people were asked to evaluate job candidates for an executive position. If a woman was presented looking angry and/or yelling, the participants largely said she was not in control, was not an ideal candidate for the job, and was assigned a lower salary. A similar presentation of a male candidate angry and/or yelling was said to be able to better control and manage people and assigned a higher salary. I'll have to try to go dig that news story up. I wonder how many newspeople presenting the story of Clinton crying saw the clip and how many were just reading what some man or woman was typing into the teleprompter?
I much prefer the "re" ending, MayB. Somehow seems much more sophisticated to go to the theatre. :)
We had not seen that, Charlotte! Thanks for sharing - we watched it last night. :) God I love the Scrubs cast.
William, that's interesting about the male candidate in the 70s. There's definitely a double standard. As a woman I feel that's something I should fight against, but I often find myself fighting within it instead. For example, I guess I should work against the perception that a crying woman is weak, but instead I argue that we just shouldn't cry in public. Also, I agree that "politically savvy" is a good way to describe the Clintons, which is a characteristic that makes it difficult to view them as sincere.
All very well said, geeky. And the thing is, I think all the candidates truly do care about this country. Clinton says that herself, and I believe it's true. As much as voters (and reporters) may villanize these people, and as much as I don't agree with most of them, I don't actually think any of them have bad intentions.
You make very interesting points, Jenski. What you say about their accomplishments being overshadowed by race/gender seems right on, and that says a lot about how far we haven't come as a society. It's almost like, "Oh, look how advanced we are! We're voting for a black man!" And just in thinking that, we prove how far we haven't come. And the job candidate example you give demonstrates the mindset that is so common, unfortunately - those are the people who actually see a women crying and think "weak" - and that is the sort of thinking I don't want this incident to encourage.
Well, I think she was sincere, and I think it was a moment of vulnerability. Should she have shown it? Probably not, but she's human. Should it have influenced so many voters? No, but she did need to do SOMETHING to show she's human, even if she is 99% cold, calculating bitch. I'm with you on getting irritated by the whole reaction to it. I hate, HATE to cry in public. I only remember once that I cried in front of my boss, and that was the day I left, and I was pregnant, and I knew what I was doing (starting a competative company) was really going to hurt him. And I liked him, ALOT. When I was attacked by my bosses boss I absofuckinglutely refused to cry, I just went home over lunch and bawled my eyes out. I don't even like to cry in front of girlfriends, but on rare occasions I do. I honestly don't think I would ever cry in public if I were President, or running for President. Except maybe in private talking to veterans or their familes. That would kill me. Yeah, I wouldn't want to be President. No way.
MM, I think vulnerability should be something we value, but until that is a common sentiment, I'll fight back my tears in public. And I think being President would make a person cry everyday, but as a leader there's an image of strength and control that must be maintained.